2020.7.31_CCO.p16_Q1-2020-CFRMassLoadingAssessment

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx ii July 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ vii
1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................. 1
2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Site Background .......................................................................................... 2
2.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 3
2.3 PFAS at the Site ........................................................................................... 5
2.4 Cape Fear River and Downstream Public Water Utility Intakes ................. 6
2.5 Potential Table 3+ PFAS Transport Pathways to Cape Fear River ............. 6
2.6 Cape Fear River Mass Loading Assessments .............................................. 7
2.6.1 Cape Fear River Sampling Location ............................................... 7
2.6.2 Prior Mass Loading Sampling and Reporting ................................. 8
3 SCOPE AND METHODS .................................................................................... 8
3.1 Sampling Activities in Q1 2020 .................................................................. 9
3.2 Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program ............... 9
3.3 Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program
11
3.3.1 Quarterly Seep, Surface Water, and the Cape Fear River Sampling
12
3.3.2 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling Program ...... 13
3.4 Southwestern Offsite Seeps Sampling ....................................................... 14
3.5 Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling ................................................. 14
3.6 Laboratory Analyses .................................................................................. 15
4 SAMPLING RESULTS...................................................................................... 16
4.1 Data Quality ............................................................................................... 16
4.2 Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load Sampling Results ............... 17
4.2.1 Cape Fear River Table 3+ Mass Load QA/QC Samples .............. 17
4.2.2 Cape Fear River Table 3+ Mass Load PFAS Analytical Results . 18
4.3 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Seep and Surface Water
Results................................................................................................................. 18
4.3.1 Seep and Surface Water QA/QC Samples .................................... 18
4.3.2 Flow Gauging Results ................................................................... 18
4.3.3 Seeps and Surface Water Field Parameters ................................... 19

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx iii July 2020
4.3.4 Seep and Surface Water Table 3+ PFAS Analytical Results ........ 19
4.4 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Groundwater Results .... 20
4.4.1 Groundwater QA/QC Samples ...................................................... 20
4.4.2 Water Levels ................................................................................. 21
4.4.3 Groundwater Field Parameters ...................................................... 22
4.4.4 Groundwater Table 3+ PFAS Analytical Results ......................... 22
4.5 Southwestern Offsite Seeps Results .......................................................... 22
4.6 January 2020 Cape Fear River Water Sampling Program Results ............ 23
5 TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS LOAD TO CAPE FEAR RIVER .............................. 23
5.1 In-River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load and Total Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load
24
5.2 Remedy Captured Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load .......................................... 25
5.3 Mass Discharge at Bladen Bluffs, Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge and Kings
Bluff Intake Canal ............................................................................................... 26
6 CAPE FEAR RIVER TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL .............. 26
6.1 Model Design ............................................................................................ 27
6.1.1 Adjustments to Methodology from 2019 Mass Loading Model
Assessments .............................................................................................. 28
6.2 PFAS Mass Loading Model Pathways ...................................................... 29
6.2.1 Upstream Cape Fear River (Transport Pathway 1) ....................... 29
6.2.2 Tributaries – Willis Creek, Georgia Branch Creek, and Old Outfall
002 (Transport Pathways 2, 7 and 9) ........................................................ 30
6.2.3 Aerial Deposition to the Cape Fear River (Transport Pathway 3) 30
6.2.4 Onsite Groundwater (Transport Pathways 5 and 6) ...................... 30
6.2.5 Outfall 002 and Facility Stormwater Runoff (Transport Pathway 4)
31
6.2.6 Adjacent and Downstream Offsite Groundwater (Transport
Pathway 8) ................................................................................................ 31
6.3 Mass Loading Model Results .................................................................... 32
6.4 Mass Loading Model Sensitivity and Limitations ..................................... 34
7 DISCUSSION OF OTHER Q1 2020 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES ..................... 36
7.1 Southwestern Offsite Seeps ....................................................................... 36
7.2 Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling ................................................. 36
8 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 37

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx iv July 2020
9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 40

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: Surface Water Analytical Results
Table 9: Flow Summary for Surface and River Water Locations
Table 10: Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 11: Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load by Compound and Time
Interval
Table 12: Summary of Mass Discharge at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Table 13: Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load Summary
Table 14: PFAS Mass Loading Model Potential Pathways
Table 15: Estimated Q1 2020 Event Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading by Pathway
Table 16: Summary of Total Table 3+ PFAS Mass Discharge by Pathway
Table 17: Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ PFAS Relative Loadings Per Pathway
Table 18: Sensitivity in Mass Loading Model Input Parameters by Pathway
Table 19A: Mass Loading Model Sensitivity Assessment – Groundwater Lower
Bound Scenario Set
Table 19B: Mass Loading Model Sensitivity Assessment – Groundwater Upper
Bound Scenario Set

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx v July 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 Collection and Mass Load Interval Calculation Timeline at Tar
Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Figure 5: Sample and Flow Measurement Locations – April 2020
Figure 6: Cape Fear River Sample Locations – April 2020
Figure 7 Groundwater Monitoring Well Network
Figure 8A: Groundwater Elevation Map Perched Zone - February 2020
Figure 8B: Groundwater Elevation Map Surficial Aquifer - February 2020
Figure 8C: Groundwater Elevation Map Black Creek Aquifer - February 2020
Figure 9: Total Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations, Precipitation and Daily Flow at
Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Figure 10: Total Table 3+ PFAS Mass Discharge, Precipitation and Daily
Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Figure 11A: Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) in Surface Water – April
2020
Figure 11B: Total Table 3+ Concentrations (20 Compounds) in Surface Water – April
2020
Figure 12A: Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) – April
2020
Figure 12B: Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations (20 Compounds) – April
2020
Figure 13: Cape Fear River HFPO-DA Concentrations – April 2020
Figure 14A: Total Table 3+ Concentrations in Groundwater (17 Compounds) –
February 2020
Figure 14B: Total Table 3+ Concentrations in Groundwater (20 Compounds) –
February 2020
Figure 15: Comparison of Modeled and Measured Total Table 3+ Mass Loading at
Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx vi July 2020
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Methods
Appendix B: Southwestern Offsite Seeps Sampling and Flow Gauging Memorandum
Appendix C: Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling Report
Appendix D: Supplemental Analytical Tables
Appendix E: Supplemental Flow Data
Appendix F: Field Forms
Appendix G: Laboratory Reports and DVM Report
Appendix H: Supporting Calculations – On Site Groundwater Pathway
Appendix I: Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculations
Appendix J: Supporting Calculations – Direct Aerial Deposition on Cape Fear River
Appendix K: Supporting Calculations – Offsite and Adjacent Downstream
Groundwater

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx v July 2020
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CFPUA Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
cfs cubic feet per second
CO Consent Order
CSM Conceptual Site Model
DQO Data Quality Objectives
DVM Data Verification Module
EIM Environmental Information Management
ft feet
ft bgs feet below ground surface
HDPE high-density polyethylene
HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
kg kilograms
L/s liters per second
L/min liters per minute
L3T-1 volume per time
LCFWSA Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
m3 million cubic meters
m3/s cubic meters per second
mg/s milligrams per second
mL milliliter
ML-1 mass per unit volume
MLM Mass Loading Model
MT-3 mass per unit time
ng/L nanograms per liter
NC DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NVHOS perfluoroethoxysulfonic acid
PPA Polymer Processing Aid
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx vi July 2020
PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid
PFMOAA perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid
PFO2HxA perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
PFO3OA perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
PPCP pharmaceutical and personal care products
PMPA perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
PVF polyvinyl fluoride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
Q1 2020 first quarter 2020
RPD relative percent difference
SOP standard operating procedure
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
µg/L micrograms per liter
USGS United States Geological Survey
WWTP wastewater treatment plant

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx vii July 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been prepared to comply with monitoring and reporting requirements of
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 report describes: (i) the approach to establish the total mass load to the Cape Fear
River; (ii) the relative Table 3+ PFAS loadings from the nine potential transport pathways
to the Cape Fear River using results from the Mass Loading Model sampling events in
Quarter 1 2020 (Q1 2020); and (iii) it summarizes other sampling activities completed
for this Q1 2020 reporting period.
Prior site investigations have identified potential pathways for Table 3+ PFAS originating
from the Site that may reach the Cape Fear River (Corrective Action Plan, Geosyntec
2019g). These pathways represent compartments to model as part of the Table 3+ PFAS
Mass Loading Model. The potential pathways are described in Section 6.2 and are shown
on the conceptual diagram provided in Figure 3. Previously, the results of the Mass
Loading Model provided ‘snapshots’ of the relative loadings per Table 3+ PFAS transport
pathway to the Cape Fear River compared to measured downstream in-river
concentrations at CFR-BLADEN. In Q1 2020, routine sampling at the CFR-TARHEEL
began and this allows for total mass loading over time assessments.
An assessment of Table 3+ PFAS mass loading was presented in the “Cape Fear River
PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and Paragraph 11.1 Characterization of PFAS
at Intakes” report (Geosyntec, 2019b) submitted August 26, 2019. Subsequent
assessments were reported in the Corrective Action Plan (Geosyntec, 2019g) and Mass
Loading Model Update – November 2019 Sampling Event (Geosyntec, 2020a). These
mass loading assessments evaluated samples collected from two wet and two dry
sampling events: May 2019 (dry), June 2019 (wet), September 2019 (dry) and November
2019 (wet). For each assessment, the model-estimated total Table 3+ PFAS mass loading
originating from the facility to the Cape Fear River was compared with empirically
measured Table 3+ PFAS mass in the river at CFR-BLADEN, approximately 5 miles
downstream from the southern edge of the Site.
The Mass Loading Model assessment presented in this report was conducted using a
similar methodology with adjustments made to sampling, flow measurements, and mass
loading calculations to provide an improved Mass Loading Model assessment framework.
The methodology and results of the Mass Loading Model assessment are described in
Section 6.
Four field sampling events were conducted in Q1 2020:

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx viii July 2020
• The Table 3+ 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 Table 3+ PFAS mass
loads in the Cape Fear River during the reporting period;
• The Q1 2020 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling program consisting
of samples collected from Table 3+ 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 Table 3+ PFAS transport pathway to the Cape Fear River using the Table 3+
PFAS Mass Loading Model;
• Sampling and flow gauging of the Southwestern offsite seeps to complete initial
characterization of these seeps and to assess the degree of loadings from these
seeps; and
• A Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling Program consisting of water samples
from the Cape Fear, Deep, Haw and Little Rivers were collected to assess the
potential presence of a range of inorganic compounds, organic compounds (e.g.
1,4-dioxane), PPCPs, and PFAS in the Cape Fear River.
Efforts to understand the analytical results have identified data quality issues with the
analysis of R-PSDA [formerly Byproduct 4], Hydrolyzed PSDA [formerly Byproduct 5],
and R-EVE). Laboratory QA/QC data and laboratory studies have identified that these
compounds may be subject to routine over-recovery due to matrix interference effects
(Matrix Interference Memorandum, 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 R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE 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 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load assessment estimated the Total Table
3+ PFAS that were discharged to the Cape Fear River over the assessment period of
March 28 to May 9, 2020. Over this period 46 to 59 kg of Total Table 3+ PFAS summed
over 17 and 20 compounds, respectively reached the Cape Fear River.
The Cape Fear River Table 3+ Mass Loading Model assessment determined that onsite
seeps and the Old Outfall were the largest contributors to Table 3+ PFAS mass in the
Cape Fear River with contribution percentages of 35% to 57% and 17% to 28%,
respectively. The next largest contributing pathway was onsite groundwater estimated to
range between 5% to 42%. The large range of potential mass loading contribution for
groundwater to the Cape Fear River is based on the sensitivity of this pathways’ estimates

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx ix July 2020
to modifications in the selected hydraulic conductivity values. Minimum and geometric
mean hydraulic conductivity values were selected for the Black Creek Aquifer to model
the lower and upper bound estimates of onsite groundwater contributions to the Cape Fear
River.
For the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge summed over 20 compounds, the Mass
Loading Model estimated the Total Table PFAS mass discharge in the Cape Fear River
to be 16 to 26 mg/s. This range is within the measured mass discharge of 18 mg/s at CFR-
TARHEEL. The mass discharge summed over 17 compounds was 15 to 25 mg/s which
is greater than the mass discharge of 13.4 mg/s measured at CFR-TARHEEL.
The sampling of Southwestern offsite seeps indicated that seeps south of the extent of a
planned groundwater remedy contribute approximately 0.02% of the discharge of Table
3+ PFAS to the Cape Fear River. The Lock and Dam Seep, which was estimated to
contribute approximately 1% of the discharge of Table 3+ PFAS to the Cape Fear River,
is downgradient of the planned groundwater remedy and, therefore, will be hydraulically
reduced when a groundwater remedy is installed.
The Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling program in January 2020 indicated that
there was an additional fraction of upstream, non-Chemours previously unidentified
PFAS in the Cape Fear River. These PFAS were detected using the TOP assay and were
consistently seen upstream and downstream of the Site indicating they originated from
before the Site. The sampling program also demonstrated that Table 3+ PFAS increase in
concentration as the Cape Fear River passes by the Site consistent with past
investigations. This program also found pharmaceuticals and personal care products
(PPCPs) were present in the Cape Fear River. 1,4-Dioxane was also present throughout
the sampled Cape Fear River above the NCDEQ in-stream target value of 350 ng/L at all
locations.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 1 July 2020
1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C. (Geosyntec) has prepared this Table 3+ 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). The purpose of this report is to describe the first quarter 2020 (Q1 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 Table 3+ per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) to the Cape Fear River. Table 3+ PFAS is a term used to refer to PFAS
detected in the environment, for which analytical methods exist, that originate from
manufacturing at the Site (Table 1). Presently, the grouping of PFAS referred to as Table
3+ are analyzed by the Table 3+ standard operating procedure (SOP) analytical method.
This report is intended to comply with monitoring and reporting requirements of
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.
There are three primary objectives for this report:
1. To assess and describe Table 3+ PFAS mass loads including loads in the Cape
Fear River, loading reductions from implemented remedies, and the total mass
load to the Cape Fear River;
2. To assess and describe the relative Table 3+ PFAS loadings from the different
PFAS transport pathways to the Cape Fear River during the reporting period using
the Mass Loading Model; and
3. To describe the results of other sampling activities conducted during the reporting
period.
The first objective aims to evaluate the mass of Table 3+ PFAS present in the Cape Fear
River (i.e., reached the river) during the reporting period. This assessment uses Table 3+
PFAS concentrations from samples of Cape Fear River water to estimate this load. This
assessment also provides the framework to evaluate the Table 3+ PFAS load captured
and prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by remedies implemented by
Chemours. Lastly, this assessment begins developing the total Table 3+ PFAS load in the
Cape Fear River. Subsequent reports will continue to update the development of the
totalTable 3+ PFAS mass load.
The second objective aims to evaluate the relative contributions of Table 3+ PFAS
loadings to the Cape Fear River from the various Table 3+ PFAS transport pathways
(listed in Section 2.5). These pathway-specific loading contributions are assessed using

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 2 July 2020
measurements and estimates of concentration and flow from the Table 3+ PFAS transport
pathways to the Cape Fear River.
The last objective describes other sampling activities conducted in Q1 2020 that relate to
understanding the presence of Table 3+ PFAS and other compounds in the Cape Fear
River. Specifically, this objective describes sampling of the Southwestern offsite seeps
conducted in March 2020 and the Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling program
conducted in January 2020 along the Cape Fear River and at the mouths of the Deep,
Little and Haw rivers.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
• Background – This section presents relevant background information regarding
Table 3+ PFAS loading from the Site to the Cape Fear River;
• Scope and Methods – This section describes the sampling programs performed
in Q1 2020 and methods used in the sampling activities;
• Sampling Results – This section describes the results of the sampling activities;
• Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load to Cape Fear River – This section describes the
assessments of Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loads;
• Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model – This section describes
the assessment of the relative mass loading from the various Table 3+ PFAS
transport pathways;
• Discussion of Other Q1 2020 Sampling Activities – This section describes the
findings from the other Q1 2020 sampling activities; and
• Conclusions – This section summarizes the purpose and findings of this report.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Background
The Site is located within a 2,177-acre property at 22828 NC Highway 87, approximately
20 miles southeast of the city of Fayetteville along the Bladen-Cumberland county line
in North Carolina. Figure 1 presents an overview of the Site. The Site is bounded by NC
Highway 87 to the west, Cape Fear River to the east, and on the north and south by
undeveloped areas and farmland.
The Site property was originally purchased by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
(DuPont) in 1970 for production of nylon strapping and elastomeric tape. DuPont sold its
Butacite® and SentryGlas® manufacturing units to Kuraray America Inc. (Kuraray) in
June 2014 and subsequently separated its specialty chemicals business to Chemours in

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 3 July 2020
July 2015. The manufacturing area is approximately 312 acres, and the remaining areas
are grassy areas, forests and wetlands. Presently, the Site consists of five manufacturing
areas (Figure 1): Chemours Monomers IXM (Area 1); Chemours Polymer Processing Aid
(PPA; Area 2); Kuraray Butacite® (Area 3); Kuraray SentryGlas® (Area 4); and DuPont
Company polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) resin manufacturing unit (Area 5). In addition to the
manufacturing operations, Chemours operates two natural gas-fired boilers and a
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for the treatment of sanitary wastewaters as well as
process wastewaters from Kuraray and DuPont.
2.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The Site is located in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and is situated adjacent the Cape
Fear River atop a bluff with a 100-foot elevation change to a floodplain area and the Cape
Fear River. Willis Creek borders the Site to the north, which flows through an erosional
channel and empties into the Cape Fear River. To the south is Georgia Branch Creek
which also flows through erosional channels as it empties into the Cape Fear River. Onsite
there are groundwater seeps where groundwater is expressed at the surface and flows to
the Cape Fear River. The largest of these groundwater-fed seeps is the Old Outfall 002,
along with four seeps, A, B, C and D, located on the bluff slope facing the Cape Fear
River.
The geology at the Site consists of sands and clays. The geology and land use at the Site
have influenced the hydrogeology of the Site. Prior studies have developed a series of
geological cross sections (Geosyntec 2019g). The geological features at Site from surface
downward include:
Perched Zone: The Perched Zone is a relatively thin, spatially limited layer of
groundwater present in silty sands to a depth of about 20 feet (ft) below ground surface
(ft bgs). Groundwater in the Perched Zone is recharged through precipitation onsite, and
in the past, has received enhanced infiltration through unlined ditches and sedimentation
ponds – the sedimentation ponds and the cooling water channel in the Monomers IXM
Area have since been lined. Groundwater flows radially away from groundwater mounds
in the Perched Zone. This leads to groundwater discharge to the east at seeps on the edge
of the bluff, to the south toward the Old Outfall 002 and to the north and to the west
downwards through the geological sequence towards the Surficial and Black Creek
Aquifers.
Perched Clay Unit: The Perched Clay Unit gives rise to the Perched Zone as it presents
a barrier to direct downward groundwater infiltration. The Perched Clay is spatially
limited at the Site. To the north it pinches out. To the east and south, it outcrops along the
bluff face. To the west, it terminates and becomes absent (In cross sections through the
Site and observations of grain sizes and lithologic contact elevations from the boring logs,

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 4 July 2020
there suggests an erosional feature in the western portion of the geology underlying the
manufacturing areas. This erosional surface, described below, is interpreted to have
eroded the Perched Clay Unit enabling downward migration of groundwater off the
western edge of the Perched Zone.
Surficial Aquifer: The Surficial Aquifer is an unconfined silty sand aquifer above the
Black Creek Confining Unit and is present beneath the Perched Clay Unit. Groundwater
in the Surficial Aquifer flows towards the bluff faces at the Site – It flows both north, east
and west toward surface water bodies (Willis Creek, Seeps, Old Outfall 002) and
discharges into them as seeps. The Surficial Aquifer is interpreted to be in contact with
the Black Creek Aquifer in places due to an erosional feature. This feature is labeled on
the cross sections and is interpreted to have enabled downward cross formational
groundwater flow.
Black Creek Confining Unit: The Black Creek Confining Unit is a layer of silty or sandy
clay that separates the Surficial Aquifer from the Black Creek Aquifer. The lithologic
contact elevation with the overlying Surficial Aquifer is variable, as is the unit thickness
–the Black Creek Confining Unit is interpreted to have been eroded under the western
portion of the manufacturing areas at Site. In addition to the Black Creek Confining unit
being discontinuous, the potential for downward cross formational flow, also exists based
on multiple vertical joints (i.e., fractures in the clay) observed in the Black Creek
Confining Unit where it outcrops at the Site.
Flood Plain Deposits: Surface soils in the flood plain immediately adjacent to the Cape
Fear River are comprised of finer grained, late Pleistocene alluvium deposits. These
deposits have lower hydraulic conductivity than the Surficial and Black Creek Aquifers.
The seeps at the Site cut into Floodplain Deposits as they flow towards the Cape Fear
River.
Black Creek Aquifer: The Black Creek Aquifer is comprised of fine to medium grained
sands. The Black Creek Aquifer is in contact with the Surficial Aquifer under the western
portion of the manufacturing area at the Site and then is separated from the Surficial
Aquifer under most of the manufacturing area by the Black Creek confining unit. The
Black Creek Aquifer directly adjacent to the Cape Fear River is overlain by Flood Plain
Deposits and the Black Creek Confining Unit. The Black Creek Aquifer is interpreted to
be the only transmissive groundwater zone at Site in direct contact with the Cape Fear
River. Groundwater in the Black Creek Aquifer flows from west to east towards the Cape
Fear River.
Upper Cape Fear Confining Unit: The Upper Cape Fear Confining Unit underlies the
Black Creek Aquifer. The Upper Cape Fear Confining unit is a regionally extensive clay
layer which is upwards of 75 ft thick at the Site and is likely a barrier to downwards

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 5 July 2020
groundwater flow. Groundwater levels in the Upper Cape Fear Aquifer measured at North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) wells are 80 ft lower than Black Creek
Aquifer groundwater levels immediately above the Upper Cape Fear Aquifer. If the two
units were in hydraulic connection, they would have similar groundwater elevations. The
dissimilarity in water levels for these co-located NC DWR wells demonstrates that the
Upper Cape Fear Confining Unit is a barrier to downward flow from the Black Creek
Aquifer to the Cape Fear Aquifer.
Erosional Feature: A paleo-era process appears to have eroded the Perched Clay Unit,
portions of the Surficial Aquifer and the Black Creek Confining Unit in the geological
sequence under the western portion of the manufacturing area. This erosional feature
potentially enables cross formational flow of groundwater from the Perched Zone,
through the Surficial Aquifer and into the Black Creek Aquifer. This feature is a likely
controlling factor of the distribution of PFAS observed in the Surficial and Black Creek
Aquifers at Site.
2.3 PFAS at the Site
PFAS are a group of man-made carbon-based chemicals composed of a fully or partially
fluorinated chain of carbon atoms (referred to as a “tail”) and a nonfluorinated, polar
functional group (referred to as a “head”) at one end of the carbon chain. Fluorination of
the carbon chain renders it hydrophobic and lipophobic, while the polar head group is
hydrophilic (Mueller and Yingling, 2018). Generally, PFAS vapor pressures are low and
water solubilities are high. Most PFAS have one or more negatively charged head groups,
so they are likely to be relatively mobile in the subsurface due to the affinity of the head
group for water molecules (Mueller and Yingling, 2018).
Most PFAS detected at the Site and associated with fluoroproduct manufacturing are
fluoroethers (i.e. the Table 3+ PFAS). The structure of fluoroethers includes two carbons
connected by an oxygen atom to form an ether bond. PFAS with ether bonds are expected
to be less volatile and more soluble in water than non-ether PFAS of equivalent chain
length due to the polar oxygen atoms included in their structures. Table 3+ PFAS contain
at least one polar head group and many contain additional polar head groups.
Generally, Table 3+ PFAS are expected to be mobile in the environment given the
presence of charged head groups and ether bonds, but they will experience some
retardation due to sorption to soils. For some Table 3+ PFAS, mobility may be enhanced
relative to straight-chain, non-ether PFAS by their branched structure and the presence of
two charged head groups. The mobility of the Table 3+ PFAS will be retarded by various
chemical processes but will likely have lower retardation than long-chain PFAS without
ether bonds. Chemical processes expected to have the most impact on mobility are

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 6 July 2020
sorption to naturally occurring organic carbon in soil and, in the unsaturated soil zone,
preferential partitioning to the air-water interface.
Since identifying the presence of the PFAS at the Site, Chemours has performed multiple
investigations and assessments and is continuing to perform assessments that support
corrective action for PFAS at the Site (Geosyntec 2019g).
2.4 Cape Fear River and Downstream Public Water Utility Intakes
The Cape Fear River and its entire watershed are located in the state of North Carolina
(Figure 2). The Site is situated on the western bank of the Cape Fear River and draws
water from the Cape Fear River and returns over 95% of this water via Outfall 002 after
being used primarily as non-contact cooling water. Two lock and dam systems with
United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauges are located downstream of the
Site: (1) W.O. Huske Lock and Dam, located 0.5 river miles from the Site (USGS
02105500); and (2) Cape Fear Lock and Dam #1, located 55 river miles downstream
(USGS 02105769). The Cape Fear River is also a water source for communities
downstream of the Site. Raw water intakes are located at Bladen Bluffs (CFR-BLADEN)
and Kings Bluff Intake Canal (CFR-KINGS), located approximately 5 miles and 55 miles
downstream from the Site.
These intakes are operated by the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
(LCFWSA) which in turn provides water to Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA)
and other water providers. Drinking water sourced from the Cape Fear River does contain
certain chemicals from several sources including 1,4-dioxane, trihalomethanes associated
with bromide content in raw river water, pharmaceuticals, personal care products,
endocrine disrupting chemicals, and PFAS. A brief description of these chemicals and
their presence in the Cape Fear River was reported previously (Geosyntec, 2018b) and is
reported as part of the Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling described in this report.
2.5 Potential Table 3+ PFAS Transport Pathways to Cape Fear River
Prior site investigations have identified potential pathways for Table 3+ PFAS originating
from the Site that may reach the Cape Fear River (Geosyntec 2019g). These pathways
represent compartments to model as part of the Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model.
The potential pathways are listed below, and are shown on the conceptual diagram
provided in Figure 3:
• 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 Table 3+ PFAS present from aerial deposition;

