HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.09.30_CCOA.p4(c)_Stomwater Treatment System ReportSTORMWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM CAPTURE AND REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY REPORT
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Prepared for
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
22828 NC Highway 87
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607
Project Number TR0807E
September 30, 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
9/30/2021
TR0807E ES-1 September 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Stormwater Treatment System Removal Efficiency and Capture Report has been prepared
pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Addendum to Consent Order Paragraph 12 (CO Addendum).
Paragraph 4(c) requires that Chemours demonstrate that the Monomers/Ion Exchange Materials
(IXM) stormwater capture and treatment system (the Treatment System) consistently captures
stormwater from the Monomers/IXM area in rain events up to one (1) inch within a 24-hour
period and removes per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) parameters, as measured by
concentrations of indicator parameters hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA),
perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid (PMPA), and 2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic
acid (PFMOAA), at a minimum removal efficiency of 99%.
During the July through August 2021 evaluation period:
The Treatment System appears to have consistently captured stormwater runoff from
precipitation events of up to the 1-inch, 24-hour design storm.1,2
The Treatment System removed all three indicator PFAS to greater than 99% during the
months of July and August 2021.
The overall capture and efficiency of the Treatment System is within expectations of design and
meeting the requirements of CO Addendum paragraph 4(c).
1 For the July through August 2021 evaluation period, bypass flow was estimated using the methods described in Section 4.4.1.
Bypass is planned to be measured at the overflow pipes moving forward; continuous flow meters are currently installed and
undergoing calibration.
2 As described in Section 5.1, during the first precipitation event after commissioning, an equipment malfunction resulted in a
small volume of stormwater runoff being diverted to bypass. This malfunction was corrected within 30 minutes of rainfall
beginning. Mechanisms have been put into place to avoid this in the future.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E i September 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
2 TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 1
3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
SAMPLING PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 3
4 METHODS AND SCOPE .................................................................................... 4
4.1 Sampling Schedule, Types, and Locations .................................................. 4
4.2 Field Methods .............................................................................................. 5
4.2.1 Field QA/QC Samples .................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Field Parameters .............................................................................. 5
4.2.3 Sample Packing and Shipping ......................................................... 5
4.3 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................... 6
4.4 Flow Measurement Methods ....................................................................... 6
4.4.1 Bypass Estimates ............................................................................. 8
4.5 Removal Efficiency Calculations ................................................................ 8
4.6 Associated Data Recording Scope ............................................................. 10
5 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Evaluation of Consistent Capture of the 1-inch, 24-hour Design Storm ... 11
5.1.1 West Diversion Sump September 2021 Capture Data .................. 12
5.2 Removal Efficiency Evaluation ................................................................. 13
6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 14
6.1 Summary .................................................................................................... 14
6.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 14
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 16
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E ii September 2021
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sampling and Analysis and Flow Measurement – July and August 2021
Table 2: PFAS and Associated Analytical Methods – July and August 2021
Table 3: Analytical Results – July and August 2021
Table 4: Field Parameters – July and August 2021
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Drainage Area to the Proposed Stormwater Treatment System
Figure 2: Approximate Location of Diversion Sumps, EQ Storage, and Stormwater
Treatment System
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Laboratory Reports and Data Review Narrative
Appendix B: Monthly Monitoring Reports for July through August 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E iii September 2021
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CO Consent Order
EQ equalization
DVM Data Verification Module
EIM Environmental Information Management
HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
IXM ion exchange materials
NCCW non-contact cooling water
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFMOAA 2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acid
PMPA perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
TSS total suspended solids
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 1 September 2021
1 INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C. (Geosyntec) has prepared this Stormwater
Treatment System Removal Efficiency and Capture Report on behalf of The Chemours
Company FC, LLC (Chemours) pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 4(c) of the
Addendum to Consent Order Paragraph 12 (CO Addendum). Paragraph 4(c) requires
that Chemours demonstrate that the Monomers/Ion Exchange Materials (IXM)
stormwater capture and treatment system (the Treatment System) consistently captures
stormwater from the Monomers/IXM area in rain events up to one (1) inch within a 24-
hour period and removes per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) parameters, as
measured by concentrations of indicator parameters hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer
acid (HFPO-DA), perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid (PMPA), and 2,2-difluoro-
2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acid (PFMOAA), at a minimum removal efficiency of 99%.
This summary report presents the demonstration that the Treatment System meets these
requirements based on the methods and scope outlined in the Stormwater Treatment
System Sampling Plan (the Sampling Plan; Geosyntec, 2021a). Pursuant to CO
Addendum paragraph 4(b), the Sampling Plan was submitted to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) on September 30, 2020; revised based
on comments received from NCDEQ on April 26, 2021 and resubmitted on May 11,
2021; and approved by NCDEQ on June 25, 2021 (Chernikov, Sergei. Email to Christel
Compton. June 25, 2021). The Sampling Plan and associated monthly Monitoring
Reports may be modified based on changes in site conditions, adjustments in
understanding of site conditions, or potential sampling requirements in future permits
for the Treatment System, such as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit.
2 TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Chemours installed a Treatment System which became operational as of June 30, 2021
and serves to remove PFAS from stormwater runoff from 13.9 acres within the
Monomers/IXM area (Figure 1). The Treatment System was installed adjacent to the
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Stormwater runoff from the Monomers/IXM area
is diverted from the site conveyance network into sumps and transferred to EQ storage
(Figure 2). Stormwater is currently transferred to a temporary tank; a permanent tank
will be commissioned following completion of WWTP upgrades. The channels
surrounding the Monomers/IXM area formerly conveyed combined stormwater and
non-contact cooling water (NCCW); the NCCW has mostly been separated from
stormwater and is now conveyed in a separate pipe that discharges into the conveyance
network channels downstream of the stormwater capture area.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 2 September 2021
The stormwater capture system comprises two sumps, the east diversion sump and the
west diversion sump. These sumps act as collection points for stormwater and provide
intermediate storage before pumps located in the sumps transfer the water to
equalization (EQ) storage. The east diversion sump is located in the southwest corner of
the Monomers area. The west diversion sump is located adjacent to the northeast
conveyance channel alignment.
Starting June 30, 2021, stormwater flows in the conveyance network surrounding the
Monomers/IXM area were captured, collected, and transferred to EQ storage. The
diversion sumps, pumps, EQ storage, and Treatment System were collectively sized to
capture stormwater runoff from a 1-inch, 24-hour design storm from the drainage area
shown in Figure 1.
While the channels surrounding the Monomers/IXM area now primarily serve as
stormwater only collection channels, during the initial startup and commissioning
phases, and during maintenance events, some NCCW flows and other non-stormwater
flows were periodically conveyed in the channels. Nominal non-stormwater flows that
were diverted to EQ storage were treated along with captured stormwater by the
Treatment System.
A design storm is a hypothetical discrete rainstorm (in this case, characterized by a
specific rainfall of 1 inch and 24 hours of duration using a National Resource
Conservation Service [NRCS] Type II storm distribution to simulate a peak intensity)
that is used in the design of a stormwater control measure. Sizing a stormwater control
measure involves calculating the volume of runoff resulting from the specified design
storm that will drain to the control measure. Therefore, the Treatment System was sized
to capture and treat runoff equivalent to the design storm volume. The Treatment
System was also designed to capture runoff from the peak intensity of the design storm
event. The Treatment System will not necessarily capture and treat all runoff from
larger storms or a series of storm events that occur in close proximity to each other,
including successive 1 inch, 24-hour storm events.
The basis of design for the Treatment System, including sizing calculations, is described
in Geosyntec (2021b). The design volume for the 1-inch storm was estimated to be
300,800 gallons; consequently, pumps for the east and west diversion sumps have been
designed and installed to capture up to the design storm volume in a 24-hour period and
convey this volume to EQ storage.
The Treatment System has been constructed to treat collected stormwater in EQ storage
at a design flowrate of 150 gallons per minute and to achieve effluent targets for the
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 3 September 2021
indicator parameters HFPO-DA, PMPA, and PFMOAA. The Treatment System
includes: (i) a settling tank and solids handling system for the backwash waste from the
prefiltration system and carbon beds (which may include chemical dosing skids); (ii)
prefiltration to remove total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, and other constituents
that may clog and potentially reduce PFAS removal by downstream unit operations; and
(iii) three (3) granular activated carbon vessels to remove indicator PFAS parameters.
For storm events larger than the design storm, stormwater flows that bypass the in-line
diversion structures to the Treatment System will flow to Outfall 002.
