2020.09.30_CCOA.p1_Q2_2020MassLoadAssessment

TR0795 i September 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................. 1
2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Sampling Activities in Q2 2020 .................................................................. 2
2.2 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program ............................... 3
2.3 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program .............. 3
2.4 Laboratory Analyses .................................................................................... 4
3 SAMPLING RESULTS........................................................................................ 4
3.1 Data Quality ................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Results ................................. 6
3.2.1 Cape Fear River Mass Load QA/QC Samples ................................ 6
3.2.2 Cape Fear River Mass Load PFAS Analytical Results ................... 6
3.3 PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Seep and Surface Water Results .... 7
3.3.1 Seep and Surface Water QA/QC Samples ...................................... 7
3.3.2 Seeps and Surface Flow Gauging ................................................... 7
3.3.3 Seeps and Surface Water Field Parameters ..................................... 8
3.3.4 Seep and Surface Water PFAS Analytical Results ......................... 8
3.4 PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Groundwater Results ..................... 8
3.4.1 Groundwater QA/QC Samples ........................................................ 8
3.4.2 Water Levels ................................................................................... 9
3.4.3 Groundwater Field Parameters ...................................................... 10
3.4.4 Groundwater PFAS Analytical Results ......................................... 10
4 PFAS MASS LOAD TO CAPE FEAR RIVER ................................................. 11
4.1 In-River PFAS Mass Load and Total PFAS Mass Load ........................... 12
4.2 Remedy Captured PFAS Mass Load ......................................................... 13
4.3 Mass Discharge at Bladen Bluffs, Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge and Kings Bluff Intake Canal ............................................................................................... 13
5 CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL ................................. 14
5.1 PFAS Mass Loading Model Pathways ...................................................... 14
5.2 Model Design ............................................................................................ 15
5.3 Mass Loading Model Results .................................................................... 16
5.4 Mass Loading Model Sensitivity and Limitations ..................................... 18
5.5 Modeled Versus Measured Mass Discharges ............................................ 19

TR0795 ii September 2020
6 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 20
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 22

TR0795 iii September 2020
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Analytical Methods and Analyte List
Table 2: Surface Water Sample Collection and Flow Measurement Summary
Table 3: Groundwater Monitoring Well Sample Collection and Water Level Measurement Summary
Table 4: Groundwater Elevations – February 2020
Table 5: Surface Water Field Parameters
Table 6: Groundwater Field Parameters
Table 7: Cape Fear River Mass Load Analytical Results
Table 8: Seep and Surface Water Analytical Results
Table 9: Flow Summary for Surface and River Water Locations
Table 10: Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 11: Summary of Calculated Total Mass Load in the Cape Fear River
Table 12: Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load by Compound and Time Interval
Table 13: Summary of Total PFAS Mass Discharge at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Table 14: PFAS Mass Loading Model Potential Pathways
Table 15: Estimated Q2 2020 Event PFAS Mass Loading by Compound by Pathway
Table 16: Summary of Total PFAS Mass Discharge by Pathway
Table 17: Cape Fear River Total PFAS Relative Mass Discharge Per Pathway

TR0795 iv September 2020
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Cape Fear River Watershed and Downstream Drinking Water Intakes
Figure 3: Potential PFAS Transport Pathways to the Cape Fear River from Site
Figure 4: Sample and Flow Measurement Locations – May 2020
Figure 5: Cape Fear River Sample Locations – May 2020
Figure 6 Groundwater Monitoring Well Network
Figure 7A: Groundwater Elevation Map Perched Zone - May 2020
Figure 7B: Groundwater Elevation Map Surficial Aquifer - May 2020
Figure 7C: Groundwater Elevation Map Black Creek Aquifer - May 2020
Figure 8: Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) Concentrations,
Precipitation and Daily Flow at
Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Figure 9: Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) Mass Discharge, Precipitation and Daily
Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Figure 10A: Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) in Surface Water – May 2020
Figure 10B: Total Table 3+ Concentrations (20 Compounds) in Surface Water – May 2020
Figure 11A: Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) – May
2020
Figure 11B: Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations (20 Compounds) – May 2020
Figure 12: Cape Fear River HFPO-DA Concentrations – May 2020
Figure 13A: Total Table 3+ Concentrations in Groundwater (17 Compounds) – May
2020
Figure 13B: Total Table 3+ Concentrations in Groundwater (20 Compounds) – May 2020
Figure 14: Comparison of Modeled and Measured Total Table 3+ Mass Loading at
Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge

TR0795 v September 2020

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Methods
Appendix B: Supplemental Analytical Tables
Appendix C: Supplemental Flow Data
Appendix D: Field Forms
Appendix E: Laboratory Reports and DVM Report
Appendix F: Supporting Calculations – Onsite Groundwater Pathway
Appendix G: Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculations
Appendix H: Supporting Calculations – Direct Aerial Deposition on Cape Fear River
Appendix I: Supporting Calculations – Offsite and Adjacent Downstream
Groundwater

TR0795 vi September 2020
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CAP Corrective Action Plan
cfs cubic feet per second
CO Consent Order
CO Addendum Addendum to Consent Order Paragraph 12
CSM Conceptual Site Model
DQO Data Quality Objectives
DVM Data Verification Module
EIM Environmental Information Management
GPM gallons per minute
HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
kg kilograms
L/s liters per second
L3T-1 volume per time
m3 million cubic meters
m3/s cubic meters per second
mg/s milligrams per second
ML-3 mass per unit volume
MLM Mass Loading Model
MT-1 mass per unit time
ng/L nanograms per liter
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFMOAA perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid
PFO2HxA perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
PFO3OA perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
PMPA perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
Q1 2020 first quarter 2020

TR0795 vii September 2020
Q2 2020 second quarter 2020
RPD relative percent difference
SOP standard operating procedure
USGS United States Geological Survey

TR0795 1 September 2020
1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C. (Geosyntec) has prepared this Cape Fear River PFAS
Mass Loading Assessment report for The Chemours Company, FC, LLC (Chemours).
Chemours operates the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina (the
Site). This report provides monitoring and assessment results pursuant to the
requirements of Paragraph 1(b) of the Addendum to Consent Order Paragraph 12 (CO
Addendum) and Paragraph 16 of the executed Consent Order (CO) dated 25 February
2019 among the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Cape
Fear River Watch, and Chemours.
The purpose of this report is to describe the second quarter 2020 (Q2 2020) PFAS Mass
Loading Assessment of the Cape Fear River based on the findings of surface water, river
water, and groundwater samples collected at and surrounding the Site. Data collected
were used to assess mass loading of Total per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to
the Cape Fear River. Total PFAS is a term used to refer to PFAS detected in the
environment for those PFAS compounds listed in Table 1 and analyzed by the Table 3+
standard operating procedure (SOP) analytical method.
There are two primary objectives for this report:
1. To assess Cape Fear River PFAS mass loads. Specifically:
a. Mass loads measured in the Cape Fear River;
b. Mass loads prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by implemented
remedies; and
c. The total mass load that was heading to the Cape Fear River, i.e., the sum
of the two quantities above.
2. To assess the relative PFAS loadings from the different PFAS transport pathways
to the Cape Fear River during the reporting period using the Mass Loading Model
(MLM).
This report contains data through June 2020, and mass loading calculations and reporting
are done on the set of Table 3+ PFAS compounds listed in Table 1, i.e., under the “Table
3+” groupings. The CO Addendum requires sampling the Cape Fear River for PFAS
compounds listed in Attachment C of the CO (Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculation
Protocol, Geosyntec 2020c). The next quarterly report (Q3 2020) will contain data
collected July 2020 through September 2020 and will include mass loading reported for
Attachment C PFAS.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

TR0795 2 September 2020
• Scope – This section describes the sampling programs performed in Q2 2020;
• Sampling Results – This section describes the results of the sampling activities;
• PFAS Mass Load to Cape Fear River – This section describes the assessments
of Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loads;
• Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model – This section describes the
assessment of the relative mass loading from the various PFAS transport
pathways;
• Summary – This section summarizes the findings of this report.
2 SCOPE
The Q2 2020 sampling events were completed by Geosyntec and Parsons of NC (Parsons)
between May and June 2020 (Q1 2020 contained data from January through April 2020).
The scope of the sampling programs is summarized below and complete descriptions of
the field methods can be found in Appendix A.
2.1 Sampling Activities in Q2 2020
Q2 2020 sampling activities included:
1. The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program consisted of collecting
twice weekly composite samples at CFR-TARHEEL (May 2020 to present); and
2. The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program event which
consisted of the following:
a. Collecting a synoptic round of groundwater elevations from select on and
offsite monitoring wells (May 2020);
b. Collecting water samples for PFAS from 20 onsite and offsite monitoring
wells (May 2020);
c. Collecting seep, surface water, and river water samples for PFAS (May
2020); and
d. Measuring flow rates at specified seep and surface water locations (May
2020).
Each program is described in further detail below.

TR0795 3 September 2020
2.2 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program
The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load program consists of collecting twice weekly
composite samples from the sampling location at Cape Fear River at Tar Heel Ferry Road
Bridge (CFR-TARHEEL), approximately 7 miles downstream of the Site (Figure 2).
This location is far enough downstream of the Site such that water from the seeps, onsite
groundwater, Old Outfall 002 and Georgia Branch Creek are well mixed in the river.
Composite samples were collected using an autosampler and were generally composited
over 84 hours with aliquots collected at one-hour intervals yielding two samples per week
(i.e., week is 168 hours long = two times 84 hours). Collected samples were evaluated for
the PFAS compounds listed in Table 1. Details on sample collection methods are
described in Appendix A.
Interruptions to the sampling program may occur due to events such as vandalism,
equipment malfunction or a high river stage, which will flood the platform and
necessitates sampler removal. During interruptions, field protocol is to collect a grab
sample from the river twice per week at the CFR-TARHEEL location to continue
establishing a record of river concentrations over time. During the reporting period
between May 9, 2020 and June 29, 2020, one interruption occurred in the scheduled
sampling program:
• May 20, 2020 to June 8, 2020 – High river stage was experienced at the sampling
location between these dates necessitating the removal of the autosampler to
prevent damage. This event resulted in no sample collection during the period of
May 20, 2020 to June 8, 2020.
The data collected from the PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program were used to estimate
PFAS mass load in the Cape Fear River using concentrations from the CFR-TARHEEL
location and flows as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) river
gauging station at the W.O. Huske Dam (Figure 2). Details of the calculation methods
were reported in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol
(Geosyntec, 2020c) and are provided in Appendix G. Results of these sampling activities
are described below in Sections 3 and Section 4.
2.3 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program
The quarterly Mass Loading Model Sampling Program consisted of collecting
concentration and flow data from the various PFAS transport pathways in May 2020.
Environmental media sampled include surface water (seeps, creeks, Old Outfall, Outfall
002, and Cape Fear River) and groundwater. Surface and river water sampling and flow
gauging locations for the Q2 2020 Event are shown on Figures 4 and 5 and listed in Table
2. Groundwater sampling locations for the Q2 2020 Event are listed in Table 3 and shown

TR0795 4 September 2020
on Figure 6. Collected samples were evaluated for the PFAS compounds listed in Table
1. Details on sample collection and flow gauging methods are described in Appendix A.
The data collected from these Q2 2020 field activities were then incorporated into the
Mass Loading Model to estimate PFAS mass discharge from the nine potential transport
pathways to the Cape Fear River (Figure 3), as identified in the Conceptual Site Model
(CSM) (Geosyntec, 2019b) and discussed in more detail in Section 5. These Mass
Loading Model estimates were compared to mass loading observed downstream at CFR-
TARHEEL.
Grab samples were also collected from the Cape Fear River adjacent to the Bladen Bluffs
and Kings Bluff Intakes at CFR-BLADEN and CFR-KINGS, respectively (Figure 2).
Samples were analyzed for PFAS listed in Table 1. To calculate the mass discharge at
these sample locations, flows as reported by the USGS river gauging station at the W.O.
Huske Dam and Cape Fear River Lock & Dam #1 were used to determine river flow
volumes corresponding to samples collected at CFR-BLADEN and CFR-KINGS,
respectively. PFAS concentrations and mass discharge calculations are reported in
Section 4.3.
2.4 Laboratory Analyses
Samples were analyzed for PFAS by Table 3+ Laboratory SOP and some samples were
analyzed for Method EPA 537 Modified. The focus of this report is on the set of PFAS
originating from manufacturing activities at the Site; therefore, results of sampling
activities and assessments of mass loading were performed and presented with respect to
the PFAS groupings presented in Table 1: (i) Table 3+ (17 compounds) and (ii) Table 3+
(20 compounds). Analytical results of other PFAS, i.e., those analyzed under Method
EPA 537 Modified, with the exception of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-
DA), are provided in Appendix D.
3 SAMPLING RESULTS
This section presents sampling results from Q2 2020 sampling activities described in
Section 2. Specifically, this section describes data quality presented in this report and then
describes the results from the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load sampling program and
the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model sampling programs.
3.1 Data Quality
All analytical data were reviewed using the Data Verification Module (DVM) within the
Locus™ Environmental Information Management (EIM) system, a commercial software
program used to manage data. Following the DVM process, a manual review of the data

TR0795 5 September 2020
was conducted. The DVM and the manual review results were combined in a data review
narrative report for each set of sample results, which were consistent with Stage 2b of the
USEPA Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for
Superfund Use (USEPA-540-R-08-005, 2009). The narrative report summarizes which
samples were qualified (if any), the specific reasons for the qualification, and any
potential bias in reported results. The data usability, in view of the project’s data quality
objectives (DQOs), was assessed, and the data were entered into the EIM system.
The data were evaluated by the DVM against the following data usability checks:
• Hold time criteria;
• Field and laboratory blank contamination;
• Completeness of quality assurance/quality control samples;
• Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries and the relative percent differences
(RPDs) between these spikes;
• Laboratory control sample/control sample duplicate recoveries and the RPD
between these spikes;
• Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses; and
• RPD between field duplicate sample pairs.
A manual review of the data was also conducted and includes instrument-related quality
control results for calibration standards, blanks, and recoveries. The data review process
(DVM plus manual review) applied the following data evaluation qualifiers to the
analytical results as required:
• J Analyte present, reported value may not be accurate or precise;
• UJ Analyte not present below the reporting limit, reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise; and
• B Analyte present in a blank sample, reported value may have a high bias.
The data review process described above was performed for all laboratory chemical
analytical data generated for the sampling event. The DQOs were met for the analytical
results for accuracy and precision. The data collected are believed to be complete,
representative and comparable, with the exception of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and
R-EVE.
As reported in the Matrix Interference During Analysis of Table 3+ Compounds memorandum
(Geosyntec, 2020a), matrix interference studies conducted by the analytical laboratory
(TestAmerica, Sacramento) have shown that the quantitation of these three compounds

TR0795 6 September 2020
(R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE) is inaccurate due to interferences by the
sample matrix in both groundwater and surface water. Given the matrix interference
issues, Total Table 3+ PFAS concentrations are calculated and presented two ways in this
report: (i) summing over 17 of the 20 Table 3+ compounds “Total Table 3+ (sum of 17
compounds)”, i.e., excluding results of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE, and (ii)
summing over 20 of the Table 3+ compounds “Total Table 3+ (sum of 20 compounds)”.
Expressing these data as a range represents possible values of what these results might be
without matrix interferences. In other words, the sum of all 17 compounds is an
underestimate of the actual value while the sum of the 20 compounds is likely an
overestimate of the total actual value.
3.2 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Results
For this Q2 2020 report, the Cape Fear River Mass Loads reporting period was from May
9 to June 29, 2020. During this period, twelve (12) primary composite samples, five (5)
grab samples, and one duplicate grab sample were collected at location CFR-TARHEEL.
3.2.1 Cape Fear River Mass Load QA/QC Samples
PFAS concentrations for Cape Fear River Mass Loading quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) samples are reported in Table 7. Two equipment blanks and field blanks were
collected on May 25, 2020 and June 1, 2020. The equipment blanks and field blanks did
not have PFAS detected above the associated reported limits, with the exception of
PFO4DA in the equipment blank collected on June 1, 2020 (CFR-TARHEEL-EB-
060120). This PFO4DA detection did not result in additional data qualification. One
duplicate sample was collected on June 1, 2020. PFAS results for the parent (CFR-
TARHEEL-060120) and duplicate sample (CFR-TARHEEL-060120-D) had relative
percent differences less than 30% for the reported compounds.
3.2.2 Cape Fear River Mass Load PFAS Analytical Results
Analytical sample results used to estimate Cape Fear River mass loads are reported in
Table 7. Minimum and maximum Total PFAS concentrations for each of the two PFAS
groupings are as follows:
• Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) concentrations ranged from 4.2 nanograms per
liter (ng/L) (CFR-TARHEEL-052520) to 261 ng/L (CFR-TARHEEL-83-
052020); and
• Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) concentrations ranged from 9.6 ng/L (CFR-
TARHEEL-052520) to 340 ng/L (CFR-TARHEEL-83-052020).

TR0795 7 September 2020
The concentrations over time for these samples are plotted on Figure 8 and corresponding
calculated mass loads are reported in Tables 11 and 12 and plotted in Figure 9. Both
figures are described in Section 4.
3.3 PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Seep and Surface Water Results
For this Q2 2020 report, sampling of seep, surface water and Cape Fear River locations
occurred between May 13 and 14, with the exception of CFR-KINGS, which occurred on
May 19, 2020. The CFR-KINGS sample was sampled five days later to account for the
estimated time for water to travel from the Site to the Kings Bluff Intake. During this
period, eight (8) composite samples, six (6) grab samples, and one duplicate sample were
collected.
Onsite rain gauges did not indicate any precipitation during the week of surface water
sample collection (May 13 to 19, 2020). The last significant precipitation event was
measured at the Site on May 6, 2020 (0.82 inches). The May 2020 surface water sampling
event is, therefore, considered to be a quiescent (dry) weather event for the purposes of
the Mass Loading Model.
3.3.1 Seep and Surface Water QA/QC Samples
PFAS concentrations for surface water QA/QC samples are reported in Table 8. Two
equipment blanks (May 19 and 21, 2020) and one field blank (May 19, 2020) were
collected. The equipment blank collected on May 21, had one PFAS compound (PS Acid)
detected above the associated reported limits. The field blank collected on May 19, 2020
had one PFAS compound (perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid [PFMOAA]) detected above
the associated reported limits. Neither detections resulted in additional data qualification.
One field duplicate was collected; relative percent differences for the reported compounds
were all less than 30%; therefore, no additional data qualification was required.
3.3.2 Seeps and Surface Flow Gauging
A summary of flow rates measured for the May 2020 seep and surface water event is
presented in Table 9. Details on estimated flow measurements along with measurement
methods at each flow gauging location are included in Appendix C.
Measured flow rates for Willis Creek and Georgia Branch Creek in May 2020 were 3,500
and 5,300 gallons per minute (GPM). Measured flow rates at the seeps were 170, 150, 49
and 150 GPM for Seep A, B, C and D, respectively. The flow rate at Outfall 002 was
15,000 GPM while Old Outfall 002 had a flow rate of 620 GPM. The USGS reported
flow at W.O. Huske Dame (USGS 02105500) ranged from 600,000 GPM on May 18,
2020) to 760,000 GPM on May 13, 2020. The USGS reported flow at Kings Bluff (USGS
02105769) was 740,000 GPM.