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 7 July 2020
• 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 Table 3+ PFAS on the Cape Fear
River;
• 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
process water and (iii) Site stormwater, 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;
• 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; and,
• Transport Pathway 9: Georgia Branch Creek – Groundwater, stormwater
discharge and aerial deposition to Georgia Branch Creek and then to the Cape
Fear River.
2.6 Cape Fear River Mass Loading Assessments
In this report, the following definitions are used:
1. Mass load refers to the estimated PFAS total mass load, measured nominally in
kilograms, reaching the Cape Fear River over a specified time period.
2. Mass loading refers to the PFAS mass discharge from the potential PFAS
transport pathways to the Cape Fear River, measured in mass per unit time
[MT-1], typically milligrams per second. In previous assessment, the mass
discharge was referred to as mass loading, but for clarity, mass discharge will be
used in this and future assessments.
2.6.1 Cape Fear River Sampling Location
In a response to NCDEQ comments on Paragraph 12 (Geosyntec, 2020c), it is
recommended that the estimated Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load be

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 8 July 2020
based on concentrations from twice weekly composite samples collected from the
sampling location (CFR-TARHEEL) at Cape Fear River at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge,
approximately 7 miles downstream of the Site. 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. That the river is well mixed at this
location is supported by result of numerical model simulations of the Cape Fear River
and trends in hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) concentrations
becoming uniform in the river upstream of this point (Assessment of the Chemical and
Spatial Distribution of PFAS in the Cape Fear River; Geosyntec 2018). The calculation
of total mass load using concentrations from the CFR-TARHEEL location and Cape Fear
River flow volumes are described later in this report in Section 5.
2.6.2 Prior Mass Loading Sampling and Reporting
Previously, the results of the Mass Loading Model provided ‘snapshots’ of the relative
loadings per Table 3+ PFAS transport pathway to the Cape Fear River compared to
measured in-river concentrations. The twice weekly sampling at the CFR-TARHEEL
sample location will allow for total mass loading over time assessments.
An assessment of Table 3+ PFAS mass loading was presented in the “Cape Fear River
PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and Paragraph 11.1 Characterization of PFAS
at Intakes” report (Geosyntec, 2019b) submitted August 26, 2019. Subsequent
assessments were reported in the Corrective Action Plan (Geosyntec, 2019g) and Mass
Loading Model Update – November 2019 Sampling Event (Geosyntec, 2020a). These
mass loading assessments evaluated samples collected from two wet and two dry
sampling events: May 2019 (dry), June 2019 (wet), September 2019 (dry) and November
2019 (wet). For each assessment, the model-estimated total Table 3+ PFAS mass loading
originating from the facility to the Cape Fear River was compared with empirically
measured Table 3+ PFAS mass in the river at CFR-BLADEN, approximately 5 miles
downstream from the southern edge of the Site.
The Mass Loading Model assessment presented in this report was conducted using a
similar methodology with adjustments made to sampling, flow measurements, and mass
loading calculations to provide an improved Mass Loading Model assessment framework.
The methodology and results of the Mass Loading Model assessment are described in
Section 6.
3 SCOPE AND METHODS
The Q1 2020 sampling events were completed by Geosyntec and Parsons of NC (Parsons)
between January and April 2020. The scope of the sampling programs and methods

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 9 July 2020
employed to collect field data are summarized below. Complete descriptions of the field
methods can be found in the applicable appendices for each sampling program.
3.1 Sampling Activities in Q1 2020
Q1 2020 sampling activities included:
1. Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load Sampling - Collecting twice
weekly composite samples at CFR-TARHEEL (March 2020 to present);
2. Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling:
a. Collecting a synoptic round of groundwater elevations from on and offsite
monitoring wells (February 2020);
b. Collecting water samples for PFAS from 20 on and offsite monitoring
wells (February 2020).
c. Collecting surface water (seeps, creeks, Old Outfall 002, Intake River
Water at Facility and Outfall 002) and river water samples for PFAS (April
2020); and
d. Measuring flow rates at specified surface water locations (April 2020).
3. Southwestern Offsite Seeps Sampling - Measuring surface water flow rates and
collecting surface water samples (offsite seeps) for PFAS (March 2020); and
4. Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling - Collecting surface water samples
in the Cape Fear, Deep, Haw and Little Rivers (January 2020);
These sampling activities are described, reported and interpreted in the remainder of this
report.

3.2 Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program
An autosampler (Teledyne ISCO 6712 Sampler) was installed near the Tar Heel Ferry
Road bridge (CFR-TARHEEL; Figure 2) to collect river water samples to evaluate PFAS
mass load. The autosampler sits on a concrete pad and is covered with a locked box to
deter vandalism. The high-density polyethylene (HDPE) quarter-inch diameter sampling
tubing runs down to the river and where possible is inside a pipe to deter vandalism.
Depending on river stage, the end of the sampler collection tubing inlet is located in the
Cape Fear River about 20 ft from the shore and about 3 ft above the river bottom with a
typical minimum water column of one foot above the inlet. The intake tubing of the
autosampler is angled at a 45-degree angle from the surface and has a steel strainer to

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 10 July 2020
avoid capturing debris while sampling. An orange safety buoy is positioned in the river
above the intake tubing to signal the presence of the underwater obstruction.
Duplicate samples were collected by increasing the sampling flow from the autosampler
and using this additional volume to collect a second set of samples. Equipment blank
samples were collected by using a second autosampler and dedicated tubing to collect a
sample from a deionized water container. The tubing line from which the equipment blank
was collected was the same length as the line from which river water samples were
collected. Samples were sent to external laboratories for analysis by the Table 3+ SOP
method. PFAS compounds evaluated are listed in Table 1.
Nominally composite samples 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). The record of composite sample collection over time is shown
graphically in Figure 4. In this reporting period, the composite sampling program
experienced some sampling interruptions due to 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 March 28, 2020 and May 11, 2020, the
composite sampling program experienced two interruptions and sampling adjustments to
the scheduled sampling program; these interruptions are listed below:
• April 10, 2020 – Vandalism. Approximately 28-ft of 1-inch galvanized conduit
was removed from the river and brought ashore. The conduit and tubing were
pulled from the locked box covering the sampler resulting in a disconnection of
the intake tubing to the autosampler silicon junction within the locked box. The
autosampler and its housing were still intact and there were no signs of damage.
The orange safety buoy, with 50 ft of stainless aircraft cable and shackle, was
missing. The conduit, tubing cables and buoy were replaced and reinforced to
reduce potential for vandalism. This event resulted in no sample collection during
the period of April 10 to 15, 2020.
• April 30, 2020 – Vandalism. HDPE tubing that feeds into the junction box was
disconnected from the tubing that runs to the autosampler. Tubing was replaced
and reconnected. Composite sample collection was delayed and shortened to a 2.6
day composite instead of the planned 3.5 day composite.
The data collected from the Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program were used to
estimate Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load in the Cape Fear River and results are described in
Section 4.2 and Section 5.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 11 July 2020
3.3 Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program
The quarterly Mass Loading Model Sampling Program consisted of collecting
concentration and flow data for the various PFAS transport pathways described in Section
2.5. 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 Q1 2020 Event are shown on Figures 5 and 6 and listed
in Table 2. Groundwater sampling locations for the Q1 2020 Event are listed in Table 3
and shown on Figure 7. Collected samples were evaluated for the PFAS compounds listed
in Table 1.
The quarterly Mass Loading Model Sampling started in Q1 2020 with the sampling
ending in the first few days of the second quarter of 2020 (Q2 2020), i.e. early April.
Sampling was extended into Q2 2020 due to access concerns at the seeps and Willis Creek
due to elevated Cape Fear River levels. Rain events in March and upstream activities (i.e.,
release of water from Jordan Lake to decrease water levels in upstream reservoirs) led to
the elevated river stage near the Site.
Samples for PFAS analysis were collected at 10 surface water locations, and flow rates
were measured at 11 locations shown on Figure 5 and Figure 6 and listed in Table 2.
Samples were collected for PFAS analysis from locations in Seep A, Seep B, Seep C,
Seep D, Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch Creek, the Cape Fear River,
Intake River Water at the Facility (i.e., location formerly referred to as Excess River
Water), and Outfall 002. Flow gauging measurements were conducted at locations in
Seep A, Seep B, Seep C, Seep D, Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, and Georgia Branch
Creek. Flow was measured at these locations using flumes and/or flow velocity gauging.
Additional details on sample collection and flow gauging methods are described below
and in the Seeps and Creeks Investigation Report (Geosyntec, 2019c). Four grab samples
were collected from the Cape Fear River at River Mile 76 (CFR-MILE-76), CFR-
TARHEEL, CFR-BLADEN, and CFR-KINGS.
Samples for PFAS analysis were collected at 20 groundwater wells for the Q1 2020
Event. The locations are shown on Figure 7 and listed in Table 3. Samples for PFAS
analysis were collected from 20 monitoring well locations and synoptic groundwater
elevations were collected from the entire onsite well network. The groundwater
elevations are reported in Table 4 and potentiometric surface maps by aquifer are shown
on Figures 8A through 8C. Additional details on groundwater monitoring methods are
described in Appendix A.
Onsite rain gauges did not indicate any precipitation during the two days of surface water
sample collection (April 2 and 3, 2020). While trace precipitation (0.22 inches) was
observed on March 31, 2020, the last significant precipitation event was measured at the

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 12 July 2020
Site on February 6, 2020 (3.4 inches). The April 2020 surface water sampling event is,
therefore, considered to be a quiescent (dry) weather event for the purposes of the Mass
Loading Model.
The data collected from these Q1 2020 field activities were then incorporated into the
Mass Loading Model to estimate Table 3+ PFAS mass loading from the nine (9) potential
transport pathways, as identified in the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) (Geosyntec,
2019d), listed in Section 2.5 and discussed in more detail in Section 6. These Mass
Loading Model estimates of Table 3+ mass loading to the Cape Fear River were
compared to mass loading observed downstream at CFR-TARHEEL.
3.3.1 Quarterly Seep, Surface Water, and the Cape Fear River Sampling
At each surface water location, where both sample collection and flow gauging were
conducted, tasks were conducted in the following order in April 2020:
Water sample collection for laboratory analyses as specified in Table 1;
Water quality parameter assessment (Table 5); and
Flow gauging as specified in Table 2.
The methods employed for surface water sample collection and flow gauging are outlined
in Appendix A.
3.3.1.1 Surface Water Sample Collection Methods
Autosamplers were used to collect 24-hour composite samples from the following seep,
surface water, and river locations:
• Willis Creek,
• Intake River Water at Facility,
• Seep A,
• Seep B,
• Seep C,
• Seep D,
• Outfall 002,
• Old Outfall 002, and
• CFR-TARHEEL.
The autosamplers collected sample aliquots once per hour into a common sampling
reservoir. Collecting composite samples from these locations allowed for a temporal

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 13 July 2020
assessment of loads reaching the river compared to grab samples because composite
samples smooth out potential variability in data when sampling heterogenous and
dynamic natural systems.
Water in the Cape Fear River takes a certain amount of time to pass from the Site to the
downstream sampling location at the CFR-TARHEEL. Consequently, the composite
river sample collection at the CFR-TARHEEL was initiated 7.6 hours after the
autosamplers at Willis Creek were initiated based the estimated time for water to travel
from the Site to CFR-TARHEEL. The travel time was estimated based on a numerical
flow model of the Cape Fear River prepared by Geosyntec.
Grab samples were collected from the following locations during the sampling program:
• CFR-MILE-76,
• Georgia Branch Creek,
• CFR-BLADEN,
• CFR-TARHEEL, and
• CFR-KINGS.
Collecting composite samples from the locations listed above, with the exception of CFR-
TARHEEL, was logistically infeasible; therefore, grab samples were collected at these
locations. A grab sample at CFR-TARHEEL was also collected to facilitate a comparison
between concentrations in grab samples collected at CFR-BLADEN and CFR-
TARHEEL as CFR-TARHEEL is a new sampling location added to Cape Fear River
sampling in 2020.
3.3.1.2 Flow Gauging Methods
Flow rates were measured after sample collection at seep and creek locations specified in
Table 2. Flow rates were measured using flumes at the seeps and using flow velocity
gauging at Willis Creek and Georgia Branch Creek, which were used to calculate
volumetric flow rates. Flow data for the Intake River Water at Facility location and
Outfall 002 were obtained from facility discharge monitoring reports while flow data was
obtained from USGS river gauge data at the W.O. Huske Dam (USGS Gauge Site No.
02105500) for CFR-TARHEEL and CFR-BLADEN and USGS river gauge data at Cape
Fear River Lock and Dam #1 for CFR-KINGS(USGS Gauge Site No. 02105769).
3.3.2 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling Program
At monitoring well locations specified in Table 3, the following tasks were conducted in
February 2020:

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 14 July 2020
1. Assessment of water quality parameters (Table 6), and
2. Collection of groundwater samples.
Groundwater samples were collected using low-flow sampling techniques as discussed
in detail in the Long-term Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Parsons, 2018b). Collection of
synoptic groundwater elevations was conducted on February 5, 2020, approximately a
week before the groundwater samples were collected. The methods used for groundwater
sample collection are outlined in Appendix A.
3.4 Southwestern Offsite Seeps Sampling
As reported in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (Geosyntec 2019g), ten offsite
groundwater seeps (Seeps E to M and Lock and Dam Seep) were identified on the west
bank of the Cape Fear River south of the Site. These seeps and the Lock and Dam Seep
were identified by performing a visual survey by boat between Old Outfall 002 and
Georgia Branch Creek. The observed flow from these seeps ranged from seeping water
from an embankment (i.e. trickles) to a visible small stream in some of the seeps.
On March 4th, 2020, the Lock and Dam Seep and Seeps E to K were sampled by
submerging a 250 milliliter (mL) HDPE sampling bottle facing into the direction of flow
to capture the water flowing from the seep. Flow was measured using the salt dilution
method for Seeps G and K which had enough flow for this method. The Lock and Dam
Seep and Seeps E, F, H and I had insufficient flow to perform the salt dilution tests and
seep flow was measured using the time it took the whole seep flow to fill a container of
known volume. Property access was not obtained for the offsite area for Seeps L and M,
making sample collection and flow gauging not possible for these seeps during the
sampling period. Appendix B contains a report summarizing the methods and results for
the Southwestern Offsite Seeps Sampling event. A summary of the results of this
sampling program are provided in Section 4.5 and a discussion presented in Section 7.1.
3.5 Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling
In January 2020, surface water samples from the Cape Fear, Deep, Haw and Little Rivers
were collected to assess the potential presence of a range of inorganic compounds, organic
compounds (e.g. 1,4-dioxane), pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs), and
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the Cape Fear River that could be present
in the raw water source of communities drawing water from the Cape Fear River.
Surface water was collected from eleven locations. Eight samples were collected from
the Cape Fear River between River Mile 4 and the Kings Bluffs Intake Canal (River Mile
132). Three samples were collected from tributaries to the Cape Fear River. These

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 15 July 2020
samples were collected from the Haw, Deep, and Little Rivers immediately upstream of
their confluence with the Cape Fear River.
Surface water samples were collected using a peristaltic pump; new, dedicated high
density polyethylene tubing; and new, dedicated silicone tubing for the pump head at each
location. The tubing was lowered halfway through the water column using an anchor
weight and the tubing was fastened to the anchor with the tubing intake pointing upwards.
Surface water was pumped directly from the submerged tubing through the pump head to
a flow-through cell. Field parameters (pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved
oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, turbidity) were monitored over a 5-minute interval,
then parameters were recorded, color and odors were noted, and the flow-through cell
was disconnected. The tubing was cut to provide an untampered end, and grab samples
were collected from the discharge of the tubing into the appropriate laboratory-supplied
sampling bottles.
Sampling for organics, semi-volatiles and volatile organic compounds were not
conducted through the silicone tubing since silicone may sorb some of these compounds
and result in a potentially low bias. Instead, these samples were collected using the
reverse-flow method by filling the tubing, retrieving the intake end of the tubing, and
running the pump in reverse to discharge water in the tubing from the intake end into the
bottle ware.
Samples for chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and chloramine were collected last, as these
parameters must be analyzed immediately after sample collection. These samples were
analyzed in the field using colorimetric methods.
Appendix C contains a report summarizing the methods and results for this river sampling
event. A summary of the results of this sampling program are provided in Section 4.6
and a discussion presented in Section 7.2.
3.6 Laboratory Analyses
Samples from the mass load and mass loading model sampling programs described in
Sections 3.2 and 3.3 were analyzed for PFAS by Table 3+ Laboratory SOP and some
samples were analyzed for Method EPA 537 Modified. PFAS reported under these
methods are listed in Table 1. The focus of this report is on Table 3+ PFAS, the 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
Table 3+ PFAS. Analytical results of PFAS analyzed under Method EPA 537 Modified,
with the exception of HFPO-DA which is included with Table 3+ PFAS reporting, are
provided in Appendix D.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 16 July 2020
4 SAMPLING RESULTS
This section presents sampling results from Q1 2020 sampling activities described in
Section 3. Specifically, this section describes data quality regarding data reported in this
report and then describes the results from the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load sampling
program, Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model sampling program, the
Southwestern Offsite Seeps sampling, and the Cape Fear River Surface Water sampling.
4.1 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
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;

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 17 July 2020
• 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
(R-PSDA [formerly Byproduct 4], Hydrolyzed PSDA [formerly Byproduct 5], 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 actual value.
4.2 Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load Sampling Results
For this Q1 2020 report, the Cape Fear River Mass Loads reporting period was from
March 28 to May 11, 2020. During this period, twelve (12) primary composite samples,
one duplicate composite sample, and one grab sample were collected at location CFR-
TARHEEL. Two samples were collected from the river before the reporting period on
February 14, 2020 and March 26, 2020; these sample results were excluded from the
estimation of the Cape Fear River Mass Load as they were before the autosampler was
fully calibrated and functional.
4.2.1 Cape Fear River Table 3+ 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. One equipment blank was collected on
April 8, 2020 and one duplicate sample was collected on March 31, 2020. The equipment
blank did not have PFAS detected above the associated reported limits. PFAS results for
the parent (CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120) and duplicate sample (CFR-TARHEEL-83-
033120-D) had relative percent differences less than 30% for the reported compounds,

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 18 July 2020
with the exception of HFPO-DA, perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid (PFO3OA), and R-
EVE, which were detected in one sample and not detected above the reporting limit in
the other sample.
4.2.2 Cape Fear River Table 3+ Mass Load PFAS Analytical Results
Sample results used to estimate Cape Fear River Mass Loads are reported in Table 7.
Minimum Total Table 3+ PFAS concentrations summed over 17 and 20 compounds were
51 and 63 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for samples which finished composite sample
collection on May 6, 2020 and March 31, 2020, respectively. Maximum Total Table 3+
PFAS concentrations summed over 17 and 20 compounds were 200 and 250 ng/L for the
sample which finished collection on April 9, 2020. The concentrations over time for these
composite samples are plotted on Figure 9 and calculated corresponding mass loads
plotted in Figure 10. Both figures are described in Section 5.
4.3 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Seep and Surface Water
Results
Sampling of seep, surface water and Cape Fear River locations occurred between April 2
and 3, with the exception of CFR-KINGS, which occurred on April 6, 2020. The Kings
Bluff sample was sampled four days later to account for the estimated time for water to
travel from the Site to the CFR-KINGS. Onsite rain gauges did not indicate any
precipitation during the three days of surface water sample collection (April 2, 3, and 6
2020). The April 2020 surface water sampling event is, therefore, considered to be a
quiescent (dry) weather event.
4.3.1 Seep and Surface Water QA/QC Samples
PFAS concentrations for surface water QA/QC samples are reported in Table 8. Three
equipment blanks were collected (two on April 3, 2020 and one on April 6, 2020). One
of the two equipment blanks collected on April 3, 2020 and the equipment blank collected
on April 6, 2020 had one PFAS compound, Hydrolyzed PSDA (formerly Byproduct 5),
detected above the associated reported limits. Samples collected on April 3 and 6, 2020
that had concentrations of Hydrolyzed PSDA (formerly Byproduct 5) within 5 times the
level found in the associated equipment blank were B qualified to indicate the presence
of the analyte in the equipment blank. This resulted in three Hydrolyzed PSDA (formerly
Byproduct 5) results that was B qualified (CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220, EXCESS
RIVER WATER-24-040320, and CAP1Q20-CFR-KINGS-040620). One field duplicate
was collected; relative percent differences for the reported compounds were all less than
30%; therefore, no additional data qualification was required.Flow Gauging Results

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 19 July 2020
A summary of flow rates measured for the April 2020 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 E.
Measured flow rates for Willis Creek and Georgia Branch Creek in April 2020 were 5,300
and 4,700 gallons per minute (gpm). Measured flow rates at the seeps were170, 150, 63
and 120 gpm for Seep A, B, C and D, respectively. The flow rate at Outfall 002 was
16,000 gpm while Old Outfall 002 had a flow rate of 650 gpm. The USGS reported flow
at W.O. Huske Dame (USGS 02105500) and Kings Bluff (USGS 02105769) were
2,400,000 gpm and 1,300,000 gpm, respectively (5,100 and 2,900 cubic feet per second).
4.3.2 Seeps and Surface Water Field Parameters
Field parameters recorded for surface water samples collected during the Q1 2020 event
are presented in Table 5 and the field forms are provided in Appendix F. Recorded field
parameter data are generally consistent with expectations, with the following exceptions:
• The pH at SEEP A was 4.06 on April 2 and 6.41 on April 3. While some variability
is expected, this change may indicate inaccurate readings.
• The pH at OLDOF-1 was 6.73 on April 2 and 3.63 on April 3. While some
variability is expected, this change may indicate inaccurate readings.
• Dissolved oxygen at SEEP A was 8.60 mg/L on April 2 and 2.95 mg/L on April
3. The higher reading on April 2 is more consistent with flowing streams.
4.3.3 Seep and Surface Water Table 3+ PFAS Analytical Results
Table 3+ PFAS and Total Table 3+ PFAS concentrations for all samples are summarized
in Table 8. Figures 11A, 11B, 12A, and 12B present the Total Table 3+ concentrations
reported for samples collected in April 2020 and Figure 13 presents the HFPO-DA
concentration for Cape Fear River samples. Laboratory and DVM reports are included in
Appendix G.
The sample collected from CFR-MILE-76 (before site) had no detections of Table 3+
PFAS reported above the reporting limit. The sample Intake River Water at Facility
showed Total Table 3+ concentrations of 100 ng/L (summed over 17 compounds) to 110
ng/L (summed over 20 compounds). Total Table 3+ PFAS concentrations in Willis Creek
and Georgia Branch Creek were 2,000 ng/L to 2,400 ng/L and 1,800 to 1,900 ng/L,
respectively. Grab and composite samples collected from the Outfall 002 had Total Table
3+ PFAS concentrations ranging from 130 to 320 ng/L while the concentration at the Old
Outfall 002 was 110,000 ng/L. At Old Outfall 002 detected concentrations of R-PSDA,
Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE were low relative to other compounds and did not change
the Total Table 3+ concentration reported to two significant digits. Samples collected
from the mouths of Seep A, Seep B, Seep C and Seep D had the highest Total Table 3+

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 20 July 2020
PFAS concentrations of 260,000 to 290,000 ng/L, 310,00 to 340,000 ng/L, 310,000 to
320,00 ng/L, and 180,000 ng/L, respectively. At Seep D detected concentrations of R-
PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE were low relative to other compounds and did not
change the Total Table 3+ concentration reported to two significant digits. The 24 hour
composite sample collected from CFR-TARHEEL had Total Table 3+ PFAS
concentrations of 91 ng/L to 130 ng/L, while the grab sample showed concentrations of
120 to 160 ng/L, similar to the concentrations observed at Bladen Bluffs (87 to 110 ng/L)
and Kings Bluff (98 to 130 ng/L). Figure 13 shows the HFPO-DA concentrations in the
four river samples. HFPO-DA concentrations were well below 140 ng/L ranging from
non-detect (upstream at CFR-MILE-76) to 18 ng/L (downstream composite sample at
CFR-TARHEEL).
4.4 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Groundwater Results
A synoptic water level survey of the onsite groundwater monitoring well network was
completed on February 5, 2020. Field parameters and groundwater samples were
collected from 20 of the 22 CO Paragraph 16 wells between February 6 and 25, 2020.
Two of the wells (INSITU-02 and Bladen-1S) were dry and not sampled.
4.4.1 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:
• Eleven equipment blank samples were collected over the 10 sampling days. No
PFAS were detected above the associated reporting limits in eight of the 11
equipment blank samples. Equipment blank samples collected on February 11,
12 and 19, 2020 had reportable levels of PFMOAA, PFO2HxA, PFO3OA,
perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid (PMPA) and/or perfluoroethoxysulfonic
acid (NVHOS). Samples collected on February 11, 12 and 19, that had
concentrations of PFMOAA, PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, PMPA or NVHOS 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.
• Ten field blank samples were collected over the 10 sampling days. No PFAS
were detected above the associated reporting limits in nine of the ten field blank
samples. The field blank sample from February 11, 2020 had a PMPA
concentration of 110 ng/L. Results for PMPA from February 11, 2020 within 5
times the level found in the field blank sample were B qualified to indicate the
presence of the analyte in the associated field blank sample.
• Two field duplicate samples were collected; relative percent differences for the
reported compounds were less than 30% with the exception of PEPA, PES and

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 21 July 2020
PFECA-B in the parent and field duplicate samples from LTW-03. These results
were J-qualified as estimated.

4.4.2 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 February 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 8A, 8B, and 8C).
Similar to Perched Zone groundwater elevations discussed in the On and Offsite
Assessment Report (Geosyntec, 2019d), a localized groundwater mound is observed near
NAF-01 and NAF-04 (Figure 8A). 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 8A).
Groundwater elevations in Surficial Aquifer wells (Figure 8B) 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 October 2019 (Geosyntec 2019g). In the southern
portion of the Site the Surficial Aquifer groundwater discharges to the Old Outfall 002
and to Seep B.
Groundwater in the Black Creek Aquifer flows in a predominantly easterly direction to
the Cape Fear River (Figure 8C) similar to groundwater elevations discussed in the
Additional Site Investigation Report (Parsons, 2018b) and the On and Offsite Assessment
Report (Geosyntec, 2019d). 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 Total Table 3+ mass loading to
the Cape Fear River (Pathway 5). The details of the calculations can be found in Appendix
H.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 22 July 2020
4.4.3 Groundwater Field Parameters
Field parameters recorded for groundwater samples collected during the Q1 2020 event
are presented in Table 6 and the field forms are provided in Appendix F. Recorded field
parameter data are generally in line with expectations for the sample locations with the
following exceptions:
• Turbidity at PW-07 was >999.9 NTU. The sample at this location was collected
as a grab sample due to low water volume in the well.
• Dissolved oxygen at SMW-12 was 9.14 mg/L. It is expected that samples
collected via low flow sampling techniques would have much lower dissolved
oxygen levels.