3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Implementation of the Sampling Plan is intended to achieve the following objectives:
Evaluate flow at the diversion sumps that is transferred to EQ storage for
treatment;
Evaluate flow bypassing the diversion sumps;
Evaluate flow into EQ storage;
Evaluate the flow and water quality of the stormwater influent to the Treatment
System. Influent water quality parameters evaluated include HFPO-DA, PMPA,
and PFMOAA;
Evaluate the flow and water quality of the stormwater effluent from the
Treatment System. Effluent water quality parameters evaluated include HFPO-
DA, PMPA, PFMOAA, pH, and total suspended solids (TSS);
Assess the Treatment System PFAS removal efficiency for comparison to the
CO Addendum requirement of 99% removal; and
Evaluate PFAS concentrations in the flow bypassing the diversion sumps on a
quarterly basis.
Data collected as a part of the Sampling Plan are recorded on a monthly Monitoring
Report for transmittal to NCDEQ. The Monitoring Report developed as a part of the
Sampling Plan includes separate sheets for: (1) the influent (flow transferred to EQ
storage from the diversion sumps, flow, and water quality of the stormwater influent to
Treatment System); (2) the effluent (flow and water quality of the effluent from the
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 4 September 2021
Treatment System); (3) bypass (flow and water quality of stormwater bypassing the
Treatment System); and (4) removal efficiency calculations.
This summary report presents the data collected and analyses conducted for the
evaluation period of July through August 2021 for stormwater capture and removal
efficiency of the Treatment System.
4 METHODS AND SCOPE
This section summarizes, for the months of July and August 2021, the methods and
scope for evaluating the effectiveness of the Treatment System in (1) consistently
capturing stormwater from the Monomers/IXM area in events up to one (1) inch within
a 24-hour period; and (2) removing indicator PFAS parameters at a minimum removal
efficiency of 99%. The sampling and flow measurement methods implemented and
described below were largely in accordance with the Sampling Plan (Geosyntec,
2021a). Some minor modifications were necessary due to delays in equipment receipt
and Treatment System operations and are noted below.
4.1 Sampling Schedule, Types, and Locations
The Sampling Plan specifies collection of influent and effluent samples for up to four
sampling events each month for use in the calculation of the system removal
effectiveness, provided there is sufficient rainfall and volume to collect the samples.
The ability to collect samples was therefore dependent upon the Treatment System
operations and the occurrence of rainfall events of sufficient volume to start-up and
operate the Treatment System.
In accordance with the Sampling Plan, influent and effluent sampling was performed
when the Treatment System was discharging treated stormwater and sampling events
were collected at least three days apart. Sampling events are referred to as Monitored
Discharge Events for reporting purposes. Influent and effluent samples were collected
three times in July 2021 (July 2, 2021; July 8, 2021; and July 19, 2021) and four times
in August 2021 (August 4, 2021; August 10, 2021; August 18, 2021; and August 22,
2021).
The Sampling Plan also specifies the evaluation of bypass samples at least once a
quarter. Bypass samples for 2021 Quarter 3 (July – September 2021) were collected on
September 21, 2021 once stormwater began bypassing the sumps after approximately
1.50 inches of rainfall. The samples collected from this event have been submitted for
analysis, but results have not yet been received. The quarterly bypass results from the
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 5 September 2021
September 21, 2021 bypass event will be reported on the September 2021 Monitoring
Report.
4.2 Field Methods
Influent and effluent samples were collected as time-weighted composite samples. In
accordance with the Sampling Plan, samples were generally collected on the first day of
operation of the Treatment System during a treatment event; subsequent days were not
sampled unless there were at least three days between sample collection. Due to
pandemic-related supply chain issues and subsequent backorders on autosamplers, the
autosamplers were not installed for the July and August 2021 sampling events and grab
samples were collected manually for compositing. Samples were manually collected
into pre-cleaned, 250 milliliter high density polyethylene bottles every two hours during
the Treatment System operations for the Monitored Discharge Event and were
composited into one sample for analysis.
4.2.1 Field QA/QC Samples
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples, including field duplicates,
equipment blanks, and field blanks, are specified to be collected to meet an overall
frequency of a minimum of twenty percent (20%) for the program. A field duplicate
was collected on July 8, 2021. Equipment blanks were not collected because non-
dedicated sampling equipment (e.g., an autosampler) was not used for sample collection
during the July through August 2021 evaluation period. Equipment blanks will be
collected in the future once autosamplers are installed for sample collection. Field
blanks will also be collected during future sampling events.
4.2.2 Field Parameters
Field parameters (e.g., pH, temperature, turbidity) were measured at the beginning of
composite sampling (after the first subsample was collected), and after composite
sampling was completed (collected from the composite sample reservoir). Location-
specific field forms were used to record information regarding additional items such as
QA/QC, sample identifications, color, odor, and other field observations.
4.2.3 Sample Packing and Shipping
After sample collection, labelled and containerized samples were placed inside an
insulated sample cooler with ice. Prior to shipment of the samples to the laboratory, a
chain of custody form was completed identifying sample locations, sample
identification numbers, and specific laboratory analyses to be performed on the
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 6 September 2021
samples. Chain of custody forms were signed by the field personnel relinquishing the
samples to the courier and were signed by the laboratory upon receipt of the cooler.
Samples were shipped to and analyzed at Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories
Environmental (Lancaster, PA).
4.3 Laboratory Methods
Samples were analyzed using the methods shown in Table 1.
Each influent and effluent sample was analyzed for HFPO-DA, PMPA, and PFMOAA.
Effluent samples were also analyzed for TSS.
The quarterly grab sample collected on September 21, 2021 from flow bypassing the
diversion sumps will be analyzed for Table 3+ parameters. PFAS reported under the
Table 3+ Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure are listed in Table 2.
Data were reviewed using the Data Verification Module (DVM) within the LocusTM
Environmental Information Management (EIM) system, which is a commercial
software program used to manage data. Following the DVM process, a manual review
of the data was conducted. The data usability, in view of the project’s data quality
objectives, was assessed and the data were entered into the EIM system. Laboratory
reports and the data review narrative whitebooks are provided in Appendix A.
4.4 Flow Measurement Methods
The Sampling Plan identified seven locations to collect flow or water level
measurements to assess Treatment System capture efficiency. During Treatment System
operations in July through August 2021, some of the flow measurement methods
outlined in the Sampling Plan were modified due to delays in equipment receipt.
Additionally, some flow measurement locations were determined to be duplicative of
other measurement locations. The Sampling Plan provided provisions for modifying
methods due to site conditions. Modifications to methods used for the July through
August 2021 evaluation period are outlined below. Flow measurement locations are also
summarized in Table 1.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 7 September 2021
Flow
Measurement
Location
Sampling Plan
Methods
July through August 2021
Modified Methods
Reason for Modification
East Diversion
Sump
Totalizer East and west diversion flows
measured via a totalizer and
recorded as a combined total;
see Influent to the equalization
(EQ) storage parameter
Simplify reporting requirements;
totalizer measuring east and
west diversion flows to EQ
storage reported as a combined
total
East Diversion
Sump Bypass
Continuous flow
measurement
Bypass flow estimated based
on SWMM model and
measured water level in sump
(see Section 4.4.1)
Instrumentation to measure
bypass at overflow pipe has not
yet been installed due to delays
in equipment receipt
West Diversion
Sump
Totalizer East and west diversion flows
measured via a totalizer and
recorded as a combined total;
see Influent to the EQ Storage
System parameter
Simplify reporting requirements;
totalizer measuring east and
west diversion flows to EQ
storage reported as a combined
total
West Diversion
Sump Bypass
Continuous flow
measurement
Bypass flow estimated based
on SWMM model (see Section
4.4.1)
Instrumentation to measure
bypass at overflow pipe not yet
installed due to delays in
equipment receipt
Influent to EQ
Storage
Continuous flow
measurement
Totalizer Instrumentation is a totalizer and
not a continuous flow
measurement. Represents the
combined east and west
diversion flows
Influent to the
Treatment System
Continuous flow
measurement
Totalizer at Treatment System
discharge; see Effluent from
the Treatment System
parameter
Simplify reporting requirements;
assumed influent to the
treatment system on a daily
basis is equivalent to the
measured effluent flow
Discharge from
the Treatment
System
Continuous flow
measurement
Totalizer at Treatment System
discharge
Instrumentation on effluent of
the Treatment System is a
totalizer and not a continuous
flow measurement
If there was no recorded discharge from the Treatment System, the Monitoring Report
was marked as “no discharge.” The Monitoring Reports for July 2021 and August 2021
are provided in Appendix B.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 8 September 2021
4.4.1 Bypass Estimates
Due to pandemic-related supply chain issues, bypass flow meters were not installed
until late September 2021 to measure flow in the overflow pipes. Bypass flows on
precipitation days were estimated by comparing the volume transferred to EQ storage to
runoff volume estimates generated from Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)
version 5.1. The SWMM model was previously developed to size the Treatment System
as detailed in Geosyntec (2021b) and was simulated using onsite precipitation recorded
from July through August 2021. Daily runoff volumes were summed from the model
output and compared to the daily recorded volumes that were transferred to EQ storage.