TR0795 8 September 2020
3.3.3 Seeps and Surface Water Field Parameters
Field parameters recorded for surface water samples collected during the Q2 2020 event
are presented in Table 5 and the field forms are provided in Appendix D. Recorded field
parameter data are generally consistent with expectations.
3.3.4 Seep and Surface Water PFAS Analytical Results
Analytical results for the seep, surface, and river water samples are summarized in Table
8. Figures 10A, 10B, 11A, and 11B show the Total PFAS concentrations reported for
samples collected in May 2020 and Figure 12 presents the HFPO-DA concentration for
Cape Fear River samples. Laboratory and DVM reports are included in Appendix E.
In general, Total PFAS concentrations were lowest at Outfall 002 and in the upstream
and downstream river samples and the highest at the seeps and the Old Outfall 002
(Figures 10A through 11B; Table 8). Among the river samples, the sample collected from
CFR-MILE-76 (before site) had the lowest detections of PFAS with Total PFAS
concentrations ranging from 33 ng/L to 61 ng/L across the two Total PFAS groupings.
Among the creeks, Willis Creek had higher Total PFAS concentrations than Georgia
Branch Creek with Total PFAS concentrations ranging from 2,600 ng/L to 3,100 ng/L
across the two Total PFAS groupings. Among the seeps and Old Outfall 002, Seep C had
the highest Total PFAS concentrations of 340,000 to 350,000 ng/L across the two Total
PFAS groupings.
Figure 12 shows the HFPO-DA concentrations in the four river samples. HFPO-DA
concentrations were well below 140 ng/L ranging from 2 ng/L (upstream at CFR-MILE-
76) to 25 ng/L (downstream sample at CFR-BLADEN).
3.4 PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Groundwater Results
A synoptic water level survey of the onsite groundwater monitoring well network was
completed on May 5, 2020. Field parameters and groundwater samples were collected
from 19 of the 20 CO Paragraph 16 wells between May 6 and 14, 2020. This list of
groundwater wells is derived from the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (Geosyntec, 2019c)
with the exception of wells INSITU-02 and BLADEN-1S, which were removed as these
wells are perennially dry. One of the wells (PIW-1S) was dry and not sampled in Q2 2020
but will continue to be sampled in future sampling events if groundwater is present.
3.4.1 Groundwater QA/QC Samples
PFAS concentrations for groundwater QA/QC samples are reported in Table 10. The
following observations were noted for the QA/QC samples:

TR0795 9 September 2020
• Eight equipment blank samples were collected over the 9 sampling days. No
PFAS were detected above the associated reporting limits in seven of the eight
equipment blank samples. The Equipment blank collected on May 7, 2020 had
reportable levels of PFMOAA, perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid (PFO2HxA),
perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid (PFO3OA), and HFPO-DA. Samples
collected on May 7, 2020, that had concentrations of PFMOAA, PFO2HxA,
PFO3OA and HFPO-DA within 5x the level found in the equipment blank sample
were B qualified to indicate the presence of the analyte in the associated
equipment blank sample.
• Six field blank samples were collected over the 9 sampling days. No PFAS were
detected above the associated reporting limits in any of the field blank samples.
• One field duplicate sample was collected at Bladen-1D. The relative percent
differences for the reported compounds were less than 30% between the parent
and field duplicate samples; therefore, no additional data qualification was
required.

3.4.2 Water Levels
Groundwater elevations were calculated for onsite and offsite wells screened in the
Perched Zone, Surficial Aquifer and Black Creek Aquifer from a single synoptic water
level measurement survey performed on May 5, 2020 (Table 4). Groundwater elevations
from these synoptic water levels were used to develop potentiometric maps for the
Perched Zone, Surficial Aquifer and Black Creek Aquifer (Figures 7A, 7B, and 7C).
Similar to Perched Zone groundwater elevations discussed in previous assessments
(Geosyntec, 2019b; Geosyntec, 2020b), a localized groundwater mound is observed near
NAF-01 and NAF-04 (Figure 7A). Groundwater elevations infer groundwater will flow
radially away from the groundwater mound. Groundwater in the Perched Zone appears
to be controlled by topography and the lateral extent of the clay lens. Perched Zone
groundwater elevations are also shown to overlay with topographic contours and
individual seeps that were identified in the Seeps and Creeks Investigation (Geosyntec,
2019a; Figure 7A).
Groundwater elevations in Surficial Aquifer wells (Figure 7B) indicate groundwater flow
in the northern portion of the Site is likely to be east-northeast towards both Willis Creek
and Cape Fear River, and at the southern end of the Site towards Old Outfall 002,
consistent with the flow observed in in previous assessments (Geosyntec, 2019b;
Geosyntec, 2020b). In the southern portion of the Site the Surficial Aquifer groundwater
discharges to the Old Outfall 002 and to Seep B.

TR0795 10 September 2020
Groundwater in the Black Creek Aquifer flows in a predominantly easterly direction to
the Cape Fear River (Figure 7C) similar to groundwater elevations discussed in previous
assessments (Geosyntec, 2019b; Geosyntec, 2020b). Minor groundwater flow
components to the northeast, towards Willis Creek (near SMW-12) and southeast,
towards Old Outfall (east of PW-11 or Glengerry Road) are also likely. Additionally,
based on present lithology characterization, the Black Creek Aquifer is likely in direct
connection with only a portion of Willis Creek, from SMW-12 to the river, and a section
of the Old Outfall in its lower reaches near the Cape Fear River. The contours drawn from
the groundwater elevations were used to estimate hydraulic gradients in the Black Creek
Aquifer. The hydraulic gradients were used as an input into the Mass Loading Model to
estimate the contribution of onsite groundwater in the Black Creek Aquifer to the PFAS
mass loading to the Cape Fear River. The details of the calculations can be found in
Appendix F.
3.4.3 Groundwater Field Parameters
Field parameters recorded for groundwater samples collected during the Q2 2020 event
are presented in Table 6 and the field forms are provided in Appendix D. Recorded field
parameter data are generally in line with expectations for the sample locations with the
following exceptions:
• Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) at PIW-7S was not recorded because of
values outside of equipment capabilities;
• Dissolved oxygen at PW-11 was not recorded because of values outside of
instrument capabilities; and
• Specific conductance at PW-09, SMW-10 and SMW-11 was not recorded because
of values outside of instrument capabilities.

3.4.4 Groundwater PFAS Analytical Results
PFAS and Total PFAS concentrations for the groundwater samples collected in May 2020
are summarized in Table 10 and Figures 13A and 13B. Laboratory and DVM reports are
included in Appendix E. Minimum and maximum Total PFAS concentrations for each of
the two Total PFAS groupings were the same and ranged from 36 ng/L (PW-09) to
290,000 ng/L (LTW-05) with the highest concentrations observed at wells located near
the seeps and at the mouth of Old Outfall 002 (Figures 13A and 13B).
In general, the largest proportion of Total PFAS concentrations are comprised of HFPO-
DA, PFMOAA, and perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid (PMPA) (Table 10). On an
aquifer basis, lower individual and Total PFAS concentrations are observed in wells
screened in the Surficial Aquifer. Concentrations of Total PFAS in Floodplain deposits
and Black Creek Aquifer groundwater (Figures 13A through 13B) were similar to the

TR0795 11 September 2020
seep concentrations (Figures 10A through 10C). Overall, results from the Q2 2020
monitoring are consistent with trends observed at these wells in previous monitoring
events (Geosyntec, 2019b; Geosyntec, 2020b).
The results from the Q2 2020 groundwater monitoring event were used to calculate the
contribution of onsite groundwater in the Black Creek Aquifer to the PFAS mass
discharge to the Cape Fear River. The details of the calculations can be found in Appendix
F.
4 PFAS MASS LOAD TO CAPE FEAR RIVER
This section presents results of the Cape Fear River PFAS mass loads for the present
reporting period of May 9, 2020 to June 29, 2020, a total of 51 days. Specifically, this
section discusses three types of mass loads:
1. The total measured in-river PFAS mass load based on time-weighted
concentration measurements of PFAS primarily from composite samples of Cape
Fear River water and measured Cape Fear River flow volumes at the W.O. Huske
Dam that are adjusted for travel times to the downstream monitoring location at
the CFR-TARHEEL;
2. The total measured and estimated PFAS mass load captured by remedies
implemented by Chemours; this is the load fraction that was prevented from
reaching the Cape Fear River; and
3. The total measured PFAS mass load to the Cape Fear River is defined as the sum
of the measured in-river loads and the remedy prevented loads. This total mass
load may be calculated following Equation 1 below:
Equation 1: Total PFAS Mass Load 𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶= 𝑚𝑚𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶+𝑚𝑚𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
where, 𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = is the Mass Load of PFAS compounds in the Cape Fear River, including the
mass load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by implemented
remedies, measured in kilograms (kg); 𝑚𝑚𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = is the River Mass Load estimated using PFAS concentrations in samples
taken in the Cape Fear River downstream of the Site where the river is well mixed
and using measured river flow volumes; and 𝑚𝑚𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = is the Captured Mass Load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River
by remedies implemented by Chemours;

TR0795 12 September 2020
There have been numerous interim and permanent actions taken to limit PFAS reaching
the Cape Fear River prior to this baseline period, i.e., air abatement measures (installation
of the thermal oxidizer and carbon beds, etc.), grouting of the terracotta pipe, sediment
removal from channels, among others, and these may not be captured in this baseline load
calculation but should be considered in the overall assessment of PFAS reductions.
Calculation methods for each type of mass load are presented in Appendix I and described
in more detail in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol
(Geosyntec, 2020c).
4.1 In-River PFAS Mass Load and Total PFAS Mass Load
The Total PFAS mass load measured in the Cape Fear River for the 51 day long reporting
period of May 9, 2020 to June 29, 2020 ranged from 80 kg to 102 kg for the sum of Total
Table 3+ PFAS summed over 17 and 20 compounds, respectively (Tables 11 and 12).
These in-river total mass loads were estimated based on the sixteen mass loading
estimation intervals presented in Table 12. These estimates were distributed over 1.3
million cubic meters (m3) or 46 billion cubic feet1 of river water that passed by the CFR-
TARHEEL sampling location. During the reporting period the median flow of the river
was 261.1 cubic meters per second (m3/s) or 9,220 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Start Date End Date Days
Total Table 3+ (17) Load in Cape Fear River (kg)
Total Table 3+ (17) Remedy Reduction Load (kg)
Total Table 3+ (17) Total Load to Cape Fear River (kg) 03/28/2020 05/09/2020 43 46 0 46
05/09/2020 06/29/2020 51 80 0 80
Total 94 126 0 126
The Total PFAS mass discharge calculated for each of the Total PFAS groupings are as
follows (Table 13):
• Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) mass discharge ranged from 3 milligrams per
second (mg/s) (CFR-TARHEEL-052520) to 27 mg/s (CFR-TARHEEL-83-
061920); and
• Total Table 3+ (20 compounds) mass discharge ranged from 5 mg/s (CFR-
TARHEEL-052520) to 30 mg/s (CFR-TARHEEL-83-061920).
The plots of Total Table 3+ (summed over 17 compounds) concentrations over time in
Figure 8 indicate that, generally, concentrations in the Cape Fear River are inversely

1 The volume of river water was provided in cubic meters (USGS, 2019) and was converted to cubic feet for reference.

TR0795 13 September 2020
correlated to river flow rate. That is, concentrations were higher when flow rates were
lowest, while concentrations were lower when river flow rates were higher. This trend is
likely related to the degree of dilution occurring in the river. Higher river flows lead to a
greater volume of water that the mass loads are distributed over leading to a lower
concentration value. The plots of Total Table 3+ (summed over 17 compounds) mass
discharge over time in Figure 9 show that the mass discharge since March 28, 2020 are
typically between 5 and 20 mg/s with approximately (i.e., 75% of the data fall in this
range). The minimum and maximum mass discharge were2.8 mg/s (May 25, 2020) and
27 mg/s (June 19, 2020), respectively.
For this reporting period the In-River Mass Load and the Total PFAS mass load is
identical as no Remedy Captured PFAS Mass Loads were quantitated. The Total PFAS
mass loads are presented in Table 11, which include results from the Q1 2020 sampling
period.
4.2 Remedy Captured PFAS Mass Load
Remedies implemented by Chemours will reduce PFAS mass loads to the Cape Fear
River. Presently, implemented remedies include air abatement measures for direct aerial
deposition (e.g., carbon beds, Thermal Oxidizer, etc.). This report and past reports have
estimated the contributions from direct aerial deposition to be less than two percent of the
total load based on air deposition modeling estimates for emissions reductions.
Assessment of remedies, including air deposition reductions, are presently ongoing and
future Mass Loading Assessment updates may include estimates of mass loading
reductions from these controls.
Remedies to be implemented by Chemours (e.g. onsite seeps interim remedies, Outfall
002 remedies) that will prevent PFAS mass loads from reaching the Cape Fear River will
be quantified and accounted for in future Mass Loading Assessments.
4.3 Mass Discharge at Bladen Bluffs, Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge and Kings Bluff
Intake Canal
As shown in the table below, Total PFAS concentrations and mass discharges slightly
decreased with increasing distance downstream, where the lowest values were observed
at CFR-KINGS (the furthest location downstream). Total Table 3+ PFAS (summed over
17 compounds) concentrations at the three downstream river locations ranged from 160
ng/L (CFR-KINGS) to 210 ng/L (CFR-BLADEN and CFR-TARHEEL). Similar Total
Table 3+ PFAS concentrations were observed when summed over the 20 compounds and
ranged from 220 ng/L (CFR-KINGS) to 270 ng/L (CFR-BLADEN and CFR-
TARHEEL). In the same way, the Total PFAS mass discharge ranged from 7.6 mg/s
(CFR-KINGS) to 10 mg/s (CFR-BLADEN) when Table 3+ concentrations were summed

TR0795 14 September 2020
over 17 compounds and ranged from 10.4 mg/s (CFR-KINGS) to 13 mg/s (CFR-
BLADEN) when Table 3+ concentrations were summed over 20 compounds.
Sample Location
Sample Collection Date
Flow Rate (cfs)
Table 3+ (17 compounds) Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Concentration (ng/L)
Mass Discharge (mg/s)
Concentration (ng/L)
Mass Discharge (mg/s)
CFR-BLADEN 5/13/2020 1,680 210 10 270 13
CFR-TARHEEL 5/14/2020 1,540 200 8.7 270 11.8
CFR-KINGS 5/19/2020 1,670 160 7.6 220 10.4
5 CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL
While Section 4 presented the mass load in the Cape Fear River, this section presents an
analysis evaluating the relative loadings from the identified PFAS transport pathways to
the observed in-river PFAS mass discharge. This evaluation helps to confirm that the
pathways, where mitigative measures are planned, will result in reductions of PFAS
loading to the Cape Fear River. This evaluation was performed using the Mass Loading
Model. The following subsections describe the transport pathways, model design, and the
results of the Mass Loading Model assessment, including the sensitivity and the
limitations of the Mass Loading Model.
5.1 PFAS Mass Loading Model Pathways
The nine potential pathways representing compartments to the PFAS Mass Loading
Model are briefly described below and described in more detail in the Cape Fear River
PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol (Geosyntec, 2020c). The following pathways
were identified as potential contributors of PFAS to the river PFAS concentrations:
• Transport Pathway 1: Upstream Cape Fear River and Groundwater – This
pathway is comprised of contributions from non-Chemours related PFAS sources
on the Cape Fear River and tributaries upstream of the Site, and upstream offsite
groundwater with PFAS present from aerial deposition;
• Transport Pathway 2: Willis Creek – Groundwater and stormwater discharge
and aerial deposition to Willis Creek and then to the Cape Fear River;
• Transport Pathway 3: Direct aerial deposition of PFAS on the Cape Fear River
(see Appendix H for further details);
• Transport Pathway 4: Outfall 002 – Comprised of (i) water drawn from the Cape
Fear River and used as non-contact cooling water, (ii) treated non-Chemours

TR0795 15 September 2020
process water, (iii) Site stormwater, (iv) steam condensate, and (v) power
neutralization discharge, which are then discharged through Outfall 002;
• Transport Pathway 5: Onsite Groundwater – Direct upwelling of onsite
groundwater to the Cape Fear River from the Black Creek Aquifer (see Appendix
F for further details);
• Transport Pathway 6: Seeps – Onsite groundwater seeps A, B, C and D above
the Cape Fear River water level on the bluff face from the facility that discharge
into the Cape Fear River;
• Transport Pathway 7: Old Outfall 002 – Groundwater discharge to Old Outfall
002 and stormwater runoff that flows into the Cape Fear River;
• Transport Pathway 8: Adjacent and Downstream Offsite Groundwater – Offsite
groundwater adjacent and downstream of the Site upwelling to the Cape Fear
River (see Appendix I for further details); and,
• Transport Pathway 9: Georgia Branch Creek – Groundwater, stormwater
discharge and aerial deposition to Georgia Branch Creek and then to the Cape
Fear River.
5.2 Model Design
The Mass Loading Model estimates the mass discharge of PFAS from the transport
pathways to the Cape Fear River. The Total PFAS mass discharge entering the Cape Fear
River is defined in this model as the combined mass per unit time (MT-1) or mass
discharge (e.g., mg/s) from potential pathways identified in Section 5.1. Total PFAS
mass load entering the Cape Fear River is calculated as:
Equation 2: Cape Fear River Estimated Mass Discharge from Mass Loading Model 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶= ��𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝,𝑅𝑅=���𝐶𝐶𝑛𝑛,𝑅𝑅× 𝑄𝑄𝑛𝑛� 𝐼𝐼
𝑅𝑅=1
9
𝑝𝑝=1
𝐼𝐼
𝑅𝑅=1
9
𝑝𝑝=1
where,
MDCFR = Total PFAS estimated mass discharge entering the Cape Fear River,
measured in mass per unit time [MT-1], typically mg/s;
p = represents each of the 9 potential PFAS transport pathways described further in
Section 4.4. To facilitate model construction, the Seeps (Transport Pathway 6)
were further discretized as Seep A (Transport Pathway 6A), Seep B (Transport