4.4.4 Groundwater Table 3+ PFAS Analytical Results
Table 3+ PFAS and Total Table 3+ concentrations for the groundwater samples collected
in February 2020 are summarized in Table 10 and Figures 14A and 14B. Laboratory and
DVM reports are included in Appendix G.
Total Table 3+ concentrations ranged from 42 ng/L at SMW-12 to 680,000 ng/L at PW-
11, with the highest concentrations observed at wells located near the seeps and at the
mouth of Old Outfall 002 (Figures 14A and 14B). In general, the largest proportion of
Total Table 3+ concentrations are comprised of HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA (Table
10). On an aquifer basis, lower individual and Total Table 3+ concentrations are observed
in wells screened in the Surficial Aquifer. Concentrations of Total Table 3+ PFAS in
Floodplain deposits and Black Creek Aquifer groundwater (Figures 14A and 14B) were
similar to the seep concentrations (Figures 11A and 11B). Overall, results from the Q1
2020 monitoring are consistent with trends observed at these wells in previous monitoring
events (Geosyntec, 2019d).
The results from the Q1 2020 groundwater monitoring event were used to calculate the
contribution of onsite groundwater in the Black Creek Aquifer to the Total Table 3+ mass
discharge to the Cape Fear River. The details of the calculations can be found in Appendix
H.
4.5 Southwestern Offsite Seeps Results
The results of the Southwestern Offsite Seep sampling are summarized in detail in
Appendix B and discussed briefly in this section. Samples were collected from
Southwestern offsite seeps E to K and the Lock and Dam seep. Seeps E to K are located
south of the Old Outfall (i.e. downstream), while the Lock and Dam seep is located north
of the Old Outfall (i.e. upstream). The Lock and Dam seep is also located downgradient
from the potential location of the onsite groundwater remedy. Measured flow rates

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 23 July 2020
among all the offsite seeps ranged from 1.0 gpm (Seep F) to 73 gpm (Seep G), while the
measured flow rate at the Lock and Dam Seep was16 gpm.
In general, Total Table 3+ concentrations decreased in each of the seeps with increasing
distance from the Site (i.e., going southward). The Lock and Dam Seep had the highest
Total Table 3+ concentration (20 compounds) of 192,000 ng/L. Total Table 3+
concentrations (20 compounds) at Seeps E to K ranged from 1,400 ng/L (Seep J) to 5,500
ng/L (Seep F). Note that the proportions of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE in
the Total Table 3+ concentrations were low and ranged from 0% to 2%. The most
frequently detected Table 3+ compounds were PFMOAA, HFPO-DA, PMPA, PEPA,
PFO2HxA, and PFO3OA. The highest Table 3+ concentration was observed at the Lock
and Dam Seep with a PFMOAA concentration of 160,000 ng/L.
4.6 January 2020 Cape Fear River Water Sampling Program Results
The results of the Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling program are summarized in
detail in Appendix C and analytical results for PFAS compounds analyzed by Table 3+
SOP and Method 537M are briefly discussed in this section.
The concentration of Total Table 3+ (20 compounds) ranged between non-detect in
several samples (samples from the Deep River, Haw River, Cape Fear River Mile 4, Cape
Fear River Mile 56.5, and Cape Fear River Mile 76) to a maximum concentration of 122
ng/L at River Mile 84. The highest individual compound concentration was PFMOAA at
36 ng/L from the sample collected at Cape Fear River Mile 84. In total, 9 Table 3+
compounds (including HFPO-DA) were reported in samples from this event.
Method 537M compounds were reported in all samples and ranged in concentration from
15.4 ng/L (Deep River) to 90.5 ng/L (Cape Fear River Mile 100, the Elizabethtown
WWTP). The Method 537M compound with the highest measured concentration was
perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) at Cape Fear River Mile 100 (Elizabethtown WWTP)
at 27 ng/L. In total, 9 Method 537M compounds were reported in samples collected from
this event.
5 TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS LOAD TO CAPE FEAR RIVER
This section presents results of the Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS mass loads for the
present reporting period of March 28, 2020 to May 9, 2020, a total of 43 days.
Specifically, this section discusses three types of mass loads:
1. The total measured in-river Table 3+ PFAS mass load based on time-weighted
concentration measurements of Table 3+ PFAS primarily from composite
samples of Cape Fear River water and measured Cape Fear River flow volumes

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 24 July 2020
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 Table 3+ 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 Table 3+ PFAS mass load to the Cape Fear River 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 Table 3+ Mass Load
𝑀𝑇𝑇3𝐶𝐹𝑅= 𝑙𝐶𝐹𝑅+𝑙𝑅𝑑𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑠
Where
𝑀𝑇𝑇3𝐶𝐹𝑅 = is the total mass load of Table 3+ PFAS compounds in the
Cape Fear River and prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by
implemented remedies;
𝑙𝐶𝐹𝑅 = is the Total Table 3+ PFAS 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;
𝑙𝑅𝑑𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑠 = is the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load prevented from
reaching the Cape Fear River by remedies implemented by Chemours;
Detailed calculation methods for each type of mass load are presented in Appendix I.
5.1 In-River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load and Total Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load
The Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load measured in the Cape Fear River for the 43 day long
reporting period of March 28to May 9, 2020 was 46 kilograms (kg) and 59 kg for the sum
of Total Table 3+ PFAS summed over 17 and 20 compounds, respectively (Table 11).
This in-river total mass load was estimated based on the fourteen mass loading estimation
intervals presented in Table 11 and shown in Figure 4. This estimated in-river mass load
was distributed over 510 million cubic meters (m3) or 18 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 99.4 cubic meters per second (m3/s) or 3,510 cubic feet per
second (cfs).

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

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 25 July 2020
The Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge had minimum values of 7.7 milligrams per
second (mg/s) (17 compounds) to 11 mg/s (20 compounds) for the sample collected on
May 11, 2020 (Table 12). The maximum Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge values
were 20 mg/s (17 compounds) to 30 mg/s (20 compounds) for the sample collected on
May 2, 2020. The calculated median mass discharge values were 12 mg/s and 16 mg/s
for Total Table 3+ PFAS summed over 17 and 20 compounds, respectively.
The plots of concentrations over time in Figure 9 indicate that concentrations in the Cape
Fear River are inversely 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 mass discharge over time in Figure 10 indicate that mass discharge had
periods of being positively correlated with river flow volumes. Notably, the highest
recorded mass discharge value for Total Table 3+ PFAS summed over 20 compounds
was 30 mg/s for the composite sample between April 30 and May 2, 2020. This sample
was collected after a rainfall event of more than 2 inches. Meanwhile for this same
sample, the Total Table 3+ PFAS concentration summed over 20 compounds was 130
ng/L, which is approximately half the value of the highest reported concentration for all
thirteen samples reported in Table 12. Therefore, while mass discharge did increase after
the large rainfall event the increases in river flow volume from the same rainfall resulted
in relatively similar river concentrations as before the storm event. This trend is likely
due to the fact that additional mass reaching the river, potentially from stormwater, was
diluted by increased river flow volumes.
For this reporting period the In-River Mass Load and the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load
is identical as no Remedy Captured Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loads were quantitated (see
Section 5.2 below). The Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load is presented in Table 13.
5.2 Remedy Captured Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load
Remedies implemented by Chemours will reduce Table 3+ PFAS mass loads to the Cape
Fear River. Presently, implemented remedies include air abatement measures for direct
aerial deposition (Transport Pathway 3), are in place (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.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 26 July 2020
Remedies to be implemented by Chemours (e.g. onsite seeps interim remedies, Outfall
002 remedy) that will prevent Table 3+ PFAS mass loads from reaching the Cape Fear
River will be quantified and accounted for in future Mass Loading Assessments.
5.3 Mass Discharge at Bladen Bluffs, Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge and Kings Bluff
Intake Canal
As shown in the table below, Total Table 3+ PFAS concentrations at the three
downstream river locations (CFR-BLADEN, CFR-TARHEEL, and CFR-KINGS) were
similar and ranged from 87 ng/L to 98 ng/L and 110 ng/L to 130 ng/L, summing over 17
and 20 compounds, respectively. In particular, the similarity between the CFR-BLADEN
and CFR-TARHEEL sample results indicates that the CFR-TARHEEL is a suitable
location for evaluating mass loading model estimated Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge to
measured in-river Table 3+ mass discharge. Prior model estimates had compared
estimated mass discharges to in-river samples collected at CFR-BLADEN. The mass
discharge at CFR-KINGS was the lowest and ranged from 8 mg/s to 11.6 mg/s for Total
Table 3+ summed over 17 and 20 compounds, respectively.
Sample Location
and Type
Sample
Collection
End Date
Total Table 3+
(Summed over 17
compounds)
Total Table 3+
(Summed over 20
compounds)
Concentration
(ng/L)
Mass
Discharge
(mg/s)
Concentration
(ng/L)
Mass
Discharge
(mg/s)
CFR-BLADEN 4/2/2020 87 11.6 110 14.6
CFR-TARHEEL 4/2/2020 91 12.2 130 17.4
CFR-KINGS 4/6/2020 98 8.0 130 11.6

6 CAPE FEAR RIVER TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL
While Section 5 presented the Table 3+ PFAS 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 Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge. This
evaluation helps to confirm that the pathways, where mitigative measures are planned,
will result in reductions of Table 3+ PFAS loading to the Cape Fear River. This evaluation
was performed using the Mass Loading Model. The following subsections describe the
model design, pathways, and the results of the Mass Loading Model assessment,
including the sensitivity and the limitations of the Mass Loading Model.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 27 July 2020
6.1 Model Design
The Mass Loading Model estimates the mass discharge of Table 3+ PFAS from the
potential PFAS transport pathways to the Cape Fear River. The Total Table 3+ PFAS
mass discharge entering the Cape Fear River is defined in this model as the combined
mass per unit time or mass discharge (e.g., mg/s) from potential pathways identified in
Section 2.5 and further discussed in Section 6.2 below. Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load
entering the Cape Fear River is calculated as:
Equation 2: Cape Fear River Estimated Mass Discharge from Mass Loading Model
𝐶𝐹𝑄𝑇𝑀= ∑∑𝑀𝑚,𝑖=∑∑(𝐶𝑚,𝑖× 𝑄𝑚) ∶
𝑖=𝐼
𝑖=1
𝑄𝑚 →𝑑𝑟𝑦 (𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑙 2020)
𝑚=9
𝑚=1
𝑖=𝐼
𝑖=1
𝑚=9
𝑚=1

where,
CFRTM = total PFAS mass discharge entering the Cape Fear River measured in mass
per unit time [MT-1], typically milligrams per second.
n = represents each of the 9 potential PFAS transport pathways listed in Table 14A.
To facilitate model construction, the Seeps (Transport Pathway 6) were further
discretized as Seep A (Transport Pathway 6A), Seep B (Transport Pathway 6B), Seep
C (Transport Pathway 6C) and Seep D (Transport Pathway 6D).
i = represents each of the Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents listed in Table 1.
I = represents total number of Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents included in the
summation of Total Table 3+ concentrations, e.g., 17 or 20.
Mn,i = mass load of each PFAS constituent i from each potential pathway n with
measured units in mass per unit time [MT-1], typically nanograms per second.
Cn,i = concentration of each PFAS constituent i from each potential pathway n with
measured units in mass per unit volume [ML-3], typically nanograms per liter.
Qn = volumetric flow rate from each potential pathway n with measured units in
volume per time [L3T-1], typically liters per second.
For the Q1 2020 Mass Loading Model assessment, data sources used as model inputs for
each potential pathway are described in Table 14A. These data sources included flow
measurements, water levels and analytical results from the Q1 2020 sampling events (as
discussed in Section 4) and supplemental data provided in Appendices E, H, J, and K.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 28 July 2020
The uncertainties and sensitivity of the model inputs are presented in Table 18. These
data sources included flow measurements, water levels and analytical results from the Q1
2020 sampling events (as discussed in Section 4) and supplemental data provided in
Appendices E, H, J, and K.
6.1.1 Adjustments to Methodology from 2019 Mass Loading Model Assessments
For the Q1 2020 Mass Loading Model adjustments were made to both sampling and
calculations methodologies to improve the model assessment. These adjustments
included:
1. Field Sampling/Measurement Adjustment: Composite samplers were used to
collect 24-hour integrated samples from Willis Creek, Seeps A to D, Outfall 002,
Old Outfall 002. In contrast, for the 2019 events, a mix of grab and composite
samples were used as inputs in the Mass Loading Model.
2. Field Sampling/Measurement Adjustment: Flumes were used to measure flow at
Seeps A to D and flow velocity gauging was used at the creeks. In contrast, in the
2019 Mass Loading Model flow measurements were obtained using a
combination of salt dilution tests, temporary weirs and flumes.
3. Field Sampling/Measurement and Calculation Adjustment: CFR-TARHEEL
replaced CFR-BLADEN for model-based comparisons. CFR-TARHEEL was
selected because an autosampler was able to be installed at this location enabling
modeled and observed mass loads to be more accurately compared. Additionally,
similar to CFR-BLADEN, CFR-TARHEEL is far enough downstream of the Site
such that inflows of water from the seeps, onsite groundwater, Old Outfall 002
and Georgia Branch Creek are well mixed in the river water based on numerical
model simulations of the Cape Fear River and trends in HFPO-DA concentrations
becoming uniform in the river upstream of this point (Assessment of the Chemical
and Spatial Distribution of PFAS in the Cape Fear River; Geosyntec 2018).
4. Calculation Adjustment: A time offset was applied to the flow data that accounts
for travel time for the flow passing the W.O. Huske Dam to reach the CFR-
TARHEEL and CFR-BLADEN sampling locations. Travel times are estimated
based on the results of a numerical model of the Cape Fear River which developed
a regression curve between the USGS reported gage heights at W.O. Huske Dam
and travel times. As such, the samples were collected during a representative time
interval, to the extent feasible, to account for the arrival times at these two river
locations.
5. Calculation Adjustment: Based on the sampling adjustments, model-based
estimates of Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge were based on measurements and

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 29 July 2020
concentrations representative of the entire 24-hour period. Therefore, the use of
flow and concentration statistics, i.e., quartiles, over the sampling period were not
used as inputs to the model as was done in 2019.
6. Calculation Adjustment: The sensitivity of modeled estimates of groundwater
Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge to the Cape Fear River was assessed using upper
and lower bounds of estimated onsite hydraulic conductivity. In this Q1 2020
assessment, the lower and upper bounds represent the model-estimated mass
loading resulting from minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity
values, respectively, for the onsite groundwater flow component (Transport
Pathway 5). See Section 6.2.4 below for further details and Appendix H for
supporting calculations. In contrast, previous assessments used the quartile
statistics to assess groundwater uncertainty, and groundwater gradients and
hydraulic conductivity were calibrated to observed mass loads in the Cape Fear
River after accounting for the Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from other
pathways.
6.2 PFAS Mass Loading Model Pathways
The nine potential pathways representing compartments to the Table 3+ PFAS Mass
Loading Model are described below. These pathways were identified as potential
contributors of Table 3+ PFAS to river Table 3+ PFAS concentrations.
6.2.1 Upstream Cape Fear River (Transport Pathway 1)
The upstream Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge contribution to Cape Fear River was
estimated using measured Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS concentrations (Table 8) and
flow rates (Table 9). One water sample was collected immediately upstream of the Site
and Willis Creek at River Mile 76 to estimate upstream Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge
contribution to Cape Fear River. River water samples were collected at the thalweg (i.e.,
deepest point of the river transect) at mid-depth in the water column.
Volumetric flow rates for the Cape Fear River were measured at the USGS flow gauging
station located at the W.O. Huske Dam, ID (USGS# 02105500; USGS, 2019),
approximately 0.5 river miles downstream of the Site (Appendix E). The volumetric flow
rate immediately upstream of the Site (River Mile 76) was estimated using a volumetric
budget accounting for flows between River Mile 76 and the W.O. Huske Dam, as depicted
in Figure 3. The volumetric flow rate at River Mile 76 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.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 30 July 2020
6.2.2 Tributaries – Willis Creek, Georgia Branch Creek, and Old Outfall 002
(Transport Pathways 2, 7 and 9)
The Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge contribution to the Cape Fear River from tributaries
to the Cape Fear River (Willis Creek, Georgia Branch Creek and Old Outfall 002) used
PFAS concentrations (Table 8) and flow rate data (Table 9 and Appendix E). PFAS
samples were collected at each tributary at a location near the discharge point to the Cape
Fear River, but still far enough upstream in the tributary where they are not potentially
influenced by the Cape Fear River. Since analytical sample locations were near the
discharge point to the Cape Fear River, model input for tributaries would account for
loading from groundwater discharging to the tributary, onsite surface water runoff into
the tributary and direct aerial deposition on these tributaries
Volumetric discharge rates for the tributaries were obtained using a flume at Old Outfall
002 and flow velocity gauging at the creeks as outlined in the Seeps and Creeks
Investigation Report (Geosyntec, 2019b). A summary of the measured and estimated flow
values for all tributaries are provided in Table 9 and Appendix E. Detailed methods for
flow measurements are presented in Appendix A.
6.2.3 Aerial Deposition to the Cape Fear River (Transport Pathway 3)
The Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from direct aerial deposition of Table 3+ PFAS to
the Cape Fear River was estimated using air deposition modeling results for HFPO-DA
from the Site (ERM, 2018). Average deposition rates to the Cape Fear River were
estimated based on the reported aerial extent and deposition contours. Estimated
deposition rates were combined with the average river surface area and estimated
residence time of flowing Cape Fear River water to estimate a mass discharge from aerial
deposition. The mass discharge of Table 3+ PFAS compounds was estimated by using
the relative concentration ratios of other Table 3+ PFAS to HFPO-DA based on measured
concentrations from offsite wells. Supporting documentation for this estimation is
included in Appendix J. This Q1 2020 report utilized the 2018 emissions reduction
scenario outlined in the ERM report (ERM, 2018). This is likely a conservative
assumption as further air emission reductions controls have been implemented compared
to the modeled scenario. As assessment of air emissions controls continues, the bases of
estimating Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge to the river from this pathway may be updated.
6.2.4 Onsite Groundwater (Transport Pathways 5 and 6)
The Mass Loading Model describes two groundwater Table 3+ PFAS transport pathways
to the Cape Fear River. First, the indirect pathway of groundwater to the onsite seeps
which discharge to the Cape Fear River, and second, the direct pathway of Black Creek
aquifer groundwater discharging directly to the river.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 31 July 2020
6.2.4.1 Indirect Pathway – Onsite Groundwater Seeps to River (Transport Pathway 6)
Four seeps at the Site have been identified that discharge directly to the Cape Fear River:
Seep A, Seep B, Seep C and Seep D (Figure 5). The Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from
these seeps to the Cape Fear River was estimated using measured Table 3+ PFAS
concentrations (Table 8) and volumetric discharged rates (Table 9 and Appendix E).
Volumetric discharge rates were calculated using flumes as detailed in Appendix A.
6.2.4.2 Direct Pathway – Groundwater Discharge to River (Transport Pathway 5)
The Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge of onsite groundwater discharge from the Black
Creek Aquifer to the Cape Fear River was estimated by calculating the sum of the Table
3+ PFAS mass discharge for eight segments of the Black Creek aquifer along the Cape
Fear River frontage. Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge for each segment was calculated
based on the following parameters:
• The cross-sectional area of the Black Creek Aquifer for each segment, as
determined from a three-dimensional hydrostratigraphic model of the Site;
• The hydraulic gradient for each segment, as determined from groundwater level
contours in the vicinity of the river frontage;
• The hydraulic conductivity for each segment, as determined from slug tests
conducted on monitoring wells representative of the Black Creek Aquifer; and
• Table 3+ PFAS concentrations detected in monitoring wells in the vicinity of each
segment.
Further details on the onsite groundwater discharge term and associated calculations are
provided in Appendix H.
6.2.5 Outfall 002 and Facility Stormwater Runoff (Transport Pathway 4)
The Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge of PFAS from Outfall 002 to the Cape Fear River
was estimated using measured Table 3+ PFAS concentrations and measured Outfall 002
volumetric flow rates. Additionally, the concentration of Table 3+ PFAS compounds for
Outfall 002 were adjusted for Table 3+ PFAS already present in the Intake River Water
at Facility samples before being input into the model. The Table 3+ PFAS present in
intake water are already accounted for in the Mass Loading Model in pathways 1, 2, and
3 (Upstream River, Willis Creek and Direct Aerial Deposition). Daily volumetric
discharge from Outfall 002 to the Cape Fear River is recorded (Appendix E) and used in
the PFAS Loading Model.
6.2.6 Adjacent and Downstream Offsite Groundwater (Transport Pathway 8)
The Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from adjacent and downstream offsite groundwater
to the Cape Fear River was estimated based on estimated upstream groundwater loading

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 32 July 2020
described in Section 6.2.1. Table 3+ PFAS detected in offsite groundwater originate from
aerial deposition which has occurred in all directions from the Site (Geosyntec, 2019g).
These aerially deposited Table 3+ PFAS have subsequently infiltrated to groundwater
and migrate towards the Cape Fear River where they lead to upstream, adjacent and
downstream offsite groundwater Table 3+ PFAS mass. The upstream offsite groundwater
Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is estimated relatively simply by using measured river
flows and concentrations at River Mile 76 upstream of the Site. Here only the upstream
offsite groundwater Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is present in the river at this location.
Conversely, the adjacent and downstream offsite groundwater Table 3+ PFAS mass
discharge is difficult to measure directly since many Table 3+ PFAS mass discharges
from all other pathways are present in the river where these offsite groundwater
contributions join the river. Additionally, adjacent and downstream offsite groundwater
have a relatively small component of the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge making
their additional contributions to the total discharge difficult to distinguish from other
discharges already present.
Therefore, since Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from offsite groundwater both upstream
and downstream of the Site follow the same dynamics (deposition, infiltration, migration,
discharge) the adjacent and downstream Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is scaled from
the upstream offsite groundwater mass discharge estimate. The downstream offsite
groundwater loadings are scaled to the upstream offsite groundwater loadings based on
the length of river downstream of the Site known to be in contact with offsite groundwater
containing PFAS compared to the length of the river upstream also in contact with offsite
groundwater containing PFAS. A description of these calculations is presented in
Appendix K.
6.3 Mass Loading Model Results
The pathway-specific Table 3+ PFAS mass discharges estimated from the Mass Loading
Model and measured at CFR-TARHEEL are summarized in Table 15. A summary of the
Total Table 3+ (17 and 20 compounds) 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 15. A comparison of relative contributions per pathway between the
2019 assessments and the Q1 2020 assessment is provided in Table 17. Note that 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; therefore, based on this similarity and for clarity of discussion model
results for only the Total Table 3+ PFAS (20 compounds) are discussed below.
The model-estimated Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge ranged from 16 mg/s (lower
bound) to 26 mg/s (upper bound), while the measured mass discharge at CFR-TARHEEL

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 33 July 2020
was18 mg/s (Table 16 and Figure 15). The lower bound mass discharge estimate is closer
to the measured mass discharge (within approximately 2 mg/s) compared to the upper
bound mass discharge estimate (within 8 mg/s).
The Mass Loading Model estimates that the seeps and Old Outfall 002 (Transport
Pathways 6 and 7, respectively) have the highest contribution of Total Table 3+ PFAS
mass discharge in April 2020, with a combined contribution ranging from approximately
52% (upper bound) to 86% (lower bound) (Table 16). The Old Outfall 002 contributed
17% to 28% of the estimated mass discharge, which is consistent with previous Mass
Loading Model assessments performed in 2019 (Table 17). The onsite seeps contributed
from 35% to 57% of the mass discharge, which is higher than previous estimates, and
appears to be driven by a change in measured flow and not an increase in Total Table 3+
PFAS concentrations. In particular, the change in flow was most marked at Seep D and
is likely now a more accurate measurement since the installation of a flume at this seep.
Onsite groundwater (Transport Pathway 5) is the next highest Table 3+ PFAS mass
discharge pathway to the Cape Fear River, contributing from 5% (lower bound) to 42%
(upper bound) of the model estimated Total Table 3+ mass discharge (Table 16 and
Figure 15). In previous assessments, this pathway contributed approximately 14% to
22%, which is within the range estimated for this assessment (Table 17). 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 Table
3+ 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 Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge calculation (Appendix H). Based on the measured
Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge at CFR-TARHEEL, the minimum value better represents
Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from the groundwater pathway to the river during this
event. 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
modeled to contribute between 5% to 9% of the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge to
the Cape Fear River in April 2020. These contributions are consistent with estimated
contributions reported in previous assessments.
Outfall 002 (Transport Pathway 4) contributed approximately 1% of the Total Table 3+
mass load to the Cape Fear River in April 2020 as compared to 4% – 8% in previous
assessments (Table 17). Loading at Outfall 002 is expected to continue to decline as
potential future controls are implemented.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 34 July 2020
Upstream River Water and Groundwater, Aerial Deposition, and Adjacent and
Downstream Offsite Groundwater (Transport Pathways 1, 3 and 8, respectively)
contributed less than 1% of the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge to the Cape Fear
River in April 2020. Previous assessments showed higher contributions for Pathway 1
ranging from 4% to 15% and the similar contributions for Pathways 3 and 8 (Table 17).
In April 2020, all Table 3+ concentrations were non-detect in the upstream river sample
(Pathway 1; CFR-MILE-76); therefore, for this event the Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge
estimates for Pathway 1 and consequently Pathway 8 was zero2 (Table 16 and Figure 15).
6.4 Mass Loading Model Sensitivity and Limitations
The Mass Loading Model assessments provide Table 3+ 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
are presented in Table 18. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Tables
19A and 19B.
Model input parameters for the following four pathways were included in the sensitivity
analysis: Onsite Groundwater, Outfall 002, the Seeps, and Old Outfall. For each
sensitivity test, the flow or concentration was adjusted for one pathway at a time only.
For each sensitivity test, one of the input parameters to the model is varied (i.e., ±10%
and ±20% for flow and concentration, respectively) and the resulting model estimated
Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is compared with the base case model estimated
Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge.
For the Q1 2020 event, the model-estimated mass discharge was presented as a range
with a lower and upper bound based on the minimum and geometric mean hydraulic
conductivity values, respectively, used in the onsite groundwater pathway. Since the
onsite groundwater term has the highest level of uncertainty, 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,