The daily bypass volume was estimated to be the difference between the modeled daily
runoff volume and the daily volume transferred to EQ storage.
For the precipitation days where runoff volume exceeded the volume transferred to EQ
storage, the percentage of the east diversion sump capacity that was full was evaluated
to verify bypass occurred as predicted by the model. The invert elevation of the
overflow pipe in the east sump is equivalent to the elevation at which the east diversion
sump capacity is 80% full. If the east diversion sump was greater than 80% full on
precipitation days where bypass was estimated to have occurred (based on the first
evaluation comparing modeled daily runoff volume to the daily volume transferred to
EQ storage), then it was assumed a bypass event occurred as modeled. Bypass was
typically verified to have occurred after the total flow transferred to EQ storage
exceeded 300,800 gallons in a 24-hour period and the pumps turned off.
This evaluation of the percentage full of the sump capacity was assessed for the east
diversion sump in July and August 2021. Due to delays in equipment receipt, the west
diversion sump level transmitter was installed in late August 2021. While the west
diversion sump water level data were not available to evaluate potential bypass during
July and August 2021, a preliminary evaluation of the data collected through the end of
September 2021 was conducted for both diversion sumps. This evaluation (discussed in
Section 5.1) indicates that stormwater runoff from events up to 1 inch in 24 hours
appears to be consistently captured.
Bypass flow meters were installed in the overflow pipes during the week of September
20 – 24, 2021, and are undergoing calibration to measure bypass flows in the future.
4.5 Removal Efficiency Calculations
As outlined in the Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2021a), the Treatment System PFAS
removal effectiveness was defined by the percentage removal of each of the three
indicator parameters (HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA) on a monthly average basis
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 9 September 2021
using composite influent and effluent samples. The Treatment System PFAS removal
efficiency was calculated on a monthly average basis using Equation 1 below. Non-
detect influent and effluent sample results were assigned a value of zero for the
calculation and the values from duplicate samples were averaged together.
The system PFAS removal efficiency calculation uses volume-weighted concentrations
of the influent and effluent samples to calculate the percentage of mass removal.
Volume-weighted concentrations were developed in the event that either the influent
and effluent autosamplers have different compositing durations or that the composite
sampling periods in the month have different durations. Both circumstances could arise
due to a potential equipment malfunction or a severe weather event. Weighting by
volume provides a representative assessment of mass present in both the influent and
effluent over time; samples corresponding to greater flow volumes will have a
proportionately higher weight.
Equation 1: System Removal Effectiveness for Indicator Parameters
𝐸்ௌିூெ, ൌ ቆ1 െ 𝑐,
𝑐,
ቇൈ100%
ൌ ቆ1 െ ∑𝑐,, ൈ𝑤ெୀଵ
∑𝑐,, ൈ𝑤ேୀଵ
ቇൈ100%
ൌ ൮1 െ
∑𝑐,୫, ൈ 𝑉∑𝑉ெୀଵ
ெୀଵ
∑𝑐,, ൈ 𝑉∑𝑉ேୀଵ
ேୀଵ
൲ ൈ 100%
where,
𝐸்ௌିூெି = is the Treatment System PFAS removal efficiency for the given indicator
parameters, i (HFPO-DA, PMPA, or PFMOAA);
𝑐,= is the volume weighted effluent concentration for a given evaluation period
for the given indicator parameters, i (HFPO-DA, PMPA or PFMOAA);
𝑐, = is the volume weighted influent concentration for a given evaluation period
for the given indicator parameters, i (HFPO-DA, PMPA or PFMOAA);
𝑚 = represents an individual effluent composite sample during a given evaluation
period;
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 10 September 2021
𝑀 = is the total number of effluent composite samples during a given evaluation
period;
𝑛 = represents an individual influent composite sample during a given evaluation
period;
𝑁 = is the total number of influent composite samples during a given evaluation
period;
i = represents the three indicator parameters HFPO-DA, PMPA, or PFMOAA;
𝑐,, = is the measured concentration of the indicator parameter for each effluent
composite sample;
𝑐,, = is the measured concentration of the indicator parameter for each influent
composite sample;
𝑤 = is the effluent concentration volumetric weighting factor calculated for and
applied individually to each effluent composite sample concentration;
𝑉 = is the volume of water entering (and exiting) the Treatment System during the
effluent composite sample collection period;
𝑤 = is the influent concentration volumetric weighting factor calculated for and
applied individually to each influent composite sample concentration; and
𝑉 = is the volume of water entering (and exiting) the Treatment System during the
influent composite sample collection period.
4.6 Associated Data Recording Scope
The following types of data were evaluated during Treatment System operation and
recorded on the Monitoring Report as relevant.
Precipitation during a given evaluation period at the onsite meteorological
station;
Stormwater volume transferred to EQ storage on days with precipitation;3
3 On days without precipitation, some nominal non-stormwater flows were diverted to EQ storage due
to startup and commissioning and/or maintenance and were not recorded on the Monitoring Report as
these flows are not representative of stormwater flows. Nominal non-stormwater flows that are
diverted to EQ storage are treated along with captured stormwater by the Treatment System.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 11 September 2021
Stormwater volume treated by the Treatment System during the monthly
evaluation period;
Stormwater volume bypassing the Treatment System during the monthly
evaluation period;
Influent and effluent concentration data for Monitored Discharge Events; and
Effluent pH and TSS for Monitored Discharge Events.
5 RESULTS
Analytical results from the July through August 2021 evaluation period are provided in
Table 3. Field parameters recorded during sample collection are provided in Table 4.
The Monitoring Reports for July 2021 and August 2021 are provided in Appendix B.
The evaluation of consistent capture of the 1-inch storm and removal efficiency
evaluation are described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.
5.1 Evaluation of Consistent Capture of the 1-inch, 24-hour Design Storm
The following section describes an assessment of capture of the 1-inch, 24-hour design
storm based on an evaluation of the days when bypass was estimated to have occurred.
Estimated bypass flows for the evaluation period demonstrate that the Treatment
System is capable of capturing the 1-inch, 24-hour design storm. During the reporting
period, 13 days in July 2021 and 11 days in August 2021 had observed precipitation.
Bypass was estimated to have occurred on three days in July 2021 and no bypass was
estimated to have occurred in August 2021. Two of the bypass events were associated
with precipitation events in excess of 1 inch in 24 hours, and the third bypass event was
attributed to equipment malfunction. The remaining 21 days in July and August 2021
had recorded precipitation less than 1 inch; bypass was not estimated to occur on these
days.
Two storm-related bypass events occurred on July 8, 2021 and July 19, 2021, during
precipitation events of 2.16 inches and 4.33 inches, respectively. On both of those days,
the design volume (nominally 300,000 gallons) was transferred to EQ storage prior to
the pumps being turned off; therefore, capture of the 1-inch, 24-hour storm was
achieved for both days and the bypasses were allowable bypass events.
Another bypass event occurred on July 2, 2021, which was the first precipitation event
that occurred after Treatment System startup on June 30, 2021. Total precipitation
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 12 September 2021
recorded during the storm event was 0.77 inches. The diversion pumps were
inadvertently locked out of service and therefore did not turn on when the sumps began
filling up; this was realized approximately 30 minutes after rainfall began and corrected.
This resulted in an estimated bypass volume of approximately 33,000 gallons.
A summary of the estimated bypass is provided in the table below.
Date Precipitation
Estimated
Runoff
from
SWMM
Volume
Transferred
to EQ
Storage
Estimated
Bypass
Volume
Volume up
to 1 inch
transferred?
Reason for
Bypass
in gal gal gal
7/2/2021 0.77 233,870 200,861 33,009 -1
Equipment
malfunction.