TR0795 16 September 2020
Pathway 6B), Seep C (Transport Pathway 6C) and Seep D (Transport Pathway
6D);
i = represents each of the PFAS constituents being evaluated;
I = represents total number of PFAS constituents included in the summation of Total
PFAS concentrations;
MDp,i = mass load of each PFAS constituent i from each potential pathway p with
measured units in mass per unit time [MT-1], typically mg/s;
Cp,i = concentration of each PFAS constituent i from each potential pathway p with
measured units in mass per unit volume [ML-3], typically ng/L; and
Qn = volumetric flow rate from each potential pathway n with measured units in
volume per time [L3T-1], typically liters per second (L/s).
For the Q2 2020 Mass Loading Model assessment, data sources used as model inputs for
each potential pathway are described in Table 14. These data sources included flow
measurements, water levels and analytical results from the Q2 2020 sampling events (as
discussed in Section 3) and supplemental data provided in Appendices C, F, G, and I.
5.3 Mass Loading Model Results
The pathway-specific PFAS mass discharges estimated from the Mass Loading Model
and measured at CFR-TARHEEL are summarized in Table 15. A summary of the Total
PFAS mass discharge estimates per pathway and a comparison to the observed mass
discharge at CFR-TARHEEL is provided in Table 16 and shown in Figure 14. A
comparison of relative contributions per pathway between the Q1 2020 and the Q2 2020
assessment is provided in Table 17.
The model-estimated Total PFAS mass discharge compared to the measured mass
discharge at CFR-TARHEEL (Table 16 and Figure 14) are as follows:
• Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) – ranged from 17 mg/s (lower bound) to 21 mg/s
(upper bound), while the measured mass discharge at CFR-TARHEEL was 8.0
mg/s; and
• Total Table 3+ (20 compounds) – ranged from 20 mg/s (lower bound) to 24 mg/s
(upper bound), while the measured mass discharge at CFR-TARHEEL was 11
mg/s.
While the ranges in the lower and upper bounds for the modelled mass discharge
estimates are not wide (within 4 mg/s), the measured mass discharge at CFR-TARHEEL
is lower than the modelled estimates. Several hypotheses are being explored to

TR0795 17 September 2020
understand the discrepancy between modeled and measured mass discharge and are
described in Section 5.5.
In general, the relative contributions per pathway derived from model-estimated Total
Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge are similar when Total Table 3+ concentrations were
summed over 17 and 20 compounds (Table 16 and Figure 14); therefore, based on this
similarity and for clarity of discussion model results for only the Total Table 3+ PFAS
(17 compounds) are discussed below.
The Mass Loading Model estimates that the seeps and Old Outfall 002 (Transport
Pathways 6 and 7, respectively) had the highest contribution of Total Table 3+ (17
compounds) PFAS mass discharge in May 2020, with a combined contribution ranging
from approximately 64% to 77% (Table 16). The Old Outfall 002 contributed 23% to
28% of the estimated mass discharge, which is consistent with the previous Mass Loading
Model assessment performed in Q1 2020. The onsite seeps contributed from 41% to 49%
of the mass discharge, which is consistent with the Q1 2020 estimates.
Onsite groundwater (Transport Pathway 5) is the next highest mass discharge pathway to
the Cape Fear River, contributing from 2% to 19% of the model estimated Total Table
3+ (17 compounds) mass discharge (Table 16 and Figure 15), which is consistent with
the Q1 2020 estimate. For this pathway, the lower and upper bounds cover a wider range
than other pathways because the hydraulic conductivity in the Black Creek Aquifer, one
of the most sensitive input parameters into the model, was varied to better understand the
potential range of PFAS mass discharge from onsite groundwater discharging to the Cape
Fear River. As such, the minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity values
were used in the PFAS mass discharge calculation (Appendix F). The hydraulic
conductivity of the Black Creek Aquifer is expected to be better constrained following
installation of passive flux meters and implementation of aquifer tests as part of the
groundwater pre-design investigation anticipated to be completed over the remainder of
2020.
Willis Creek and Georgia Branch Creek (Transport Pathways 2 and 9, respectively) were
estimated to contribute between 6% to 7% of the Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) mass
discharge to the Cape Fear River in May 2020. These contributions are consistent with
estimated contributions reported in Q1 2020.
Outfall 002 (Transport Pathway 4) contributed approximately 1% of the Total Table 3+
(17 compounds) mass load to the Cape Fear River in May 2020, similar to what was
estimated in Q1 2020. Loading at Outfall 002 is expected to continue to decline as
potential future controls are implemented.
Upstream River Water and Groundwater and Adjacent and Downstream Offsite
Groundwater (Transport Pathways 1 and 8, respectively) contributed 11% 13% of the

TR0795 18 September 2020
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) mass discharge to the Cape Fear River in May 2020.
These estimates are higher than those reported in Q1 2020 because PFAS concentrations
were non-detect in the upstream river sample resulting in no estimated mass discharge
for these two pathways. Aerial Deposition (Pathway 3) remained the same with a relative
contribution of <1%.
Pathway
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)
Q1 2020 (April 2020) Q2 2020 (May 2020)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
[1] Upstream River Water and Groundwater 0% 0% 9% 8%
[2] Willis Creek 4% 3% 3% 3%
[3] Aerial Deposition on Water Features <1% <1% <1% <1%
[4] Outfall 002 1% <1% 1% 1%
[5] Onsite Groundwater 5% 43% 2% 19%
[6] Seeps 56% 34% 49% 41%
[7] Old Outfall 002 30% 23% 28% 23%
[8] Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater 0% 0% 4% 3%
[9] Georgia Branch Creek 4% 2% 4% 3%

5.4 Mass Loading Model Sensitivity and Limitations
The Mass Loading Model assessments provide PFAS mass discharge estimates and
relative proportions of loadings for a ‘snapshot’ in time. While controlling for temporal
variability, the model-based mass discharge estimates contain some level of uncertainty
due to the inherent variability and measurement error in the input parameters, e.g., flow,
concentrations, etc. To better understand the sensitivity of the model to the various
pathway-specific input parameters, the uncertainties associated with the input parameters
were used to conduct a sensitivity analysis. For each pathway, the input parameters,
assumed associated uncertainties and the resulting level of model sensitivity were
presented in Q1 2020 report (Geosyntec, 2020b).
The results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that the onsite groundwater term has the
highest level of uncertainty and the model is the most sensitive to measurement error in
and variability of its input parameters, namely, hydraulic conductivity (which in
heterogenous environments can span orders of magnitude). The uncertainty associated
with model-based mass discharge estimates was, therefore, quantified based on the
minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity values, respectively, for the onsite
groundwater pathway. Hence, for the Q1 and Q2 2020 events, the model-estimated mass
discharge was presented as a range with a lower and upper bound based on the minimum

TR0795 19 September 2020
and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity values, respectively, used in the onsite
groundwater pathway.
Ongoing groundwater and seep remedy pre-design investigations will help refine the
understanding of relationships between the pathways and their relative contributions,
particularly for onsite groundwater. For example, two components of the pre-design
investigation, anticipated in Q3 and Q4 2020, includes installation of passive flux meters
in wells along the Cape Fear River and aquifer tests in extraction wells adjacent to the
Cape Fear River. Both investigations will provide a better understanding of the
connection between the Black Creek Aquifer and the Cape Fear River.
5.5 Modeled Versus Measured Mass Discharges
The Mass Loading Model is a suitable tool to evaluate which PFAS transport pathways
are significant contributors of mass to the Cape Fear River. The capabilities of the Mass
Loading Model will be evaluated with the installation of the Old Outfall 002 capture and
treatment system and the Seeps Interim Remedies. If the Mass Loading Model is correct,
there will be a decrease in the relative Cape Fear River PFAS mass load at CFR-
TARHEEL that corresponds to the degree of Seep and Old Outfall load reduction
estimated by the model.
The model presently estimates that the Seeps and Old Outfall 002 are the two highest
contributors of mass loading to the Cape Fear River. In both Q1 and Q2 2020, the Mass
Loading Model overestimated concentrations of Total PFAS in the Cape Fear River
compared to mass loads measured downriver at CFR-TARHEEL. The relatively large
overestimates in Q2 2020 suggest that there may be factors not being considered in either
the measured or model-estimated PFAS loads that are likely biasing the calculations, e.g.,
potential environmental losses of PFAS between the pathways and the downstream
monitoring location at CFR-TARHEEL.
To evaluate these potential factors, a set of hypotheses was generated. These hypotheses
are being evaluated and the results of the evaluation will be described in a future quarterly
report. The hypotheses fall into four categories all of which could lead to the same
discrepancy outcome with the model overpredicting river concentrations. Descriptions of
possible hypotheses for each category are given below:
Category 1: Underestimate of Cape Fear River Sample Concentrations
• Matrix Interference –Concentrations of PFAS in Cape Fear River samples may be
underestimated due to matrix interference effects. This hypothesis is not likely
able to explain these discrepancies because the matrix spike samples from the
Cape Fear River have shown good recoveries for Table 3+ (17 compounds).
Category 2: Underestimate of Cape Fear River Flow Volumes

TR0795 20 September 2020
• Inaccurate flow readings –The measured flow volumes at W.O. Huske Dam
provided by the United Sand at CFR-TARHEEL may be imprecise. This
hypothesis is being evaluated.
Category 3: Overestimate of PFAS in Transport Pathway Concentrations
• Matrix Interference –Concentrations, specifically for the Seeps and Old Outfall
002 are potentially being overestimated. Matrix spike samples with high
concentration spikes are being performed on a few Seep samples to evaluate this
hypothesis.
• Sampling Bias – Suspended sediments, or organic carbon in the seep and Old
Outfall 002 water samples are being accumulated in these samples and
contributing to higher PFAS concentrations, but such sediment or organic carbon
is not present in the CFR-TARHEEL samples. This hypothesis is being evaluated
with samples collected with different sampling, field filtering and laboratory
filtering techniques.
Category 4: Overestimate of PFAS Transport Pathway Flow Volumes
• Seep and Old Outfall 002 Flow – The flows at some or all of the Seeps and Old
Outfall 002 are potentially being overestimated. These flows have been measured
with temporarily installed flumes as has been allowed under United States Army
Corps permits. Flume accuracy can be sensitive to installation conditions and
therefore can potentially have over or under-estimated flow. This hypothesis will
be evaluated by the installation of the Old Outfall 002 capture and treatment
system and the flumes placed in the engineered Seeps Interim remedies.
6 SUMMARY
Two sampling events were conducted in Q2 2020:
• The PFAS Mass Load Sampling program consisting of 12 parent composite
samples collected at the Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge. The analytical results of
these samples were used to calculate the in-river PFAS mass loads in the Cape
Fear River during the reporting period; and
• The Q2 2020 PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling program consisting of
samples collected from PFAS transport pathways (seeps, creeks, Old Outfall,
Outfall 002, groundwater and Cape Fear River) and paired water flow
measurements and estimates. These data were used to assess the relative loadings
per transport pathway to the Cape Fear River using the PFAS Mass Loading
Model.

TR0795 21 September 2020
At present, there are data quality issues with the analysis of compounds R-PSDA,
Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE. Laboratory QA/QC data and laboratory studies have
demonstrated that these compounds may be subject to routine over-recovery due to matrix
interference effects (Geosyntec 2020b). Consequently, in this report Total Table 3+ PFAS
values are reported as both the sum of 17 and the sum of 20 compounds, where these
three compounds are excluded from the sum of 17 compounds. Presenting the range of
Total Table 3+ PFAS brackets the expected actual value of all 20 compounds since the
sum of the 17 compounds is potentially an underestimate and the sum of all 20
compounds is an overestimate.
The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load assessment estimated the Total PFAS that were
discharged to the Cape Fear River over the Load assessment period of May 9, 2020 to
June 29, 2020. Over this period, 80 kg to 102 kg of Total Table 3+ PFAS (summed over
17 and 20 compounds, respectively) reached the Cape Fear River.
The Cape Fear River Mass Loading Model assessment determined that onsite seeps and
the Old Outfall were the largest contributors of Total Table 3+ PFAS to the Cape Fear
River. The relative contribution of Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) mass discharge for
these two pathways ranged from 41% to 49% and 23% to 28%, respectively. The next
largest contributing pathway was onsite groundwater estimated to range between 2% to
19%. While the ranges in the Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) lower and upper bounds
were not wide (within 4 mg/s), the measured mass discharge at CFR-TARHEEL (8.0
mg/s) was lower than the modelled estimates (17 mg/s to 21 mg/s). The same trends
persisted for the modeled and measured mass discharge estimates using Total Table 3+
(20 compounds). As discussed in Section 5.5, several hypotheses are being explored to
understand the discrepancy between modeled and measured mass discharge at CFR-
TARHEEL.

TR0795 22 September 2020
7 REFERENCES
Geosyntec, 2019a. Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan – Supplemental
Geosyntec, 2019a. Seeps and Creeks Investigation Report. Chemours Fayetteville
Works. August 26, 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019b. On and Offsite Assessment. Chemours Fayetteville Works. September
30, 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019c. Corrective Action Plan. Chemours Fayetteville Works. December 31,
2019.
Geosyntec, 2020a. Matrix Interference During Analysis of Table 3+ Compounds.
Chemours Fayetteville Works. June 30, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020b. Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – First
Quarter 2020 Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. July 31, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020c. Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculation Protocol, Chemours
Fayetteville Works. August 31, 2020.