2 Note, Pathways 1 and 8, Upstream Cape Fear River and Adjacent and Downstream
Groundwater were zero because location CFR-MILE-76 upstream of the Site was non-detect
at the reporting limit for all Table 3+ compounds during this event. This location has had
detections of Table 3+ PFAS compounds in the past.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 35 July 2020
quantified based on the minimum and geometric mean hydraulic conductivity values,
respectively, for the onsite groundwater pathway. Table 19A presents the sensitivity
scenarios where the lower bound hydraulic conductivity values for the onsite groundwater
pathway are used for the base case while Table 19B presents scenarios using the upper
bound hydraulic conductivity values for the onsite groundwater pathway. As such, the
sensitivity tests were performed holding the onsite groundwater mass discharge fixed at
(i) the minimum hydraulic conductivity (or low flow scenario) and (ii) the geometric
mean hydraulic conductivity (or high flow scenario).
The model is most sensitive to pathways that contain the highest concentrations and flow
measurements. For the Q1 2020 event, the range in model-estimated mass discharges
resulted in a large range in absolute and relative terms, particularly for the onsite
groundwater pathway and, to a lesser extent, the Seep pathway. Specifically, the
following sensitivity observations were made:
• Varying the hydraulic conductivity of onsite groundwater changed the mass
discharge estimate of the model from 16 to 26 mg/s for Total Table 3+ PFAS
summed over 20 compounds;
• The greatest sensitivity to the model-estimated mass discharge for the Seep
pathway was from varying the flows and concentrations. For example, the model-
estimated mass discharge was reduced from 16 mg/s to 14.1 mg/s , i.e., a
difference of 1.8 mg/s or -13%, when the Total Table 3+ PFAS summed over 20
compounds was reduced by 20% using the lower bound hydraulic conductivity
scenario set for onsite groundwater (Table 19A);
• The model was mildly sensitive to varying input parameters for the Old Outfall
pathway. For example, the change in model-estimated mass discharges ranged
from -6% and 6% when the Total Table 3+ PFAS summed over 17 compounds
was reduced by 20% using the lower bound hydraulic conductivity scenario set
for onsite groundwater (Table 19A). This is reflective of Old Outfall being a
measurable source of Table 3+ PFAS to the Cape Fear River.
• For this event the model was not sensitive to variations in Outfall 002 loading
variables as the relative loading from Outfall 002 was minimal compared to the
other pathways.
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

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 36 July 2020
Cape Fear River. Both investigations will provide a better understanding of the
connection between the Black Creek Aquifer and the Cape Fear River.
7 DISCUSSION OF OTHER Q1 2020 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
7.1 Southwestern Offsite Seeps
The results of the Southwestern Offsite Seep sampling are summarized in Appendix B.
Consistent with previous findings (CAP, Geosyntec, 2019g), offsite seeps E to K continue
to indicate an aerial deposition PFAS signature (concentrations decrease in seeps more
distant from the Site).
The Lock and Dam Seep PFAS concentrations are consistent with a process water
signature which is the same signature observed at the Old Outfall 002 and at the onsite
seeps. The Lock and Dam Seep is located upgradient of the proposed groundwater
remedy, where it is anticipated to prevent flow of groundwater to this seep.
The calculated Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge over 20 compounds for the seeps
south of the Old Outfall with an aerial deposition signature ranged from 0.0003 mg/s at
Seep I to 0.02 mg/s at Seep G. The summed Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from
these Southwestern offsite seeps south of the Old Outfall was 0.03 mg/s. For reference,
0.03 mg/s is equivalent to 0.02% of the median Total Table 3+ mass discharge (16 mg/s)
from composite samples measured during this reporting period as described in Section
5.1.
The calculated Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge for the Lock and Dam Seep was 0.2
mg/s. For reference, this loading is approximately 1% of the median Total Table 3+ mass
discharge (16 mg/s) from composite samples measured during this reporting period as
described in Section 5.1.
7.2 Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling
The results of the surface water sampling program are summarized in Appendix C. PFAS
were present along the entire sampled length of the Cape Fear River and in sampled
tributaries. The PFAS present were separated into three groupings, PFAS analyzed by
Method 537M, PFAS identified using the TOP assay, and PFAS analyzed by the Table
3+ method. Similar to prior events, Method 537M PFAS were present along the entire
sampled length of the river and tributaries. The presence of these Method 537M PFAS in
the Cape Fear River was not associated with the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility.
Also similar to prior events, Table 3+ PFAS increase in concentration as the river passes
the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility. For the first time, PFAS compounds
identifiable by the TOP Assay were assessed. The additional PFAS fraction identified by

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 37 July 2020
the TOP assay were present along the entire length of the Cape Fear River and were
interpreted to not be associated with the Fayetteville Works facility.
Combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS at all locations were below the 70 ng/L
USEPA Lifetime Health Advisory level (USEPA, 2016a, 2016b). Combined PFOA and
PFOS concentrations ranged from 6.5 ng/L (Deep River) to 19.8 ng/L (Haw River).
Concentrations of HFPO-DA were below the 140 ng/L HFPO-DA provisional health goal
(NCDEQ and NCHHS, 2018). Concentrations ranged from below reporting limits to 13
ng/L (Cape Fear River Mile 84). HFPO-DA was only reported in samples downstream
of the Fayetteville Works facility.
Pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) were present in the Cape Fear River
and originate in part from WWTP sources. 1,4-Dioxane was also present throughout the
sampled Cape Fear River above the NCDEQ in-stream target value of 350 ng/L at all
locations.
8 CONCLUSIONS
Four field sampling events were conducted in Q1 2020 and the results presented herein.
The field sampling events were:
• The Table 3+ 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 Table 3+ PFAS mass
loads in the Cape Fear River during the reporting period;
• The Q1 2020 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling program consisting
of samples collected from Table 3+ 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 Table 3+ PFAS transport pathway to the Cape Fear River using the Table 3+
PFAS Mass Loading Model;
• Sampling and flow gauging of the Southwestern offsite seeps to complete initial
characterization of these seeps and to assess the degree of loadings from these
seeps; and
• A Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling Program consisting of water samples
from the Cape Fear, Deep, Haw and Little Rivers were collected to assess the
potential presence of a range of inorganic compounds, organic compounds (e.g.
1,4-dioxane), PPCPs, and PFAS in the Cape Fear River that could be present in
the Cape Fear River.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 38 July 2020
At present there are data quality issues with the analysis of compounds R-PSDA
[formerly Byproduct 4], Hydrolyzed PSDA [formerly Byproduct 5], 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 (Matrix
Interference Memorandum, 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 Table 3+ PFAS Mass Load assessment estimated the Total Table
3+ PFAS that were discharged to the Cape Fear River over the Load assessment period
of March 28 to May 9, 2020. Over this period 46 to 59 kg of Total Table 3+ PFAS
summed over 17 and 20 compounds, respectively reached the Cape Fear River.
The Cape Fear River Table 3+ Mass Loading Model assessment determined that onsite
seeps and the Old Outfall were the largest contributors to Table 3+ PFAS mass in the
Cape Fear River with contribution percentages of 35% to 57% and 17% to 28%,
respectively. The next largest contributing pathway was onsite groundwater estimated to
range between 5% to 42%. Groundwater’s large range of potential mass loading
contribution to the Cape Fear River is based on the sensitivity of the pathways estimate
to modifications in the selected hydraulic conductivity values. Minimum and geometric
mean hydraulic conductivity values were selected for the Black Creek Aquifer to model
the lower and upper bound estimates of onsite groundwater contributions to the Cape Fear
River. For the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge summed over 20 compounds, the
Mass Loading Model estimated the Total Table PFAS mass discharge in the Cape Fear
River to be 16 to 26 mg/s. This range is within the measured mass discharge of 18 mg/s
at CFR-TARHEEL (Table 16 and Figure 15).
The sampling of Southwestern offsite seeps indicated that seeps south of the extent of
planned groundwater remedy contribute approximately 0.02% of the discharge of Table
3+ PFAS to the Cape Fear River. Meanwhile, the Lock and Dam Seep, which was
estimated to contribute approximately 1% of the discharge of Table 3+ PFAS to the Cape
Fear River, is downgradient of the planned groundwater remedy and is anticipated to be
hydraulically reduced by the planned remedy.
The Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling program in January 2020 indicated that
there was an additional fraction of upstream, non-Chemours previously unidentified
PFAS in the Cape Fear River. These PFAS were detected using the TOP assay and were
consistently seen upstream and downstream of the Site indicating they originated from
before the Site. The sampling program also continued to demonstrate that Table 3+ PFAS

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 39 July 2020
increase in concentration as the Cape Fear River passes by the Site. This program also
found PPCPs were present in the Cape Fear River. 1,4-Dioxane was also present
throughout the sampled Cape Fear River above the NCDEQ in-stream target value of 350
ng/L at all locations.

Q1 2020 CFR Mass Loading Assessment.docx 40 July 2020
9 REFERENCES
Geosyntec, 2018a. Assessment of the Chemical and Spatial Distribution of PFAS in the
Cape Fear River. Chemours Fayetteville Works. 17 September 2018.
Geosyntec, 2019a. Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan – Supplemental
Information Report. Chemours Fayetteville Works. 4 November 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019b. Cape Rear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and
Paragraph 11.1 Characterization of PFAS at Intakes. Chemours Fayetteville
Works. 26 August 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019c. Seeps and Creeks Investigation Report. Chemours Fayetteville Works.
26 August 2019
Geosyntec, 2019d. On and Offsite Assessment. Chemours Fayetteville Works. September
30, 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019e. Assessment of HFPO-DA and PFMOAA in Outfall 002 Discharge
and Evaluation of Potential Control Options. August 26, 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019f. Observations of Elevated PFAS Concentrations at the Cape Fear River
Intake and Outfall 002 Sample Locations in May and June 2019. August 7, 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019g. Corrective Action Plan. Chemours Fayetteville Works. December 31,
2019.
Geosyntec, 2020a. Mass Loading Model Update – November 2019 Sampling Event.
Chemours Fayetteville Works. March 16, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020b. Matrix Interference During Analysis of Table 3+ Compounds. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. June 30, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020c. Response to North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Comments - Dated December 19, 2019. Chemours Fayetteville Works. January
31, 2020.USGS Current Conditions for USGS 02105500 CAPE FEAR R AT
WILM O HUSKE LOCK NR TARHEEL, NC.
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=02105500. Accessed on June 10th
2020.