Pumps
locked out of
service for ~
30 minutes
7/8/2021 2.16 698,916 337,846 361,070 Yes
Storm event
greater than
1 inch
7/19/2021 4.33 1,450,073 335,790 1,114,283 Yes
Storm event
greater than
1 inch
1. This precipitation event was less than 1 inch and therefore was modeled to generate less stormwater runoff
than the design volume of 300,800 gallons.
5.1.1 West Diversion Sump September 2021 Capture Data
A preliminary evaluation of the east and west diversion sump water level data for
September 2021 was conducted to evaluate if and when bypass flows occurred during
rainfall events. The evaluation of the east and west diversion sump data indicated
bypass occurred intermittently from September 21 – 23, 2021. On the days of
September 21 to 22, 2021, two back-to-back storm events resulted in a total
precipitation depth of 2.27 inches (1.70 inches and 0.57 inches on September 21, 2021
and September 22, 2021, respectively). Bypass occurred after runoff from upwards of 1
inch of rainfall was captured on September 21, 2021. While the Treatment System
began operating starting September 21, 2021, the capacity of the EQ storage did not
allow for capture and storage of all stormwater runoff on subsequent days. This
observation is consistent with the Stormwater Capture and Treatment System
Engineering Report that stated “the Treatment System will not necessarily capture and
treat all runoff from storms with depths of one inch in 24 hours due to some storms
occurring in close time proximity to each other.” (Geosyntec, 2021b).
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 13 September 2021
Bypass was not observed during the four (4) other days with precipitation events that
were less 1 inch in 24 hours at either diversion sump. The final data will be reported in
the September 2021 Monitoring Report once the corresponding analytical results have
been received. This preliminary evaluation is consistent with observations from the July
and August 2021 period that stormwater runoff from events up to 1 inch in 24 hours
appears to be consistently captured according to expectations outlined previously.
Bypass flow meters were installed in the overflow pipes during the week of September
20 – 24, 2021, and are undergoing calibration in order to more accurately measure
bypass flows in the future.
5.2 Removal Efficiency Evaluation
Three (3) sample events in July 2021 and four (4) sample events in August 2021 were
collected and analyzed for indicator PFAS parameters (Table 3, Appendix B). The
volume-weighted influent and effluent concentrations were developed based on
methods described in Section 4.5 and recorded in the monthly Monitoring Report
(Appendix B). Percent removal of all three indicator PFAS exceeded 99% for the
months of July and August 2021, as summarized in the table below. The Treatment
System has therefore demonstrated to be capable of achieving the 99% removal
efficiency required by the CO Addendum.
Month
Volume-weighted Influent
Concentration1
Volume-weighted Effluent
Concentration1
Treatment System PFAS
Removal Efficiency for
HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and
PMPA1
HFPO-
DA
PFMO
AA PMPA HFPO-
DA
PFMO
AA PMPA HFPO-
DA
PFMO
AA PMPA
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L % % %
July 2021 26 6.6 1.2 0.002 0.031 0.000 99.99 99.53 100.0
August 2021 27 5.7 1.4 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.0 100.0 100.0
µg/L – micrograms/Liter
HFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
PFMOAA - 2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acid
PMPA - perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
1. In accordance with Equation 1 and as outlined the Sampling Plan, non-detect influent and effluent sample results
were assigned a value of zero for the volume-weighted calculation and subsequently the removal efficiency
calculation. The practical quantitation limits for the three indicator parameters ranged from 0.002 to 0.010 µg/L.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 14 September 2021
6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents the summary of the stormwater capture and treatment system
performance against CO Addendum paragraph 4(c) requirements and then presents
recommendations for ongoing sample collection and flow monitoring.
6.1 Summary
This report has demonstrated that the Treatment System is operating within the
requirements of CO Addendum paragraph 4(c). During the July through August 2021
evaluation period the following observations were made:
The Treatment System appears to have consistently captured stormwater runoff
from precipitation events up to the 1-inch, 24-hour design storm.4, 5
The Treatment System removed all three indicator PFAS to greater than 99%
during the months of July and August 2021.
The overall capture and efficiency of the Treatment System is within expectations of
design and meeting the requirements of CO Addendum paragraph 4(c).
6.2 Recommendations
During the first two months of operation, flow or water level measurements differed
from what was proposed in the Sampling Plan due to site conditions and pandemic-
related supply chain issues. Additionally, measuring flow at some of the locations was
found to be duplicative in practice. Modifications to the Sampling Plan were therefore
made in July and August 2021 and reflect improvements for the data being collected.
Geosyntec recommends that these modified methods be used for future sampling and
monitoring to streamline the monthly reporting requirements. These changes are
summarized in the table below. Chemours will submit an updated Stormwater Sampling
4 For the July through August 2021 evaluation period, bypass flow was estimated using the methods
described in Section 4.4.1. Bypass is planned to be measured at the overflow pipes moving forward;
continuous flow meters are currently installed and undergoing calibration.
5 As described in Section 5.1, during the first precipitation event after commissioning, an equipment
malfunction resulted in a small volume of stormwater runoff being diverted to bypass. This
malfunction was corrected within 30 minutes of rainfall beginning. Mechanisms have been put into
place to avoid this in the future.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 15 September 2021
Plan and example Monitoring Report to reflect these changes to NCDEQ for review and
approval.
Flow Measurement
Location
Sampling Plan Methods Proposed Method for Future
Treatment System Sampling
East Diversion Sump Totalizer Eliminate reporting as a separate
parameter; report with flow from
West Diversion Sump as Influent to
the EQ Storage
East Diversion Sump
Bypass6
Continuous flow measurement Continuous flow measurement;
currently undergoing calibration
West Diversion Sump Totalizer Eliminate reporting as a separate
parameter; report with flow from
East Diversion Sump as Influent to
the EQ Storage
West Diversion Sump
Bypass6
Continuous flow measurement Continuous flow measurement;
currently undergoing calibration
Influent to EQ Storage Continuous flow measurements Measured via totalizer associated
with combined east and west sumps
Influent to the Treatment
System
Continuous flow measurement Eliminate; assume equivalent to
effluent from Treatment System
Discharge from the
Treatment System
Continuous flow measurement Totalizer at Treatment System
discharge
Sampling and flow measurements for future months will continue to be collected in
accordance with the updated Sampling Plan. Results will be submitted via transmittal of
a Monitoring Report via email.