TR0795 September 2020

TABLES

TABLE 1PFAS ANALYTE LIST Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants NC P.C.Table 3+(17 compounds)Table 3+(20 compounds)HFPO-DA2✔✔Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid13252-13-6 C6HF11O3PEPA✔✔Perfluoro-2-ethoxypropionic acid267239-61-2 C5HF9O3PFECA-G✔✔Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid801212-59-9 C12H9F9O3SPFMOAA✔✔Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid674-13-5 C3HF5O3PFO2HxA✔✔Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid39492-88-1 C4HF7O4PFO3OA✔✔Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid39492-89-2 C5HF9O5PFO4DA✔✔Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic acid39492-90-5 C6HF11O6PMPA✔✔Perfluoro-2-methoxypropionic acid13140-29-9 C4HF7O3Hydro-EVE Acid✔✔2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-3-({1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-3-[(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl)oxy]propan-2-yl}oxy)propionic acid 773804-62-9 C8H2F14O4EVE Acid✔✔2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-3-({1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-3-[(1,2,2-trifluoroethenyl)oxy]propan-2-yl}oxy)propionic acid 69087-46-3 C8HF13O4PFECA B✔✔Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid151772-58-6 C5HF9O4R-EVE--✔Pentanoic acid, 4-(2-carboxy-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)-2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro- 2416366-22-6 C8H2F12O5PFO5DA✔✔Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid39492-91-6 C7HF13O7R-PSDA--✔ Pentanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-4-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)- 2416366-18-0 C7H2F12O6SR-PSDCA✔✔Ethanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-[1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)propoxy]- 2416366-21-5 C6H2F12O4SHydrolyzed PSDA--✔Acetic acid, 2-fluoro-2-[1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)propoxy]- 2416366-19-1 C7H3F11O7SNVHOS✔✔1,1,2,2,4,5,5,5-heptafluoro-3-oxapentanesulfonic acid; or 2-(1,2,2,2-ethoxy)tetrafluoroethanesulfonic acid; or 1-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)-1,2,2,2-tetafluoroethane 1132933-86-8 C4H2F8O4SPES✔✔Perfluoro-2-ethoxyethanesulfonic acid 113507-82-7 C4HF9O4SPS Acid✔✔Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[1-[difluoro[(1,2,2-trifluoroethenyl)oxy]methyl]-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro- 29311-67-9 C7HF13O5SHydro-PS Acid✔✔Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[1-[difluoro(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)methyl]-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro- 749836-20-2 C7H2F14O5SNotes:1 - Analyzed under analytical method Table 3+ Lab SOP.2 - HFPO-DA can be analyzed under methods Table 3+ SOP and EPA Method 537 Mod.EPA - Environmental Protection AgencyPFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances SOP - Standard Operating ProcedurePFAS GroupingCommon Name1Chemical FormulaCASNChemical NameTR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 2SURFACE WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND FLOW MEASUREMENT SUMMARYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Location IDLocation DescriptionSample Collection Method1Flow Measurement Method2OLDOF-1Mouth of Old Outfall 00224-hour composite FlumeSEEP-A-1 Mouth of Seep A 24-hour composite FlumeSEEP-B-1 Mouth of Seep B 24-hour composite --SEEP-B-2 Tributary to Seep B -- FlumeSEEP-B-TR1 Tributary to Seep B -- FlumeSEEP-B-TR2 Tributary to Seep B -- FlumeSEEP-C-1 Mouth of Seep C 24-hour composite FlumeSEEP-D-1 Mouth of Seep D 24-hour composite FlumeWC-1 Mouth of Willis Creek 24-hour composite Velocity ProbeGBC-1 Mouth of Georgia Branch Creek Grab Velocity ProbeCFR-MILE-76Cape Fear River Mile 76GrabUSGS DataCFR-BLADENCape Fear River at Bladen BluffsGrabUSGS DataCFR-KINGS Cape Fear River at Kings Bluff Raw WaterGrabUSGS DataTAR HEEL Cape Fear River at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge 24-hour compositeUSGS DataW.O. Huske Dam USGS Gauge Site No. 02105500--USGS DataIntake River Water at FacilityWater Drawn Through the Intake Sampled at the Power Area at the Site24-hour composite Facility DMRsOutfall 002 Outfall 002 in open channel 24-hour composite Facility DMRsNotes:-- - not sampled or not measuredDMRs - Discharge Monitoring ReportsEPA - Environmental Protection AgencyPFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substancesUSGS - USGS - United States Geological Survey2 - Results of estimated flow at these locations are provided in Table 9 and supplemental flow measurement data are included in Appendix C.1 - Samples analyzed for PFAS by EPA Method 537 Mod and Table 3+ Lab SOP.TR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 3GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL SAMPLE COLLECTION AND WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SUMMARYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC, PCAreaHydrogeological Unit1Well IDAdjacent Surface Water FeatureSample Collection DateSynoptic Water Level DateOnsite Black CreekPIW-3DCape Fear River5/7/20205/5/2020OnsiteFloodplainPIW-7SCape Fear River5/8/20205/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPIW-7DCape Fear River5/8/20205/5/2020OnsiteFloodplainLTW-01Cape Fear River5/7/20205/5/2020Onsite Black CreekLTW-02Cape Fear River5/12/20205/5/2020OnsiteFloodplainLTW-03Cape Fear River5/13/20205/5/2020OnsiteFloodplainLTW-04Cape Fear River5/8/20205/5/2020Onsite Black CreekLTW-05Cape Fear River5/8/20205/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPZ-22Cape Fear River5/8/20205/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPW-06Georgia Branch Creek5/6/20205/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPW-07Georgia Branch Creek5/14/20205/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPW-04Old Outfall5/13/20205/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPW-11Old Outfall5/7/20205/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPW-09Willis Creek5/7/20205/5/2020OnsiteSurficialSMW-11Willis Creek5/7/20205/5/2020OnsiteSurficialSMW-10Willis Creek5/7/20205/5/2020Onsite Black CreekSMW-12Willis Creek5/6/20205/5/2020OnsiteFloodplainPIW-1SCape Fear River / Willis CreekNS5/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPIW-1DCape Fear River / Willis Creek 5/7/20205/5/2020Offsite Black CreekBladen-1DGeorgia Branch Creek5/6/20205/5/2020Notes:1 - Hydrogeologic units for existing wells determined based on boring log descriptions.NS - not sampledTR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS - MAY 2020Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Area1Aquifer2Well IDGauging Date3Northing (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Easting (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Screened Interval (ft)TOC Elevation (NAVD 88)5Depth to Water (from TOC)Water Level (ft NAVD88)Onsite Black Creek Aquifer BCA-01 05-May-20 399780.06 2050662.22 91 - 10114659.786.6Onsite Black Creek AquiferBCA-02 05-May-20 396242.322051062.2192 - 10214873.974.56Onsite Black Creek Aquifer BCA-03R 05-May-20 398582.232049522.2288 - 9815150.7100.16Onsite Black Creek AquiferBCA-04 05-May-20 395877.672047823.1194 - 10415029.3120.9Onsite Perched ZoneFTA-01 05-May-20 397907.502049373.61 12.0 - 22.015116.35134.28Onsite Perched ZoneFTA-02 05-May-20 397786.432049206.27 11.5 - 21.515017.6132.68Onsite Perched ZoneFTA-03 05-May-20 397767.092049313.86 12.0 - 22.015117.63133.45Onsite Surficial AquiferINSITU-01 05-May-20 401658.202046077.31 7.0 - 17.01185.6112.6Onsite Surficial AquiferINSITU-02 05-May-20 401863.462049136.62 7.0 - 17.0113DRY--Onsite Floodplain DepositsLTW-01 05-May-20 399566.172052149.95 11.0 - 26.053.815.838.03Onsite Black Creek Aquifer LTW-02 05-May-20 398848.362052354.37 28.0 - 38.052.59.7842.7Onsite Floodplain DepositsLTW-03 05-May-20 398115.152052557.52 15.0 - 30.052.912.3140.6Onsite Floodplain DepositsLTW-04 05-May-20 397280.242052583.60 12.0 - 27.051.98.543.36Onsite Black Creek Aquifer LTW-05 05-May-20 396430.682052738.06 29.0 - 44.052.09.2942.72Onsite Perched ZoneMW-11 05-May-20 396544.402049051.06 11.5 - 21.514924.37124.16Onsite Perched ZoneMW-12S 05-May-20 397253.602049273.89 17.5 - 22.515220.06132Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-13D 05-May-20 397119.022049821.1257 - 6714945.03103.62Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-14D 05-May-20 396974.492049074.5662 - 7215041108.73Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-15DRR 05-May-20 398580.712049511.75 52.5 - 62.515148.85102.07Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-16D 05-May-20 398493.702048402.8472 - 8214837.02111.39Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-17D 05-May-20 398401.742047366.5057 - 6714630.43115.69Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-18D 05-May-20 400947.382046574.7250 - 6010820.2987.28Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-19D 05-May-20 401151.332048272.9946 - 5614051.2488.31Onsite Perched ZoneMW-1S 05-May-20 397080.312049120.73 21.0-24.015018.82131.11Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-20D 05-May-20 400791.282048733.9165 - 7513747.9789.21Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-21D 05-May-20 399501.702047074.9672 - 8215146.21105.17Onsite Surficial AquiferMW-22D 05-May-20 398518.182048362.6852 - 7214937.96111.1Onsite Perched ZoneMW-23 05-May-20 396237.612051063.25 9.5 - 14.514814.45133.89Onsite Perched ZoneMW-24 05-May-20 397303.942048767.69 18.8 - 23.815021.35128.96Onsite Perched ZoneMW-25 05-May-20 396753.372050989.8212 - 1714813.9133.69Onsite Perched ZoneMW-26 05-May-20 396265.182051484.675 - 1014811.52136.18Onsite Perched ZoneMW-27 05-May-20 396010.332051472.0010 - 1514714.81132.02Onsite Perched ZoneMW-28 05-May-20 395719.792051165.939 - 1414514.24130.46Onsite Perched ZoneMW-2S 05-May-20 396934.752049321.85 19.0 - 23.015018.2131.71Onsite Perched ZoneMW-30 05-May-20 397340.792050776.0910 - 1514813.64134.03Onsite Perched ZoneMW-31 05-May-20 396390.502049622.8817-2214816.14131.56Onsite Perched ZoneMW-32 05-May-20 396359.582049651.7913-18.514715.11132Onsite Perched ZoneMW-33 05-May-20 396337.512049678.5612-1714714.6132.22Onsite Perched ZoneMW-34 05-May-20 396352.902049619.0917-2214816.05131.92TR0795Page 1 of 4September 2020
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS - MAY 2020Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Area1Aquifer2Well IDGauging Date3Northing (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Easting (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Screened Interval (ft)TOC Elevation (NAVD 88)5Depth to Water (from TOC)Water Level (ft NAVD88)Onsite Perched ZoneMW-35 05-May-20 396332.942049631.1614-1914815.54132Onsite Perched ZoneMW-36 05-May-20 396320.092049651.1712-1714815.83132.06Onsite Perched ZoneMW-7S 05-May-20 397444.522049809.73NA14710.71136.76Onsite Perched ZoneMW-8S 05-May-20 397096.482049867.77NA1467.33139.15Onsite Perched ZoneMW-9S 05-May-20 396760.162049734.30 17.5-22.515422.3132.09Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-01 05-May-20 398349.772050338.815.0-15.01508.9140.76Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-02 05-May-20 398662.802050640.865.0-15.01509.45140.86Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-03 05-May-20 398580.652050755.435.0-15.01509.62140.82Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-04 05-May-20 398447.002050718.955.0-15.01486.85141.25Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-06 05-May-20 398809.662050911.91 2.75 - 12.7514611.52134.91Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-07 05-May-20 398899.332050616.50 5.5 - 15.51508.96140.73Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-08A 05-May-20 398097.992050886.62 5.0 - 15.01498.43140.39Onsite Surficial AquiferNAF-08B 05-May-20 398095.642050879.94 43.5 - 53.514953.2395.63Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-09 05-May-20 397711.092050806.52 7.0 - 17.014911.95137.34Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-10 05-May-20 397612.572050423.15 8.25 - 18.2515012.23137.77Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-11A 05-May-20 398909.292050999.922.5 - 7.51417.53133.06Onsite Surficial AquiferNAF-11B 05-May-20 398911.132050995.88 33.5 - 43.514146.5694.18Onsite Perched ZoneNAF-12 05-May-20 398270.562050777.4918 - 231466.85139.08Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-10DR 05-May-20 395093.992052297.3053 - 5875.914.5861.33Onsite Surficial AquiferPIW-10S 05-May-20 395104.672052297.047 - 1776.518.4957.96Onsite Surficial AquiferPIW-1D 05-May-20 400547.772051801.42 24.5 - 29.552.317.734.63Onsite Floodplain DepositsPIW-1S 05-May-20 400540.612051792.59 7.8 - 17.854.220.2133.99Onsite Black Creek AquiferPIW-2D 05-May-20 399925.462051316.3140 - 5096.136.6759.46Onsite Black Creek AquiferPIW-3D 05-May-20 399711.752052088.8019 - 2453.316.6836.64Onsite Black Creek AquiferPIW-4D 05-May-20 398817.362052102.82 32.3 - 37.353.010.8942.15Onsite Surficial AquiferPIW-5S 05-May-20 398520.382051951.26 9.8 - 19.875.214.5160.68Onsite Floodplain DepositsPIW-6S 05-May-20 398118.142052540.5718 - 2853.413.8639.5Onsite Black Creek AquiferPIW-7D 05-May-20 396787.692052595.3729 - 3448.65.5543.05Onsite Floodplain DepositsPIW-7S 05-May-20 396787.002052589.497 - 1748.45.2543.14Onsite Black Creek AquiferPIW-8D 05-May-20 396403.382052682.02 35.5 - 45.548.5741.52Onsite Black Creek AquiferPIW-9D 05-May-20 396155.972052250.9140 - 4579.537.0642.47Onsite Surficial AquiferPIW-9S 05-May-20 396148.112052251.10 24.8 - 29.879.529.4850.05Onsite Perched ZonePW-01 05-May-20 399064.802049654.3011 - 2115014.96134.59Onsite Surficial AquiferPW-02 05-May-20 399779.062050649.4750 - 6014657.2989.14Onsite Surficial AquiferPW-03 05-May-20 397339.812050765.3235 - 4514842.02105.95Onsite Surficial AquiferPW-04 05-May-20 394659.552050940.6617 - 2797.827.1770.58Onsite Surficial AquiferPW-05 05-May-20 395873.102047812.9365 - 7515029.79120.55Onsite Surficial AquiferPW-06 05-May-20 392868.002045288.7719 - 2914819.41128.28Onsite Surficial AquiferPW-07 05-May-20 390847.712049258.2628 - 3814836.57111.59Onsite Black Creek AquiferPW-09 05-May-20 402000.082048979.1144 - 5472.924.8748.05TR0795Page 2 of 4September 2020
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS - MAY 2020Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Area1Aquifer2Well IDGauging Date3Northing (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Easting (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Screened Interval (ft)TOC Elevation (NAVD 88)5Depth to Water (from TOC)Water Level (ft NAVD88)Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-10R 05-May-20 398516.122051936.5957 - 6775.927.3848.52Onsite Black Creek AquiferPW-11 05-May-20 394354.362052226.7253 - 6373.332.7640.5Onsite Black Creek AquiferPW-12 05-May-20 399500.452047063.51 109 - 11915158.1692.45Onsite Black Creek AquiferPW-13 05-May-20 397584.262048029.18 120 - 13014933.1116.26Onsite Black Creek AquiferPW-14 05-May-20 397325.652050766.36 136 - 14614861.5786.4Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-15R 05-May-20 398900.882051011.75 110 - 12013659.8376.31Onsite Perched ZonePZ-11 05-May-20 398646.252049820.9415 - 2015112.85138.18Onsite Perched ZonePZ-12 05-May-20 399094.962048981.78 15.1 - 20.115119.38131.53Onsite Perched ZonePZ-13 05-May-20 397708.072050991.73 7.1 - 12.114911.37137.83Onsite Perched ZonePZ-14 05-May-20 397589.922050618.27 9.0 - 14.014811.99136.39Onsite Perched ZonePZ-15 05-May-20 396805.092050112.02 10.2 - 15.214913.2135.59Onsite Perched ZonePZ-17 05-May-20 396614.822048872.69 21.1 - 26.115028.27121.81Onsite Perched ZonePZ-19R 05-May-20 397998.662049919.5216 - 2115013.41136.64Onsite Perched ZonePZ-20R 05-May-20 398185.812049784.6015 - 2015114.72136.57Onsite Perched ZonePZ-21R 05-May-20 398445.162049883.1317 - 2215113.05137.62Onsite Black Creek AquiferPZ-22 05-May-20 397272.802052584.04 36.0 - 46.051.87.4344.38Onsite Perched ZonePZ-24 05-May-20 396117.942050744.0711 - 1614814.59132.94Onsite Perched ZonePZ-25 05-May-20 395968.992050752.5714 - 19148DRY--Onsite Perched ZonePZ-26 05-May-20 396059.782050382.3511 - 1614813.9133.8Onsite Perched ZonePZ-27 05-May-20 395922.112050376.7612 - 1714714.01133.16Onsite Perched ZonePZ-28 05-May-20 396304.552049933.7913 - 1814914.44134.2Onsite Perched ZonePZ-29 05-May-20 396371.492049768.9413 - 1814814.72133.02Onsite Perched ZonePZ-31 05-May-20 396428.732049594.36 14 - 1914818.27129.73Onsite Perched ZonePZ-32 05-May-20 396418.472049713.79 13 - 1814815.59132.88Onsite Perched ZonePZ-33 05-May-20 396308.922049707.66 12.5 - 17.514714.27132.44Onsite Perched ZonePZ-34 05-May-20 396292.052049595.04 13.5 - 18.514815.99131.7Onsite Perched ZonePZ-35 05-May-20 398232.642050020.49 13 - 1815012.78137.65Onsite Surficial AquiferPZ-L05-May-20 396745.802048684.0113-28NA29.71470.29Onsite Surficial AquiferSMW-01 05-May-20 395295.752043679.19 5.0 - 15.013712.78124.03Onsite Perched ZoneSMW-02 05-May-20 399983.752050654.77 5.0 - 20.014812.67135.26Onsite Surficial AquiferSMW-02B 05-May-20 399983.482050660.48 43.0 - 53.0145DRY--Onsite Perched ZoneSMW-03 05-May-20 399778.252049445.96 10.0 - 20.0151DRY--Onsite Black Creek Aquifer SMW-03B 05-May-20 399785.752049421.5472 - 8215057.8892.55Onsite Perched ZoneSMW-04A 05-May-20 399668.712048387.57 19.5 - 34.5148DRY--Onsite Surficial AquiferSMW-04B 05-May-20 399667.122048390.30 43.0 - 53.014846.61101.76Onsite Perched ZoneSMW-05 05-May-20 399334.072048557.33 10.0 - 20.014823.07125.03Onsite Perched ZoneSMW-06 05-May-20 399172.352048759.48 12.0 - 22.015124.94126.03Onsite Surficial AquiferSMW-06B 05-May-20 399144.742048764.9458 - 6815048.57101.75Onsite Perched ZoneSMW-07 05-May-20 398932.912048611.16 13.0 - 23.014819.36128.28Onsite Perched ZoneSMW-08 05-May-20 399064.972048468.78 21.0 - 31.0151DRY--TR0795Page 3 of 4September 2020
TABLE 4GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS - MAY 2020Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Area1Aquifer2Well IDGauging Date3Northing (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Easting (ft, SPCS NAD83)4Screened Interval (ft)TOC Elevation (NAVD 88)5Depth to Water (from TOC)Water Level (ft NAVD88)Onsite Surficial AquiferSMW-08B 05-May-20 399058.332048478.8458 - 6814942.02106.79Onsite Surficial AquiferSMW-09 05-May-20 401076.892050017.4152 - 6214157.0284.41Onsite Black Creek Aquifer SMW-10 05-May-20 402307.312047923.8439 - 4976.329.2247.04Onsite Surficial AquiferSMW-11 05-May-20 401996.152048975.3813 - 2372.013.5158.44Onsite Black Creek Aquifer SMW-12 05-May-20 401314.202051007.2288 - 9811883.7534.47Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-1D 05-May-20 387522.252050247.4037 - 4777.019.4457.52Offsite Surficial AquiferBladen-1S 05-May-20 387518.972050233.355 - 1076.7DRY--Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-2D 05-May-20 368827.092042878.3470 - 7513817.07121.2Offsite Surficial AquiferBladen-2S 05-May-20 368821.462042882.9210 - 201384.33133.71Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-3D 05-May-20 396856.982059006.56 33.75 - 43.7575.511.2564.27Offsite Surficial AquiferBladen-3S 05-May-20 396862.312059012.935 - 1574.38.2766Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-4D 05-May-20 363255.122087636.87 46.75 - 51.7559.70.5859.08Offsite Surficial AquiferBladen-4S 05-May-20 363263.192087637.46 4.75 - 14.7559.74.8854.8Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-1D 05-May-20 431459.952011071.3940 - 501753.93170.67Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-1S 05-May-20 431459.952011071.3915 - 251753.65171.08Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-2D 07-May-20 449987.542074019.1447 - 571293.35125.88Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-2S 07-May-20 449979.102074020.867 - 171292.73126.33Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-3D 05-May-20 423248.122060409.1622 - 2778.86.7572.04Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-3S 05-May-20 423254.642060413.309 - 1479.16.7572.31Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-4D 05-May-20 413095.772078249.9557 - 6711912.3106.92Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-4S 05-May-20 413086.632078255.5310 - 201196.76112.6Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-5D 05-May-20 405673.822138069.5452 - 57NA7.5999.08Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-5S 05-May-20 405673.822138069.5414 - 24NA1.91104.74Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Robeson-1D 05-May-20 381416.282020158.93 42.75 - 52.7515611.5144.86Offsite Surficial AquiferRobeson-1S 05-May-20 381408.192020156.8617 - 271578.72147.94Notes:1 - Area - refers to location of well within site property boundary (“Onsite”) and outside property boundary (“Offsite”).2 - Aquifer - refers to primary aquifer unit well screen is estimated to be screened within.3 - Survey completed by Freeland-Clinkscales & Associates of NC.4 - Northing and Easting provided in North Carolina State Plane System (zone 3200), North American Datum 1983.5 - Vertical datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988.-- - Dry well, no water levelft - feetNAVD88 - North American Vertical Datum of 1988SPCS NAD83 - State Plane Coordinate System North American Datum 1983TOC - top of casingTR0795Page 4 of 4September 2020
TABLE 5SEEP AND SURFACE WATER FIELD PARAMETERS Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.LocationDatepH (S.U.)Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)Turbidity (NTU)Specific Conductivity (mS/cm)Temperature (°C)SEEP A5/13/2020 4.0 8.913013150 15.5SEEP B5/13/2020 4.4 7.66610110 16.4SEEP C5/13/2020 4.5 8.46134110 15.9SEEP D5/13/2020 3.9 8.47724160 16.5CFR-BLADEN 5/13/2020 6.7 8.213120.09 19.8CFR-KINGS 5/19/2020 6.7 6.425210.10 21.7CFR-RM-76 5/13/2020 7.0 7.6-5.16.60.12 17.7CFR-TARHEEL 5/14/2020 7.0 8.0-166.80.11 19.2GBC-15/13/2020 4.5 8.527160.10 17.5OLDOF-15/13/2020 3.5 8.62205.2270 18.0OUTFALL 002 5/13/2020 6.6 9.1548.5130 19.9WC-15/13/2020 5.7 8.7355.50.10 15.7Abbreviations:°C - degrees Celsiusmg/L - milligrams per litermS/cm - millisiemens per centimetermV- millivoltsNTU - Nephelometric Turbidity UnitsS.U. - Standard UnitsTR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 6GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.Location DatepH (S.U.)Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)Turbidity (NTU)Specific Conductance (mS/cm)Temperature (oC)Bladen-1D 5/6/2020 5.7 0.07 23 5.8 0.06 21.3LTW-01 5/7/2020 4.0 0.16 1204.3 0.1317.8LTW-02 5/12/2020 5.0 0.10 782.2 0.0717.2LTW-03 5/13/2020 5.2 3.9 150 0.15 0.0534.2LTW-04 5/8/2020 4.5 0.12 299.9 89.818.2LTW-05 5/8/2020 4.3 0.04 477.0 0.1217.7PIW-1D 5/7/2020 3.6 0.06 1203.8 0.2016.6PIW-3D 5/7/2020 4.8 0.04 1103.7 0.1017.1PIW-7D 5/8/2020 4.4 0.04 423.5 0.0918.0PIW-7S 5/8/2020 5.1 0.07 --2.7 0.1117.65/12/2020 3.9 0.54 96160 0.3718.95/13/20204.3 4.2640.36 0.0536.5PW-065/6/20204.0 2.1784.8 0.0517.85/12/2020 4.8 8.07829 0.0419.75/14/2020 6.2 8.3111510120.0PW-095/7/202010.3 5.1751.5--19.6PW-115/7/20204.0 --1106.7 0.4617.9PZ-225/8/20204.5 0.08 441.8 0.1117.8SMW-105/7/20205.3 0.05 520.03--27.3SMW-115/7/20203.9 4.9 1606.6--21.5SMW-125/6/20203.7 0.89 521.8 0.2017.5Abbreviations:> - greater than°C - degrees Celsiusmg/L - milligrams per litermS/cm - millisiemens per centimetermV- millivoltsNTU - nephelometric Turbidity UnitS.U. - Standard Units-- - measurement not recordedPW-04PW-07TR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 7CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS LOAD ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling EventQ1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Location ID TARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELField Sample ID FAY-CFR-TARHEEL-021420 CAP1Q20-TARHEEL-032720 CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120 CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220 CFR-TARHEEL-48-040220Sample Date 2/14/20203/26/20203/31/20203/31/20204/2/20204/2/2020Sample TypeGrabGrabCompositeCompositeGrabCompositeSample Start Date and Time--3/28/20 1:00 AM3/28/20 1:00 AM-3/31/20 1:00 PMSample Stop Date and Time--3/31/20 12:00 PM3/31/20 12:00 PM-4/2/20 1:00 PMComposite Duration (hours)--3/22/00 11:48 PM3/22/00 11:48 PM-2/17/00 12:00 AMQA/QCField DuplicateSample Delivery Group (SDG) 320-58729-1320-59859-1320-60098-1320-60098-1320-60029-1320-60098-1Lab Sample ID 320-58729-1320-59859-2320-60098-1320-60098-2320-60029-3320-60098-3Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer Acid<421<156.31110PFMOAA9.54426293542PFO2HxA4.1269.3 8.9 15 14PFO3OA<252.1<23.93.3PFO4DA<22.1<2<2<2<2PFO5DA<2<2<2<2<2<2PMPA114015122417PEPA<20<20<20<20<20<20PS Acid<22.1<2<2<2<2Hydro-PS Acid<22.2<2<2<2<2R-PSDA3.4 J14 J<2<28.57.9Hydrolyzed PSDA4.2 J25 J8.2 J8.4 J2614 JR-PSDCA<2<2<2<2<2<2NVHOS<23.8<2<22.3<2EVE Acid<2<2<2<2<2<2Hydro-EVE Acid<2<2<2<2<2<2R-EVE2.4 J6.1 J2.1 J<26.6<2PES<2<2<2 <2 <2 <2PFECA B<2<2<2 <2 <2 <2PFECA-G<2<2<2 <2 <2 <2Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) 2515052569186Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)351906365130110Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.B - analyte detected in an associated blank.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits.ng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.- - not applicableTR0795Page 1 of 6September 2020