TABLE 1
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND ANALYTE LIST
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Analytical Method Common Name Chemical Name CASN Chemical Formula
HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 13252-13-6 C6HF11O3
PEPA Perfluoro-2-ethoxypropionic acid (Formerly Perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid)267239-61-2 C5HF9O3
PFECA-G Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid 801212-59-9 C12H9F9O3S
PFMOAA Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid 674-13-5 C3HF5O3
PFO2HxA Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid (Formerly Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid)39492-88-1 C4HF7O4
PFO3OA Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid (Formerly Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid)39492-89-2 C5HF9O5
PFO4DA Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic acid (Formerly Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid)39492-90-5 C6HF11O6
PMPA Perfluoro-2-methoxypropionic acid (Formerly 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy)propanoic) 13140-29-9 C4HF7O3
Hydro-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 (Formerly Hydro-EVE Acid)773804-62-9 C8H2F14O4
EVE 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 (Formerly Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid)69087-46-3 C8HF13O4
PFECA B Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid 151772-58-6 C5HF9O4
R-EVE Pentanoic acid, 4-(2-carboxy-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)-2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro- (Formerly R-EVE) 2416366-22-6 C8H2F12O5
PFO5DA Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid 39492-91-6 C7HF13O7
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4) Pentanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-4-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)- (Formerly Byproduct 4) 2416366-18-0 C7H2F12O6S
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)Ethanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-[1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)propoxy]- (Formerly
Byproduct 6)2416366-21-5 C6H2F12O4S
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Foremerly Byproduct 5)Acetic acid, 2-fluoro-2-[1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)propoxy]- (Formerly
Byproduct 5)2416366-19-1 C7H3F11O7S
NVHOS 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 (Formerly NVHOS)1132933-86-8 C4H2F8O4S
PES Perfluoro-2-ethoxyethanesulfonic acid (Formerly PES)113507-82-7 C4HF9O4S
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[1-[difluoro[(1,2,2-trifluoroethenyl)oxy]methyl]-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoro- (Formerly PFESA-BP)29311-67-9 C7HF13O5S
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[1-[difluoro(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)methyl]-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoro- (Formerly PFESA-BP2)749836-20-2 C7H2F14O5S
Table 3+ Lab SOP
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE 1
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND ANALYTE LIST
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Analytical Method Common Name Chemical Name CASN Chemical Formula
PFBA Perfluorobutanoic acid 375-22-4 C4HF7O2
PFDA Perfluorodecanoic acid 335-76-2 C10HF19O2
PFDoA Perfluorododecanoic acid 307-55-1 C12HF23O2
PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid 375-85-9 C7HF13O2
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid 375-95-1 C9HF17O2
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 335-67-1 C8HF15O
PFHxA Perfluorohexanoic acid 307-24-4 C6HF11O2
PFPeA Perfluoropentanoic acid 2706-90-3 C5HF9O2
PFTeA Perfluorotetradecanoic acid 376-06-7 C14HF27O2
PFTriA Perfluorotridecanoic acid 72629-94-8 C13HF25O2
PFUnA Perfluoroundecanoic acid 2058-94-8 C11HF21O2
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonate 375-73-5 C4HF9SO
PFDS Perfluorodecanesulfonate 335-77-3 C10HF21O3S
PFHpS Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid 375-92-8 C7HF15O3S
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 355-46-4 C6HF13SO3
PFNS Perfluorononanesulfonate 68259-12-1 C9HF19O3S
PFOS Perfluorosulfonic acid 1763-23-1 C8HF17SO3
PFPeS Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid 2706-91-4 C5HF11O3S
10:2 FTS Fluorotelomer sulfonate 10:2 120226-60-0 C12H5F21O3
4:2 FTS Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2 757124-72-4 C6H5F9O3S
6:2 FTS Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2 27619-97-2 C8H5F13SO3
8:2 FTS Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 39108-34-4 C10H5F17O3S
NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid 2991-50-6 C12H8F17NO4S
NEtPFOSA N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide 4151-50-2 C10H6F17NO2S
NEtPFOSAE N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol 1691-99-2 C12H10F17NO3S
NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid 2355-31-9 C11H6F17NO4S
NMePFOSA N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide 31506-32-8 C9H4F17NO2S
NMePFOSAE N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol 24448-09-7 C11H8F17NO3S
PFDOS Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid 79780-39-5 C12HF25O3S
PFHxDA Perfluorohexadecanoic acid 67905-19-5 C16HF31O2
PFODA Perfluorooctadecanoic acid 16517-11-6 C18HF35O2
PFOSA Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 754-91-6 C8H2F17NO2S
F-53B Major F-53B Major 73606-19-6 C8HClF16O4S
F-53B Minor F-53B Minor 83329-89-9 C10HClF20O4S
ADONA 4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoate 958445-44-8 C7H2F12O4
NaDONA NaDONA EVS1361 --
DONA DONA 919005-14-4 --
Abbreviations:
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
PFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
EPA Method 537 Mod
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE 2
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND FLOW MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID Location Description Sample Collection Method1 Flow Measurement Method2
OLDOF-1 Mouth of Old Outfall 002 24-hour composite Flume
SEEP-A-1 Mouth of Seep A 24-hour composite Flume
SEEP-B-1 Mouth of Seep B 24-hour composite --
SEEP-B-2 Tributary to Seep B --Flume
SEEP-B-TR1 Tributary to Seep B --Flume
SEEP-B-TR2 Tributary to Seep B --Flume
SEEP-C-1 Mouth of Seep C 24-hour composite Flume
SEEP-D-1 Mouth of Seep D 24-hour composite Flume
WC-1 Mouth of Willis Creek 24-hour composite Velocity Probe
GBC-1 Mouth of Georgia Branch Creek Grab Velocity Probe
CFR-MILE-76 Cape Fear River Mile 76 Grab USGS Data
CFR-BLADEN Cape Fear River at Bladen Bluffs Grab USGS Data
CFR-KINGS Cape Fear River at Kings Bluff Raw Water Grab USGS Data
TAR HEEL Cape Fear River at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge 24-hour composite USGS Data
W.O. Huske Dam USGS Gauge Site No. 02105500 --USGS Data
Intake River Water at
Facility
Water Drawn Through the Intake Sampled at
the Power Area at the Site 24-hour composite Facility DMRs
Outfall 002 Outfall 002 in open channel 24-hour composite Facility DMRs
Notes:
-- not sampled or not measured
DMRs - discharge monitoring reports
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
USGS - United States Geological Survey
2. Results of estimated flow at these locations are provided in Table 9 and supplemental flow measurement
data are included in Appendix E.
1. Samples analyzed for PFAS by EPA Method 537 Mod and Table 3+ Lab SOP.
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 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 River2/24/20202/5/2020Onsite FloodplainPIW-7SCape Fear River2/19/20202/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPIW-7DCape Fear River2/19/20202/5/2020Onsite FloodplainLTW-01Cape Fear River2/24/20202/5/2020Onsite Black CreekLTW-02Cape Fear River2/24/20202/5/2020Onsite FloodplainLTW-03Cape Fear River2/25/20202/5/2020Onsite FloodplainLTW-04Cape Fear River2/20/20202/5/2020Onsite Black CreekLTW-05Cape Fear River2/19/20202/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPZ-22Cape Fear River2/20/20202/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPW-06Georgia Branch Creek2/6/20202/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPW-07Georgia Branch Creek2/14/20202/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPW-04Old Outfall2/11/20202/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPW-11Old Outfall2/13/20202/5/2020Onsite Black CreekPW-09Willis Creek2/12/20202/5/2020OnsiteSurficialSMW-11Willis Creek2/11/20202/5/2020OnsiteSurficialSMW-10Willis Creek2/10/20202/5/2020Onsite Black CreekSMW-12Willis Creek2/12/20202/5/2020Onsite FloodplainPIW-1SCape Fear River / Willis Creek 2/13/20202/5/2020OnsiteSurficialPIW-1DCape Fear River / Willis Creek 2/14/20202/5/2020OffsiteSurficialBladen-1SGeorgia Branch CreekDRY2/5/2020Offsite Black CreekBladen-1DGeorgia Branch Creek2/11/20202/5/2020Notes:1. Hydrogeologic units for existing wells determined based on boring log descriptions.TR0795 Page 1 of 1June 2020
TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS - FEBRUARY 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Area Aquifer Well ID
Gauging
Date
Northing (ft,
SPCS NAD83)
Easting (ft,
SPCS NAD83)
Screened
Interval (ft)
TOC Elevation
(NAVD 88)
Depth to Water
(from TOC)
Water Level
(ft NAVD88)
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer BCA-01 2/5/2020 399780.06 2050662.22 91 - 101 146.3 59.85 86.45
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer BCA-02 2/5/2020 396242.32 2051062.21 92 - 102 148.42 74.02 74.4
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer BCA-03R 2/5/2020 398582.23 2049522.22 88 - 98 150.82 50.67 100.15
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer BCA-04 2/5/2020 395877.67 2047823.11 94 - 104 150.24 29.69 120.55
Onsite Perched Zone FTA-01 2/5/2020 397907.50 2049373.61 12.0 - 22.0 150.63 16.13 134.5
Onsite Perched Zone FTA-02 2/5/2020 397786.43 2049206.27 11.5 - 21.5 150.28 17.42 132.86
Onsite Perched Zone FTA-03 2/5/2020 397767.09 2049313.86 12.0 - 22.0 151.08 17.41 133.67
Onsite Surficial Aquifer INSITU-01 2/5/2020 401658.20 2046077.31 7.0 - 17.0 118.2 5.77 112.43
Onsite Surficial Aquifer INSITU-02 2/5/2020 401863.46 2049136.62 7.0 - 17.0 113.12 Dry --
Onsite Floodplain Deposits LTW-01 2/5/2020 399566.17 2052149.95 11.0 - 26.0 53.83 15.71 38.12
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer LTW-02 2/5/2020 398848.36 2052354.37 28.0 - 38.0 52.48 9.56 42.92
Onsite Floodplain Deposits LTW-03 2/5/2020 398115.15 2052557.52 15.0 - 30.0 52.91 12.03 40.88
Onsite Floodplain Deposits LTW-04 2/5/2020 397280.24 2052583.60 12.0 - 27.0 51.86 8.28 43.58
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer LTW-05 2/5/2020 396430.68 2052738.06 29.0 - 44.0 52.01 9.06 42.95
Onsite Perched Zone MW-11 2/5/2020 396544.40 2049051.06 11.5 - 21.5 148.53 23.37 125.16
Onsite Perched Zone MW-12S 2/5/2020 397253.60 2049273.89 17.5 - 22.5 152.06 19.76 132.3
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-13D 2/5/2020 397119.02 2049821.12 57 - 67 148.65 35.1 113.55
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-14D 2/5/2020 396974.49 2049074.56 62 - 72 149.73 41.31 108.42
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-15DRR 2/5/2020 398580.71 2049511.75 52.5 - 62.5 150.92 48.76 102.16
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-16D 2/5/2020 398493.70 2048402.84 72 - 82 148.41 37 111.41
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-17D 2/5/2020 398401.74 2047366.50 57 - 67 146.117 30.61 115.51
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-18D 2/5/2020 400947.38 2046574.72 50 - 60 107.57 20.46 87.11
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-19D 2/5/2020 401151.33 2048272.99 46 - 56 139.55 51.73 87.82
Onsite Perched Zone MW-1S 2/5/2020 397080.31 2049120.73 21.0-24.0 149.93 18.65 131.28
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-20D 2/5/2020 400791.28 2048733.91 65 - 75 137.18 48.37 88.81
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-21D 2/5/2020 399501.70 2047074.96 72 - 82 151.384 46.67 104.71
Onsite Surficial Aquifer MW-22D 2/5/2020 398518.18 2048362.68 52 - 72 149.06 36.88 112.18
Onsite Perched Zone MW-23 2/5/2020 396237.61 2051063.25 9.5 - 14.5 148.34 14.16 134.18
Onsite Perched Zone MW-24 2/5/2020 397303.94 2048767.69 18.8 - 23.8 150.31 21.17 129.14
Onsite Perched Zone MW-25 2/5/2020 396753.37 2050989.82 12 - 17 147.59 13.61 133.98
Onsite Perched Zone MW-26 2/5/2020 396265.18 2051484.67 5 - 10 147.7 11.12 136.58
Onsite Perched Zone MW-27 2/5/2020 396010.33 2051472.00 10 - 15 146.83 14.26 132.57
Onsite Perched Zone MW-28 2/5/2020 395719.79 2051165.93 9 - 14 144.7 13.57 131.13
Onsite Perched Zone MW-2S 2/5/2020 396934.75 2049321.85 19.0 - 23.0 149.91 18.99 130.92
Onsite Perched Zone MW-30 2/5/2020 397340.79 2050776.09 10 - 15 147.67 12.84 134.83
Onsite Perched Zone MW-31 2/5/2020 396390.50 2049622.88 17-22 147.699 15.97 131.73
Onsite Perched Zone MW-32 2/5/2020 396359.58 2049651.79 13-18.5 147.106 14.95 132.16
Onsite Perched Zone MW-33 2/5/2020 396337.51 2049678.56 12-17 146.82 14.43 132.39
Onsite Perched Zone MW-34 2/5/2020 396352.90 2049619.09 17-22 147.972 15.91 132.06
Onsite Perched Zone MW-35 2/5/2020 396332.94 2049631.16 14-19 147.541 15.39 132.15
Onsite Perched Zone MW-36 2/5/2020 396320.09 2049651.17 12-17 147.889 15.67 132.22
Onsite Perched Zone MW-7S 2/5/2020 397444.52 2049809.73 NA 147.47 10.46 137.01
Onsite Perched Zone MW-8S 2/5/2020 397096.48 2049867.77 NA 146.48 7.52 138.96
Onsite Perched Zone MW-9S 2/5/2020 396760.16 2049734.30 17.5-22.5 154.39 21.12 133.27
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-01 2/5/2020 398349.77 2050338.81 5.0-15.0 149.66 9.37 140.29
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-02 2/5/2020 398662.80 2050640.86 5.0-15.0 150.31 9.78 140.53
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-03 2/5/2020 398580.65 2050755.43 5.0-15.0 150.44 9.96 140.48
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-04 2/5/2020 398447.00 2050718.95 5.0-15.0 148.1 7.14 140.96
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-06 2/5/2020 398809.66 2050911.91 2.75 - 12.75 146.43 11.41 135.02
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-07 2/5/2020 398899.33 2050616.50 5.5 - 15.5 149.69 9.23 140.46
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-08A 2/5/2020 398097.99 2050886.62 5.0 - 15.0 148.82 8.19 140.63
Onsite Surficial Aquifer NAF-08B 2/5/2020 398095.64 2050879.94 43.5 - 53.5 148.86 53.13 95.73
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-09 2/5/2020 397711.09 2050806.52 7.0 - 17.0 149.29 11.63 137.66
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-10 2/5/2020 397612.57 2050423.15 8.25 - 18.25 150 12.03 137.97
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-11A 2/5/2020 398909.29 2050999.92 2.5 - 7.5 140.59 6.34 134.25
Onsite Surficial Aquifer NAF-11B 2/5/2020 398911.13 2050995.88 33.5 - 43.5 140.74 46.57 94.17
Onsite Perched Zone NAF-12 2/5/2020 398270.56 2050777.49 18 - 23 145.932 6.38 139.55
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-10DR 2/5/2020 395093.99 2052297.30 53 - 58 75.91 14.85 61.06
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PIW-10S 2/5/2020 395104.67 2052297.04 7 - 17 76.451 18.41 58.04
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PIW-1D 2/5/2020 400547.77 2051801.42 24.5 - 29.5 52.33 17.41 34.92
Onsite Floodplain Deposits PIW-1S 2/5/2020 400540.61 2051792.59 7.8 - 17.8 54.198 19.83 34.37
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-2D 2/5/2020 399925.46 2051316.31 40 - 50 96.13 36.67 59.46
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-3D 2/5/2020 399711.75 2052088.80 19 - 24 53.315 16.67 36.65
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-4D 2/5/2020 398817.36 2052102.82 32.3 - 37.3 53.041 10.68 42.36
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PIW-5S 2/5/2020 398520.38 2051951.26 9.8 - 19.8 75.188 14.48 60.71
Onsite Floodplain Deposits PIW-6S 2/5/2020 398118.14 2052540.57 18 - 28 53.359 13.59 39.77
TR0795 Page 1 of 3 July 2020
TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS - FEBRUARY 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Area Aquifer Well ID
Gauging
Date
Northing (ft,
SPCS NAD83)
Easting (ft,
SPCS NAD83)
Screened
Interval (ft)
TOC Elevation
(NAVD 88)
Depth to Water
(from TOC)
Water Level
(ft NAVD88)
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-7D 2/5/2020 396787.69 2052595.37 29 - 34 48.597 5.43 43.17
Onsite Floodplain Deposits PIW-7S 2/5/2020 396787.00 2052589.49 7 - 17 48.392 5.09 43.3
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-8D 2/5/2020 396403.38 2052682.02 35.5 - 45.5 48.518 6.78 41.74
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PIW-9D 2/5/2020 396155.97 2052250.91 40 - 45 79.529 36.92 42.61
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PIW-9S 2/5/2020 396148.11 2052251.10 24.8 - 29.8 79.532 29.62 49.91
Onsite Perched Zone PW-01 2/5/2020 399064.80 2049654.30 11 - 21 149.547 14.45 135.1
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PW-02 2/5/2020 399779.06 2050649.47 50 - 60 146.431 57.45 88.98
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PW-03 2/5/2020 397339.81 2050765.32 35 - 45 147.967 42.29 105.68
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PW-04 2/5/2020 394659.55 2050940.66 17 - 27 97.751 28.31 69.44
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PW-05 2/5/2020 395873.10 2047812.93 65 - 75 150.336 30.06 120.28
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PW-06 2/5/2020 392868.00 2045288.77 19 - 29 147.691 19.61 128.08
Onsite Surficial Aquifer PW-07 2/5/2020 390847.71 2049258.26 28 - 38 148.16 40.79 107.37
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-09 2/5/2020 402000.08 2048979.11 44 - 54 72.925 24.82 48.1
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-10R 2/5/2020 398516.12 2051936.59 57 - 67 75.9 27.38 48.52
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-11 2/5/2020 394354.36 2052226.72 53 - 63 73.263 33.23 40.03
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-12 2/5/2020 399500.45 2047063.51 109 - 119 150.61 58.48 92.13
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-13 2/5/2020 397584.26 2048029.18 120 - 130 149.36 33.62 115.74
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-14 2/5/2020 397325.65 2050766.36 136 - 146 147.97 61.71 86.26
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PW-15R 2/5/2020 398900.88 2051011.75 110 - 120 136.14 59.93 76.21
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-11 2/5/2020 398646.25 2049820.94 15 - 20 151.03 12.62 138.41
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-12 2/5/2020 399094.96 2048981.78 15.1 - 20.1 150.91 18.92 131.99
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-13 2/5/2020 397708.07 2050991.73 7.1 - 12.1 149.2 10.95 138.25
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-14 2/5/2020 397589.92 2050618.27 9.0 - 14.0 148.38 10.48 137.9
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-15 2/5/2020 396805.09 2050112.02 10.2 - 15.2 148.79 12.93 135.86
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-17 2/5/2020 396614.82 2048872.69 21.1 - 26.1 150.08 28.29 121.79
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-19R 2/5/2020 397998.66 2049919.52 16 - 21 150.046 13.59 136.46
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-20R 2/5/2020 398185.81 2049784.60 15 - 20 151.29 14.82 136.47
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-21R 2/5/2020 398445.16 2049883.13 17 - 22 150.674 13.03 137.64
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer PZ-22 2/5/2020 397272.80 2052584.04 36.0 - 46.0 51.81 7.37 44.44
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-24 2/5/2020 396117.94 2050744.07 11 - 16 147.53 14.22 133.31
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-25 2/5/2020 396753.94 2050991.05 14 - 19 147.59 21.14 126.45
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-26 2/5/2020 396059.78 2050382.35 11 - 16 147.7 12.98 134.72
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-27 2/5/2020 395922.11 2050376.76 12 - 17 147.17 14.1 133.07
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-28 2/5/2020 396304.55 2049933.79 13 - 18 148.64 13.35 135.29
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-29 2/5/2020 396371.49 2049768.94 13 - 18 147.74 14.67 133.07
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-31 2/5/2020 396428.73 2049594.36 14 - 19 147.999 18 130
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-32 2/5/2020 396418.47 2049713.79 13 - 18 148.471 15.53 132.94
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-33 2/5/2020 396308.92 2049707.66 12.5 - 17.5 146.715 14.1 132.62
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-34 2/5/2020 396292.05 2049595.04 13.5 - 18.5 147.695 15.86 131.84
Onsite Perched Zone PZ-35 2/5/2020 398232.64 2050020.49 13 - 18 150.43 13.16 137.27
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-01 2/5/2020 395295.75 2043679.19 5.0 - 15.0 136.81 12.82 123.99
Onsite Perched Zone SMW-02 2/5/2020 399983.75 2050654.77 5.0 - 20.0 147.93 12.77 135.16
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-02B 2/5/2020 399983.48 2050660.48 43.0 - 53.0 145.211 Dry --
Onsite Perched Zone SMW-03 2/5/2020 399778.25 2049445.96 10.0 - 20.0 151.094 Dry --
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer SMW-03B 2/5/2020 399785.75 2049421.54 72 - 82 150.43 58.36 92.07
Onsite Perched Zone SMW-04A 2/5/2020 399668.71 2048387.57 19.5 - 34.5 148.09 37.15 110.94
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-04B 2/5/2020 399667.12 2048390.30 43.0 - 53.0 148.372 46.86 101.51
Onsite Perched Zone SMW-05 2/5/2020 399334.07 2048557.33 10.0 - 20.0 148.099 23.06 125.04
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-05P 2/5/2020 399338.61 2048559.26 45.0 - 60.0 149.32 25.5 123.82
Onsite Perched Zone SMW-06 2/5/2020 399172.35 2048759.48 12.0 - 22.0 150.97 24.95 126.02
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-06B 2/5/2020 399144.74 2048764.94 58 - 68 150.32 48.59 101.73
Onsite Perched Zone SMW-07 2/5/2020 398932.91 2048611.16 13.0 - 23.0 147.64 19.31 128.33
Onsite Perched Zone SMW-08 2/5/2020 399064.97 2048468.78 21.0 - 31.0 151.017 Dry --
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-08B 2/5/2020 399058.33 2048478.84 58 - 68 148.81 42.01 106.8
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-09 2/5/2020 401076.89 2050017.41 52 - 62 141.43 57.51 83.92
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer SMW-10 2/5/2020 402307.31 2047923.84 39 - 49 76.26 29.16 47.1
Onsite Surficial Aquifer SMW-11 2/5/2020 401996.15 2048975.38 13 - 23 71.95 13.65 58.3
Onsite Black Creek Aquifer SMW-12 2/5/2020 401314.20 2051007.22 88 - 98 118.22 84.14 34.08
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-1D 2/5/2020 387522.25 2050247.40 37 - 47 76.96 19.49 57.47
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Bladen-1S 2/5/2020 387518.97 2050233.35 5 - 10 76.74 9.09 67.65
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-2D 2/5/2020 368827.09 2042878.34 70 - 75 138.27 17.34 120.93
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Bladen-2S 2/5/2020 368821.46 2042882.92 10 - 20 138.04 6.32 131.72
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-3D 2/5/2020 396856.98 2059006.56 33.75 - 43.75 75.52 10.93 64.59
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Bladen-3S 2/5/2020 396862.31 2059012.93 5 - 15 74.27 7.8 66.47
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Bladen-4D 2/5/2020 363255.12 2087636.87 46.75 - 51.75 59.66 0.78 58.88
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Bladen-4S 2/5/2020 363263.19 2087637.46 4.75 - 14.75 59.68 4.81 54.87
TR0795 Page 2 of 3 July 2020
TABLE 4
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS - FEBRUARY 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Area Aquifer Well ID
Gauging
Date
Northing (ft,
SPCS NAD83)
Easting (ft,
SPCS NAD83)
Screened
Interval (ft)
TOC Elevation
(NAVD 88)
Depth to Water
(from TOC)
Water Level
(ft NAVD88)
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-1D 2/5/2020 431459.95 2011071.39 40 - 50 174.6 3.89 170.71
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-1S 2/5/2020 431459.95 2011071.39 15 - 25 174.73 3.65 171.08
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-2D 2/5/2020 449987.54 2074019.14 47 - 57 129.23 3.33 125.9
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-2S 2/5/2020 449979.10 2074020.86 7 - 17 129.06 2.99 126.07
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-3D 2/5/2020 423248.12 2060409.16 22 - 27 78.79 6.64 72.15
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-3S 2/5/2020 423254.64 2060413.30 9 - 14 79.063 6.48 72.58
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-4D 2/5/2020 413095.77 2078249.95 57 - 67 119.22 13 106.22
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-4S 2/5/2020 413086.63 2078255.53 10 - 20 119.362 6.64 112.72
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Cumberland-5D 2/5/2020 405673.82 2138069.54 52 - 57 106.67 8.09 98.58
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Cumberland-5S 2/5/2020 405673.82 2138069.54 14 - 24 106.65 2.66 103.99
Offsite Black Creek Aquifer Robeson-1D 2/5/2020 381416.28 2020158.93 42.75 - 52.75 156.36 10.99 145.37
Offsite Surficial Aquifer Robeson-1S 2/5/2020 381408.19 2020156.86 17 - 27 156.66 8.23 148.43
Notes:
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.
Abbreviations:
ft - feet
NAVD88 - North American Vertical Datum of 1988
SPCS NAD83 - State Plane Coordinate System North American Datum 1983
TOC - top of casing
TR0795 Page 3 of 3 July 2020
TABLE 5
SEEP AND SURFACE WATER FIELD PARAMETERS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location Date
pH
(S.U.)
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/L)
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential (mV)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Specific
Conductivity
(mS/cm)
Temperature
(°C)
4/2/2020 4.06 8.6 125 15.1 0.17 18.7
4/3/2020 6.41 3.0 60.6 9.86 0.34 18.1
4/2/2020 4.56 7.5 123 8.68 0.12 18.4
4/3/2020 5.18 7.4 102 12.8 0.15 17.6
4/2/2020 4.07 8.3 184 39.3 0.14 18.4
4/3/2020 5.09 8.9 103 17.4 0.12 17.0
4/2/2020 3.93 8.4 140 4.93 0.19 19.5
4/3/2020 4.17 8.9 144 4.64 0.16 17.0
CFR-BLADEN 4/2/2020 6.51 8.4 119 16.9 0.090 16.9
CFR-KINGS 4/6/2020 7.25 7.5 56.7 12.7 0.090 17.7
CFR-RM-76 4/2/2020 7.03 8.9 77.1 3.81 0.00 14.6
4/2/2020 6.73 8.3 101 14.9 0.10 17.0
4/3/2020 6.80 8.6 142 12.1 0.32 18.0
EXCESS RIVER WATER 4/3/2020 7.48 8.7 85.7 9.70 0.12 18.7
GBC-1 4/2/2020 4.91 8.3 121 20.7 0.10 17.0
4/2/2020 6.73 8.8 105 15.6 0.16 20.6
4/3/2020 3.63 8.9 236 4.58 0.30 17.2
OUTFALL 002 4/3/2020 7.44 8.3 111 9.53 0.20 20.3
WC-1 4/3/2020 7.11 6.2 113 7.03 0.20 17.9
Abbreviations:
°C - Degrees Celsius
mg/L - Milligrams per liter
mS/cm - Millisiemens per centimeter
mV- Millivolts
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity units
S.U. - standard units
OLDOF-1
SEEP A
SEEP B
SEEP C
SEEP D
CFR-TARHEEL
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE 6
GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.
Location Date pH
(S.U.)
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/L)
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential (mV)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Specific
Conductance
(mS/cm)
Temperature
(oC)
Bladen-1D 2/11/2020 5.85 0.060 8.10 4.93 0.070 19.6
LTW-01 2/24/2020 3.89 0.090 355 14.1 0.10 15.3
LTW-02 2/24/2020 4.86 0.060 105 0.090 0.060 15.9
LTW-03 2/24/2020 4.50 0.71 225 191 0.090 17.3
LTW-04 2/20/2020 4.25 0.79 363 18.8 94.4 13.2
LTW-05 2/19/2020 4.32 0.20 344 30.7 0.12 16.1
PIW-1D 2/14/2020 3.66 0.080 431 6.95 0.20 15.1
PIW-1S 2/13/2020 3.56 2.4 455 7.59 0.40 16.4
PIW-3D 2/24/2020 5.79 0.060 -52.8 20.1 0.10 16.1
PIW-7D 2/19/2020 5.49 0.030 21.1 24.2 0.060 15.4
PIW-7S 2/19/2020 4.31 0.33 108 12.2 0.090 13.7
PW-04 2/11/2020 3.79 0.19 317 5.73 0.37 19.1
PW-06 2/6/2020 4.81 1.3 136 3.93 0.050 18.5
PW-07 2/14/2020 4.71 6.4 145 >1000 0.13 13.8
PW-09 2/12/2020 7.65 0.060 -147 17.7 106 17.2
PW-11 2/13/2020 4.53 0.72 -42.5 19.1 392 19.2
PZ-22 2/20/2020 4.50 0.040 127 0.260 0.10 14.1
SMW-10 2/10/2020 5.67 4.6 111 17.6 75.3 18.2
SMW-11 2/11/2020 4.33 5.6 147 3.98 40.9 17.0
SMW-12 2/12/2020 3.79 9.1 98.9 0.00 0.060 17.2
Abbreviations:
>- greater than
°C - Degrees Celsius
mg/L - Milligrams per liter
mS/cm - Millisiemens per centimeter
mV- Millivolts
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity unit
S.U. - standard units
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE 7
CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS DISCHARGE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Tarheel Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Tarheel Sampling
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL
FAY-CFR-TARHEEL-021420 CAP1Q20-TARHEEL-032720 CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120 CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-DCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220CFR-TARHEEL-48-040220
2/14/2020 3/26/2020 3/31/2020 3/31/2020 4/2/2020 4/2/2020
Grab Grab Composite Composite Grab Composite
- - 3/28/2020 1:00 AM 3/28/2020 1:00 AM - 3/31/2020 1:00 PM
- - 3/31/2020 12:00 PM 3/31/2020 12:00 PM - 4/2/2020 1:00 PM
- - 83 83 - 48
- - - Field Duplicate - -
320-58729-1 320-59859-1 320-60098-1 320-60098-1 320-60029-1 320-60098-1
320-58729-1 320-59859-2 320-60098-1 320-60098-2 320-60029-3 320-60098-3
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA <4 21 <15 6.3 11 10
PFMOAA 9.5 44 26 29 35 B 42
PFO2HxA 4.1 26 9.3 8.9 15 B 14
PFO3OA <2 5 2.1 <2 3.9 B 3.3
PFO4DA <2 2.1 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFO5DA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PMPA 11 40 15 12 24 17
PEPA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
PS Acid <2 2.1 <2 <2 <2 <2
Hydro-PS Acid <2 2.2 <2 <2 <2 <2
R-PSDA 3.4 J 14 J <2 <2 8.5 7.9
Hydrolyzed PSDA 4.2 J 25 J 8.2 J 8.4 J 26 B 14 J
R-PSDCA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
NVHOS <2 3.8 <2 <2 2.3 <2
EVE Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Hydro-EVE Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
R-EVE 2.4 J 6.1 J 2.1 J <2 6.6 B <2
PES <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFECA B <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFECA-G <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
25 150 52 56 91 86
35 190 63 65 130 110
Notes:
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Sample Type
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
Sample Stop Date and Time
Sample Start Date and Time
SDG - Sample Delivery Group
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
Abbreviations:
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the
associated reporting limits
Sample Date
Field Sample ID
Location ID
Program
Lab Sample ID
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
QA/QC
Composite Duration (hours)
TR0795 Page 1 of 3 July 2020
TABLE 7
CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS DISCHARGE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid
Hydro-PS Acid
R-PSDA
Hydrolyzed PSDA
R-PSDCA
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Notes:
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Sample Type
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
Sample Stop Date and Time
Sample Start Date and Time
SDG - Sample Delivery Group
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
Abbreviations:
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the
associated reporting limits
Sample Date
Field Sample ID
Location ID
Program
Lab Sample ID
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
QA/QC
Composite Duration (hours)
Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL
CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320CFR-TARHEEL-83-040620 CFR-TARHEEL-79-040920 CFR-TARHEEL-83-041920 CFR-TARHEEL-83-042220 CFR-TARHEEL-83-042620 CFR-TARHEEL-83-042920
4/3/2020 4/6/2020 4/9/2020 4/19/2020 4/22/2020 4/26/2020 4/29/2020
Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite
4/2/2020 3:00 PM 4/2/2020 1:30 PM 4/5/2020 11:32 PM 4/15/2020 2:30 PM 4/19/2020 2:30 AM 4/22/2020 1:49 PM 4/26/2020 12:49 AM
4/3/2020 3:00 PM 4/6/2020 12:30 AM 4/9/2020 6:30 AM 4/19/2020 1:30 AM 4/22/2020 1:30 PM 4/26/2020 12:49 AM 4/29/2020 11:49 AM
24 83 79 83 83 83 83
- - - - - - -
320-60032-1 320-60098-1 320-60195-1 320-60435-1 320-60435-1 320-60619-1 320-60619-1
320-60032-2 320-60098-4 320-60195-1 320-60435-1 320-60435-2 320-60619-1 320-60619-2
18 17 20 5.5 12 11 13
47 56 94 28 51 53 59
21 22 33 11 19 19 24
4.8 5.5 8.1 2.6 5.1 4.8 5.8
<2 <2 2.8 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 4.9 6.9 5.5 <2 <2
31 24 31 17 25 21 23
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
14 J 11 13 <2 <2 7.5 13
17 J 20 J 31 9.6 17 23 27
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 2.1 5 <2 <2 2.8 3.9
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2.8 J <2 3.4 <2 <2 <2 2.4
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
120 130 200 71 120 110 130
160 160 250 81 130 140 170
TR0795 Page 2 of 3 July 2020
TABLE 7
CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS DISCHARGE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid
Hydro-PS Acid
R-PSDA
Hydrolyzed PSDA
R-PSDCA
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Notes:
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Sample Type
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
Sample Stop Date and Time
Sample Start Date and Time
SDG - Sample Delivery Group
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be
accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
Abbreviations:
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate
ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the
associated reporting limits
Sample Date
Field Sample ID
Location ID
Program
Lab Sample ID
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
QA/QC
Composite Duration (hours)
Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling Tarheel Sampling
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL EQBLK
CFR-TARHEEL-62-050220 CFR-TARHEEL-83-050620 CFR-TARHEEL-83-051120 CFR-EQBLK-1-040820