6 For the July through August 2021 evaluation period, bypass flow was estimated using the methods
described in Section 4.4.1. Bypass is planned to be measured at the overflow pipes moving forward;
continuous flow meters are currently installed and undergoing calibration.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TR0807E 16 September 2021
7 REFERENCES
Geosyntec, 2021a. Stormwater Treatment System Sampling Plan. May 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021b. Stormwater Capture and Treatment System Engineering Report and
Data Analysis. January 2021.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TABLES
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TABLE 1SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS AND FLOW MEASUREMENT - JULY AND AUGUST 2021Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.East Diversion SumpBypassWest Diversion SumpBypassHFPO-DA, PMPA, PFMOAATime-weighted compositeLab Analysis Table 3+ Lab SOP X XTable 3+ PFAS Grab Lab Analysis Table 3+ Lab SOP X XTSSTime-weighted compositeLab Analysis EPA SM 2540D XpH Grab Field Parameter -XFlowContinuous2Field Parameter -Estimated3Estimated3XXNotes:EQ - EqualizationHFPO-DA - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acidPFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PMPA - Perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acidPFMOAA - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acidTSS - Total Suspended SolidsSM - Standard MethodSOP - Standard Operating Procedure2. Continuous measurements were summed via a totalizer.3.. Bypass flows were estimated using the methods described in Section 4.4.1. 1. Sampling was performed when the Treatment System was discharging treated stormwater. Samples were collected up to four times per month.Parameter/Measurement Sample TypeMeasurement TypeAnalytical MethodFrom the East ChannelFrom the West ChannelSample Collection1Influent to Treatment SystemEffluent from Treatment SystemEQ StorageTR0807EPage 1 of 1September 2021DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TABLE 2PFAS AND ASSOCIATED ANALYTICAL METHODS - JULY AND AUGUST 2021Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.Table 3+(17 compounds)Table 3+(20 compounds)HFPO-DA2✔✔Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 13252-13-6 C6HF11O3PEPA✔✔Perfluoro-2-ethoxypropionic acid267239-61-2 C5HF9O3PFECA-G✔✔Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid 801212-59-9 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 acid 39492-90-5 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 acid 39492-91-6 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 801209-99-4 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 C7H2F14O5SPFHpA2-- --Perfluoroheptanoic acid375-85-9 C7HF13O2Notes:1 - Analyzed under analytical method Table 3+ Lab SOP.2 - HFPO-DA and PFHpA can be analyzed under methods Table 3+ SOP and EPA Method 537 Mod.CASRN - Chemical Abstracts Service registry numberEPA - Environmental Protection AgencyPFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances SOP - Standard Operating ProcedureTable 3+ SOPAnalytical MethodChemical FormulaCASRNChemical NamePFAS GroupingCommon Name1TR0807EPage 1 of 1September 2021DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TABLE 3ANALYTICAL RESULTS - JULY AND AUGUST 2021Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.Location IDSTS Influent STS Discharge STS Influent STS Discharge STS Discharge STS Influent STS Discharge STS DischargeField Sample ID STS Influent- 070221 STS Discharge - 070221 STS Influent-10708 STS Discharge 10708 STS-Discharge-D-10708 STS Influent-10719 STS Discharge-10719 STS Discharge-10719-DSample Date 07/02/2021 07/02/2021 07/08/2021 07/08/2021 07/08/2021 07/19/2021 07/19/2021 07/19/2021Analytical Laboratory TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmericaQA/QC -- -- -- -- Field Duplicate -- -- Field DuplicateTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer Acid18,000 J 3 27,000 J<2.0 <2.034,000 J 3.3 --PFMOAA11,000 J 110 4,300 J<2.0 <2.05,800<2.0--PMPA1,100<101,200 J<10 <101,400<10--Other Compounds (mg/L)Total Suspended Solids-- 10 J -- 15 -- -- 3.8 3.9NotesBold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precisemg/L - milligrams per literng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSOP - standard operating procedureSTS - Stormwater Treatment System-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit. TR0807EPage 1 of 2September 2021DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TABLE 3ANALYTICAL RESULTS - JULY AND AUGUST 2021Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.Location IDField Sample IDSample DateAnalytical LaboratoryQA/QCTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAAPMPAOther Compounds (mg/L)Total Suspended SolidsNotesBold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precisemg/L - milligrams per literng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSOP - standard operating procedureSTS - Stormwater Treatment System-- - No data reported< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit. STS Influent STS Discharge STS Influent STS Discharge STS Influent STS Discharge STS Influent STS DischargeSTS Influent - 10804 STS Discharge - 10804 STS Influent-081021 STS Discharge-081021 STS Influent-081821 STS Discharge-081821 STS Influent - 082221 STS Discharge - 08222108/04/2021 08/04/2021 08/10/2021 08/10/2021 08/18/2021 08/18/2021 08/22/2021 08/22/2021TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica TestAmerica-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --42,000 J<2.021,000 J<2.022,000<2.038,000 J<2.04,600 J<2.05,800 J<2.05,600<2.06,300 J<2.02,000 J<101,300 J<101,400<101,300 J<10-- 8.6 -- 6.2 -- 6.3 -- 8.2 JTR0807EPage 2 of 2September 2021DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
TABLE 4FIELD PARAMETERS - JULY AND AUGUST 2021Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.StartEndStartEndStartEndStartEndInfluent Temporal Composite 12:45 18:30 6.8 6.5 26.0 16.7 85.4 85.8 48 47 Brownish NoneEffluent Temporal Composite 13:00 18:30 6.9 7.0 26.0 16.1 81.9 73.2 26 24Brownish but more clear than influentNoneInfluent Temporal Composite 9:50 17:50 6.6 5.7 25.0 16.0 49.2 73.6 67 55 Brown NoneEffluent Temporal Composite 10:00 17:50 7.7 7.4 25.0 16.0 50.4 48.2 34 32 Mostly clear NoneInfluent Temporal Composite 9:30 15:00 6.5 6.5 27.0 16.0 71.4 72.1 20 21 Colorless NoneEffluent Temporal Composite 9:30 15:00 7.5 7.4 27.0 16.0 67.4 68.2 9 10 Colorless NoneInfluent Temporal Composite 9:40 10:40 6.9 6.9 29.0 20.0 97.1 86.5 11 12 Brown NoneEffluent Temporal Composite 9:40 10:40 6.8 6.7 29.0 20.0 89.6 90.2 13 12 Brown NoneInfluent Temporal Composite 9:40 17:30 6.3 6.3 28.0 16.0 48.7 49.1 12 13 NR NREffluent Temporal Composite 9:40 17:30 6.7 6.8 28.0 16.0 62.9 60.3 10 10 NR NRInfluent Temporal Composite 9:40 15:30 6.8 6.8 27.0 18.0 76.5 82.4 8 10 Colorless NoneEffluent Temporal Composite 9:40 15:30 6.7 6.8 27.0 18.0 126.5 103.2 14 12 Colorless NoneInfluent Temporal Composite 11:00 17:00 6.7 6.6 26.1 19.2 65.3 61.2 7 7 Colorless NoneEffluent Temporal Composite 11:00 17:00 6.6 6.5 26.5 17.8 93.6 76.4 7 20 Yellow NoneNotes:°C - degrees CelsiusµS/cm - microSiemens per centimeterNR - not recordedNTU - nephelometric turbidity unitsORP - oxidation reduction potentialSU - standard unitsField parameters for the temporal composite samples were collected once at the beginning of sampling and once from the sample reservoir at the end of composite sampling.Water Odor8/22/2021Date LocationSampling Method Sample Start Time7/8/20217/19/20218/4/20218/10/20218/18/20217/2/2021pH(SU)Temperature(°C)Specific Conductivity(µS/cm)Turbidity(NTU)Sample End TimeWater ColorTR0807EPage 1 of 1September 2021DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
FIGURES
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Drainage to the Proposed
Stormwater Treatment System
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
1Raleigh
200 0 200100 Feet
³
September 2021
Legend
Site Conveyance Network
Drainage Area to the
Stormwater Treatment
System
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
2222222222222222222222222222~4,10
0
f
t
East DiversionSump
EQ Storage
Treatment System
West DiversionSump
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Approximate Location of Diversion Sumps,EQ Storage, and Stormwater Treatment System
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
2Raleigh
500 0 500250 Feet
September 2021
NotesEQ - equalization1. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Legend
³
2 Pipe to Convey Captured Stormwater to StormwaterTreatment System
Site Conveyance Network
Stormwater Treatment System
Drainage Area to the Stormwater Treatment System
Areas at Site
Chemours Monomers/IXM
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Reports and Data Review
Narrative Whitebooks
Laboratory reports are provided to NCDEQ
via the Shared OneDrive Folder
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
ADQM Data Review
Site: Chemours Fayetteville
Project: STS Compliance Sampling July 2021
Project Reviewer: Bridget Gavaghan
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Sample Summary
* FS=Field Sample
DUP=Field Duplicate
FB=Field Blank
EB=Equipment Blank
TB=Trip Blank
Field Sample ID Lab Sample ID Sample Matrix Filtered Sample Date Sample Time Sample Purpose
DISCHARGE - 070221 410-46448-1 Other liquid N 07/02/2021 18:30 FS
STS Influent- 070221 410-46449-1 Other liquid N 07/02/2021 18:30 FS
STS DISCHARGE - 070221 410-46449-2 Other liquid N 07/02/2021 18:30 FS
STS Discharge 10708 410-46707-1 Other liquid N 07/08/2021 17:50 FS
STS Influent-10708 410-46711-1 Other liquid N 07/08/2021 17:50 FS
STS Discharge 10708 410-46711-2 Other liquid N 07/08/2021 17:50 FS
STS-Discharge-D-10708 410-46711-3 Other liquid N 07/08/2021 17:50 DUP
STS Discharge-10719 410-48282-1 Other liquid N 07/19/2021 15:00 FS
STS Discharge-10719-D 410-48282-2 Other liquid N 07/19/2021 15:00 DUP
STS Influent-10719 410-48284-1 Other liquid N 07/19/2021 15:00 FS
STS Discharge-10719 410-48284-2 Other liquid N 07/19/2021 15:00 FS
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Analytical Protocol
Lab Name Lab Method Parameter Category Sampling Program
LANCASTER LABORATORIES 2540 D-2011 Total Suspended Solids STS Compliance Sampling
LANCASTER LABORATORIES Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compound
SOP
Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl
Substances (PFAS)STS Compliance Sampling
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
ADQM Data Review Checklist
Item Description Yes No*
Not
Applicable
(NA)*
DVM
Narrative
Report
Laboratory
Report
Exception
Report
(ER) #
A
Did samples meet laboratory acceptability
requirements upon receipt (i.e., intact, within
temperature, properly preserved, and no
headspace where applicable)?