TABLE 7CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS LOAD ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling EventLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateSample TypeSample Start Date and TimeSample Stop Date and TimeComposite Duration (hours)QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds) Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)- Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020TARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320 CFR-TARHEEL-83-040620 CFR-TARHEEL-79-040920 CFR-TARHEEL-83-041920 CFR-TARHEEL-83-042220 CFR-TARHEEL-83-042620 CFR-TARHEEL-83-0429204/3/20204/6/20204/9/20204/19/20204/22/20204/26/20204/29/2020CompositeCompositeCompositeCompositeCompositeCompositeComposite4/2/20 3:00 PM4/2/20 1:30 PM4/5/20 11:32 PM4/15/20 2:30 PM4/19/20 2:30 AM4/22/20 1:49 PM4/26/20 12:49 AM4/3/20 3:00 PM4/6/20 12:30 AM4/9/20 6:30 AM4/19/20 1:30 AM4/22/20 1:30 PM4/26/20 12:49 AM 4/29/20 11:49 AM1/24/00 12:00 AM3/22/00 11:48 PM 3/18/00 11:02 PM 3/22/00 11:48 PM 3/22/00 11:48 PM 3/22/00 11:48 PM 3/22/00 11:48 PM320-60032-1320-60098-1320-60195-1320-60435-1320-60435-1320-60619-1320-60619-1320-60032-2320-60098-4320-60195-1320-60435-1320-60435-2320-60619-1320-60619-21817205.512111347569428515359212233111919244.85.58.12.65.14.85.8<2<22.8<2<2<2<2<2<24.96.95.5<2<231243117252123<20<20<20<20<20<20<20<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<214 J1113<2<27.51317 B20 J319.6172327<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<22.15<2<22.83.9<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<22.8 J<23.4<2<2<22.4<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<21201302007112011013016016025081130140170TR0795Page 2 of 6September 2020Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.B - analyte detected in an associated blank.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits.ng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - A alyte not detected above associated reporting limit.- not applicable
TABLE 7CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS LOAD ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling EventLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateSample TypeSample Start Date and TimeSample Stop Date and TimeComposite Duration (hours)QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds) Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)- Q1 2020Q1 2020Q1 2020Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 TARHEELTARHEELEQBLKTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-62-050220 CFR-TARHEEL-83-050620 CFR-EQBLK-1-040820 CFR-TARHEEL-83-051120 CFR-TARHEEL-83-051320 CAP2Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-0514205/2/20205/6/20204/8/20205/11/20205/13/20205/14/2020CompositeCompositeGrabCompositeCompositeGrab4/30/20 9:49 AM5/3/20 12:49 AM-5/6/20 12:49 PM5/9/20 11:49 PM-5/2/20 11:49 PM5/6/20 11:49 AM-5/9/20 11:49 PM5/13/20 9:49 AM-3/2/00 12:00 AM3/22/00 11:48 PM-83.8282.00-Equipment Blank320-60763-1320-60763-1320-60098-1320-60789-1410-2522-1320-60921-1320-60763-1320-60763-2320-60098-5320-60789-1410-2522-1320-60921-3126.2<49.413 J242718<5346975169.8<21427343.52.1<23.86.78.9<2<2<2<22 J2.4<2<2<2<2<2<22415<10182249<20<20<20<20<20<20<2<2<2<2<2 UJ<2<2<2<2<2<2 UJ<22011<21312 J331812<21534 J30<2<2<2<2<2<23.3<2<22.32.94.6<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<26<2<22.75.2 J5.6<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2865108214020013074<2110190270NDTR0795Page 3 of 6September 2020Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.B - analyte detected in an associated blank.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits.ng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - A alyte not detected above associated reporting limit.- not applicable
TABLE 7CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS LOAD ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling EventLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateSample TypeSample Start Date and TimeSample Stop Date and TimeComposite Duration (hours)QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds) Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)- Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 TARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-051620 CAP2Q20-TARHEEL-24-051820 CFR-TARHEEL-83-052020 CFR-TARHEEL-052520 CFR-TARHEEL-052920 CFR-TARHEEL-0601205/16/20205/18/20205/20/20205/25/20205/29/20206/1/2020CompositeCompositeCompositeGrabGrabGrab5/13/20 9:49 AM5/17/20 11:30 AM5/16/20 9:49 PM---5/16/20 7:49 PM5/18/20 11:30 AM5/20/20 8:49 AM---83.0024.0083.00-- -410-2522-1410-2521-1410-2522-1320-61296-1320-61296-1320-61452-1410-2522-2410-2521-4410-2522-3320-61296-2320-61296-1320-61452-119 J232524.5<29488120<5<56.13733452.26.53.18.28.610<2<2<22.5 J2.5 J3<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2272832<10<10<13<20<2020<20<20<2<2 UJ<2 UJ2.2 J<2<2<2<2 UJ<2 UJ<2 UJ<2<2<215 J16 J15 J<2<22.647 J46 J54 J3.4<22.9<2<2<2<2<2<24.44.83.8<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<26.3 J4.9 J8.1 J2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<21901902604.2119.22602503409.61115TR0795Page 4 of 6September 2020Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.B - analyte detected in an associated blank.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits.ng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - A alyte not detected above associated reporting limit.- not applicable
TABLE 7CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS LOAD ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling EventLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateSample TypeSample Start Date and TimeSample Stop Date and TimeComposite Duration (hours)QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds) Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)- Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 TARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELTARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-060120-D CFR-TARHEEL-060520 CFR-TARHEEL-39-060820 CFR-TARHEEL-83-061220 CFR-TARHEEL-83-061520 CFR-TARHEEL-83-061920 CFR-TARHEEL-83-0622206/1/20206/5/20206/8/20206/12/20206/15/20206/19/20206/22/2020GrabGrabCompositeCompositeCompositeCompositeComposite--6/5/20 11:06 AM6/8/20 10:06 PM6/12/20 9:06 AM6/15/20 8:06 PM6/19/20 7:06 AM--6/8/20 9:06 PM6/12/20 8:06 AM6/15/20 7:06 PM6/19/20 6:06 AM6/22/20 5:06 PM--83.0083.0083.0083.0083.00Field Duplicate320-61452-1320-61570-1320-61852-1320-61852-1320-62010-1320-62010-1320-62127-1320-61452-2320-61570-1320-61852-1320-61852-2320-62010-1320-62010-2320-62127-12 4.6 6.5 1015165.85.399.817 J14114.93.2 6.5 8.3 131318 8<2<2<23.433.8<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<13271725273621<2<2<23.23.25.4<2<2<23.4<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<25.98.5 J4.75.15.62.65.57.29.1 J87.24.1<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<23.8 J<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<211474572759040135358938810049TR0795Page 5 of 6September 2020Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.B - analyte detected in an associated blank.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits.ng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - A alyte not detected above associated reporting limit.- not applicable
TABLE 7CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS LOAD ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling EventLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateSample TypeSample Start Date and TimeSample Stop Date and TimeComposite Duration (hours)QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds) Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)- Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 Q2 2020 TARHEELTARHEELEBEBFBLKFBLKCFR-TARHEEL-83-062620 CFR-TARHEEL-83-062920 CFR-TARHEEL-EB-052520CFR-TARHEEL-EB-060120 CFR-TARHEEL-FB-052520 CFR-TARHEEL-FB-0601206/26/20206/29/20205/25/20206/1/20205/25/20206/1/2020CompositeCompositeGrabGrabGrabGrab6/22/20 6:06 PM6/26/20 5:06 AM----6/26/20 4:06 AM6/29/20 3:06 PM----83.0083.00----Equipment BlankEquipment BlankField BlankField Blank320-62407-1320-62407-1320-61296-1320-61452-1320-61296-1320-61452-1320-62407-1320-62407-2320-61296-4320-61452-4320-61296-3320-61452-39.915<2<2<2<23049<5<2<5<21318<2<2<2<22.84<2<2<2<2<2<2<24.1<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<22026<10<13<10<133.24.5<20<2<20<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<21115<2<2<2<21217<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<22.5<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<23.54.9<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<279120ND4.1NDND110160ND4.1NDNDTR0795Page 6 of 6September 2020Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.B - analyte detected in an associated blank.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits.ng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - A alyte not detected above associated reporting limit.- not applicable
TABLE 8SEEP AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling Program CAP SW Sampling 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW Sampling 2Q20 CAP SW Sampling 2Q20 CAP SW Sampling 2Q20 CAP SW Sampling 2Q20Location ID CFR-BLADEN CFR-KINGS CFR-MILE-76 CFR-MILE-76 GBC-1 Intake River Water at FacilityField Sample ID CAP2Q20-CFR-BLADEN-051320 CAP2Q20-CFR-KINGS-051920 CAP2Q20-CFR-RM-76-051320 CAP2Q20-CFR-RM-76-051320-D CAP2Q20-GBC-1-051320 2R00513Sample Date5/13/20205/19/20205/13/20205/13/20205/13/20205/13/2020QA/QCDuplicateSample TypeGrabGrabGrabGrabGrabGrabSample Delivery Group (SDG)320-60920-1410-2520-1320-60921-1320-60921-1320-60920-1280-136659-1Lab Sample ID320-60920-6410-2520-1320-60921-1320-60921-2320-60920-5280-136659-3Total Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer Acid2518<4245015PFMOAA7975<5<511013PFO2HxA3528<2232015PFO3OA9.66.9<2<2502.6PFO4DA3.12.1 J<2<214<2PFO5DA<2<2<2<2<2<2PMPA5123273078031PEPA<20<20 UJ<20<20200<2PS Acid<2<2 UJ<2<2<2<2Hydro-PS Acid<2<2 UJ<2<226<2R-PSDA3017 J23 J2413022Hydrolyzed PSDA3231 J2 J<2<22.5R-PSDCA<2<2<2<2<2<2NVHOS4.13.23.83.443.9EVE Acid<2<2<2<2<2<2Hydro-EVE Acid<2<2<2<2<2<2R-EVE412 J<2<2414.2PES<2<2<2<2<2<2PFECA B<2<2<2<2<2<2PFECA-G<2<2<2<2<2<2Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)21016033372,00081Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)27022058612,100110Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limitB - analyte detected in an associated blankEPA - Environmental Protection AgencyJ - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or preciseND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limitsng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.TR0795Page 1 of 3September 2020
TABLE 8SEEP AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateQA/QCSample TypeSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTotal Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20OLDOF-1 OUTFALL 002 SEEP-A SEEP-B SEEP-C SEEP-DCAP2Q20-OLDOF-1-24-051420 CAP2Q20-OUTFALL 002-24-051420 CAP2Q20-SEEP-A-24-051420 CAP2Q20-SEEP-B-24-051420 CAP2Q20-SEEP-C-24-051420 CAP2Q20-SEEP-D-24-0514205/14/2020 5/14/2020 5/14/2020 5/14/2020 5/14/2020 5/14/2020CompositeCompositeCompositeCompositeCompositeComposite410-2521-1 410-2521-1 410-2519-1 410-2519-1 410-2519-1 410-2519-1410-2521-2 410-2521-1 410-2519-1 410-2519-2 410-2519-3 410-2519-49,300 J 100 32,000 J 22,000 J 38,000 J 26,000 J79,000 29 120,000 190,000 200,000 100,00020,000 24 50,000 45,000 61,000 29,0005,000 3.7 16,000 J 8,500 J 16,000 J 7,000 J1,700 J<2 UJ9,000 1,100 3,400 1,900600 J<24,000 130 28 736,800 37 20,000 30,000 13,000 7,600<2,000 <207,500 10,000 3,900 2,300520 J 9.5 J 6,300 J 1,100 J<20 UJ <20 UJ390 J 3.4 J 1,600 J 510 J 450 J 280 J340 20 J 3,000 3,500 1,700 1,1002,100 110 37,000 31,000 3,300 2,500<200 <261 J 41 J 26 J<20 UJ870 5.1 1,300 2,100 1,700 860<200 <21,100 1,600<20 <20220<21,900 1,300 1,700 1,100240 5.9 J 1,500 2,100 2,000 1,200<200 <2 <20 <20 <20 <20<200 <2 <20 <20 <20 <20<200 <2 <20 <20 <20 <20120,000 210 270,000 310,000 340,000 180,000130,000 350 310,000 350,000 350,000 180,000TR0795Page 2 of 3September 2020Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limitB - analyte detected in an associated blankEPA - Environmental Protection AgencyJ - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or preciseND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limitsng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
TABLE 8SEEP AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateQA/QCSample TypeSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTotal Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)CAP SW Sampling 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20TARHEEL TARHEEL WC-1 EB EB FBLKCAP2Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-051420 CAP2Q20-TARHEEL-24-051820 CAP2Q20-WC-1-24-051420 CAP2Q20-EB-PP-051920 CAP2Q20-EB-ISCO-052120 CAP2Q20-FB-0519205/14/2020 5/18/2020 5/14/2020 5/19/2020 5/21/2020 5/19/2020Equipment BlankEquipment BlankField BlankGrabCompositeCompositeGrabGrabGrab320-60921-1410-2521-1410-2519-1410-2520-1410-2520-1410-2520-1320-60921-3410-2521-4410-2519-5410-2520-3410-2520-4410-2520-22423410 J<2<2<27588980<5<563433400<2<2<28.98.659 J<2<2<22.42.5 J13<2<2<2<2<2<2 UJ<2<2<24928550<10<10<10<20<20120<20<20<20<2<2 UJ<2 UJ<2 UJ2.2<2 UJ<2<2 UJ9.4 J<2 UJ<2<2 UJ3316 J73 J<2<2<23046 J430<2<2<2<2<2<2 UJ<2<2<24.64.815<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<25.2<2<2<25.64.9 J47 J<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<22001902,6000.02.26.02702503,1000.02.26.0TR0795Page 3 of 3September 2020Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limitB - analyte detected in an associated blankEPA - Environmental Protection AgencyJ - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or preciseND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limitsng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSDG - Sample Delivery GroupSOP - standard operating procedureUJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
TABLE 9FLOW SUMMARY FOR SEEPS, SURFACE AND RIVER WATER LOCATIONS Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Pathway/ LocationFlow Measurement DateComposite Sample 24-Hour Flow Volume (MGD)1,2Grab Sample Instantaneous Flow Rate (L/s)1,3Flow Rate (GPM)Upstream River Water and Groundwater45/13/20201,100--760,000Willis Creek5/14/20205.1--3,500Intake River Water at Facility5/14/202022--15,000Outfall 0025/14/202022--15,000Seep A5/14/20200.24--170Seep B5/14/20200.21--150Seep C5/14/20200.07--49Seep D5/14/20200.21--150Old Outfall 0025/14/20200.89--620Georgia Branch Creek5/13/20207.6--5,300W.O'Huske55/14/2020960--700,000W.O'Huske65/14/2020--44,000700,000W.O'Huske75/13/2020--48,000760,000Cape Fear River Lock and Dam #185/19/2020--47,000740,000NotesMGD - Milllions of gallons per dayGPM - Gallons per minuteUSGS - United States Geological Survey8 - Flow rate measured at USGS gauging station #02105769 located at Lock #1 near Kelly used to estimate flow rate at Kings Bluff during sample collection.5 - Flow rate measured at USGS gauging station #02105500 located at William O Huske Lock & Dam used to estimate flow rate at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge during composite sample collection.4 - The volumetric flow rate for upstream river water and groundwater was estimated by subtracting inflows from Willis Creek, upwelling groundwater, seeps to the river, and Outfall 002 and by adding the river water intake from Chemours to the flow rate measurement from the W.O. Huske Dam.1 - Flow measurement methods are described in Table 2. Detailed flow data and calculations are provided in Appendix C.2 - Total flow volume for composite samples is based on measurements taken over 24-hour sample collection period for all locations except Georgia Branch Creek and Willis Creek. At these locations, the total flow volume over 24-hour sample collection was estimated based on the instantaneous flow measurement. 3 - Instantaneous flow rate for grab samples is the recorded flow rate at the time of grab sample collection.6 - Flow rate measured at USGS gauging station #02105500 located at William O Huske Lock & Dam used to estimate flow rate at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge during grab sample collection.7 - Flow rate measured at USGS gauging station #02105500 located at William O Huske Lock & Dam used to estimate flow rate at Bladen Bluff during sample TR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 10GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling Program CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20Location ID BLADEN-1D BLADEN-1D LTW-01 LTW-02 LTW-03 LTW-04Field Sample ID CAP2Q20-BLADEN-1D-050620 CAP2Q20-BLADEN-1D-050620-D CAP2Q20-LTW-01-050720 CAP2Q20-LTW-02-051220 CAP2Q20-LTW-03-051320 CAP2Q20-LTW-04-050820Sample Date5/6/20205/6/20205/7/20205/12/20205/13/20205/8/2020QA/QCDuplicateSample TypeGrabGrabGrabGrabGrabGrabSample Delivery Group (SDG)320-60762-1320-60762-1320-60761-1320-60920-1320-60920-1320-60791-1Lab Sample ID320-60762-4320-60762-5320-60761-2320-60920-1320-60920-2320-60791-5Total Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer Acid20019024,0006,80011,00024,000PFMOAA373745,00030,000180,00093,000PFO2HxA12012033,00012,00039,00034,000PFO3OA11117,2002,8006,5006,400PFO4DA<2<21,400220180660PFO5DA<2<2240<6.7<34<34PMPA45047026,0005,20012,00023,000PEPA1201207,7001,3002,4007,200PS Acid<2<2<27<5.3<27<27Hydro-PS Acid<2<23201933170R-PSDA18191,3003706802,800Hydrolyzed PSDA<2<27806802,5003,900R-PSDCA<2<2<15<3.1<1516NVHOS<2<24302501,0001,600EVE Acid<2<2<24<4.9<24<24Hydro-EVE Acid<2<21603650570R-EVE7.47.77802604602,500PES<2<2<46<9.2<46<46PFECA B<2<2<60<12<60<60PFECA-G<2<2<41<8.2<41<41Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)940950150,00059,000250,000190,000Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)960970150,00060,000260,000200,000TR0795Page 1 of 6September 2020
TABLE 10GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateQA/QCSample TypeSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTotal Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20LTW-05PIW-1DPIW-3DPIW-7DPIW-7SPW-04CAP2Q20-LTW-05-050820 CAP2Q20-PIW-1D-050720 CAP2Q20-PIW-3D-050720 CAP2Q20-PIW-7D-050820 CAP2Q20-PIW-7S-050820 CAP2Q20-PW-04-0513205/8/20205/7/20205/7/20205/8/20205/8/20205/13/2020GrabGrabGrabGrabGrabGrab320-60791-1320-60761-1320-60761-1320-60791-1320-60791-1320-60920-1320-60791-2320-60761-4320-60761-1320-60791-4320-60791-1320-60920-321,0009,60011,00010,00029,000700190,00017,000 B5,100 B170,00037,00019050,00010,0009,50033,00023,00075015,0001,8001,9003,7008,0003403,3003807401,000830110<34<34<34<34<34<24,9009,90010,0004,00022,0005703602,6003,1004507,400180<27<27<27<27<27<22905612082420209304304603602,500741,500<58<58550200<235<15<15<15<15<21,200140<549201,4004.9<24<24<24<24<24<21,30031492907509.61,0002202404702,60038<46<46<46<46<46<2<60<60<60<60<60<2<41<41<41<41<41<2290,00052,00042,000220,000130,0002,900290,00052,00042,000220,000140,0003,000TR0795Page 2 of 6September 2020
TABLE 10GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateQA/QCSample TypeSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTotal Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20PW-06PW-07PW-09PW-11PZ-22SMW-10CAP2Q20-PW-06-050620 CAP2Q20-PW-07-051420 CAP2Q20-PW-09-050720 CAP2Q20-PW-11-050720 CAP2Q20-PZ-22-050820 CAP2Q20-SMW-10-0507205/6/20205/14/20205/7/20205/7/20205/8/20205/7/2020GrabGrabGrabGrabGrabGrab320-60762-1320-60920-1320-60761-1320-60761-1320-60791-1320-60761-1320-60762-7320-60920-4320-60761-5320-60761-3320-60791-3320-60761-71,4007705.711,00012,000<22103708 B110,000200,00040 B8108104.8 B30,00045,000<2120120<215,0004,100<28383<29,200430<2<2<2<22,400<67<21,4001,200176,5005,20012430280<201,900930<20<2<2<2550<53<2377.9<288066<274100<2760660<2<2<2<21,9001,600<2<2<2<241<31<26.67.3<21,3001,100<2<2<2<2100<49<28.45.6<2420120<22640<2230530<2<2<2<2<46<92<2<2<2<2<60<120<2<2<2<2<41<82<24,5003,70036190,000270,000524,6003,80036190,000270,00052TR0795Page 3 of 6September 2020
TABLE 10GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateQA/QCSample TypeSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTotal Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20SMW-11 SMW-12 EB EB EB EBCAP2Q20-SMW-11-050720 CAP2Q20-SMW-12-050620 CAP2Q20-EB-DV-050620 CAP2Q20-EB-PP-050620 CAP2Q20-EB-DV-050720 CAP2Q20-EB-PP-0507205/7/2020 5/6/2020 5/6/2020 5/6/2020 5/7/2020 5/7/2020Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment BlankGrab Grab Grab Grab Grab Grab320-60761-1 320-60762-1 320-60762-1 320-60762-1 320-60761-1 320-60761-1320-60761-6320-60762-6320-60762-2320-60762-1320-60761-9320-60761-85,5001,900<2<22.5<23,400 B4,800<5<572<53,300 B1,700<2<29.2<2620 B160<2<22.1<22801,800<2<2<2<2<34150<2<2<2<23,0002,000<10<10<10<10800390<20<20<20<20<27<27<2<2<2<267<30<2<2<2<2<160<160<2<2<2<2<58<58<2<2<2<2<15<15<2<2<2<2<54<54<2<2<2<2<24190<2<2<2<232120<2<2<2<2<70<70<2<2<2<2<46<46<2<2<2<2<60110<2<2<2<2<4190<2<2<2<217,00013,000NDND86ND17,00013,000NDND86NDTR0795Page 4 of 6September 2020
TABLE 10GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateQA/QCSample TypeSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTotal Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20EBEBEBEBFBLKFBLKCAP2Q20-EB-PP-050820 CAP2Q20-EB-PP-051220 CAP2Q20-EB-PP-051320 CAP2Q20-EB-PP-051420 CAP2Q20-FB-050620 CAP2Q20-FB-0507205/8/20205/12/20205/13/20205/14/20205/6/20205/7/2020Equipment BlankEquipment BlankEquipment BlankEquipment BlankField BlankField BlankGrabGrabGrabGrabGrabGrab320-60791-1320-60920-1320-60920-1320-60920-1320-60762-1320-60761-1320-60791-6320-60920-7320-60920-8320-60920-9320-60762-3320-60761-10<4<2<2<2<2<2<5<5<5<5<5<5<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<10<10<10<10<10<10<20<20<20<20<20<20<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDTR0795Page 5 of 6September 2020
TABLE 10GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Sampling ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample DateQA/QCSample TypeSample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDTotal Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20 CAP MW Sampling 2Q20FBLKFBLKFBLKFBLKCAP2Q20-FB-050820 CAP2Q20-FB-051220 CAP2Q20-FB-051320 CAP2Q20-FB-0514205/8/20205/12/20205/13/20205/14/2020Field BlankField BlankField BlankField BlankGrabGrabGrabGrab320-60791-1320-60920-1320-60920-1410-2521-1320-60791-7320-60920-10320-60920-11410-2521-3<4<2<2<2 UJ<5<5<5<5<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2Notes:<2<2<2<2 UJBold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit<2<2<2<2B - analyte detected in an associated blank<10<10<10<10EPA - Environmental Protection Agency<20<20<20<20J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise<2<2<2<2 UJND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits<2<2<2<2 UJng/L - nanograms per liter<2<2<2<2QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control<2<2<2<2SDG - Sample Delivery Group<2<2<2<2SOP - standard operating procedure<2<2<2<2UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.<2<2<2<2< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDTR0795Page 6 of 6September 2020