5/2/2020 5/6/2020 5/11/2020 4/8/2020
Composite Composite Composite Grab
4/30/2020 9:49 AM 5/3/2020 12:49 AM 5/8/2020 12:00 AM -
5/2/2020 11:49 PM 5/6/2020 11:49 AM 5/11/2020 11:00 AM -
62 83 83 -
- - - Equipment Blank
320-60763-1 320-60763-1 320-60789-1 320-60098-1
320-60763-1 320-60763-2 320-60789-1 320-60098-5
12 6.2 9.4 <4
27 18 34 <5
16 9.8 14 <2
3.5 2.1 3.8 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
24 15 18 <10
<20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
20 11 13 <2
18 12 15 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
3.3 <2 2.3 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
6 <2 2.7 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2
86 51 82 ND
130 74 110 0
TR0795 Page 3 of 3 July 2020
TABLE 8
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling
Location ID CFR-BLADEN CFR-BLADEN CFR-KINGS CFR-MILE-76 Intake River Water at Facility GBC-1 OLDOF-1
Field Sample ID CAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-040220 CAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-040220-D CAP1Q20-CFR-KINGS-040620 CAP1Q20-CFR-RM-76-040220 EXCESS RIVER WATER-24-040320 CAP1Q20-GBC-1-040220 CAP1Q20-OLDOF-1-24-040320
Sample Date 4/2/2020 4/2/2020 4/6/2020 4/2/2020 4/3/2020 4/2/2020 4/3/2020
QA/QC DUP
Sample Type Grab Grab Grab Grab 24-hour composite Grab 24-hour composite
Sample Delivery Group (SDG) 320-60035-1 320-60035-1 320-60032-1 320-60032-1 320-60029-1 320-60031-1 320-60031-1
Lab Sample ID 320-60035-1 320-60035-2 320-60032-3 320-60032-1 320-60029-4 320-60031-2 320-60031-4
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA 10 10 9.6 <4 20 410 5,800
PFMOAA 41 J 33 44 <5 21 100 75,000
PFO2HxA 15 14 17 <2 18 300 17,000
PFO3OA 3.6 3.6 4.1 <2 2.7 43 4,300
PFO4DA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 14 1,400
PFO5DA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 3 480
PMPA 17 21 23 <10 38 760 4,900
PEPA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 180 1,400
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 410
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 25 320
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)8.3 J 10 12 <2 11 71 470
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)15 J 15 14 B <2 16 B 2.5 1,000
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <15
NVHOS <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 4.1 640
EVE Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 35
Hydro-EVE Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 180
R-EVE 2.8 J 2.5 6.9 <2 3.1 23 170
PES <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <46
PFECA B <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <60
PFECA-G <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <41
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) 87 82 98 ND 100 1,800 110,000
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds) 110 110 130 ND 130 1,900 110,000
TR0795 Page 1 of 3 June 2020
TABLE 8
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Type
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling
OUTFALL 002 OUTFALL 002 SEEP-A SEEP-B SEEP-C SEEP-D TARHEEL
CAP1Q20-OUTFALL 002-040320 O2400402 CAP1Q20-SEEP-A-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-B-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-C-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-D-24-040320 CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220
4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/2/2020
Grab 24-hour composite 24-hour composite 24-hour composite 24-hour composite 24-hour composite Grab
320-60031-1 280-135242-1 320-60027-1 320-60027-1 320-60027-1 320-60027-1 320-60029-1
320-60031-3 280-135242-11 320-60027-1 320-60027-2 320-60027-3 320-60027-4 320-60029-3
49 53 17,000 14,000 17,000 12,000 11
13 31 J 120,000 180,000 190,000 110,000 35
16 22 50,000 48,000 60,000 33,000 15
3 4.6 18,000 10,000 19,000 8,500 3.9
<2 2.7 9,700 1,500 4,100 2,400 <2
<2 3.5 5,400 250 <34 130 <2
37 42 22,000 36,000 13,000 8,700 24
<20 <20 6,900 12,000 3,500 2,300 <20
12 13 7,200 2,300 <27 <27 <2
3.6 3.7 1,800 870 530 330 <2
26 35 J 3,100 4,200 2,000 1,200 8.5
89 100 J 27,000 26,000 2,600 2,100 26
<2 <2 73 66 34 17 <2
<2 2.6 1,300 2,600 1,700 920 2.3
<2 <2 1,400 3,000 <24 <24 <2
<2 <2 2,000 1,900 2,100 1,300 <2
3.3 5.9 J 1,300 2,200 1,800 1,100 6.6
<2 <2 <46 <46 <46 <46 <2
<2 <2 <60 <60 <60 <60 <2
<2 <2 <41 <41 <41 <41 <2
130 160 260,000 310,000 310,000 180,000 91
250 180 290,000 340,000 320,000 180,000 130
TR0795 Page 2 of 3 June 2020
TABLE 8
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Type
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling
TARHEEL WC-1 EQBLK EQBLK EQBLK
CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320 CAP1Q20-WC-1-24-040320 CAP1Q20-EQBK-1-040320 CAP1Q20-EQBK-2-040320 CAP1Q20-EB-040620
4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/6/2020
Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank
24-hour composite 24-hour composite
320-60032-1 320-60031-1 320-60032-1 320-60029-1 320-60029-1
320-60032-2 320-60031-1 320-60032-4 320-60029-1 320-60029-2
18 320 <4 <4 <4 Notes:
47 610 <5 <5 <5 Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
21 370 <2 <2 <2 Abbreviations:
4.8 62 <2 <2 <2 B - analyte detected in an associated blank
<2 13 <2 <2 <2 EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
<2 3.2 <2 <2 <2 J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise
31 490 <10 <10 <10 ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits
<20 110 <20 <20 <20 ng/L - nanograms per liter
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
<2 11 <2 <2 <2 SDG - Sample Delivery Group
14 J 89 <2 <2 <2 SOP - standard operating procedure
17 B 230 <2 18 4.6 UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
<2 10 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 4.1 <2 <2 <2
2.8 J 38 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
120 2,000 ND ND ND
160 2,400 ND 18 4.6
TR0795 Page 3 of 3 June 2020
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 Groundwater402-04-203,400--2,400,000Willis Creek03-04-207.7--5,300Intake River Water at Facility03-04-2018--12,000Outfall 00203-04-2023--16,000Seep A03-04-200.25--170Seep B03-04-200.22--150Seep C03-04-200.091--63Seep D503-04-200.17--120Old Outfall 00203-04-200.93--650Georgia Branch Creek02-04-206.8--4,700W.O'Huske603-04-202550--1,800,000W.O'Huske702-04-20--130,0002,100,000W.O'Huske802-04-20--130,0002,100,000Cape Fear River Lock and Dam #1906-04-20--82,0001,300,000TR0795Notes1 - Flow measurement methods are described in Table 2. Detailed flow data and calculations are provided in Appendix E.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.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.5 - The maximum flow rate that can be accurately measured for the flume installed at Seep D is 120 GPM. This maximum flow rate was assumed any time the measured water level indicated a flow rate greater than 120 GPM. A larger flume was installed at Seep D after this sampling event. 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 composite sample collection.7 - 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.8 - 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 9 - 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. Abbreviations:MGD - Milllions of gallons per daygpm - Gallons per minuteUSGS - United States Geological SurveyPage 1 of 1July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW SamplingAquiferBlack Creek Aquifer Floodplain Deposits Black Creek Aquifer Floodplain Deposits Floodplain Deposits Floodplain Deposits
Location ID BLADEN-1D LTW-01 LTW-02 LTW-03 LTW-03 LTW-04
Field Sample ID CAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-021120 CAP1Q20-LTW-01-022420 CAP1Q20-LTW-02-022420 CAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520 CAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D CAP1Q20-LTW-04-022020
Sample Date 2/11/2020 2/24/2020 2/24/2020 2/25/2020 2/25/2020 2/20/2020
QA/QC Field DuplicateSample Delivery Group (SDG)320-58585-1 320-58971-1 320-58971-1 320-58966-1 320-58966-1 320-58849-1
Lab Sample ID 320-58585-1 320-58971-1 320-58971-2 320-58966-1 320-58966-2 320-58849-6Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA 190 14,000 8,800 7,500 7,600 14,000
PFMOAA 14 B 41,000 40,000 160,000 160,000 120,000
PFO2HxA 10 B 28,000 17,000 34,000 34,000 32,000
PFO3OA <2 6,200 3,800 4,900 4,900 5,600
PFO4DA <2 1,400 250 180 J 190 760PFO5DA<2 160 <17 <34 <34 <34
PMPA 77 B 20,000 6,800 11,000 11,000 26,000
PEPA <20 7,500 2,400 2,500 J 3,500 J 9,000
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)<2 <13 <13 <27 <27 <27
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)2.9 B 260 30 <30 <30 170R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)<2 950 500 660 620 1,700
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)<2 790 1,200 2,800 J 2,700 2,800
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)<2 8.8 <7.7 <15 <15 16
NVHOS <2 450 410 1,100 1,100 1,700
EVE Acid <2 <12 <12 <24 <24 <24
Hydro-EVE Acid <2 140 52 43 48 570
R-EVE <2 730 420 450 450 1,700
PES <2 <23 <23 <46 590 J <46
PFECA B <2 <30 <30 <60 780 J <60
PFECA-G <2 <20 <20 <41 <41 <41
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)290 120,000 80,000 220,000 220,000 210,000Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)290 120,000 82,000 230,000 230,000 220,000
TR0795 Page 1 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
ProgramAquifer
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW SamplingBlack Creek Aquifer Surficial Aquifer Floodplain Deposits Black Creek Aquifer Black Creek Aquifer Floodplain Deposits
LTW-05 PIW-1D PIW-1S PIW-3D PIW-7D PIW-7S
CAP1Q20-LTW-05-021920 CAP1Q20-PIW-1D-021420 CAP1Q20-PIW-1S-021320 CAP1Q20-PIW-3D-022420 CAP1Q20-PIW-7D-021920 CAP1Q20-PIW-7S-021920
2/19/2020 2/14/2020 2/13/2020 2/24/2020 2/19/2020 2/19/2020
320-58849-1 320-58652-1 320-58612-1 320-58971-1 320-58849-1 320-58849-1
320-58849-5 320-58652-1 320-58612-6 320-58971-3 320-58849-1 320-58849-2
16,000 10,000 2,700 8,500 7,700 17,000
250,000 14,000 710 5,500 180,000 J 50,000
53,000 8,100 2,400 8,400 34,000 J 22,000
17,000 1,300 440 1,700 3,900 J 6,500
3,400 290 1,900 J 820 760 J 730<67 <6.7 8.5 75 <67 UJ <34
5,500 9,200 3,000 11,000 4,000 J 24,000
540 3,100 1,200 3,800 640 J 9,000
<53 <5.3 <2.7 <5.3 <53 UJ <27
300 66 85 170 81 J 380760410 J 120 540 500 J 1,5001,300 <12 UJ <5.8 <12 940 J 120
40 3.7 <2 5.5 <31 UJ <15
1,600 140 12 82 1,000 J 1,500
<49 <4.9 <2.4 <4.9 <49 UJ <24
1,400 30 23 47 260 J 700860290 J 60 330 580 J 1,800
<92 <9.2 <4.6 <9.2 <92 UJ <46
<120 <12 8.1 <12 <120 UJ <60
<82 <8.2 <4.1 <8.2 <82 UJ <41
350,000 46,000 12,000 40,000 230,000 130,000350,000 47,000 13,000 41,000 230,000 140,000
TR0795 Page 2 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
ProgramAquifer
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW SamplingSurficial Aquifer Surficial Aquifer Surficial Aquifer Black Creek Aquifer Black Creek Aquifer Black Creek Aquifer
PW-04 PW-06 PW-07 PW-09 PW-11 PZ-22
CAP1Q20-PW-04-021120 CAP1Q20-PW-06-020620 CAP1Q20-PW-07-021420 CAP1Q20-PW-09-021220 CAP1Q20-PW-11-021320 CAP1Q20-PZ-22-022020
2/11/2020 2/6/2020 2/14/2020 2/12/2020 2/13/2020 2/20/2020
320-58585-1 320-58586-1 320-58652-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58849-1
320-58585-2 320-58586-1 320-58652-2 320-58612-2 320-58612-5 320-58849-7
1,000 1,300 1,100 5.3 27,000 9,300
9.9 B 270 350 17 B 470,000 190,000 J
9.5 B 790 840 5 B 91,000 39,000 J
<2 130 120 <2 43,000 3,700 J
<2 67 51 <2 20,000 400 J<2 <2 3.1 J <2 660 <67 UJ
120 B 1,600 1,300 16 B 12,000 5,000 J
<20 580 380 <20 4,900 1,200 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 230 <53 UJ
2.6 B 40 8.8 <2 960 66 J3.6 J B 63 J 67 J <2 1,500 450 J
<2 <2 6.1 J <2 3,300 1,300 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 100 <31 UJ
2.5 B 7.4 8.7 <2 4,800 1,100 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 <120 <49 UJ
<2 8.9 6.1 <2 1,100 150 J2.4 J B 28 26 J <2 <350 590 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 <230 <92 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <300 <120 UJ
<2 <2 <2 <2 <200 <82 UJ
1,100 4,800 4,200 43 680,000 250,0001,200 4,900 4,300 43 680,000 250,000
TR0795 Page 3 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
ProgramAquifer
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW SamplingBlack Creek Aquifer Black Creek Aquifer Surficial Aquifer Black Creek Aquifer
SMW-10 SMW-10 SMW-11 SMW-12 EB EB
CAP1Q20-SMW-10-021020 CAP1Q20-SMW-10-021020-D CAP1Q20-SMW-11-021120 CAP1Q20-SMW-12-021220 CAP1Q20-EB-020620 CAP1Q20-EB-021020
2/10/2020 2/10/2020 2/11/2020 2/12/2020 2/6/2020 2/10/2020
Field Duplicate Equipment Blank Equipment Blank320-58586-1 320-58586-1 320-58585-1 320-58612-1 320-58586-1 320-58586-1
320-58586-4 320-58586-5 320-58585-3 320-58612-1 320-58586-2 320-58586-6
<4 <4 4,800 1,600 <4 <4
31 31 42 B 4,600 <5 <5
<2 <2 120 B 1,500 <2 <2
<2 <2 22 75 <2 <2
<2 <2 5.7 <7.9 <2 <2<2 <2 <2 <3.4 <2 <2
11 13 120 B 1,900 <10 <10
<20 <20 22 390 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2.7 <2 <2
<2 <2 18 B <3 <2 <2<2 <2 32 J 110 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <5.8 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 41 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2.4 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2.8 <2 <2
<2 <2 17 J 100 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <4.6 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <6 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <4.1 <2 <2
42 44 5,100 10,000 ND ND42445,200 10,000 ND ND
TR0795 Page 4 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
ProgramAquifer
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
EB EB EB EB EB EB
CAP1Q20-EB-021120 CAP1Q20-EB-021220 CAP1Q20-EB-01-021320 CAP1Q20-EB-02-021320 CAP1Q20-EB-021420 CAP1Q20-EB-021920
2/11/2020 2/12/2020 2/13/2020 2/13/2020 2/14/2020 2/19/2020
Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank320-58585-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58652-1 320-58849-1
320-58585-4 320-58612-3 320-58612-8 320-58612-9 320-58652-3 320-58849-4
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 15
17 19 <5 <5 <5 UJ <5
29 3.1 <2 <2 <2 <2
3.4 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
65 12 <10 <10 <10 <10
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <23.2 <2 <2 <2 <2 UJ <2
<2 2 J <2 <2 <2 UJ <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2.6 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22.5 <2 <2 <2 <2 UJ <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
130 34 ND ND ND 1513036NDNDND15
TR0795 Page 5 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
ProgramAquifer
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
EB EB EB EQBLK FBLK FBLK
CAP1Q20-EB-022020 EB-022420 EB-022520 CAP1Q20-EQBLK-02-032720 CAP1Q20-FB-020620 CAP1Q20-FB-021020
2/20/2020 2/24/2020 2/25/2020 3/27/2020 2/6/2020 2/10/2020
Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Field Blank Field Blank320-58849-1 320-58971-1 320-58966-1 320-59859-1 320-58586-1 320-58586-1
320-58849-9 320-58971-5 320-58966-3 320-59859-1 320-58586-3 320-58586-7
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<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 <2
ND ND ND ND ND NDNDNDNDNDNDND
TR0795 Page 6 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
ProgramAquifer
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
FBLK FBLK FBLK FBLK FBLK FBLK
CAP1Q20-FB-021120 CAP1Q20-FB-021220 CAP1Q20-FB-021320 CAP1Q20-FB-021420 CAP1Q20-FB-021920 CAP1Q20-FB-022020
2/11/2020 2/12/2020 2/13/2020 2/14/2020 2/19/2020 2/20/2020
Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank320-58585-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58652-1 320-58849-1 320-58849-1
320-58585-5 320-58612-4 320-58612-7 320-58652-4 320-58849-3 320-58849-8
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<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
110 <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 UJ <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 UJ <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 UJ <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
110 ND ND ND ND ND110NDNDNDNDND
TR0795 Page 7 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
ProgramAquifer
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QCSample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample IDTable 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
FBLK FBLK
FB-022420 FB-022520
2/24/2020 2/25/2020
Field Blank Field Blank320-58971-1 320-58966-1
320-58971-4 320-58966-4
<4 <4 Notes:
<5 <5 Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
<2 <2 Abbreviations:
<2 <2 B - analyte detected in an associated blank
<2 <2 EPA - Environmental Protection Agency<2 <2 J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise
<10 <10 ND - no Table 3+ analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits
<20 <20 ng/L - nanograms per liter
<2 <2 QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
<2 <2 SDG - Sample Delivery Group<2 <2 SOP - standard operating procedure
<2 <2 UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
<2 <2 < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
<2 <2
<2 <2
<2 <2
<2 <2
<2 <2
<2 <2
<2 <2
ND NDNDND
TR0795 Page 8 of 8 July 2020
TABLE 11CAPE FEAR RIVER TOTAL TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Interval ID Start Time2End Time2Duration (h)Total River Flow (m3)HFPO-DAPFMOAAPFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPAPEPAPS Acid(Formerly PFESA-BP1)Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA(Formerly Byproduct 4)Hydrolyzed PSDA (Foremerly Byproduct 5)R-PSDCA(Formerly Byproduct 6)NVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE AcidR-EVEPESPFECA BPFECA-GTotal Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 Compounds)Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)2020_1_Q1 3/28/2020 1:00 3/31/2020 12:30 83 90,900,000 0.29 2.50 0.83 0.10 - - 1.23 - - - - 0.75----0.10 - - - 4.9 5.82020_2_Q2 3/31/2020 12:30 4/2/2020 13:30 49 27,756,000 0.28 1.17 0.39 0.09 - - 0.47 - - - 0.22 0.39-------- 2.4 3.02020_3_Q2 4/2/2020 13:30 4/3/2020 15:00 25 9,680,800 0.17 0.48 0.21 0.05 - - 0.28 - - - 0.13 0.17 - 0.005 - - 0.02 - - - 1.2 1.52020_4_Q2 4/3/2020 15:00 4/6/2020 0:00 57 15,146,000 0.28 1.14 0.42 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.42 - - - 0.18 0.39 - 0.05 - - 0.03 - - - 2.5 3.12020_5_Q2 4/6/2020 0:00 4/9/2020 6:30 79 16,575,000 0.33 1.56 0.55 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.51 - - - 0.22 0.51 - 0.08 - - 0.06 - - - 3.3 4.12020_6_Q2 4/9/2020 6:30 4/15/2020 14:30 152 38,571,000 0.49 2.35 0.85 0.21 0.05 0.23 0.93 - - - 0.25 0.78 - 0.10 - - 0.07 - - - 5.2 6.32020_7_Q2 4/15/2020 14:30 4/19/2020 2:00 83 55,746,000 0.31 1.56 0.61 0.14 - 0.38 0.95 - - - - 0.54-------- 4.0 4.52020_8_Q2 4/19/2020 2:00 4/22/2020 13:30 83 27,904,000 0.33 1.42 0.53 0.14 - 0.15 0.70 - - - - 0.47-------- 3.3 3.82020_9_Q2 4/22/2020 13:30 4/26/2020 0:49 83 28,653,000 0.32 1.52 0.54 0.14 - - 0.60 - - - 0.21 0.66 - 0.08------ 3.2 4.12020_10_Q2 4/26/2020 0:49 4/29/2020 11:49 83 22,889,000 0.30 1.35 0.55 0.13 - - 0.53 - - - 0.30 0.62 - 0.09 - - 0.05 - - - 2.9 3.92020_11_Q2 4/29/2020 11:49 4/30/2020 9:49 22 7,256,900 0.09 0.30 0.14 0.03 - - 0.17 - - - 0.12 0.16 - 0.03 - - 0.03 - - - 0.8 1.12020_12_Q2 4/30/2020 9:49 5/3/2020 1:00 63 55,522,000 0.67 1.50 0.89 0.19 - - 1.33 - - - 1.11 1.00 - 0.18 - - 0.33 - - - 4.8 7.22020_13_Q2 5/3/2020 1:00 5/6/2020 12:00 83 72,975,000 0.45 1.31 0.72 0.15 - - 1.09 - - - 0.80 0.88-------- 3.7 5.42020_14_Q2 5/6/2020 12:00 5/9/2020 23:49 84 44,994,000 0.42 1.53 0.63 0.17 - - 0.81 - - - 0.58 0.67 - 0.10 - - 0.12 - - - 3.7 5.0Totals31,031 514,570,000 4.7 20 7.8 1.8 0.12 0.88 10 - - - 4.1 8.0 - 0.72 - - 0.81 - - - 4659Abbreviations:h - hoursm3 - cubic meterskg - kilogramsNotes2 - Start and end times are adjusted based on sample collection times ± one hour to account for the total flow of the Cape Fear River and avoid timegaps between intervals.3 - Total values are rounded to two significant digits. Values in calculations supporting totals are not rounded.- - Mass discharge not calculated, sample concentration below reporting limit.1 - The calculated mass discharge is a product of weighted concentration of the samples in the interval and of total river flow during the interval. A detailed presentation of the calculation is provided in Appendix I. Data used in these calculations come from samples collected at CFR-TARHEEL.Calculated Mass Load 1 (kg)Interval Details Page 1 of 1July 2020
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF MASS DISCHARGE AT TAR HEEL FERRY ROAD BRIDGE
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Location ID Field Sample ID Collection Date Hours composited
Total Table 3+ (ng/L)
(17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (ng/L)
(20 compounds)Total Volume (m3)1
Mass Discharge
(mg/s) (17
Compounds)
Mass Discharge
(mg/s) (20
Compounds)
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120 3/31/2020 83 52 63 90,537,000 16 19
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D 3/31/2020 83 56 65 90,537,000 17 20
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-48-040220 4/2/2020 48 86 110 27,145,000 14 17
CFR-TARHEEL CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320 4/3/2020 24 120 160 9,059,500 13 16
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-040620 4/6/2020 83 130 160 24,943,000 11 13
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-79-040920 4/9/2020 79 200 250 16,692,000 12 14
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-041920 4/19/2020 83 71 81 56,599,000 13 15
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-042220 4/22/2020 83 120 130 28,104,000 11 13
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-042620 4/26/2020 83 110 140 28,717,000 11 14
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-042920 4/29/2020 83 130 170 22,389,000 9.6 13
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-62-050220 5/2/2020 62 86 130 49,870,000 19 29
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-050620 5/6/2020 83 51 74 75,234,000 13 19
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-TARHEEL-83-051120 5/11/2020 83 82 110 29,212,000 8 11
Notes:
1 - Total flow volume is determined based on measurements taken over the sample collection period.
Abbreviations:
ng/L - nanograms per liter
m3 - cubic meters
mg/s - milligrams per second
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE 13CAPE FEAR RIVER TOTAL TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS LOAD SUMMARY Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Start Date End Date DaysRiver volume (m3)Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)2020-Q1 Report03/28/2020 1:00 05/09/2020 23:49 43 514,570,000 4659004659Total403/28/2020 1:00 05/09/2020 23:49 43 514,570,000 4659004659Reporting PeroidLoad in Cape Fear River (kg) 1Remedy Captured Loads (kg)2Total Load to Cape Fear River (kg)3Reporting Period DetailsAbbreviations:kg - kilogramsmg/s -milligrams per secondNotes: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 captured loads represents loads from environmental pathways (e.g. Old Outfall 002, Seeps, etc.,) that wereprevented 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 captured load. This value represents the load that would reach the Cape Fear River in the absence of any remedies.4 - Total values are rounded to two significant digits. Values in calculations supporting totals are not rounded. Page 1 of 1July 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 April 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates from USGS gauging station at W.O. Huske Dam during April 2020 volumetrically adjusted for flow pathways between River Mile 76 and W.O. Huske Dam2.2 Willis CreekMeasured from Willis Creek sample collected in April 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through point velocity method during April 2020 as reported in Appendix E.3 Aerial Deposition on RiverEstimated from air deposition modeling3.Estimated from air deposition modeling3.4 Outfall 002Measured from Outfall 002 sample collected in April 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured daily Outfall 002 flow rates recorded in Facility discharge monitoring reports, summarized in Appendix E.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 H.6 SeepsMeasured from Seeps A, B, C, and D samples collected in April 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through flumes during April 2020 as reported in Appendix E.7 Old Outfall 002Measured from Old Outfall 002 sample collected in April 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through flumes during April 2020 as reported in Appendix E.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 Section 7.2.6 for details. 9 Georgia Branch CreekMeasured from Georgia Branch Creek sample collected in April 2020 as reported in Table 8.Measured flow rates through point velocity method during April 2020 as reported in Appendix E.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.TR0795 Page 1 of 1July 2020
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 1 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Pathway Number1 1 2 4
Pathway Name Upstream River Water and
Groundwater Willis Creek Outfall 0023 Onsite Groundwater - Lower Bound4 Onsite Groundwater - Upper Bound4
Location ID CFR-MILE-76 WC-1 OUTFALL 002 ----
Field Sample ID CAP1Q20-CFR-RM-76-040220 CAP1Q20-WC-1-24-040320 O2400402 ----
Sample Date and Time2 4/2/20 9:20 AM 4/3/20 2:12 PM 4/3/20 2:36 PM ----
Sample Type Grab 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite ----
Table 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge 6 (mg/s)
HFPO-DA ND 0.108 0.0333 0.0432 0.512
PFMOAA ND 0.206 0.0101 0.521 7.29
PFO2HxA ND 0.125 4.04E-03 0.119 1.51
PFO3OA ND 0.0209 1.92E-03 0.0417 0.596
PFO4DA ND 4.38E-03 2.73E-03 0.0157 0.264
PFO5DA ND 1.08E-03 3.54E-03 4.79E-04 8.54E-03
PMPA ND 0.165 4.04E-03 0.0284 0.318
PEPA ND 0.0371 ND 9.83E-03 0.116
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)ND ND 0.0131 1.60E-04 0.00285
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)ND 3.71E-03 3.74E-03 8.97E-04 0.0144
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)ND 0.0300 0.0242 2.46E-03 0.0293
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)ND 0.0775 0.0849 4.90E-03 0.0514
Byproduct 6 (Formerly Byproduct 6)ND ND ND 8.00E-05 1.30E-03
NVHOS ND 3.37E-03 2.63E-03 4.90E-03 0.0711
EVE Acid ND ND ND ND ND
Hydro-EVE Acid ND 1.38E-03 ND 1.29E-03 0.0173
R-EVE ND 0.0128 2.83E-03 1.30E-03 0.0104
PES ND ND ND ND ND
PFECA B ND ND ND 1.94E-06 3.45E-05
PFECA-G ND ND ND ND ND
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7 ND 0.674 0.0808 0.790 10.8
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)7 ND 0.809 0.192 0.795 10.8
5
TR0795
Page 1 of 4
July 2020
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 1 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Pathway Number1
Pathway Name
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date and Time2
Sample Type
Table 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge 6 (mg/s)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
Byproduct 6 (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)7
6A 6B 6C 6D 7
Seep A Seep B Seep C Seep D Old Outfall 002
SEEP-A SEEP-B SEEP-C SEEP-D OLDOF-1
CAP1Q20-SEEP-A-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-B-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-C-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-D-24-040320 CAP1Q20-OLDOF-1-24-040320
4/3/20 2:10 PM 4/3/20 2:26 PM 4/3/20 2:30 PM 4/3/20 2:33 PM 4/3/20 2:42 PM
24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite
0.185 0.134 6.81E-02 9.19E-02 0.237
1.31 1.73 0.761 0.843 3.06
0.546 0.461 0.240 0.253 0.694
0.196 0.096 7.61E-02 6.51E-02 0.176
0.106 0.0144 1.64E-02 1.84E-02 0.0572
0.0589 2.40E-03 ND 1.0E-03 0.0196
0.240 0.346 5.20E-02 6.66E-02 0.200
0.0753 0.115 1.40E-02 1.76E-02 0.0572
0.0786 0.0221 ND ND 0.0167
0.0196 8.35E-03 2.12E-03 2.53E-03 0.0131
0.0338 0.0403 8.01E-03 9.19E-03 0.0192
0.295 0.250 1.04E-02 1.61E-02 0.0408
7.97E-04 6.34E-04 1.36E-04 1.30E-04 ND
0.0142 0.0250 6.81E-03 7.05E-03 0.0261
0.0153 0.0288 ND ND 1.43E-03
0.0218 0.0182 8.41E-03 9.96E-03 7.35E-03
0.0142 0.0211 7.21E-03 8.43E-03 6.94E-03
ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND
2.84 2.98 1.24 1.38 4.49
3.16 3.26 1.28 1.38 4.49
TR0795 Page 2 of 4 July 2020
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 1 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Pathway Number1
Pathway Name
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date and Time2
Sample Type
Table 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge 6 (mg/s)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
Byproduct 6 (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)7
9 --
Georgia Branch Creek Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
GBC-1 CFR-TARHEEL
CAP1Q20-GBC-1-040220 CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320
4/2/20 1:45 PM 4/3/20 3:00 PM
24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite
0.122 1.02 1.49 2.01
0.0299 8.47 15.2 5.25
0.0896 2.53 3.92 2.35
0.0128 0.687 1.24 0.536
4.18E-03 0.239 0.487 ND
8.96E-04 0.0879 0.0960 ND
0.227 1.33 1.62 3.46
0.0538 0.380 0.486 ND
ND 0.131 0.133 ND
7.47E-03 0.0615 0.0750 ND
0.0212 0.188 0.215 1.56
7.47E-04 0.780 0.826 1.90
ND 1.78E-03 2.99E-03 ND
1.22E-03 0.0913 0.157 ND
ND 0.0455 0.0455 ND
ND 0.0684 0.0844 ND
6.87E-03 0.0817 0.0908 0.313
ND ND ND ND
ND 1.94E-06 3.45E-05 ND
ND ND ND ND
0.538 15.0 25.0 13.4
0.567 15.9 25.9 17.9
Sum of All Pathways - Upper BoundSum of All Pathways - Lower Bound
TR0795 Page 3 of 4 July 2020
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED 2020 QUARTER 1 EVENT TABLE 3+ PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Pathway Number1
Pathway Name
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date and Time2
Sample Type
Table 3+ Lab SOP Mass Discharge 6 (mg/s)
HFPO-DA
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)
R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
Byproduct 6 (Formerly Byproduct 6)
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 compounds)7
Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (20 Compounds)7
------
Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge5 Bladen Bluff5 Kings Bluff5
CFR-TARHEEL CFR-BLADEN CFR-KINGS Notes:
CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220 CAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-040220 CAP1Q20-CFR-KINGS-040620 Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
4/2/20 3:45 PM 4/2/20 2:45 PM 4/6/20 10:15 AM
Grab Grab Grab
1.48 1.33 0.79
4.70 5.45 3.60
2.01 1.99 1.39
0.523 0.478 0.336
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
3.22 2.26 1.88
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
1.14 1.10 0.98
3.49 1.99 1.15
ND ND ND
0.3 ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
0.89 0.372 0.565
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND mg/s - milligrams per second
12.2 11.6 8.02 SOP - standard operating procedure
17.4 14.6 10.6
7 - Total Table 3+ mass discharge is based on the summed Total Table 3+
concentrations reported in Table 8 and Table 10, which are rounded to two
significant figures.
2 - For composite samples, the end of the composite sample time period is listed as
the sample date and time.
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 Appendix J and K.
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.
5 - 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.
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 H.
TR0795 Page 4 of 4 July 2020
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF TOTAL TABLE 3+ MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Total Table 3+
Concentration
(ng/L)
Mass Discharge
(mg/s)
Relative
Contribution
(Lower Bound)
Relative
Contribution
(Upper Bound)
Total Table 3+
Concentration
(ng/L)
Mass Discharge
(mg/s)
Relative
Contribution
(Lower Bound)
Relative
Contribution
(Upper Bound)
1 Upstream River Water and Groundwater2 3,400 ND 0.0 0.0%0.0%ND 0 0.0%0.0%
2 Willis Creek 7.7 2,000 0.675 4.5%2.7%2,400 0.810 5.1%3.12%
3 Aerial Deposition on Water Features ----0.01 0.067%0.040%--0.01 0.063%0.039%
4 Outfall 0023 23 80 0.0808 0.54%0.32%190 0.192 1.2%0.74%
5 Onsite Groundwater (Lower Bound)4 ----0.790 5.3%----0.795 5.0%--
5 Onsite Groundwater (Upper Bound)4 ----10.8 --43%--10.8 --42%
6A Seep A 0.25 260,000 2.84 19%11%290,000 3.16 20%12%
6B Seep B 0.22 310,000 2.97 20%12%340,000 3.26 20%13%
6C Seep C 0.091 310,000 1.24 8.3%5.0%320,000 1.28 8.0%4.9%
6D Seep D5 0.17 180,000 1.38 9.2%5.5%180,000 1.38 8.6%5.3%
7 Old Outfall 002 0.93 110,000 4.49 30%23%110,000 4.49 28%17%
8 Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater ----0.00 0.00%0.00%--0.00 0.00%0.00%
9 Georgia Branch Creek 6.8 1,800 0.538 3.6%2.2%1,900 0.568 3.6%2.2%
Calculated Total Table 3+ Discharge (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Lower Bound)----15.0 ------16.0 ----
Calculated Total Table 3+ Discharge (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Upper Bound)----25.0 ------26.0 ----
Measured Total Table 3+ Discharge (mg/s) at Tar Heel 2,600 120 13.4 ----160 17.9 ----
Notes:
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above the associated reporting limits
Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)
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 table 3+ 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 H. 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 H.
5 - The maximum flow rate that can be accurately measured for the flume installed at Seep D is 120 GPM. This maximum flow rate was assumed any time the measured water level indicated a flow rate greater than 120 GPM. A larger flume was installed at Seep D
after this sampling event.
Total Flow
Volume on
Sample Date
(MGD)1
Pathway Pathway Name
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE 17
CAPE FEAR RIVER TOTAL TABLE 3+ PFAS
MASS LOADING MODEL PATHWAY APPORTIONMENT UPDATE