X X
B
Were samples received by the laboratory in
agreement with the associated chain of
custody?
X
C
Was the chain of custody properly
completed by the laboratory and/or field
team?
X
D Were samples prepped/analyzed by the
laboratory within method holding times? X X X
E
Were QA/QC criteria met by the laboratory
(method blanks, LCSs/LCSDs, MSs/MSDs,
PDSs, SDs, duplicates/replicates,
surrogates, total/dissolved
differences/RPDs, sample results within
calibration range)?
X X X
F
Were detections in field/equipment/trip
blanks at levels not requiring sample data
qualification?
X
G Were all data usable and not R qualified? X
ER# Description
Other QA/QC Items to Note:
* See DVM Narrative Report, Lab Report, and/or ER # for further details as indicated.
The electronic data submitted for this project was reviewed via the Data Verification Module (DVM)
process. Overall, the data is acceptable for use without qualification, except as noted on the attached
DVM Narrative Report.
The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on a network shared drive and are available to be
posted on external shared drives, or on a flash drive
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Data Verification Module (DVM)
The DVM is an internal review process used by the ADQM group to assist with the determination of data
usability. The electronic data deliverables received from the laboratory are loaded into the Locus EIM™
database and processed through a series of data quality checks, which are a combination of software
(Locus EIM™ database Data Verification Module (DVM)) and manual reviewer evaluations. The data is
evaluated against the following data usability checks:
• Field and laboratory blank contamination
• US EPA hold time criteria
• Missing Quality Control (QC) samples
• Matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recoveries and the relative percent differences
(RPDs) between these spikes
• Laboratory control sample (LCS)/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the
RPD between these spikes
• Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
• Difference/RPD between field duplicate sample pairs
• RPD between laboratory replicates for inorganic analyses
• Difference/percent difference between total and dissolved sample pairs
There are two qualifier fields in EIM:
Lab Qualifier is the qualifier assigned by the lab and may not reflect the usability of the data. This
qualifier may have many different meanings and can vary between labs and over time within the
same lab. Please refer to the laboratory report for a description of the lab qualifiers. As they are lab
descriptors they are not to be used when evaluating the data.
Validation Qualifier is the 3rd party formal validation qualifier if this was performed. Otherwise this
field contains the qualifier resulting from the ADQM DVM review process. This qualifier assesses the
usability of the data and may not equal the lab qualifier. The DVM applies the following data
evaluation qualifiers to analysis results, as warranted:
Qualifier Definition
B Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field
blanks.
R Unusable result. Analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
J Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ Not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
The Validation Status Code field is set to “DVM” if the ADQM DVM process has been performed. If the
DVM has not been run, the field will be blank.
If the DVM has been run (Validation Status Code equals “DVM”), use the Validation Qualifier.
If the data has been validated by a third party, the field “Validated By” will be set to the validator (e.g.,
ESI for Environmental Standards, Inc.).
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
DVM Narrative ReportOnly one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Detects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:STS Compliance SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSTS Influent- 07022107/02/2021410-46449-1Hfpo Dimer Acid18UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLSTS Influent- 07022107/02/2021410-46449-1PFMOAA11ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLSTS Influent-1070807/08/2021410-46711-1Pentamethylphosphoramide (PMPA)1.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.10PQLSTS Influent-1070807/08/2021410-46711-1Hfpo Dimer Acid27UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLSTS Influent-1070807/08/2021410-46711-1PFMOAA4.3ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.020PQLSTS Influent-1071907/19/2021410-48284-1Hfpo Dimer Acid34UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLPage 1 of 2DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:STS Compliance SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsDISCHARGE - 07022107/02/2021410-46448-1Total SuspendedSolids10MG/L12540 D-2011J3MDLPage 2 of 2DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
ADQM Data Review
Site: Chemours Fayetteville
Project: STS Compliance Sampling August 2021
Project Reviewer: Bridget Gavaghan
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Sample Summary
* FS=Field Sample
DUP=Field Duplicate
FB=Field Blank
EB=Equipment Blank
TB=Trip Blank
Field Sample ID Lab Sample ID Sample Matrix Filtered Sample Date Sample Time Sample
STS Influent - 10804 410-50456-1 Other liquid N 08/04/2021 10:40 FS
STS Discharge - 10804 410-50456-2 Other liquid N 08/04/2021 10:40 FS
STS Discharge - 10804 410-50457-1 Other liquid N 08/04/2021 10:40 FS
STS Influent-081021 410-51155-1 Other liquid N 08/10/2021 17:30 FS
STS Discharge-081021 410-51155-2 Other liquid N 08/10/2021 17:30 FS
STS Discharge-081021 410-51209-1 Other liquid N 08/10/2021 17:30 FS
STS Influent-081821 410-52084-1 Other liquid N 08/18/2021 15:30 FS
STS Discharge-081821 410-52084-2 Other liquid N 08/18/2021 15:30 FS
STS Discharge-081821 410-52100-1 Other liquid N 08/18/2021 15:30 FS
STS Influent - 082221 410-52976-1 Other liquid N 08/22/2021 17:00 FS
STS Discharge - 082221 410-52976-2 Other liquid N 08/22/2021 17:00 FS
STS Discharge - 082221 410-53002-1 Other liquid N 08/22/2021 17:00 FS
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Analytical Protocol
Lab Name Lab Method Parameter Category Sampling Program
LANCASTER LABORATORIES 2540 D-2011 Total Suspended Solids STS Compliance Sampling
LANCASTER LABORATORIES Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compound
SOP
Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl
Substances (PFAS)STS Compliance Sampling
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
ADQM Data Review Checklist
Item Description Yes No*
Not
Applicable
(NA)*
DVM
Narrative
Report
Laboratory
Report
Exception
Report
(ER) #
A
Did samples meet laboratory acceptability
requirements upon receipt (i.e., intact, within
temperature, properly preserved, and no
headspace where applicable)?
X
B
Were samples received by the laboratory in
agreement with the associated chain of
custody?
X X
C
Was the chain of custody properly
completed by the laboratory and/or field
team?
X
D Were samples prepped/analyzed by the
laboratory within method holding times? X X X
E
Were QA/QC criteria met by the laboratory
(method blanks, LCSs/LCSDs, MSs/MSDs,
PDSs, SDs, duplicates/replicates,
surrogates, total/dissolved
differences/RPDs, sample results within
calibration range)?
X X X
F
Were detections in field/equipment/trip
blanks at levels not requiring sample data
qualification?
X
G Were all data usable and not R qualified? X
ER# Description
Other QA/QC Items to Note:
* See DVM Narrative Report, Lab Report, and/or ER # for further details as indicated.
The electronic data submitted for this project was reviewed via the Data Verification Module (DVM)
process. Overall, the data is acceptable for use without qualification, except as noted on the attached
DVM Narrative Report.
The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on a network shared drive and are available to be
posted on external shared drives, or on a flash drive
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Data Verification Module (DVM)
The DVM is an internal review process used by the ADQM group to assist with the determination of data
usability. The electronic data deliverables received from the laboratory are loaded into the Locus EIM™
database and processed through a series of data quality checks, which are a combination of software
(Locus EIM™ database Data Verification Module (DVM)) and manual reviewer evaluations. The data is
evaluated against the following data usability checks:
• Field and laboratory blank contamination
• US EPA hold time criteria
• Missing Quality Control (QC) samples
• Matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recoveries and the relative percent differences
(RPDs) between these spikes
• Laboratory control sample (LCS)/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the
RPD between these spikes
• Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
• Difference/RPD between field duplicate sample pairs
• RPD between laboratory replicates for inorganic analyses
• Difference/percent difference between total and dissolved sample pairs
There are two qualifier fields in EIM:
Lab Qualifier is the qualifier assigned by the lab and may not reflect the usability of the data. This
qualifier may have many different meanings and can vary between labs and over time within the
same lab. Please refer to the laboratory report for a description of the lab qualifiers. As they are lab
descriptors they are not to be used when evaluating the data.
Validation Qualifier is the 3rd party formal validation qualifier if this was performed. Otherwise this
field contains the qualifier resulting from the ADQM DVM review process. This qualifier assesses the
usability of the data and may not equal the lab qualifier. The DVM applies the following data
evaluation qualifiers to analysis results, as warranted:
Qualifier Definition
B Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field
blanks.