TABLE 11SUMMARY OF CALCULATED TOTAL MASS LOAD IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVERChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Start Date End Date DaysRiver volume (m3)Load in Cape Fear River (kg)1Remedy Reduction Loads (kg)2Total Load to Cape Fear River (kg)3Load in Cape Fear River (kg)1Remedy Reduction Loads (kg)2Total Load to Cape Fear River (kg)32020-Q1 Report03/28/2020 1:00 05/09/2020 23:49 43 514,570,000 46 0 46 59 0 592020-Q2 Report05/09/2020 23:49 06/29/2020 16:06 51 1,308,600,000 80 0 80 102 0 102Total 03/28/2020 1:00 06/29/2020 16:06 94 1,823,170,000 126 0 126 161 0 161Reporting PeroidReporting Period Details Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Notes:1 - Calculated Cape Fear River loads represents loads measured in the Cape Fear River at the CFR-TARHEEL sampling location downstream of the Site.2 - Calculated remedy reduction loads represents loads from environmental pathways (e.g. Old Outfall 002, Seeps, etc.,) that were prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River.3 - Total load to Cape Fear River represents the sum of the measured in-river load and the remedy reduction load. This value represents the baseline load that would reach the Cape Fear River in the absence of any remedies.kg - kilogramsTR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 12CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVALChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Interval IDStart Time 2End Time 2Hours CompositedTotal River Flow (m3)HFPO-DAPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS Acid Hydro-PS Acid R-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)2020_1_Q1 3/28/20 1:00 3/31/20 12:30 8390,900,000 0.29 2.50 0.83 0.10 00.001.2300000.7500000.10000 4.9 5.82020_2_Q1 3/31/20 12:30 4/2/20 13:30 4927,760,000 0.28 1.17 0.39 0.09 00.000.470000.220.3900000000 2.4 3.02020_3_Q1 4/2/20 13:30 4/3/20 15:00 259,680,000 0.17 0.48 0.21 0.05 0 0.000.280000.130.1700000.02000 1.2 1.52020_4_Q1 4/3/20 15:00 4/6/20 0:00 5715,150,000 0.28 1.14 0.42 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.42 0 0 0 0.18 0.39 0 0.05 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 2.5 3.12020_5_Q1 4/6/20 0:00 4/9/20 6:30 7916,570,000 0.33 1.56 0.55 0.13 0.050.08 0.51 0 0 0 0.22 0.51 0 0.08 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 3.3 4.12020_6_Q1 4/9/20 6:30 4/15/20 14:30 15238,570,000 0.49 2.35 0.85 0.21 0.05 0.23 0.93 0 0 0 0.25 0.78 0 0.10 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 5.2 6.32020_7_Q1 4/15/20 14:30 4/19/20 2:00 8355,750,000 0.31 1.56 0.61 0.14 00.380.950000.000.5400000.00000 4.0 4.52020_8_Q1 4/19/20 2:00 4/22/20 13:30 8327,900,000 0.33 1.42 0.53 0.14 00.150.700000.000.4700000.00000 3.3 3.82020_9_Q1 4/22/20 13:30 4/26/20 0:49 8328,650,000 0.32 1.52 0.54 0.14 00.00 0.60 0 0 0 0.21 0.66 0 0.08 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 3.2 4.12020_10_Q1 4/26/20 0:49 4/29/20 11:4983 22,890,000 0.30 1.35 0.55 0.130 0.00 0.53 0 0 0 0.30 0.62 0 0.09 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 2.9 3.92020_11_Q1 4/29/20 11:49 4/30/20 9:49 227,260,000 0.09 0.30 0.14 0.03 00.00 0.17 0 0 0 0.12 0.16 0 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.8 1.12020_12_Q1 4/30/20 9:49 5/3/20 1:00 6355,520,000 0.67 1.50 0.89 0.19 0 0.00 1.33 0 0 0 1.11 1.00 0 0.18 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 4.8 7.22020_13_Q1 5/3/20 1:00 5/6/20 12:00 8372,980,000 0.45 1.31 0.72 0.15 0 0.001.090000.800.8800000.00000 3.7 5.42020_14_Q1 5/6/20 12:00 5/9/20 23:49 8444,990,000 0.42 1.53 0.63 0.17 00.00 0.81 0 0 0 0.58 0.67 0 0.10 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 3.7 5.02020_1_Q2 5/9/20 23:49 5/13/20 9:49 8216,000,000 0.21 1.10 0.43 0.11 0 0.00 0.35 0 0 0 0.19 0.54 0 0.05 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 2.3 3.12020_2_Q2 5/13/20 9:49 5/16/20 20:49 8311,800,000 0.22 1.11 0.44 0.10 00.00 0.32 0 0 0 0.18 0.55 0 0.05 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 2.3 3.12020_3_Q2 5/16/20 20:49 5/17/20 11:30 151,890,000 0.05 0.23 0.08 0.02 00.00 0.06 0 0 0 0.03 0.10 0 0.01 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.5 0.62020_4_Q2 5/17/20 11:30 5/18/20 11:30 242,980,000 0.07 0.28 0.11 0.03 00.00 0.09 0 0 0 0.05 0.14 0 0.01 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.6 0.82020_5_Q2 5/18/20 11:30 5/20/20 8:49 456,150,000 0.15 0.74 0.28 0.06 0 0.00 0.20 0 0 0 0.09 0.33 0 0.02 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 1.6 2.12020_6_Q2 5/20/20 8:49 5/25/20 10:15121 216,310,000 2.92 12.98 5.10 1.08 0 0.00 3.46 2 0 0 1.62 6.21 0 0.41 0 0 1.09 0 0 0 29 37.62020_7_Q2 5/25/20 10:15 5/29/20 9:1095 171,450,000 0.56 0.00 0.75 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.29 0 0.00 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 1.3 1.82020_8_Q2 5/29/20 9:10 6/1/20 14:25 77171,920,000 0.39 0.52 0.83 0.00 00.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.22 0.25 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 1.7 2.22020_9_Q2 6/1/20 14:25 6/5/20 11:06 93172,660,000 0.40 1.30 0.83 0.00 00.00 2.33 0 0 0 0.22 0.73 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 4.9 5.82020_10_Q2 6/5/20 11:06 6/8/20 22:0683 104,410,000 0.68 1.02 0.87 0.000 0.00 1.78 0 0 0 0.62 0.75 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 4.7 6.12020_11_Q2 6/8/20 22:06 6/12/20 9:06 8358,110,000 0.58 0.99 0.76 0.20 00.00 1.45 0 0 0 0.49 0.53 0 0.00 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 4.2 5.42020_12_Q2 6/12/20 9:06 6/15/20 20:0683 58,710,000 0.88 0.82 0.76 0.180 0.00 1.59 0 0 0 0.28 0.47 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 5.22020_13_Q2 6/15/20 20:06 6/19/20 7:0683 88,880,000 1.42 0.98 1.60 0.340 0.00 3.20 0 0 0 0.45 0.64 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 8.0 9.12020_14_Q2 6/19/20 7:06 6/22/20 18:0683 120,130,000 0.70 0.59 0.96 0.00 0 0.00 2.52 0 0 0 0.67 0.49 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 4.8 5.92020_15_Q2 6/22/20 18:06 6/26/20 5:0683 70,460,000 0.70 2.11 0.92 0.200 0.00 1.41 0 0 0 0.78 0.85 0 0.00 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 5.6 7.42020_16_Q2 6/26/20 5:06 6/29/20 16:0683 36,710,000 0.55 1.80 0.66 0.150 0.00 0.95 0 0 0 0.55 0.62 0 0.09 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 4.4 5.7Totals 2247 1,823,140,000 15.2 46.3 23.2 4.2 0.1 0.9 29.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 21.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126 161Notes:1 - Concentration values across intervals are not summed, rather mass loads across intervals are summed.2 - Start and end times are adjusted based on sampling times ± one hour to account for the total flow of the Cape Fear River.3 - Weighting factor was calculated by dividing the proportion of time a sample had in common with the interval by the sum of the proportion of time both samples had in common with the interval.4 - The weighted concentration was calculated by multiplying the concentration of both sample A and B by their weighting factors before summing the products. When one of the samples had a concentration below reporting limit, only the sample with a concentration above the reporting limit was used in the calculation without using the weighting factor.5 - The calculated mass load is a product of weighted concentration and total river flow.Calculated Mass Load 5 (kg)Interval DetailsTR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 13SUMMARY OF MASS DISCHARGE AT TAR HEEL FERRY ROAD BRIDGEChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants NC P.C.Location ID Field Sample ID Collection DateHours composited1Total Table 3+ (ng/L) (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (ng/L) (20 compounds)Total Volume2 (m3)Mass Discharge (mg/s) (Total Table 3+17 Compounds)Mass Discharge (mg/s) (Total Table 3+20 Compounds)TARHEEL FAY-CFR-TARHEEL-021420 2/14/2020 0 25 35 0 13 18TARHEEL CAP1Q20-TARHEEL-032720 3/26/2020 0 150 190 0 35 44CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120 3/31/20 12:00 83 52 63 90,537,000 1619CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D 3/31/20 12:00 83 56 65 90,537,00017 20CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-48-040220 4/2/20 13:00 48 86 110 27,145,000 1417TARHEEL CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220 4/2/20 15:45 0 91 130 0 12 18CFR-TARHEEL CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320 4/3/20 15:00 24 120 160 9,059,5001316CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0406204/6/20 0:308313016024,943,0001113CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-79-0409204/9/20 6:307920025016,692,0001214CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0419204/19/20 1:3083718155,521,0001315CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0422204/22/20 13:308312013027,679,0001112CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0426204/26/20 0:498311014028,492,0001114CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0429204/29/20 11:498313017022,889,0009.913CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-62-0502205/2/20 23:49628613054,164,0002131CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0506205/6/20 11:4983517472,975,0001218CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0511205/9/20 11:49838211049,716,0001419CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-0513205/13/20 9:498314019016,295,0007.811CFR-TARHEELCAP2Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-051420 5/14/20 8:55020027008.712CFR-TARHEELCAP2Q20-TARHEEL-24-0514205/14/20 20:50241902503,642,8007.911CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0516205/16/20 19:498319026011,836,0007.610CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0520205/20/20 8:498326034010,892,0009.512CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-0525205/25/20 10:1504.29.602.86.4CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-0529205/29/20 9:100111104.84.8CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-0601206/1/20 14:2509.215069.9CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-060120-D6/1/20 14:250111307.28.5CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-0605206/5/20 10:550475302022CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-39-0608206/8/20 21:06824558103,370,0001620CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0612206/12/20 8:0682729357,424,0001418CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0615206/15/20 19:0682758858,162,0001517CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0619206/19/20 6:06829010087,694,0002730CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0622206/22/20 17:06824049118,770,0001620CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0626206/26/20 4:06827911069,784,0001925CFR-TARHEELCFR-TARHEEL-83-0629206/29/20 15:068212016036,416,0001519Notes:1 - Samples with a composting duration of zero (0) hours are grab samples.2 - Total flow volume is determined based on measurements taken over the sample collection period.ng/L - nanograms per literm3 - cubic metersmg/s - milligrams per secondTR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 14PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL POTENTIAL PATHWAYS Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants NC P.C.Transport Pathway NumberPotential PFAS Transport PathwayAnalytical Data Source for Mass Loading Model1Flow Data Source for Mass Loading Model11 Upstream River and GroundwaterMeasured from Cape Fear River Mile 76 sample collected in May 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates from USGS gauging station at W.O. Huske Dam during May 2020 volumetrically adjusted for flow pathways between River Mile 76 and W.O. Huske Dam2.2 Willis CreekMeasured from Willis Creek sample collected in May 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through point velocity method during May 2020 as reported in Appendix C.3 Aerial Deposition on RiverEstimated from air deposition modeling3.Estimated from air deposition modeling3.4 Outfall 002Measured from Outfall 002 sample collected in May 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured daily Outfall 002 flow rates recorded in Facility discharge monitoring reports, summarized in Appendix C.5 Onsite GroundwaterMeasured from monitoring well samples collected in February 2020 as reported in Table 10.Estimated as the sum of the mass flux from the Black Creek Aquifer calculated from a transect along the Cape Fear River. Further details and supporting calculations provided in Appendix F.6 SeepsMeasured from Seeps A, B, C, and D samples collected in May 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through flumes during May 2020 as reported in Appendix C.7 Old Outfall 002Measured from Old Outfall 002 sample collected in May 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through flumes during May 2020 as reported in Appendix C.8 Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterEstimated using a scaling factor applied to upstream mass discharge. See Section 7.2.6 for details. Estimated using a scaling factor applied to upstream mass discharge. See Appendix I for details. 9 Georgia Branch CreekMeasured from Georgia Branch Creek sample collected in May 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through point velocity method during May 2020 as reported in Appendix C.Notes:1 - Flow and concentration data are multiplied together to estimate the PFAS mass discharge in the Cape Fear River originating from each pathway.2 - Cape Fear River flow rates measured at USGS gauging station #02105500 located at William O Huske Lock & Dam accessed from https://waterdata.usgs.gov on 2020-05-20 at 14:59:08 EDT.3 - ERM, 2018. Modeling Report: HFPO-DA Atmospheric Deposition and Screening Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.TR0795Page 1 of 1September 2020
TABLE 15ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 2 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Pathway Number1124Pathway NameUpstream River Water and GroundwaterWillis CreekOutfall 0023Onsite Groundwater - Lower Bound4Onsite Groundwater - Upper Bound4Flow (MG)1091 5.1 22 -- --Instantaneous Flow (ft3/sec)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Program CAP SW Sampling 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20Location IDCFR-MILE-76WC-1OUTFALL 002‐‐‐‐Field Sample ID CAP2Q20-CFR-RM-76-051320 CAP2Q20-WC-1-24-051420 CAP2Q20-OUTFALL 002-24-051420‐‐‐‐Sample Date and Time25/13/20 8:205/14/20 9:205/14/20 10:17----Sample Delivery Group (SDG)320-60921-1410-2519-1410-2521-1Lab Sample ID320-60921-1410-2519-5410-2521-1Sample TypeGrab24-Hour Composite24-Hour Composite----Table 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge6 (mg/s)Hfpo Dimer AcidND0.091 0.083 0.035 0.378PFMOAAND0.218 0.016 0.250 2.82PFO2HxAND0.089 0.009 0.073 0.797PFO3OAND0.013 0.001 0.021 0.256PFO4DAND0.003ND0.008 0.127PFO5DAND ND ND0.002 0.030PMPA1.29 0.122 0.006 0.023 0.258PEPAND0.027ND0.006 0.072PS AcidND ND ND0.000 0.007Hydro-PS AcidND0.002ND0.001 0.013R-PSDA1.10 0.016 0.000 0.002 0.023Hydrolyzed PSDA0.096 0.096 0.105 0.003 0.034R-PSDCAND ND ND0.000 0.001NVHOS0.182 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.027EVE Acid ND ND ND0.000 0.001Hydro-EVE AcidND0.001ND0.001 0.009R-EVEND0.010 0.002 0.001 0.014PESND ND ND ND NDPFECA BND ND ND ND NDPFECA-GND ND ND ND NDTotal Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7NDNDND0.373.90Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)7NDNDND0.374.005TR0795Page 1 of 4September 2020
TABLE 15ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 2 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Pathway Number1Pathway NameFlow (MG)Instantaneous Flow (ft3/sec)ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample Date and Time2Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDSample TypeTable 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge6 (mg/s)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)76A6B6C6D7Seep ASeep BSeep CSeep DOld Outfall 0020.240.210.070.210.89‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20SEEP-A SEEP-B SEEP-C SEEP-D OLDOF-1CAP2Q20-SEEP-A-24-051420 CAP2Q20-SEEP-B-24-051420 CAP2Q20-SEEP-C-24-051420 CAP2Q20-SEEP-D-24-051420 CAP2Q20-OLDOF-1-24-0514205/14/20 9:455/14/20 10:255/14/20 10:355/14/20 10:555/14/20 11:30410-2519-1410-2519-1410-2519-1410-2519-1410-2521-1410-2519-1410-2519-2410-2519-3410-2519-4410-2521-224-Hour Composite24-Hour Composite24-Hour Composite24-Hour Composite24-Hour Composite0.3320.2020.1240.2360.3631.241.740.6520.9063.080.5180.4120.1990.2630.7800.1660.0780.0520.0630.1950.0930.0100.0110.0170.0660.0410.0010.0000.0010.0230.2070.2750.0420.0690.2650.0780.0920.0130.021ND0.065 0.010ND ND0.0200.017 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.0150.031 0.032 0.006 0.010 0.0130.383 0.284 0.011 0.023 0.0820.001 0.000 0.000ND ND0.013 0.019 0.006 0.008 0.0340.011 0.015ND ND ND0.020 0.012 0.006 0.010 0.0090.016 0.019 0.007 0.011 0.009ND ND ND ND NDND ND ND ND NDND ND ND ND NDND ND ND ND NDND ND ND ND NDTR0795Page 2 of 4September 2020
TABLE 15ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 2 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Pathway Number1Pathway NameFlow (MG)Instantaneous Flow (ft3/sec)ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample Date and Time2Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDSample TypeTable 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge6 (mg/s)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)79--Georgia Branch CreekTar Heel Ferry Road Bridge7.6960‐‐‐‐CAP SW Sampling 2Q20CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20GBC-1TARHEELCAP2Q20-GBC-1-051320CAP2Q20-TARHEEL-24-0514205/13/20 13:555/14/20 20:50320-60920-1410-2521-1320-60920-5410-2521-424-Hour Composite24-Hour Composite0.1501.611.960.9670.0378.1410.73.700.1072.453.171.390.0170.6060.8410.3620.0050.2130.3320.105ND0.0680.097ND0.2601.271.501.1780.0670.3020.368NDND0.096 0.102ND0.009 0.052 0.064ND0.043 0.154 0.174 0.673ND0.987 1.02 1.93ND0.001 0.002ND0.001 0.088 0.113 0.202ND0.026 0.027NDND0.058 0.066ND0.014 0.089 0.101 0.206ND0.000 0.000NDND0.000 0.000NDND0.000 0.000NDND0.37 3.90NDND0.37 4.00NDSum of All Pathways - Upper BoundSum of All Pathways - Lower BoundTR0795Page 3 of 4September 2020
TABLE 15ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 2 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAYChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Pathway Number1Pathway NameFlow (MG)Instantaneous Flow (ft3/sec)ProgramLocation IDField Sample IDSample Date and Time2Sample Delivery Group (SDG)Lab Sample IDSample TypeTable 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge6 (mg/s)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS AcidHydro-PS AcidR-PSDAHydrolyzed PSDAR-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)7------Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge5Bladen Bluff5Kings Bluff5‐‐--‐‐1,5401,6801670CAP SW Sampling 2Q20CAP SW Sampling 2Q20 CAP SW SAMPLING 2Q20TARHEELCFR-BLADENCFR-KINGSNotes:CAP2Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-051420 CAP2Q20-CFR-BLADEN-051320 CAP2Q20-CFR-KINGS-0519205/14/20 8:555/13/20 18:155/19/20 9:25320-60921-1320-60920-1410-2520-1320-60921-3320-60920-6410-2520-1GrabGrabGrab1.051.190.8513.273.763.551.481.671.320.3880.4570.3260.1050.1470.099NDNDND2.142.431.09NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.441.430.8041.311.521.47NDNDND0.2010.1950.151NDNDNDNDNDND0.2440.1900.567NDNDNDBold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limitND ND ND SOP - Standard Operating ProcedureND ND NDND ND NDND ND ND5 - Mass discharge values for grab samples collected at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge, Bladen Bluff, and Kings Bluff are determined based on instantaneous flow rates.6 - Mass discharge by analyte is calculated based on Table 3+ concentrations in Tables 8 and 10 and 24-hour flow volumes reported in Table 9. 1 - Pathway 3 (Aerial Deposition on Water Features) and Pathway 8 (Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater) are not included in this table. Loading from Pathway 3 was estimated using relative concentration ratios from offsite wells, and loading from Pathway 8 was estimated by scaling to the upstream offsite groundwater loading. Further details are provided in Appendices H and I.2 - For composite samples, the end of the composite sample time period is listed as the sample date and time.3 - Total Table 3+ concentrations at the Intake River Water at the Facility are subtracted from Outfall 002 concentrations to compute the mass discharge at Outfall 002. 4 - Mass discharge for Onsite Groundwater (Pathway 5) is determined using calculations described in Appendix H. The lower and upper bounds on the mass discharge was calculated using the minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity in the Black Creek Aquifer as described in Appendix 7 - Total PFAS mass discharge is based on the summed Total PFAS concentrations reported in Table 8 and Table 10, which are rounded to two significant figures.TR0795Page 4 of 4September 2020
TABLE 16SUMMARY OF TOTAL PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Concentration (ng/L)Mass Loading (mg/s)Relative Contribution (Lower Bound)Relative Contribution (Upper Bound)1Upstream River Water and Groundwater21,091.14 331.69.3%7.7%2Willis Creek5.072,600 0.583.4%2.8%3Aerial Deposition on Water Features----0.010.03%0.03%4Outfall 0023221290.130.7%0.6%Onsite Groundwater (Lower Bound)4----0.372.2%Onsite Groundwater (Upper Bound)4----3.919.2%6A Seep A 0.24 270,000 2.8016.5% 13.6%6B Seep B 0.21 310,000 2.8416.7% 13.8%6C Seep C 0.07 340,000 1.116.5% 5.4%6DSeep D30.21 180,000 1.639.6% 7.9%7 Old Outfall 002 0.89 120,000 4.6827.6% 22.8%8 Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater ----0.593.5% 2.9%9 Georgia Branch Creek 7.62 2,000 0.673.9% 3.2%Calculated Total Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Lower Bound)17.0Calculated Total Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Upper Bound)20.6Measured Total Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Composite Sample)960 1908.0Notes:1 - Total flow volume is determined based on measurements taken over 24-hour sample collection period for all locations except Georgia Branch Creek and Willis Creek. At these locations, the total flow volume was estimated based on the instantaneous flow measurement. 2 - The volumetric flow rate for upstream river water and groundwater was estimated by subtracting inflows from Willis Creek, upwelling groundwater, seeps to the river, and Outfall 002 and by adding the river water intake from Chemours to the flow rate measurement from the W.O. Huske Dam.3 - Total PFAS concentrations at the Intake River Water at Facility location are subtracted from Outfall 002 concentrations to compute the mass discharge at Outfall 002. 4 - Mass Discharge for Onsite Groundwater was determined using calculations described in Appendix F. The lower and upper bounds on the mass discharge were calculated using the minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity in the Black Creek Aquifer as described in Appendix F.5Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Pathway Pathway NameTotal Flow Volume on Sample Date (MG)1TR0795Page 1 of 2September 2020
TABLE 16SUMMARY OF TOTAL PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.1Upstream River Water and Groundwater21,091.142 Willis Creek 5.073 Aerial Deposition on Water Features --4Outfall 002322Onsite Groundwater (Lower Bound)4--Onsite Groundwater (Upper Bound)4--6A Seep A 0.246B Seep B 0.216C Seep C 0.076DSeep D30.217 Old Outfall 002 0.898 Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater --9 Georgia Branch Creek 7.62Calculated Total Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Lower Bound)Calculated Total Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Upper Bound)Measured Total Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Composite Sample)960Notes:1 - Total flow volume is determined based on measurements taken over 24-hour sample collection period for all locations except Georgia Branch Creek and Willis Creek. At these locations, the total flow volume was estimated based on the instantaneous flow measurement. 2 - The volumetric flow rate for upstream river water and groundwater was estimated by subtracting inflows from Willis Creek, upwelling groundwater, seeps to the river, and Outfall 002 and by adding the river water intake from Chemours to the flow rate measurement from the W.O. Huske Dam.3 - Total PFAS concentrations at the Intake River Water at Facility location are subtracted from Outfall 002 concentrations to compute the mass discharge at Outfall 002. 4 - Mass Discharge for Onsite Groundwater was determined using calculations described in Appendix F. The lower and upper bounds on the mass discharge were calculated using the minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity in the Black Creek Aquifer as described in Appendix F.5Pathway Pathway NameTotal Flow Volume on Sample Date (MG)1Concentration (ng/L)Mass Loading (mg/s)Relative Contribution (Lower Bound)Relative Contribution (Upper Bound)582.813.8%11.7%3,100 0.693.4%2.9%--0.010.03%0.02%2400.241.2%1.0%--0.371.9%--4.016.8%310,000 3.2116.0%13.6%350,000 3.2116.0%13.5%350,000 1.145.7%4.8%180,000 1.638.1%6.9%130,000 5.0725.2%21.4%--1.045.2%4.4%2,100 0.703.5%3.0%20.123.725011Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)TR0795Page 2 of 2September 2020
TABLE 17
CAPE FEAR RIVER TOTAL PFAS RELATIVE
MASS DISCHRAGE PER PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Lower Upper Lower Upper
[1] Upstream River Water and Groundwater 0% 0% 0% 0%
[2] Willis Creek 4% 3% 5% 3%
[3] Aerial Deposition on Water Features <1% <1% <1% <1%
[4] Outfall 002 1% <1% 1% 1%
[5] Onsite Groundwater 5% 43% 5% 42%
[6] Seeps 56% 34% 57% 35%
[7] Old Outfall 002 30% 23% 28% 17%
[8] Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater 0% 0% 0% 0%
[9] Georgia Branch Creek 4% 2% 4% 2%
Notes:
Relative contributions per pathway are presented as a range,
which represents the upper and lower bound estimates.
1 - Model estimated Total PFAS mass discharge for April
2020 is in Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment -
First Quarter 2020 Report (Geosyntec, 2020b).
2 - Model estimated Total PFAS mass discharge for May 2020
is presented in this report.
Pathway
Q1 2020 (April 2020)
(dry)1
Total Table 3+
(17 Compounds)
Total Table 3+
(20 Compounds)
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 September 2020
TABLE 17
CAPE FEAR RIVER TOTAL PFAS RELATIVE
MASS DISCHRAGE PER PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
[1] Upstream River Water and Groundwater
[2] Willis Creek
[3] Aerial Deposition on Water Features
[4] Outfall 002
[5] Onsite Groundwater
[6] Seeps
[7] Old Outfall 002
[8] Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater
[9] Georgia Branch Creek
Notes:
Relative contributions per pathway are presented as a range,
which represents the upper and lower bound estimates.
1 - Model estimated Total PFAS mass discharge for April
2020 is in Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment -
First Quarter 2020 Report (Geosyntec, 2020b).
2 - Model estimated Total PFAS mass discharge for May 2020
is presented in this report.
Pathway
Lower Upper Lower Upper
9% 8% 14% 12%
3% 3% 3%3%
<1% <1% <1% <1%
1% 1% 1%1%
2% 19% 2%17%
49% 41% 46% 39%
28% 23% 25% 21%
4% 3% 5%4%
4% 3% 3%3%
Total Table 3+
(17 Compounds)
Total Table 3+
(20 Compounds)
Q2 2020 (May 2020)
(dry)2
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 September 2020