ESTIMATED LOADING PERCENTAGE PER PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
May 2019
(dry)1
June 2019
(wet)1
Sep 2019
(dry)2
Nov 2019
(wet)3
Lower Upper Lower Upper
[1] Upstream River Water and Groundwater 4% 15% 8% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0%
[2] Willis Creek 10% 4% 3% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3%
[3] Aerial Deposition on Water Features <2% <2% <2% <2% <1% <1% <1% <1%
[4] Outfall 002 4% 7% 4% 8% 1% <1% 1% 1%
[5] Onsite Groundwater 22% 17% 14% 14% 5% 43% 5% 42%
[6] Seeps 32% 24% 41% 43% 56% 34% 57% 35%
[7] Old Outfall 002 23% 29% 27% 22% 30% 23% 28% 17%
[8] Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater <2% <2% <2% <2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
[9] Georgia Branch Creek 4% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 4% 2%
Notes:
3. Model estimated Total Table 3+ mass discharge for November 2019 is presented in the Mass Loading Model Update - November 2019 Sampling Event (Geosyntec, 2020).
4. Model estimated Total Table 3+ mass discharge for April 2020 is presented in this report.
Total Table 3+
(20 Compounds)
1. Model estimated Total Table 3+ mass discharge for May 2019 and June 2019 are presented in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment Update -
September 2019 (Geosyntec, 2019).
2. Model estimated Total Table 3+ mass discharge for September 2019 is presented in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and Paragraph 11.1
Characterization of PFAS at Intakes (Geosyntec, 2019).
Pathway
Total Table 3+
(17 Compounds)
Total Table 3+
(20 Compounds)
April 2020
(dry)4
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE 18
SENSITIVITY IN MASS LOADING MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS BY PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Transport
Pathway
Number
Potential PFAS Transport Pathway Model Input Parameter(s) Uncertainty Model Sensitivity
1 Upstream River and Groundwater Flow and Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations Not Evaluated Not Evaluated
2 Willis Creek Flow and Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations
Flow Velocity Method at least ± 10%
Concentrations ± 20%Not Evaluated
3 Aerial Deposition on River Depositon rates, Table 3+ Concentrations, width of the river, river velocity Not Evaluated Not Evaluated
4 Outfall 002 Flow and Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations
Flumes ± 10%
Concentrations ± 20%Low
5 Onsite Groundwater Hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradients, and Table 3+ Concentrations
Hydraulic Conductivity ± order of magnitude
Concentrations ± 20%High
6 Seeps Flow and Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations
Flumes ± 10%
Concentrations ± 20%Moderate
7 Old Outfall 002 Flow and Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations
Flumes ± 10%
Concentrations ± 20%Moderate
8 Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater Flow and Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations Not Evaluated Not Evaluated
9 Georgia Branch Creek Flow and Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations Not Evaluated Not Evaluated
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE 19AMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER LOWER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighPathway BeingVaried1Estimated per Pathway Mass Discharge (mg/s)Onsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch CreekOnsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base Case15.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- ----14.9 -0.2 -1% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.63 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --15.2 0.2 1% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.95 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --15.0 -0.01 -0.1% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.07 0.79 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54---- --15.0 0.00 0.0% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- ----15.0 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.06 0.79 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --15.0 0.02 0.1% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.10 0.79 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --14.2 -0.8 -6% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 7.59 4.49 0.0 0.54---- --15.9 0.8 5% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 9.28 4.49 0.0 0.54-- ----13.3 -1.7 -13% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 6.75 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --16.7 1.7 10% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 10.12 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --14.6 -0.4 -3% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 8.43 4.04 0.0 0.54---- --15.5 0.4 3% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 8.43 4.94 0.0 0.54-- ----14.1 -0.9 -6% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 8.43 3.59 0.0 0.54-- -- --15.9 0.9 6% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 0.79 8.43 5.39 0.0 0.54Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Outfall 002OnsiteGroundwaterModel Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Lower Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3SeepsOld OutfallTR0795 Page 1 of 4July 2020
TABLE 19AMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER LOWER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighPathway BeingVaried1Onsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch CreekOnsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base Case15.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0% 4.5% 0.1% 0.5% 5.3% 56.2% 29.9% 0.0% 3.6%-- ----14.9 -0.2 -1% 0.0% 4.5% 0.1% 0.5% 4.3% 56.7% 30.2% 0.0% 3.6%-- -- --15.2 0.2 1% 0.0% 4.4% 0.1% 0.5% 6.2% 55.6% 29.6% 0.0% 3.5%-- -- --15.0 -0.01 -0.1% 0.0% 4.5% 0.1% 0.5% 5.3% 56.2% 29.9% 0.0% 3.6%---- --15.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0% 4.5% 0.1% 0.5% 5.3% 56.2% 29.9% 0.0% 3.6%-- ----15.0 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0% 4.5% 0.1% 0.4% 5.3% 56.2% 29.9% 0.0% 3.6%-- -- --15.0 0.02 0.1% 0.0% 4.5% 0.1% 0.6% 5.3% 56.1% 29.9% 0.0% 3.6%-- -- --14.2 -0.8 -6% 0.0% 4.8% 0.1% 0.6% 5.6% 53.5% 31.7% 0.0% 3.8%---- --15.9 0.8 5% 0.0% 4.3% 0.1% 0.5% 5.0% 58.5% 28.3% 0.0% 3.4%-- ----13.3 -1.7 -13% 0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 0.6% 5.9% 50.6% 33.7% 0.0% 4.0%-- -- --16.7 1.7 10% 0.0% 4.0% 0.1% 0.5% 4.7% 60.6% 26.9% 0.0% 3.2%-- -- --14.6 -0.4 -3% 0.0% 4.6% 0.1% 0.6% 5.4% 57.9% 27.8% 0.0% 3.7%---- --15.5 0.4 3% 0.0% 4.4% 0.1% 0.5% 5.1% 54.5% 32.0% 0.0% 3.5%-- ----14.1 -0.9 -6% 0.0% 4.8% 0.1% 0.6% 5.6% 59.7% 25.5% 0.0% 3.8%-- -- --15.9 0.9 6% 0.0% 4.2% 0.1% 0.5% 5.0% 53.0% 33.9% 0.0% 3.4%Estimated per Pathway Relative Contributions to Mass DischargeTotal Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Outfall 002SeepsOld OutfallModel Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Lower Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3OnsiteGroundwaterTR0795 Page 2 of 4July 2020
TABLE 19AMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER LOWER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighPathway BeingVaried1Onsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch CreekOnsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base Case16.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- ----15.8 -0.2 -1% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.64 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --16.1 0.2 1% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.95 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --15.9 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.17 0.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57---- --16.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- ----15.9 -0.04 -0.2% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.15 0.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --16.0 0.04 0.2% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.23 0.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --15.0 -0.9 -6% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 8.18 4.49 0.0 0.57---- --16.9 0.9 5% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 10.00 4.49 0.0 0.57-- ----14.1 -1.8 -13% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 7.27 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --17.8 1.8 10% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 10.91 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --15.5 -0.4 -3% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 9.09 4.04 0.0 0.57---- --16.4 0.4 3% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 9.09 4.94 0.0 0.57-- ----15.1 -0.9 -6% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 9.09 3.59 0.0 0.57-- -- --16.9 0.9 5% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 0.80 9.09 5.39 0.0 0.57Estimated per Pathway Mass Discharge (mg/s)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Outfall 002SeepsOld OutfallModel Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Lower Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3OnsiteGroundwaterTR0795 Page 3 of 4July 2020
TABLE 19AMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER LOWER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighPathway BeingVaried1Onsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch CreekOnsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base Case16.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 1.2% 5.0% 57.0% 28.2% 0.0% 3.6%-- ----15.8 -0.2 -1% 0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 1.2% 4.0% 57.5% 28.4% 0.0% 3.6%-- -- --16.1 0.2 1% 0.0% 5.0% 0.1% 1.2% 5.9% 56.4% 27.9% 0.0% 3.5%-- -- --15.9 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 1.1% 5.0% 57.0% 28.2% 0.0% 3.6%---- --16.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 1.2% 5.0% 57.0% 28.2% 0.0% 3.6%-- ----15.9 -0.04 -0.2% 0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 1.0% 5.0% 57.1% 28.2% 0.0% 3.6%-- -- --16.0 0.04 0.2% 0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 1.4% 5.0% 56.8% 28.1% 0.0% 3.5%-- -- --15.0 -0.9 -6% 0.0% 5.4% 0.1% 1.3% 5.3% 54.4% 29.9% 0.0% 3.8%---- --16.9 0.9 5% 0.0% 4.8% 0.1% 1.1% 4.7% 59.3% 26.6% 0.0% 3.4%-- ----14.1 -1.8 -13% 0.0% 5.7% 0.1% 1.4% 5.6% 51.4% 31.8% 0.0% 4.0%-- -- --17.8 1.8 10% 0.0% 4.6% 0.1% 1.1% 4.5% 61.4% 25.3% 0.0% 3.2%-- -- --15.5 -0.4 -3% 0.0% 5.2% 0.1% 1.2% 5.1% 58.6% 26.1% 0.0% 3.7%---- --16.4 0.4 3% 0.0% 4.9% 0.1% 1.2% 4.8% 55.4% 30.1% 0.0% 3.5%-- ----15.1 -0.9 -6% 0.0% 5.4% 0.1% 1.3% 5.3% 60.4% 23.9% 0.0% 3.8%-- -- --16.9 0.9 5% 0.0% 4.8% 0.1% 1.1% 4.7% 53.9% 32.0% 0.0% 3.4%Notes:2 - The estimated ranges of potential uncertainty in each pathways' flow and concentration data are listed in Table 18.Abbreviations:mg/s - milligrams per secondOld Outfall3 - The base case model scenario presented here uses the lower bound hydraulic conductivity value.Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Estimated per Pathway Relative Contributions to Mass DischargeOutfall 002Seeps1 - The sensitivity analysis presented here is performed for pathways Onsite Groundwater, Outfall 002, Seeps and Old Outfall. The sensitivity of mass loading model results to variations in each pathway's flow and concentration data are assessed on each pathway independently. Model Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Lower Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3OnsiteGroundwaterTR0795 Page 4 of 4July 2020
TABLE 19BMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER UPPER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002Pathway BeingVaried1FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base CaseEstimated per Pathway Mass Discharge (mg/s)Onsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterOnsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch Creek25.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- ----22.8 -2.2 -9% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 8.61 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --27.1 2.2 8% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 12.92 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --25.0 -0.01 -0.03% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.07 10.76 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54---- --25.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- ----25.0 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.06 10.76 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --25.0 0.02 0.06% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.10 10.76 8.43 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --24.2 -0.8 -3% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 7.59 4.49 0.0 0.54---- --25.8 0.8 3% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 9.28 4.49 0.0 0.54-- ----23.3 -1.7 -7% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 6.75 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --26.7 1.7 6% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 10.12 4.49 0.0 0.54-- -- --24.5 -0.4 -2% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 8.43 4.04 0.0 0.54---- --25.4 0.4 2% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 8.43 4.94 0.0 0.54-- ----24.1 -0.9 -4% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 8.43 3.59 0.0 0.54-- -- --25.9 0.9 3% 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.08 10.76 8.43 5.39 0.0 0.54Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Model Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Upper Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3OnsiteGroundwaterOutfall 002SeepsOld OutfallTR0795 Page 1 of 4July 2020
TABLE 19BMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER UPPER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002Pathway BeingVaried1FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base CaseOnsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterOnsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch Creek25.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.3% 43.1% 33.7% 18.0% 0.0% 2.2%-- ----22.8 -2.2 -9% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.4% 37.7% 36.9% 19.7% 0.0% 2.4%-- -- --27.1 2.2 8% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.3% 47.6% 31.1% 16.6% 0.0% 2.0%-- -- --25.0 -0.01 -0.03% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.3% 43.1% 33.8% 18.0% 0.0% 2.2%---- --25.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.3% 43.1% 33.7% 18.0% 0.0% 2.2%-- ----25.0 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.3% 43.1% 33.8% 18.0% 0.0% 2.2%-- -- --25.0 0.02 0.1% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.4% 43.0% 33.7% 18.0% 0.0% 2.1%-- -- --24.2 -0.8 -3% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.3% 44.6% 31.4% 18.6% 0.0% 2.2%---- --25.8 0.8 3% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.3% 41.7% 35.9% 17.4% 0.0% 2.1%-- ----23.3 -1.7 -7% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.3% 46.2% 28.9% 19.3% 0.0% 2.3%-- -- --26.7 1.7 6% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.3% 40.3% 37.9% 16.8% 0.0% 2.0%-- -- --24.5 -0.4 -2% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.3% 43.9% 34.4% 16.5% 0.0% 2.2%---- --25.4 0.4 2% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.3% 42.3% 33.1% 19.4% 0.0% 2.1%-- ----24.1 -0.9 -4% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.3% 44.7% 35.0% 14.9% 0.0% 2.2%-- -- --25.9 0.9 3% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.3% 41.6% 32.6% 20.8% 0.0% 2.1%Estimated per Pathway Relative Contributions to Mass DischargeTotal Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Model Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Upper Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3OnsiteGroundwaterOutfall 002SeepsOld OutfallTR0795 Page 2 of 4July 2020
TABLE 19BMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER UPPER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002Pathway BeingVaried1FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base CaseOnsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterOnsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch Creek26.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- ----23.8 -2.2 -9% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 8.64 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --28.1 2.2 8% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 12.96 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --25.9 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.17 10.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57---- --26.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- ----25.9 -0.04 -0.1% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.15 10.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --26.0 0.04 0.1% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.23 10.80 9.09 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --25.1 -0.9 -4% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 8.18 4.49 0.0 0.57---- --26.9 0.9 3% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 10.00 4.49 0.0 0.57-- ----24.1 -1.8 -8% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 7.27 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --27.8 1.8 7% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 10.91 4.49 0.0 0.57-- -- --25.5 -0.4 -2% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 9.09 4.04 0.0 0.57---- --26.4 0.4 2% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 9.09 4.94 0.0 0.57-- ----25.1 -0.9 -4% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 9.09 3.59 0.0 0.57-- -- --26.9 0.9 3% 0.0 0.81 0.01 0.19 10.80 9.09 5.39 0.0 0.57Estimated per Pathway Mass Discharge (mg/s)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Model Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Upper Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3OnsiteGroundwaterOutfall 002SeepsOld OutfallTR0795 Page 3 of 4July 2020
TABLE 19BMASS LOADING MODEL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER UPPER BOUND SCENARIO SETGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Low High Low HighWillis CreekAerial Depositionto Cape Fear RiverOutfall 002Pathway BeingVaried1FlowVariation2Concentration Variation2Model Estimated Total Mass Discharge(mg/s)Difference from Model Base Case(mg/s)Percent Difference from Model Base CaseOnsite GroundwaterUpstream River Water and GroundwaterOnsite SeepsOld OutfallOffsite Adjacent and Downstream GroundwaterGeorgia Branch Creek26.0 0.00 0.00% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.7% 41.6% 35.0% 17.3% 0.0% 2.2%-- ----23.8 -2.2 -9% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.8% 36.3% 38.2% 18.9% 0.0% 2.4%-- -- --28.1 2.2 8% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.7% 46.1% 32.3% 16.0% 0.0% 2.0%-- -- --25.9 -0.02 -0.1% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.7% 41.6% 35.0% 17.3% 0.0% 2.2%---- --26.0 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.7% 41.6% 35.0% 17.3% 0.0% 2.2%-- ----25.9 -0.04 -0.1% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.6% 41.7% 35.1% 17.3% 0.0% 2.2%-- -- --26.0 0.04 0.1% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.9% 41.5% 35.0% 17.3% 0.0% 2.2%-- -- --25.1 -0.9 -4% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.8% 43.1% 32.7% 17.9% 0.0% 2.3%---- --26.9 0.9 3% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.7% 40.2% 37.2% 16.7% 0.0% 2.1%-- ----24.1 -1.8 -8% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.8% 44.7% 30.1% 18.6% 0.0% 2.4%-- -- --27.8 1.8 7% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.7% 38.9% 39.3% 16.2% 0.0% 2.0%-- -- --25.5 -0.4 -2% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.8% 42.3% 35.6% 15.9% 0.0% 2.2%---- --26.4 0.4 2% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.7% 40.9% 34.4% 18.7% 0.0% 2.1%-- ----25.1 -0.9 -4% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.8% 43.1% 36.3% 14.3% 0.0% 2.3%-- -- --26.9 0.9 3% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.7% 40.2% 33.8% 20.1% 0.0% 2.1%Notes:2 - The estimated ranges of potential uncertainty in each pathways' flow and concentration data are listed in Table 18.Abbreviations:mg/s - milligrams per secondEstimated per Pathway Relative Contributions to Mass DischargeTotal Table 3+ (20 Compounds)Model Base Case: Onsite Groundwater Upper Bound Hydraulic Conductivity3OnsiteGroundwaterOutfall 002SeepsOld Outfall1 - The sensitivity analysis presented here is performed for pathways Onsite Groundwater, Outfall 002, Seeps and Old Outfall. The sensitivity of mass loading model results to variations in each pathway's flow and concentration data are assessed on each pathway independently. 3 - The base case model scenario presented here uses the upper bound hydraulic conductivity value.TR0795 Page 4 of 4July 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
³
July 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
NorthCarolina
SouthCarolina
Cape Fear River Watershed and Downstream Drinking Water Intakes
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Raleigh
2
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
July 2020
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 July 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 scale
Sample Collection and Mass Load Interval Calculation Timeline at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaFigure4RaleighJuly 20203.5 2 1 3.5 3.33.53.53.5 3.5 2.6 3.53.528‐03‐2029‐03‐2030‐03‐2031‐03‐2001‐04‐2002‐04‐2003‐04‐2004‐04‐2005‐04‐2006‐04‐2007‐04‐2008‐04‐2009‐04‐2010‐04‐2011‐04‐2012‐04‐2013‐04‐2014‐04‐2015‐04‐2016‐04‐2017‐04‐2018‐04‐2019‐04‐2020‐04‐2021‐04‐2022‐04‐2023‐04‐2024‐04‐2025‐04‐2026‐04‐2027‐04‐2028‐04‐2029‐04‐2030‐04‐2001‐05‐2002‐05‐2003‐05‐2004‐05‐2005‐05‐2006‐05‐2007‐05‐2008‐05‐2009‐05‐2010‐05‐2011‐05‐2012‐05‐20Composite Sample (Days)MLM Event (days)Mass Load Interval (ID)12765438910 11 12 13 14Abbrevations:MLM ‐ mass loading modelNotes:Mass load intervals are the basis upon which the mass loads in the Cape Fear River for the entire reporting period are estimated.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*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
³
Projection: 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 E.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 - April 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
5Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
July 2020
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
!(
!(
!(
CFR-BLADEN
CFR-MILE-76
CFR-TARHEEL
³
Projection: 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 - April 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
6Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
July 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
!'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
Bladen-1S
INSITU-02
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
7Raleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
³
July 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
@A
@A
W illis Creek
C
a
p
e
Fe
a
r
Ri
ver
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
FTA-01134.5FTA-02132.86FTA-03133.67
MW-11125.16
MW-12S
132.3MW-1S131.28
MW-23134.18
MW-25133.98
MW-26136.58
MW-27132.57
MW-28131.13
MW-2S130.92
MW-30134.83
MW-7S137.01
MW-8S138.96
MW-9S133.27
NAF-01140.29
NAF-02140.53
NAF-04140.96
NAF-05ANM
NAF-06135.02NAF-07140.46
NAF-08A140.63
NAF-09137.66
NAF-10137.97
NAF-11A134.25
NAF-12139.55
NAF-13NM
PW-01135.1
PZ-11138.41
PZ-12131.99
PZ-13138.25
PZ-14137.9
PZ-15135.86PZ-17121.79
PZ-19R136.46
PZ-20R136.47
PZ-21R137.64
PZ-24133.31
PZ-25126.45
PZ-26134.72
PZ-27133.07
PZ-28
135.29
PZ-35137.27
SMW-02135.16SMW-03
DrySMW-04A110.94
SMW-05
125.04
SMW-06126.02
SMW-07128.33
SMW-08Dry
MW-24129.14
NAF-03140.48
115
125
140120135130125120115110110
Groundwater Elevation MapPerched Zone - February 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
8ARaleigh
³
July 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 February 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
@A Monitoring Well Used forGroundwater Extraction
Groundwater Contours(ft NAVD88) - 5 feetinterval
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
PZ-31130
PZ-34131.84
PZ-33132.62
PZ-32132.94
PZ-28
135.29
MW-34132.06
MW-31131.73 PZ-29133.07
MW-36132.22
MW-35132.15
MW-33132.39MW-32132.16130 13570 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@A
@A
@AWillisCreek
C
a
p
e
Fe
a
r
Ri
ver
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
INSITU-01112.43 INSITU-02Dry
MW-13D113.55MW-14D108.42
MW-15DRR102.16
MW-16D111.41
MW-17D115.51
MW-18D87.11
MW-19D87.82
MW-20D88.81
MW-21D104.71
MW-22D112.18 NAF-05BNM
NAF-08B95.73
NAF-11B94.17
PIW-10S58.04
PIW-1D34.92
PIW-5S60.71
PIW-9S49.91
PW-0288.98
PW-03105.68
PW-0469.44
PW-05120.28
SMW-01123.99
SMW-02BDrySMW-04B101.51
SMW-05P123.82
SMW-06B101.73
SMW-08B106.8
SMW-0983.92
SMW-1158.3
12050607080110100905060708090100110120Groundwater Elevation MapSurficial Aquifer - February 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
8BRaleigh
³
July 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 February 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-0186.45
BCA-0274.4
BCA-03R100.15
BCA-04120.55
LTW-0138.12
LTW-0242.92
LTW-0340.88
LTW-0443.58
LTW-0542.95
PIW-10DR61.06
PIW-1S34.37
PIW-2D48.1
PIW-3D36.65
PIW-4D42.36
PIW-6S39.77
PIW-7D43.17
PIW-7S43.3
PIW-8D41.74PIW-9D42.61
PW-0948.05
PW-10R48.52
PW-1140.03
PW-1292.13
PW-13115.74 PW-1486.26
PW-15R76.21
PZ-2244.44
SMW-03B92.07
SMW-1047.1
SMW-1234.08
908070604050
50
40
60
70
80
90
Groundwater Elevation MapBlack Creek Aquifer - February 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
8CRaleigh
³
July 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 February 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 feetintervalPotentiometric SurfaceInferredInferred GroundwaterFlow Direction
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Ground SurfaceElevation Contour (ftNAVD88) - 5 ft interval
Site Boundary
Total Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations, Precipitation and Daily Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road BridgeChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaFigure9RaleighJuly 202005,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,0000501001502002503003503/28/203/29/203/30/203/31/204/1/204/2/204/3/204/4/204/5/204/6/204/7/204/8/204/9/204/10/204/11/204/12/204/13/204/14/204/15/204/16/204/17/204/18/204/19/204/20/204/21/204/22/204/23/204/24/204/25/204/26/204/27/204/28/204/29/204/30/205/1/205/2/205/3/205/4/205/5/205/6/205/7/205/8/205/9/205/10/205/11/205/12/20Cape Fear River Flow (ft3/s)Total Table 3+Concentration (ng/L)Cape Fear River Flow00.511.522.53050100150200250300350Total Daily Precipitation (in)Total Table 3+ Concentration (ng/L)PrecipitationComposite Sample (Sum of 20 Compounds)Composite Sample (Sum of 17 Compounds)Notes:‐Total Table 3+ concentrations summed over 17 or 20 Table 3+ compounds.‐Precipitation data are from the USGS monitoring site at the W.O. Huske Dam.Abbrevations:in ‐ inchesng/L ‐ nanograms per literft3/s ‐ cubic feet per seconds
Total Table 3+ PFAS Mass Discharge, Precipitation and Daily Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road BridgeChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaFigure10RaleighJuly 202000.511.522.5305101520253035Total Daily Precipitation (in)Table 3+ Mass Discharge (mg/s)PrecipitationNotes:‐Total Table 3+ concentrations summed over 17 Table 3+ compounds.‐Precipitation data are from the USGS monitoring site at the W.O. Huske Dam.Abbrevations:in ‐ inchesmg/s ‐ milligram per secondsft3/s ‐ cubic feet per seconds05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000051015202530353/28/203/29/203/30/203/31/204/1/204/2/204/3/204/4/204/5/204/6/204/7/204/8/204/9/204/10/204/11/204/12/204/13/204/14/204/15/204/16/204/17/204/18/204/19/204/20/204/21/204/22/204/23/204/24/204/25/204/26/204/27/204/28/204/29/204/30/205/1/205/2/205/3/205/4/205/5/205/6/205/7/205/8/205/9/205/10/205/11/205/12/20Cape Fear River Flow (ft3/s)Table 3+ Mass Discharge (mg/s)Composite Sample (Sum of 20 Compounds)Composite Sample (Sum of 17 Compounds)
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Ca
p
e
F
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Old Outfall 002
Willis Creek
CFR-MILE-76ND
Intake River Water at Facility100
OLDOF-1110,000
OUTFALL 002*130/180
SEEP-A260,000
SEEP-B310,000
SEEP-C310,000
SEEP-D180,000
WC-12,000
1,250 0 1,250625 Feet
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³Legend
!(Sample Location
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:* Grab and composite samples collected at Outfall 002. Results reportedas grab / composite.ND - non-detectHFPO-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.
!(GBC-11,800Ge
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 Seeps and Surface Water - April 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
11ARaleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
July 2020
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Ca
p
e
F
e
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Old Outfall 002
Willis Creek
CFR-MILE-76ND
Intake River Water at Facility130
OLDOF-1110,000
OUTFALL 002*250/320
SEEP-A290,000
SEEP-B340,000
SEEP-C320,000
SEEP-D180,000
WC-12,400
1,250 0 1,250625 Feet
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³Legend
!(Sample Location
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:* Grab and composite samples collected at Outfall 002. Results reportedas grab / composite.ND - non-detectHFPO-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-11,900Ge
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 Seeps and Surface Water - April 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
11BRaleigh
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
July 2020
!(
!(
!(
CFR-BLADEN87
CFR-MILE-76ND
CFR-TARHEEL
120
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³
Notes:ND - non-detectHFPO-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-KINGS
98
1
³
2 0 21 Miles
2 - Downstream
Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations(17 Compounds) - April 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
12ARaleigh
2 0 21 Miles
July 2020
Legend
!(Sample Location
Site Boundary
Cape Fear River
1
2
!(
!(
!(
CFR-BLADEN110
CFR-MILE-76ND
CFR-TARHEEL
160
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³
Notes:ND - non-detectHFPO-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-KINGS
130
1
³
2 0 21 Miles
2 - Downstream
Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ Concentrations(20 Compounds) - April 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
12BRaleigh
2 0 21 Miles
July 2020
Legend
!(Sample Location
Site Boundary
Cape Fear River
1
2
!(
!(
!(
CFR-BLADEN
10
CFR-MILE-76
<4
CFR-TARHEEL*
11/18
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
³
Notes:*Location showing grab/composite sample results.< -non-detectHFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
1. 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-KINGS9.6
1
³
2 0 21 Miles
2 - Downstream
Cape Fear River HFPO-DA Concentrations - April 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
13Raleigh
2 0 21 Miles
July 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
WillisC r e e k
CapeFearRi
verSeep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Old Outfall 002
PIW-1D
46,000
PW-04
1,100
PW-064,800
PW-074,200
SMW-115,100
INSITU-02NA
LTW-01120,000
LTW-03220,000
LTW-04210,000
PIW-1S12,000
PIW-7S130,000
LTW-0280,000
LTW-05350,000
PIW-3D40,000
PIW-7D
230,000
PW-0943
PW-11
680,000
PZ-22250,000
SMW-1042
SMW-1210,000
Total Table 3+ Concentrations in Groundwater (17 Compounds) - February 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
14ARaleigh
³
July 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,500 0 1,500750 Feet
Notes:NA - not analyzedHFPO-DA - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid1. All results are in nanograms per liter.2. Total table 3+ concentration includes HFPO-DA results evaluated by EPA 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.
1 0 10.5 Miles
Legend
!'A Surficial Aquifer
!'A Floodplain Deposits
!'A Black Creek Aquifer
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
!'A!'A
G
eorgiaBr
a
n
ch
Creek BLADEN-1S
NABLADEN-1D290
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
!'A
!'A
WillisC r e e k
CapeFearRi
verSeep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Old Outfall 002
PIW-1D
47,000
PW-04
1,200
PW-064,900
PW-074,300
SMW-115,200
INSITU-02NA
LTW-01120,000
LTW-03230,000
LTW-04220,000
PIW-1S13,000
PIW-7S140,000
LTW-0282,000
LTW-05350,000
PIW-3D41,000
PIW-7D
230,000
PW-0943
PW-11
680,000
PZ-22250,000
SMW-1042
SMW-1210,000
Total Table 3+ Concentrations in Groundwater (20 Compounds) - February 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
14BRaleigh
³
July 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,500 0 1,500750 Feet
Notes:NA - not analyzedHFPO-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!'A
G
eorgiaBr
a
n
ch
Creek BLADEN-1S
NABLADEN-1D290
500 0 500250 Feet
2
1
³1
2³
\\projectsitesb.geosyntec.com@SSL\DavWWWRoot\5\FWConsentOrder\Shared Documents\34 - P16 Quarterly Reports\2020 Q1\Report\Figures\[Figure 15 - Modelled vs. Measured MasComparison of Modelled and Measured Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge at Tar Heel Ferry Road BridgeChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaFigure15RaleighJune 2020Notes:The lower and upper bounds on the mass dischargewas 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 -MassLoading ModelGW -groundwatermg/s -milligrams per second0510152025MdnuoB rewoL - MLMLEEHRAT-RFCdnuoB reppU - MLMdnuoB rewoL - MLMLM - Upper BoundCFR-TARHEELTotal Table 3+ Mass Loading (mg/s)Upstream River Water and GWWillis CreekAerial DepositionOutfall 002Onsite GW*SeepsOld Outfall 002Adjacent and Downstream GWGeorgia Branch CreekTar Heel15.113.420.316.017.919.4Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge(20 Compounds)2Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge (17 Compounds)1