R Unusable result. Analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
J Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ Not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
The Validation Status Code field is set to “DVM” if the ADQM DVM process has been performed. If the
DVM has not been run, the field will be blank.
If the DVM has been run (Validation Status Code equals “DVM”), use the Validation Qualifier.
If the data has been validated by a third party, the field “Validated By” will be set to the validator (e.g.,
ESI for Environmental Standards, Inc.).
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
DVM Narrative ReportOnly one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Detects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:STS Compliance SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSTS Influent - 08222108/22/2021410-52976-1Pentamethylphosphoramide (PMPA)1.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLSTS Influent - 08222108/22/2021410-52976-1Hfpo Dimer Acid38UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLSTS Influent - 08222108/22/2021410-52976-1PFMOAA6.3ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLSTS Influent - 1080408/04/2021410-50456-1Pentamethylphosphoramide (PMPA)2.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.10PQLSTS Influent - 1080408/04/2021410-50456-1Hfpo Dimer Acid42UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLSTS Influent - 1080408/04/2021410-50456-1PFMOAA4.6ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.020PQLSTS Influent-08102108/10/2021410-51155-1Pentamethylphosphoramide (PMPA)1.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLSTS Influent-08102108/10/2021410-51155-1Hfpo Dimer Acid21UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLSTS Influent-08102108/10/2021410-51155-1PFMOAA5.8ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.20PQLPage 1 of 2DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:STS Compliance SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSTS Discharge - 08222108/22/2021410-53002-1Total SuspendedSolids8.2MG/L12540 D-2011J3MDLPage 2 of 2DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
APPENDIX B
Monthly Monitoring Reports for July
through August 2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Permit # Month:JulyYear:2021Facility:Class:PendingCounty:BladenORC: Grade:PendingORC Certification #994529FALSEPhone:Lab#:521Comments:Influent Pending50050 50050 52612 52613 52620Composite/ Sample Start TimeComposite/ Sample End TimeTotal Composite TimePrecipitationInfluent to EQ StorageInfluent to Treatment SystemInfluent Volumetric Weighting FactorHFPO-DAPFMOAAPMPA2400 clock 2400 clock Hrs inches mgd mgd ug/l ug/l ug/l10.012 1245 1830 5.75 0.77 0.201 0.104 0.28 18 11 1.130.1024567 0.34 0.030 0.0268 0950 1750 8.00 2.16 0.338 0.155 0.42 27 4.3 1.29 0.02 0.059 0.1511011 0.16 0.00712131415 0.30 0.001 0.0681617 0.73 0.08018 0.05 0.039 0.03119 0930 1500 5.50 4.33 0.336 0.107 0.29 34 5.8 1.420 0.03 0.013 0.15021 0.08 0.025222324252627 0.06 0.00928293031RC RC CP CP CP0.29 0.037 0.029 26 6.6 1.24.33 0.338 0.155 0.42 34 11 1.40.01 0.001 0.026 0.28 18 4.3 1.1Sampling Location: Composite(CP)/Grab(GR):Monthly Average Limit:Monthly Average:Daily Maximum:Daily Minimum:Discharge #DateNC000XXXXChemours Company-Fayetteville WorksJamie R. LewisHas ORC Changed?:1. Non-detect influent and effluent sample results were assigned a value of zero for the calculation and the values from duplicate samples were averaged together.2. Monthly average influent and effluent concentrations are volume-weighted based on "Average Calculations" worksheet.3. Permit and discharge numbers pending per application submitted on June 4, 2021.910-678-1219Certifed Lab Name:Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories EnvironmentalPerson(s) Collecting samples:Facility staffDocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Permit # Month:JulyYear:2021Facility:Class:TBDCounty:BladenORC: Grade:PendingORC Certification #994529FALSEPhone:Lab#:521Comments:EffluentPending50050 52612 52613 52620 00400 CO530Composite/ Sample Start TimeComposite/ Sample End TimeTotal Composite TimeDischarge from Treatment SystemEffluent Volumetric Weighting FactorHFPO-DAPFMOAAPMPApHTotal Suspended Solids2400 clock 2400 clock Hrs mgd ug/l ug/l ug/l su mg/l1 No Discharge2 1300 1830 5.50 0.104 0.28 0.003 0.11 < 0.010 7.0 103 0.1024 No Discharge5 No Discharge6 No Discharge7 0.0268 1000 1750 7.83 0.155 0.42 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 7.4 159 0.15110 No Discharge11 No Discharge12 No Discharge13 No Discharge14 No Discharge15 0.06816 No Discharge17 No Discharge18 0.03119 0930 1500 5.50 0.107 0.29 0.0033 < 0.002 < 0.010 7.4 3.820 0.15021 No Discharge22 No Discharge23 No Discharge24 No Discharge25 No Discharge26 No Discharge27 No Discharge28 No Discharge29 No Discharge30 No Discharge31 No DischargeRC CP CP CP GR CP0.029 0.002 0.031 0.0000.155 0.42 0.003 0.110 0.000 7.0 3.80.026 0.28 0.0033 0.110 0.000 7.4 1599.99 99.53 100.00DateComposite(CP)/Grab(GR):Person(s) Collecting samples:Facility staff1. Non-detect influent and effluent sample results were assigned a value of zero for the calculation and the values from duplicate samples were averaged together.2. Monthly average influent and effluent concentrations are volume-weighted based on "Average Calculations" worksheet.Sampling Location: Discharge #Certifed Lab Name:Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories EnvironmentalNC000XXXXChemours Company-Fayetteville WorksJamie R. LewisHas ORC Changed?:910-678-1219Monthly Average Limit:Monthly Average:Daily Maximum:Daily Minimum:Monthly Avg % Removal (99%):DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Permit # Month:JulyYear:2021Facility:Class:PendingCounty:BladenORC: Grade:PendingORC Certification #994529FALSEPhone:Lab#:521Comments:Bypass Pending50050 50050 50050East Sump Grab Sample Start TimeWest Sump Grab Sample TimePrecipitationEstimated Runoff Volume from SWMMVolume of Stormwater Transferred to EQ StorageEstimated Bypass FlowEast Bypass Total Table 3+ (Total of 20 Compounds)East Bypass Total Table 3+ (Total of 20 Compounds)2400 clock 2400 clock inches mgd mgd mgd ug/l ug/l10.012 0.77 0.234 0.201 0.03334567 0.34 0.0308 2.16 0.699 0.338 0.3619 0.02 0.0591011 0.16 0.00712131415 0.30 0.0011617 0.73 0.08018 0.05 0.03919 4.33 1.450 0.336 1.11420 0.03 0.01321 0.08 0.025222324252627 0.06 0.00928293031RC RC RC GR GR0.294.330.01DateCertifed Lab Name:Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories EnvironmentalNC000XXXXChemours Company-Fayetteville WorksJamie R. LewisHas ORC Changed?:910-678-1219Person(s) Collecting samples:Facility staff1. See SWTS report for development of bypass flow estimates.2. Permit and discharge numbers are pending per application submitted on June 4, 2021.Sampling Location: Discharge #Monthly Avg % Removal (99%):Composite(C)/Grab(G):Monthly Average Limit:Monthly Average:Daily Maximum:Daily Minimum:DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