TR0795 September 2020
FIGURES

")
")
")
Willis Creek
Old Outfall 002Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002
W.O. Huske Dam
Site River Water Intake
NC Highway 87Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
GBCTributary1GeorgiaBranchCreek
Site Location Map
Figure
1Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_SiteLocation.mxd Last Revised: 9/2/2020 Author: TIpSeptember 2020
Notes:1. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydro shapefile).2. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Legend
")Site Features
Site Boundary
Nearby Tributary
Observed Seep (Natural Drainage)
Site Conveyance Network
Areas at Site
Chemours Monomers IXM
Former DuPont PMDF Area
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Kuraray SentryGlas®Leased Area
Kuraray Trosifol®Leased Area
DuPont Polyvinyl FluorideLeased Area
Chemours PolymerProcessing Aid Area Power - Filtered andDemineralized WaterProduction
Kuraray Laboratory
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
^_Kings Bluff Intake Canal
ChemoursFayettevilleWorks
Start ofCape FearRiver
Wilmington
Fayetteville
Raleigh
Bladen BluffsIntake
W.O. Huske Dam
Greensboro
Tar HeelFerry RoadBridge
Virginia
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Sources: Esri, Garmin, USGS, NPS
Cape Fear River Watershed and Downstream Drinking Water Intakes
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
2Raleigh
Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_Cape Fear River Watershed and Downstream Intakes.mxd; TIp; 09/02/2020September 2020
³Deep R
i
verH awRiv
er
LittleRiver
CapeFearRiver
20 0 2010 Miles
Note:Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
^_Chemours Fayetteville Works
Upper Basin
Middle Basin
Lower Basin
RainRain
Cape F
e
ar
Ri
v
e
r
Cape F
e
ar
Ri
v
e
r
Perched Zo
n
e
Surficial Aq
u
i
f
e
r
Black Cre
e
k
Aquifer
Groun
d
w
a
t
e
r
ChemoursFayetteville WorksManufacturing Area
ChemoursFayetteville WorksManufacturing Area
Perched Zone Clay
Black CreekConfining Unit
Perched Zone Clay
Black CreekConfining Unit
Non-contact cooling water from river
Non-Chemours treated process water
Stormwater
(4) Outfall 002 (Pipe to River)
Groundwater
Seep B
Seep A
Seep C
Seep D
(1) Upstream
Cape Fear River
(3) Aerial Deposition
(9) G
e
orgi
a
Branch Creek
(2) Willis Creek
(
7
)
Old Outfall
0
02(6) Seeps
(
5
) OnSite Groundwater (8) Adjacentand Downstream
(3) Aerial Deposition
(9) G
e
orgi
a
Branch Creek
(2) Willis Creek
(
7
)
Old Outfall
0
02(6) Seeps
(
5
) OnSite Groundwater
(
8
)
A
dja
cent and
W.O. Huske DamW.O. Huske Dam Upper Cape Fear Confining Unit(4) Outfall 002 (Pipe to River)
(1) Upstream
Cape Fear River
Down
stre
a
m Groundwater
(
8
)
A
dja
cent and Down
stre
a
m Groundwater
Groundwater
(8) Adjacentand Downstream