EQUATION 1: SYSTEM REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS FOR INDICATOR PARAMETERS CALCULATIONSHFPO-DA (i) PFMOAA (i) PMPA (i) HFPO-DA (i) PFMOAA (i) PMPA (i)m, ncinf,n,HFPO-DAcinf,n,PFMOAAcinf,n,PMPAVnceff,m,HFPO-DAceff,m,PFMOAAceff,m,PMPAVmwnwm-µg/Lµg/Lµg/Lmgdµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lmgd--7/2/2021 1 18 11 1.10.1040.003 0.110 < 0.010 0.104 0.28 0.287/8/2021 2 27 4.3 1.2 0.155 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 0.155 0.42 0.427/19/2021 3 34 5.8 1.4 0.107 0.003 < 0.002 < 0.010 0.107 0.29 0.294cinf,HFPO-DAcinf,PFMOAAcinf,PMPAceff,HFPO-DAceff,PFMOAAceff,PMPAETS-IXM-HFPO-DAETS-IXM-PFMOAAETS-IXM-PMPAµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lµg/L%%%26 6.6 1.2 0.002 0.031 0.000 99.99 99.53 100.00Notes: 1. Equation 1: System Removal Effectiveness for Indicator Compounds is referenced in the Stormwater Treatment System Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2021).2. Non-detect influent and effluent sample results are assigned a value of zero for the calculation and the values from duplicate samples are averaged together.Acronyms:< : less than the minimum detection limitµg/L: micrograms per litermgd: million gallons per dayHFPO-DA: hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acidPFMOAA: 2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acidPMPA: perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acidInfluent Concentration Volumetric Weighting FactorEffluent Concentration Volumetric Weighting FactorInputs for July 2021 Monthly Evaluation PeriodResults for July 2021 Monthly Evaluation PeriodTreatment System PFAS Removal Efficiency for HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPAVolume-weighted Influent Concentration Volume-weighted Effluent ConcentrationDateSample NumberInfluent ConcentrationInfluent VolumeEfffluent ConcentrationEffluent VolumeDocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Permit # Month:AugustYear:2021Facility:Class:PendingCounty:BladenORC: Grade:PendingORC Certification #994529FALSEPhone:Lab#:521Comments:Influent Pending50050 50050 52612 52613 52620Composite/ Sample Start TimeComposite/ Sample End TimeTotal Composite TimePrecipitationInfluent to EQ StorageInfluent to Treatment SystemInfluent Volumetric Weighting FactorHFPO-DAPFMOAAPMPA2400 clock 2400 clock Hrs inches mgd ug/l ug/l ug/l1 0.26 0.029 0.0252 0.01 0.002 0.0203 0.34 0.051 0.0104 0940 1040 1.00 0.07 0.0087 0.030 0.09 42 4.6 2.056 0.89 0.2617 0.05 0.002890.03010 940 1730 7.83 0.23 0.108 0.110 0.35 21 5.8 1.311 0.10 0.008 0.161120.0531314151617 0.31 0.06318 940 1530 5.83 0.29 0.060 0.104 0.33 22 5.6 1.419 0.23 0.032202122 1100 1700 6.00 0.072 0.23 38 6.3 1.3230.0232425262728293031RC RC CP CP CP0.09 0.020 0.021 27 5.7 1.40.89 0.261 0.161 0.35 42 6 2.00.01 0.002 0.010 0.09 21 4.6 1.3Discharge #DateNC000XXXXChemours Company-Fayetteville WorksJamie R. LewisHas ORC Changed?:1. Non-detect influent and effluent sample results were assigned a value of zero for the calculation and the values from duplicate samples were averaged together.2. Monthly average influent and effluent concentrations are volume-weighted based on "Average Calculations" worksheet.3. Permit and discharge numbers pending per application submitted on June 4, 2021.910-678-1219Certifed Lab Name:Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories EnvironmentalPerson(s) Collecting samples:Facility staffSampling Location: Composite(CP)/Grab(GR):Monthly Average Limit:Monthly Average:Daily Maximum:Daily Minimum:DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Permit # Month:AugustYear:2021Facility:Class:PendingCounty:BladenORC: Grade:PendingORC Certification #994529FALSEPhone:Lab#:521Comments:DischargePending50050 52612 52613 52620 00400 CO530Composite/ Sample Start TimeComposite/ Sample End TimeTotal Composite TimeDischarge from Treatment SystemEffluent Volumetric Weighting FactorHFPO-DAPFMOAAPMPApHTotal Suspended Solids2400 clock 2400 clock Hrs mgd ug/l ug/l ug/l su mg/l1 0.0252 0.0203 0.0104 0940 1040 1.00 0.030 0.09 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 6.7 8.65 No Discharge6 No Discharge7 No Discharge8 No Discharge9 0.03010 940 1730 7.83 0.110 0.35 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 6.8 6.211 0.16112 0.05313 No Discharge14 No Discharge15 No Discharge16 No Discharge17 No Discharge18 940 1530 5.83 0.104 0.33 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 6.8 6.319 No Discharge20 No Discharge21 No Discharge22 1100 1700 6.00 0.072 0.23 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 6.6 8.223 0.02324 No Discharge25 No Discharge26 No Discharge27 No Discharge28 No Discharge29 No Discharge30 No Discharge31 No DischargeRC CP CP CP GR CP0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.71 7.30.161 0.35 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.55 6.20.010 0.09 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.79 8.6100.0 100.0 100.0Monthly Average Limit:Monthly Average:Daily Maximum:Daily Minimum:Monthly Avg % Removal (99%):DateComposite(CP)/Grab(GR):Certifed Lab Name:Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories EnvironmentalNC000XXXXChemours Company-Fayetteville WorksJamie R. LewisHas ORC Changed?:910-678-1219Person(s) Collecting samples:Facility staff1. Non-detect influent and effluent sample results were assigned a value of zero for the calculation and the values from duplicate samples were averaged together.2. Monthly average influent and effluent concentrations are volume-weighted based on "Average Calculations" worksheet.3. Permit and discharge numbers pending per application submitted on June 4, 2021.Sampling Location: Discharge #DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
Permit # Month:AugustYear:2021Facility:Class:PendingCounty:BladenORC: Grade:PendingORC Certification #994529FALSEPhone:Lab#:521Comments:Bypass Pending50050 50050 50050East Sump Grab Sample Start TimeWest Sump Grab Sample TimePrecipitationEstimated Runoff Volume from SWMMVolume of Stormwater Transferred to EQ StorageEstimated Bypass FlowEast Bypass Total Table 3+ (Total of 20 Compounds)East Bypass Total Table 3+ (Total of 20 Compounds)2400 clock 2400 clock inches mgd mgd mgd ug/l ug/l1 0.26 0.0292 0.01 0.0023 0.34 0.0514 0.07 0.00956 0.89 0.2617 0.05 0.0028910 0.23 0.10811 0.10 0.008121314151617 0.31 0.06318 0.29 0.06019 0.23 0.032202122232425262728293031RC RC RC GR GR0.090.890.01DateCertifed Lab Name:Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories EnvironmentalNC000XXXXChemours Company-Fayetteville WorksJamie R. LewisHas ORC Changed?:910-678-1219Person(s) Collecting samples:Facility staff1. See SWTS report for development of bypass flow estimates.2. Permit and discharge numbers are pending per application submitted on June 4, 2021.Sampling Location: Discharge #Composite(C)/Grab(G):Monthly Average Limit:Monthly Average:Daily Maximum:Daily Minimum:DocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8
EQUATION 1: SYSTEM REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS FOR INDICATOR PARAMETERS CALCULATIONSHFPO-DA (i) PFMOAA (i) PMPA (i) HFPO-DA (i) PFMOAA (i) PMPA (i)m, ncinf,n,HFPO-DAcinf,n,PFMOAAcinf,n,PMPAVnceff,m,HFPO-DAceff,m,PFMOAAceff,m,PMPAVmwnwm-µg/Lµg/Lµg/Lmgdµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lmgd--8/4/2021 1 42 4.6 2.00.030< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 0.030 0.09 0.098/10/2021 2 21 5.8 1.3 0.110 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 0.110 0.35 0.358/18/2021 3 22 5.6 1.4 0.104 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 0.104 0.33 0.338/22/2021 4 38 6.3 1.3 0.072 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.010 0.072 0.23 0.23cinf,HFPO-DAcinf,PFMOAAcinf,PMPAceff,HFPO-DAceff,PFMOAAceff,PMPAETS-IXM-HFPO-DAETS-IXM-PFMOAAETS-IXM-PMPAµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lµg/Lµg/L%%%27 5.7 1.4 0.000 0.000 0.000 100.0 100.00 100.0Notes: 1. Equation 1: System Removal Effectiveness for Indicator Compounds is referenced in the Stormwater Treatment System Sampling Plan (Geosyntec, 2021).2. Non-detect influent and effluent sample results are assigned a value of zero for the calculation and the values from duplicate samples are averaged together.Acronyms:< : less than the minimum detection limitµg/L: micrograms per litermgd: million gallons per dayHFPO-DA: hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acidPFMOAA: 2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy) acetic acidPMPA: perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acidInfluent Concentration Volumetric Weighting FactorEffluent Concentration Volumetric Weighting FactorInputs for August 2021 Monthly Evaluation PeriodResults for August 2021 Monthly Evaluation PeriodTreatment System PFAS Removal Efficiency for HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPAVolume-weighted Influent Concentration Volume-weighted Effluent ConcentrationDateSample NumberInfluent ConcentrationInfluent VolumeEfffluent ConcentrationEffluent VolumeDocuSign Envelope ID: B7819391-264B-4C6A-8C28-7ED62302AEA8