Raleigh, NC September 2020
Figure
3
Potential PFAS Transport Pathways to the Cape Fear River from Site
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Note: Image is conceptual and is not to scaleData/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/3D CSM Illustration/ConceptualSiteModel_June2020.ai
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*Ca
p
e
F
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Intake River Water at Facility
CFR-MILE-76
OUTFALL 002
SEEP-C-1
SEEP-D-1
OLDOF-1
SEEP-A-1
SEEP-B-1SEEP-B-2
SEEP-B-TR1
SEEP-B-TR2
WC-1
W.O. Huske Dam*Old Outfall 002
Willis Creek
1,250 0 1,250625 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_StreamReaches_FlowMeasurements_April2020.mxd Last Revised: 9/2/2020 Author: TIpProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³Legend
#*Flow Measurement Location
!(Sample Location
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:* - Flow measurement was taken at W.O. Huske Dam - USGSGauge Site No. 021055001. Flow at Old Outfall 002, Seep A, Seep B, Seep C, and Seep D locations were measured using flumes.2. Flow at Willis Creek and Georgia Branch Creek were measuredusing flow velocity method.3. Results of estimated flow at these locations are provided in Table 9with supplemental flow measurement data included in Appendix C.4. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.5. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community.
!(#*GBC-1Ge
o
r
g
i
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
³
1 0 10.5 Miles
³
1
2
1
2
Sample and Flow MeasurementLocations - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
4Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
September 2020
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
!(
!(
!(
CFR-BLADEN
CFR-MILE-76
CFR-TARHEEL
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_CapeFearRiverSampleLocations_April2020.mxd Last Revised: 9/2/2020 Author: TIpProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³
Notes:1. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.2. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
³
25 0 2512.5 Miles
!(
CFR-KINGS
1
³
2 0 21 Miles
2 - Downstream
Cape Fear River SampleLocations - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
5Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
September 2020
Legend
!(Sample Location
Site Boundary
Cape Fear River
1
2
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
CapeFearRi
verSeep D
Old Outfall 002
Seep C
Seep B
Seep A
Willis Creek
Georgi
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
PIW-1D
PW-04
PW-06
PW-07
SMW-11
LTW-01
LTW-03
LTW-04
PIW-1S
PIW-7S
Bladen-1D
LTW-02
LTW-05
PIW-3D
PIW-7D
PW-09
PW-11
PZ-22
SMW-10
SMW-12
Groundwater Monitoring Well Network
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
6Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_BaselineGroundwaterMonitoringWellNetwork.mxd; TIp; 9/2/2020September 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Notes:1. Due to the scale of the map, pairs of wells that are in close proximity have been offset for visibility. Therefore, the placement of these wells on this map do not reflect their true geographic coordinates.2. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Departmentof Environmental Quality Online GIS.3. Basemap source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
Legend
!'A Surficial Aquifer
!'A Floodplain Deposits
!'A Black Creek Aquifer
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A@A@A@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A@A@A@A@A@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
W illis Creek
C
a
p
e
Fe
a
r
Ri
ver
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
MW-24129.14
NAF-03140.48
FTA-01134.28FTA-02132.68FTA-03133.45
MW-11124.16
MW-12S
132
MW-1S
131.11
MW-23133.89
MW-25133.69
MW-26136.18
MW-27132.02
MW-28130.46
MW-2S131.71
MW-30134.03
MW-7S136.76
MW-8S139.15 MW-9S132.09
NAF-01140.76
NAF-02140.86
NAF-04141.25
NAF-06134.91NAF-07140.73
NAF-08A140.39
NAF-09137.34
NAF-10137.77
NAF-11A133.06
NAF-12139.08
PW-01134.59
PZ-11138.18
PZ-12131.53
PZ-13
137.83
PZ-14136.39
PZ-15135.59PZ-17121.81
PZ-19R136.64
PZ-20R136.57
PZ-21R137.62
PZ-24132.94
PZ-25DRY
PZ-26133.8
PZ-27133.16
PZ-28134.2
PZ-35137.65
SMW-02135.26SMW-03DRYSMW-04ADRY
SMW-05125.03
SMW-06126.03
SMW-07128.28
SMW-08DRY
MW-24128.96
NAF-03140.82125
140130135125130
Groundwater Elevation MapPerched Zone - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
7ARaleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_GW_Contours_Maps_Perched_May2020.mxd Last Revised: 9/17/2020 Author: NBarNahoumSeptember 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
Notes:ft NAVD88 - feet North American Vertical Datum 1988.1. Depth to water measurements collected on May 5, 2020 were used to generate contours.2. Ground surface elevation contours are derived from Lidar scans performed on December 1, 2019 and December 19, 2019 by Spectral Data Consultants, Inc. 3. Seep locations identified visually as reported in Geosyntec, 2019. Seeps and Creeks Investigation Report. Chemours Fayetteville Works. 26 August 2019.4. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydro shapefile).5. Basemap source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
³
Legend
@A Monitoring Well
@A Monitoring Well Used forGroundwater Extraction
Groundwater Contours(ft NAVD88) - 5 feetinterval
Inferred GroundwaterFlow Direction
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Ground SurfaceElevation Contour (ftNAVD88) - 5 ft interval
Site Boundary
@A
@A @A@A@A@A @A
@A
@A @A
@A@A
MW-32132
MW-35
132
PZ-34131.7
PZ-33132.44
PZ-32132.88
PZ-31129.73
PZ-29133.02
MW-36
132.06
MW-34131.92
MW-33132.22
MW-31131.56
13070 0 7035 Feet
³Inset
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@AWillisCreek
C
a
p
e
Fe
a
r
Ri
ver
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
INSITU-01112.6
INSITU-02DRY
MW-13D103.62MW-14D108.73
MW-15DRR102.07
MW-16D111.39
MW-17D115.69
MW-18D87.28
MW-19D88.31
MW-20D89.21
MW-21D105.17
MW-22D111.1
NAF-08B95.63
NAF-11B94.18
PIW-10S57.96
PIW-1D34.63
PIW-5S60.68
PIW-9S50.05
PW-0289.14
PW-03105.95
PW-0470.58
PW-05120.55
SMW-01124.03
SMW-02BDRYSMW-04B101.76
SMW-06B101.75
SMW-08B106.79
SMW-0984.41
SMW-1158.44
10012011060809070110
120
100
60
80
90
70
Groundwater Elevation MapSurficial Aquifer - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
7BRaleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_GW_Contours_Maps_Surficial_May2020.mxd Last Revised: 9/17/2020 Author: NBarNahoumSeptember 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
Notes:NM - Not measuredft NAVD88 - feet North American Vertical Datum 1988.1. Depth to water measurements collected on May 5, 2020 were used to generate contours.2. Ground surface elevation contours are derived from Lidar scans performed on December 1, 2019 and December 19, 2019 by Spectral Data Consultants, Inc. 3. Seep locations identified visually as reported in Geosyntec, 2019. Seeps and Creeks Investigation Report. Chemours Fayetteville Works. 26 August 2019.4. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydro shapefile).5. Basemap source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
³
Legend
@A Monitoring Well
Groundwater Contours(ft NAVD88) - 10 feetinterval
Potentiometric SurfaceInferred
Inferred GroundwaterFlow Direction
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Ground SurfaceElevation Contour (ftNAVD88) - 5 ft interval
Site Boundary
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
W illis Creek
C
a
p
e
Fe
a
r
Ri
ver
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
BCA-0186.6
BCA-0274.56
BCA-03R100.16
BCA-04120.9
LTW-0138.03
LTW-0242.7
LTW-0340.6
LTW-0443.36
LTW-0542.72
PIW-10DR61.33
PIW-1S
33.99
PIW-2D59.46 PIW-3D36.64
PIW-4D42.15
PIW-6S39.5
PIW-7D43.05
PIW-7S43.14
PIW-8D41.52PIW-9D42.47
PW-0948.05
PW-10R48.52
PW-1140.5
PW-1292.45
PW-13116.26
PW-1486.4
PW-15R
76.31
PZ-2244.38
SMW-03B92.55
SMW-1047.04
SMW-1234.47
90807040
60
50
50
60
70
809040
Groundwater Elevation MapBlack Creek Aquifer - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
7CRaleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_GW_Contours_Maps_BlackCreek_May2020.mxd Last Revised: 9/4/2020 Author: TIpSeptember 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
Notes:ft NAVD88 - feet North American Vertical Datum 1988.1. Depth to water measurements collected on May 5, 2020 were used to generate contours.2. Ground surface elevation contours are derived from Lidar scans performed on December 1, 2019 and December 19, 2019 by Spectral Data Consultants, Inc. 3. Seep locations identified visually as reported in Geosyntec, 2019. Seeps andCreeks Investigation Report. Chemours Fayetteville Works. 26 August 2019.4. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydro shapefile).5. Basemap source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
³
Legend
@A Monitoring Well
Groundwater Contours(ft NAVD88) - 10 feetinterval
Potentiometric SurfaceInferred
Inferred GroundwaterFlow Direction
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Ground SurfaceElevation Contour (ftNAVD88) - 5 ft interval
Site Boundary
\\projectsitesb.geosyntec.com@SSL\DavWWWRoot\5\FWConsentOrder\Shared Documents\34 - P16 Quarterly Reports\01 - Quarterly Reports\2020 Q2\Report\Figures\[Figure 8 - 9 - TarheTotal Table 3+ (17 Compounds) Concentrations, Precipitation
and Daily Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
8RaleighSeptember 2020
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Total Daily Precipitation (in)Total Table 3+ (17)Concentration (ng/L)Notes:
-Total PFAS concentrations for Table 3+ (20 compounds) are provided in Table 7.
-Precipitation data are from the USGS monitoring site at the W.O. Huske Dam.
-Abbrevations:
in -inches
ng/L -nanograms per liter
ft3/s -cubic feet per second
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cape Fear River Flow (ft3/s)Total Table 3+ (17)Concentration(ng/L)Composite Sample
Grab Sample
\\projectsitesb.geosyntec.com@SSL\DavWWWRoot\5\FWConsentOrder\Shared Documents\34 - P16 Quarterly Reports\01 - Quarterly Reports\2020 Q2\Report\Figures\[Figure 8 - 9 - TarheTotal Table 3+ (17 Compounds) Mass Discharge, Precipitation
and Daily Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
9RaleighSeptember 2020
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total Daily Precipitation (in)Total Table 3+ (17)Mass Discharge (mg/s)Notes:
-Total PFAS mass discharges calculated by summing over Table 3+ compounds (20 compounds)
are provided in Table 12.
-Precipitation data are from the USGS monitoring site at the W.O. Huske Dam.
Abbrevations:
in -inches
mg/s -milligram per seconds
ft3/s -cubic feet per seconds
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cape Fear River Flow (ft3/s)Total Table 3+ (17)Mass Discharge (mg/s)Composite Sample
Grab Sample
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Ca
p
e
F
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Old Outfall 002
Willis Creek
CFR-MILE-7633
OLDOF-1120,000
OUTFALL 002
210
SEEP-A270,000
SEEP-B310,000
SEEP-C
340,000
SEEP-D180,000
WC-12,600
1,250 0 1,250625 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_StreamReaches_May_SW_Tot_Tab_3_17Compounds.mxd Last Revised: 9/2/2020 Author: TIpProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³Legend
!(Sample Location
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Total table 3+ concentration includes HFPO-DA results evaluated byEPA Method 537 Mod and does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed
PSDA, and R-EVE.3. Non-detect values were not included in sum of total Table 3+ results.4. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.5. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.6. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
!(
GBC-12,000Ge
o
r
g
i
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
³
1 0 10.5 Miles
1
2
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
³2
1
1,250 0 1,250625 Feet
Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds)in Surface Water - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
10ARaleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
September 2020
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Ca
p
e
F
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Old Outfall 002
Willis Creek
CFR-MILE-7658
OLDOF-1130,000
OUTFALL 002
350
SEEP-A310,000
SEEP-B350,000
SEEP-C
350,000
SEEP-D
180,000
WC-13,100
1,250 0 1,250625 Feet
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_StreamReaches_May_SW_Tot_Tab_3_20Compounds.mxd Last Revised: 9/11/2020 Author: NBarNahoumProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³Legend
!(Sample Location
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Total table 3+ concentration is summed over all 20 compoundsincluding R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE, and includesHFPO-DA results evaluated by EPA Method 537 Mod.3. Non-detect values were not included in sum of total Table 3+ results.4. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.5. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.6. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
!(
GBC-12,100Ge
o
r
g
i
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
³
1 0 10.5 Miles
1
2
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
³2
1
1,250 0 1,250625 Feet
Total Table 3+ Concentrations (20 Compounds)in Surface Water - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
10BRaleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
September 2020
!(
!(
!(
CFR-BLADEN
210
CFR-MILE-7633
CFR-TARHEEL200
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_RiverSamples_May_SW_Tot_Tab_3_17Compounds.mxd Last Revised: 9/2/2020 Author: TIpProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³
Notes:HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Total table 3+ concentration includes HFPO-DA results evaluated byEPA Method 537 Mod and does not include R-PSDA, HydrolyzedPSDA, and R-EVE.3. Non-detect values were not included in sum of total Table 3+ results.4. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.5. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.6. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
³
25 0 2512.5 Miles
!(
CFR-KINGS160
1
³
2 0 21 Miles
2 - Downstream
Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations(17 Compounds) - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
11ARaleigh
2 0 21 Miles
September 2020
Legend
!(Sample Location
Site Boundary
Cape Fear River
1
2
!(
!(
!(
CFR-BLADEN
270
CFR-MILE-7658
CFR-TARHEEL270
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_RiverSamples_May_SW_Tot_Tab_3_20Compounds.mxd Last Revised: 9/11/2020 Author: NBarNahoumProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³
Notes:HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Total table 3+ concentration is summed over all 20 compoundsincluding R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE, and includesHFPO-DA results evaluated by EPA Method 537 Mod.3. Non-detect values were not included in sum of total Table 3+ results.4. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.5. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.6. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
³
25 0 2512.5 Miles
!(
CFR-KINGS220
1
³
2 0 21 Miles
2 - Downstream
Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations(20 Compounds) - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
11BRaleigh
2 0 21 Miles
September 2020
Legend
!(Sample Location
Site Boundary
Cape Fear River
1
2
!(!(
!(
!(
CFR-MILE-76
2.0
CFR-TARHEEL24
CFR-BLADEN25
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_RiverSamples_May_SW_HFPODA.mxd Last Revised: 9/2/2020 Author: TIpProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³
Notes:HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community.
³
30 0 3015 Miles
!(
CFR-KINGS
18
1
³
2 0 21 Miles
2 - Downstream
Cape Fear River HFPO-DA Concentrations - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
12Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
September 2020
Legend
!(Sample Location
Site Boundary
Cape Fear River
1
2
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
WillisC r e e k
CapeFearRi
verSeep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Old Outfall 002
PIW-1D52,000
PW-042,900
PW-064,500
PW-073,700
SMW-11
17,000
LTW-01150,000
LTW-03250,000
LTW-04
190,000
PIW-7S130,000
LTW-0259,000
LTW-05290,000
PIW-3D42,000
PIW-7D220,000
PW-0936
PW-11
190,000
PZ-22270,000
SMW-1052
SMW-1213,000
Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) in Groundwater - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
13ARaleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_GW_MW_Tot_Tab_3_May2020_17Compounds.mxd Last Revised: 9/2/2020 Author: TIpSeptember 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,500 0 1,500750 Feet
Notes:
HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Total table 3+ concentration includes HFPO-DA results evaluated byEPA Method 537 Mod and does not include R-PSDA, HydrolyzedPSDA, and R-EVE.3. Non-detect values were not included in sum of total Table 3+ results.
4. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.5. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.6. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
1 0 10.5 Miles
Legend
!'A Surficial Aquifer
!'A Floodplain Deposits
!'A Black Creek Aquifer
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
!'A
G
eorgiaBra
nch
Creek
BLADEN-1D940
500 0 500250 Feet
2
1
³1
2³
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
WillisC r e e k
CapeFearRi
verSeep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Old Outfall 002
PIW-1D
52,000
PW-043,000
PW-064,600
PW-073,800
SMW-11
17,000
LTW-01150,000
LTW-03260,000
LTW-04
200,000
PIW-7S140,000
LTW-0260,000
LTW-05290,000
PIW-3D42,000
PIW-7D220,000
PW-0936
PW-11
190,000
PZ-22270,000
SMW-1052
SMW-1213,000
Total Table 3+ Concentrations (20 Compounds) in Groundwater - May 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
13BRaleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_GW_MW_Tot_Tab_3_May2020_20Compounds.mxd Last Revised: 9/11/2020 Author: NBarNahoumSeptember 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,500 0 1,500750 Feet
Notes:
HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Total table 3+ concentration is summed over all 20 compoundsincluding R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE, and includesHFPO-DA results evaluated by EPA Method 537 Mod.3. Non-detect values were not included in sum of total Table 3+ results.4. Total Table 3+ results include J-qualified data.5. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based onopen data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.6. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community.
1 0 10.5 Miles
Legend
!'A Surficial Aquifer
!'A Floodplain Deposits
!'A Black Creek Aquifer
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
!'A
G
eorgiaBra
nch
Creek
BLADEN-1D960
500 0 500250 Feet
2
1
³1
2³
\\projectsitesb.geosyntec.com@SSL\DavWWWRoot\5\FWConsentOrder\Shared Documents\34 - P16 Quarterly Reports\01 - Quarterly Reports\2020 Q2\Report\Figures\[Figure 14 - ModeComparison of Modelled and Measured Total PFAS
Mass Discharge at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
14RaleighSeptember 2020
Notes:The lower and upper bounds on the mass discharge was calculated using the minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity in the Black Creek
Aquifer as described in Appendix H.1 -Mass discharge calculatedfrom total Table 3+ concentrationsexcluding results of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.2 -Mass discharge calculatedfrom total Table 3+ concentrations summed over all 20 compounds.
MLM - Mass Loading Model
GW -groundwatermg/s -milligrams per second
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
MLM - Lower BoundMLM - Upper Bound CFR-TARHEEL MLM - Lower BoundMLM - Upper Bound CFR-TARHEELTotal PFAS Mass Loading (mg/s)Upstream River Water and GW
Willis Creek
Aerial Deposition
Outfall 002
Onsite GW
Seeps
Old Outfall 002
Adjacent and Downstream GW
Georgia Branch Creek
Tar Heel
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 Compounds)1 Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)2
17.0
20.6
8.0
20.1
11
23.7