APPENDIX A

Field Methods
Appendix A

1 July 2020

APPENDIX A
FIELD METHODS
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
This appendix summarizes the field methods employed to conduct monitoring activities for total
Table 3+ per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mass loading to the Cape Fear River at and
surrounding the Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina site (the Site). The effort described
herein was conducted by Geosyntec and Parsons in February and April 2020. The monitoring
program includes collecting data on flow rates and PFAS concentrations from the PFAS transport
pathways to the Cape Fear River.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work involves four tasks: (1) collecting surface water and groundwater seep water
samples for PFAS; (2) measuring flow rates at specified surface water and seep locations; (3)
collecting a synoptic round of groundwater elevations from designated monitoring wells; and (4)
collecting water samples for PFAS analysis from the designated monitoring wells. Field methods
for each task are described below in the Methods section. Field forms collected during
implementation of this scope of work are provided in Appendix F.
The work was performed according to the project health and safety plan (HASP) prepared by
Parsons (Parsons Health and Safety Plan Chemours Fayetteville Site, 2020). A Plan on Action
Discussion (POAD) and Project Safety Analysis (PSA) was held prior to commencing field
activities. The work was performed under Nationwide Permit 6 (United States Army Corps of
Engineers, 2017).
METHODS
This section describes the field methods and procedures that were employed for collecting surface
water and onsite seep samples, gauging stream flow, collection of groundwater elevations, water
quality parameter assessment and sample collection.
Surface Water and Onsite Seep Sample Collection Methods

Surface Water and Onsite Seep Composite Sampling Methods
Autosamplers were used to collect 24-hour integrated samples from various surface water bodies
and onsite Seeps. The autosamplers collected sample aliquots once per hour. The sample tubing
from the autosampler was positioned at minimum 2 inches above the bottom of the water body
flow with the open end of the sample tubing pointed in the downstream direction to minimize the
potential for sediment accumulation and uptake. Autosampler materials consisted of high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) tubing, silicon tubing, and an HDPE sample reservoir. Water from the
Appendix A

2 July 2020

sample reservoir was decanted into laboratory supplied bottles (e.g. 250-milliliter [mL] HDPE
bottles for PFAS analysis) and then sent to an approved laboratory. Field parameters were
measured twice for composite samples: once during composite sampling (collected directly from
the water stream), and once after composite sampling (collected from the autosampler reservoir).
The following water quality parameters were recorded:
 pH;
 Temperature (degrees Celsius [°C]);
 Specific Conductivity (microsiemens per centimeter [µS/cm]);
 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (milligrams per liter [mg/L]); and,
 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) (millivolts [mV])
Creek and Seep Water Grab Sampling Methods
Where composite sample collection was not feasible due to access and other field conditions, creek
and seep water samples were collected as grab samples. Laboratory-supplied 250 mL HDPE
sample bottles were lowered into the flowing water of the creek to collect the sample. The bottles
were lowered into the stream either using a properly decontaminated dip rod with bottle attached
with a nylon zip tie, or in shallow streams, by hand. The bottle was lowered into the stream with
the cap removed, open and facing oncoming flow. Where possible, the sample was collected from
the middle of the stream. Care was taken to avoid collecting suspended solids or other materials in
the sample. The following water quality parameters were measured after sample collection using
water from the same location in the stream:
 pH;
 Temperature (°C);
 Specific Conductivity (µS/cm);
 DO (mg/L); and
 ORP (mV).
Cape Fear River Water Grab Sampling Methods
Cape Fear River water samples were collected using a peristaltic pump and new dedicated HDPE
tubing and dedicated silicone tubing for the pump head at each location. The tubing was lowered
to the specified sampling depth below the water surface using an anchor weight and the tubing
fastened to the anchor pointing upwards. Surface water was pumped directly from the submerged
tubing through the pump head to a flow-through cell. Field parameters were monitored over a 5-
minute interval, then the flow-through cell was disconnected, the tubing cut to provide a new, clean
end and a grab sample was collected from the discharge of the peristaltic pump in new 250 mL
laboratory-supplied HDPE bottles. The following water quality parameters were measured:
 pH;
 Temperature (°C);
Appendix A

3 July 2020

 Specific Conductivity (µS/cm);
 DO (mg/L); and
 ORP (mV).
Flow Gauging Methods

Flow velocity was measured after sample collection at seep and creek locations specified in Table
2. Flow velocity was measured using flumes where they exist, otherwise flow velocity was
measured via flow meters.
Flumes
Flumes are currently installed in Seep A, Seep B, Seep C, Seep D, and Old Outfall 002 under
Nationwide Permit 38 (United States Army Corps of Engineers, June 2019). Where present, they
were used to calculate flow based on the data collected by the level logger installed in the flume.
Flow Velocity Gauging
Where flumes are not installed (i.e., Willis Creek and Georgia Branch Creek), the flow rate of the
stream was measured using a submersible flow meter. The flow meter was placed beneath the
flowing stream along the cross section of the stream at regular intervals (e.g. every six inches) and
the height of the water was recorded along with the recorded water velocity. These measurements
were then used to calculate the volumetric flow of water passing through the structure based on
the regular geometry and measured flow rates. Flow was measured using two to three transects to
assess variability in estimated flow. Transects were selected that have fairly uniform cross sections
that could be gauged with minimal disturbance.
Synoptic Water Level Measurements
Water level measurements for monitoring wells listed in Table 3 were collected during a single
synoptic event. At each location, notes on well condition, weather, date and time of collection,
depth to bottom of well and depth to water level from top of casing were recorded.
Groundwater Sampling Methods
Designated monitoring wells were monitored as part of the quarterly monitoring activities. These
wells are listed in Table 3 and Figure 7.
The groundwater samples were analyzed for the list of Table 3+ compounds listed in Table 1. Field
equipment was inspected by the program on-Site supervisor and calibrated daily prior to use
according to the manufacturer’s recommended guidelines. Field parameters were measured with a
water quality meter after sample collection and included the following:
 pH;
 Temperature (°C);
Appendix A

4 July 2020

 Specific Conductivity (µS/cm);
 DO (mg/L);
 ORP (mV);
 Turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units [NTU]); and,
 Color.

Non-dedicated or non-disposable sampling equipment was decontaminated immediately before
sample collection in the following manner:
1. De-ionized water rinse;
2. Scrub with de-ionized water containing non-phosphate detergent (i.e., Alconox®); and
3. De-ionized water rinse.
Disposable equipment (e.g. gloves, tubing, etc.) was not reused. New sample containers were
used for each sample.
Groundwater samples were collected, where possible, using low-flow sampling techniques as
discussed in detail in the Long-term Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Parsons, 2018) and briefly
summarized here.
1. New disposable or dedicated HDPE tubing was placed at the midpoint of the well’s
screened interval.
2. Water was purged through a flow-through cell attached to a water quality meter capable of
measuring pH, temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and ORP.
3. Water was pumped using a peristaltic pump, with dedicated silicone tubing for the pump
head, at wells with water level less than 30 feet. A submersible pump was used for wells
with water level deeper than 30 feet.
4. Groundwater was pumped directly from submerged tubing through the pump head to a
flow-through cell until field parameters (pH, temperature, specific conductivity, DO, ORP)
were stabilized within ±10% over three consecutive readings within a five-minute interval.
If field parameters stabilized, but turbidity remained stable yet elevated greater than 20
NTU, field personnel purged five well volumes prior to sample collection.
5. Water levels in the designated wells were monitored during purging so that minimum draw-
down of the water column was maintained.
6. Once flow-through cell readings were stable, the flow-through cell was disconnected, the
tubing cut to provide a new clean end and samples were collected from the discharge of
the peristaltic pump in new 250 mL laboratory-supplied HDPE bottles.
7. Sample identification information (e.g., well/sample identification number, sample time
and date, samplers’ names, preservative, and analytical parameters) were recorded on the
bottle label with permanent ink after the sample was collected.
Appendix A

5 July 2020

Sample Packing and Shipping
Upon sample collection, each containerized sample was placed into an insulated sample cooler.
Wet ice was placed around the sample containers within heavy-duty plastic bags within the sample
cooler.
A chain-of-custody form was completed by the field sample custodian for each sample shipment.
Sample locations, sample identification numbers, description of samples, number of samples
collected, and specific laboratory analyses were recorded on the chain-of-custody form.
Field QA/QC Samples
Field quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) samples were collected as discussed in detail in
the Long-term Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Parsons, 2018) and summarized below:
1. For samples collected to be analyzed by Method EPA 537 Modified, three blind duplicate
samples were collected; two in the February sampling event and one in the April sampling
event.
2. For samples collected to be analyzed by Method Table 3+, three blind duplicate samples
were collected; two in the February sampling event and one in the April sampling event.
3. For samples collected to be analyzed by EPA 537, three Modified Matrix Spike and Matrix
Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were collected; two in the February sampling event
and one in the April sampling event.
4. For samples collected to be analyzed by Method Table 3+, three MS/MSD samples were
collected; two in the February sampling event and one in the April sampling event.
5. For groundwater samples collected in February, equipment blanks and field blanks were
collected daily.
6. For surface water samples collected in April, three equipment blanks were collected.
REFERENCES
Parsons, 2018. Long-term Groundwater Monitoring Plan. September 28, 2018.
Parsons, 2020. Fayetteville Works Health and Safety Plan.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Nationwide Permit 6. 19 March 2017. http://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2017/2017NWP06.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2019.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Nationwide Permit 36, 06 June 2019.

APPENDIX B
Southwestern Offsite Seeps Sampling and
Flow Gauging Memorandum
Appendix B
1 July 2020
APPENDIX B
SOUTHWESTERN OFFSITE SEEPS SAMPLING AND FLOW GAUGING SAMPLING
EVENT
INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC (Geosyntec) has prepared this report for The Chemours
Company FC, LLC (Chemours) for the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County,
North Carolina (the Site) to describe the findings of the Southwestern Offsite Seeps Sampling
and Flow Gauging Memorandum. Groundwater seeps are a common hydrogeological feature in
areas of sloping terrain. In late 2019 ten offsite groundwater seeps, the Lock and Dam Seep and
Seeps E through M, (Figure B1) located between the Old Outfall 002 and Georgia Branch Creek
were identified and sampled (Corrective Action Plan, Geosyntec, 2019). The assessment
described in this memorandum describes the sampling and flow gauging of these offsite
groundwater seeps to assess their Table 3+ PFAS mass load to the Cape Fear River.
METHODS
As reported in the Corrective Action Plan (Geosyntec, 2019) ten offsite groundwater seeps were
identified on the west bank of the Cape Fear River south of the Site. The southwestern offsite
seeps were identified by observation from a boat along the west shore of the Cape Fear River
from the Old Outfall 002 to Georgia Branch Creek (Attachment A). The shoreline was observed
for surface water runoff, ground water seeps or erosional features indicative of flowing water. A
total of ten seeps were identified on the western shore of the Cape Fear River (Figure B1) in
2019 (Geosyntec, 2019). The observed flow from these seeps ranged from seeping water from an
embankment (i.e. trickles) to a visible small stream in some of the seeps. On March 4th, 2020 the
Lock and Dam seep and Seeps E to K were sampled by submerging a 250 mL HDPE sampling
bottle facing into the direction of flow to capture the water flowing from the seeps. Flow was
measured using the salt dilution method for Seeps G and K which had enough flow for this
method. Flow at Seeps E, F, H and I had insufficient flow to use the salt dilution tests and seep
flow was measured by recording the time for the flow from the seep to fill a container of known
volume. Chemours obtained verbal or written access agreement for sampling the offsite seeps
with the exception of seep L and seep M for which the landowners could not be contacted,
preventing the sampling of flow gauging of these two seeps. Seep samples were sent to Test
America (Sacramento) and analyzed for the Table 3+ Standard Operating Protocol (SOP) and
EPA Method 537 Mod. Seep Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge was calculated by multiplying
the measured Total Table 3+ PFAS concentration by the measured flow.
DATA QUALITY
Analytical data were reviewed using the Data Verification Module (DVM) within the
LocusTM Environmental Information Management (EIM) system, which is a commercial software
program used to manage data. Following the DVM process, a manual review of the data was
conducted. The DVM and manual review results were combined in a data review narrative report
for each set of sample results, which were consistent with Stage 2b of the EPA Guidance
for Labeling
Appendix B
2 July 2020
Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use (EPA-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 QA/QC samples;
MS/MSD recoveries and the relative percent differences (RPDs) between these spikes;
Laboratory control sample/control sample duplicate recoveries and the RPD between
these spikes;
Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses; and
RPD between field duplicate sample pairs.
The analytical results for the offsite seeps are presented in Table B1. Results are presented with
all validation flags. The “J” and “UJ” flagged results indicate usable data, which should be
considered as quantitatively estimated. The results are not necessarily within the laboratory’s
criteria for accuracy and precision of the test method employed, but in the reviewer’s professional
judgment are usable. Laboratory reports and data review narratives are provided in Attachment B.
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, 2020b) matrix interference studies conducted by the analytical laboratory
(TestAmerica, Sacramento) have shown that the quantitation of these three compounds (R-PSDA
[formerly Byproduct 4], Hydrolyzed PSDA [formerly Byproduct 5], and R-EVE) may be
inaccurate due to interferences by the sample matrix. 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 T3+(17)”, i.e., excluding results of R-PSDA,
Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE and (ii) summing over 20 of the Table 3+ compounds “Total
T3+(20)”. Expressing these data as a range represents the range of what these results might be
without any matrix interferences. In other words, the sum of all 20 compounds is likely an
overestimate of the actual value while the sum of the 17 compounds is an underestimate of the
actual value.
One field blank sample was analyzed for Table 3+ and Mod 537 PFAS compounds. All analytes
were non-detect indicating there was no cross-contamination in the field blank.
Appendix B
3 July 2020
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analytical results for the samples collected at the southwestern offsite seeps are presented in
Table B1 and B2. The samples collected and analyzed for Table 3+ from the southwestern offsite
seeps reported 14 PFAS. The sum of the Total Table 3+ PFAS in seeps south of Old Outfall
ranged between 1,500 ng/L to 5,500 ng/L at seeps J and F, respectively, for seeps located south
of the Old Outfall. The Lock and Dam seep had a Total Table 3+ PFAS concentration of 192,000
to ng/L. The highest Table 3 + compounds detected in the Lock and Dam seep was PFMOAA
with concentrations of 160,000 ng/L. PMPA, PEPA, PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, NVHOS and HFPO-
DA were detected in all of the 8 seeps sampled. The concentration of Table 3+ PFAS decreases
in each of the seeps with increasing distance from the Site (i.e. going southward). Note that
in the offsite seeps samples, concentrations of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE were
low relative to other compounds (0% to 2% of Total Table 3+) and did not change the Total
Table 3+ concentration reported to two significant digits for all seeps, except Seeps E and F.
Seeps E and F had concentrations of Total Table 3+ PFAS summed over 20 compounds 100
ng/L higher than the sum of total Table 3+ over 17 compounds when rounding to two significant
figures.
Twelve (12) of 35 PFAS were detected with EPA Method 537 Mod. Of these 12 PFAS,
perfluoropentanoic acid was detected at all seeps. The highest perfluoropentanoic
acid concentration c (620 ng/L) was reported in the sample collected at the Lock and Dam Seep.
PFOS concentrations ranged between non-detect (Seeps G and H) to 45 ng/L (Lock and Dam
Seep). PFOA concentrations ranged between non-detect (Seeps F, G, H and I) to 23 ng/L (Lock
and Dam Seep).
Measured flows among all the offsite seeps ranged from 1 gallon per minute (gpm) at seep F to
73 gpm at seep G. The measured flow rate at the Lock and Dam seep was 16 gpm.
Consistent with previous findings (Corrective Action Plan, Geosyntec, 2019), Seeps E to K
continue to indicate an aerial deposition PFAS signature (concentrations decrease in seeps more
distant from the Site). The Lock and Dam Seep PFAS concentrations and PFAS signatures
are consistent with a process water signature consistent with the Old Outfall and onsite seep
concentrations and signatures. The Lock and Dam seep is located upgradient of the proposed
groundwater remedy which, similar to the onsite seeps, is anticipated to prevent flow
of groundwater to this seep.
The calculated Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge over 20 compounds for the seeps south of
the Old Outfall with an aerial deposition signature ranged from 0.0003 mg/s at Seep I to 0.02
mg/s at Seep G. The summed Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from these offsite seeps
south of the Old Outfall was 0.03 mg/s. For reference, 0.03 mg/s is equivalent to 0.02% of the
median Total Table 3+ mass discharge (16 mg/s) from composite samples measured in the
Cape Fear River as described in the Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Assessment
– First Quarter 2020 Report .
Appendix B
4 July 2020

The calculated Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge for the Lock and Dam Seep was 0.2 mg/s.
For reference, this loading is equivalent to 1% of the median Total Table 3+ mass discharge (16
mg/s) from composite Cape Fear River water samples from the Tar Heel Ferry Road sampling
location (Geosyntec, 2020a).
REFERENCES:
Geosyntec, 2019. Corrective Action Plan. 2019. Chemours Fayetteville Works. December 31,
2019.
Geosyntec, 2020a. Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – First Quarter
2020 Report. Chemours Fayetteville Works. July 31, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020b. Matrix Interference During Analysis of Table 3+ Compounds. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. July 31, 2020.
*****
Enclosures:
- Tables
- Figures
- Attachment A: Field Logs
- Attachment B: Data Review Narratives and Laboratory Reports
TR0795
TABLES
TABLE B1SOUTHWESTERN OFFSITE SEEPS TABLE 3+ RESULTS Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Location ID Lock-Dam Seep Lock-Dam Seep SEEP-E SEEP-F SEEP-G SEEP-H SEEP-I SEEP-J SEEP-K FBLKField Sample ID Lock-Dam Seep-030420 Lock-Dam Seep-030420-D Seep E-030420 Seep F-030420 Seep G-030420 Seep H-030420 Seep I-030420 Seep J-030420 Seep K-030420 FB-030420Sample Date 04-03-2004-03-2004-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20QA/QCDuplicateField BlankTable 3+ SOP (ng/L)Hfpo Dimer Acid6,8005,3009501,100730540470250490<2.5PFMOAA140,000160,000390730220180200140210<5PFO2HxA27,00027,000470640410330280130230<2PFO3OA8,5008,500831105630181628<2PFO4DA1,3001,600179.17.9<2<24.75<2PFO5DA<200<200<2<2<2<2<22.2<2<2PMPA6,3006,4001,800 2,100 1,500 1,100 1,1006601,000<10PEPA<2,0002,100600710520360390200350<20PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)<200<200<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)<200<2002410119.3126.916<2R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)440 J490 J53 J68 J44 J30 J362349<2Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)450460<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)<200<200<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2NVHOS1,5001,5006853.74.52.84.7<2EVE Acid<200<200<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2Hydro-EVE Acid<200<2002.3<2<2<2<2<2<2<2R-EVE<200<20020402820171325<2PES<200<200<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2PFECA B<200<200<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2PFECA-G<200<200<2<2<2<2<2<2<2<2Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) (ng/L)210,000190,0004,300 5,400 3,500 2,600 2,500 1,400 2,3000.0Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) (ng/L)210,000190,0004,400 5,500 3,500 2,600 2,500 1,400 2,4000.0Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limitAbbreviations:B - analyte detected in an associated blankR - Rejected, data should not be usedJ - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or preciseng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSOP - standard operating procedureUJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit. TR0795 Page 1 of 1July 2020
TABLE B2SOUTHWESTERN OFFSITE SEEPS OTHER PFAS RESULTS Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Location ID Lock-Dam Seep Lock-Dam Seep SEEP-E SEEP-F SEEP-G SEEP-H SEEP-I SEEP-J SEEP-K FBLKField Sample ID Lock-Dam Seep-030420Lock-Dam Seep-030420-D Seep E-030420 Seep F-030420 Seep G-030420 Seep H-030420 Seep I-030420 Seep J-030420 Seep K-030420 FB-030420Sample Date 04-03-2004-03-2004-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20 04-03-20QA/QCDuplicateField BlankOther PFAS (ng/L)10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate<4.3<4.3<4.1<4.5<4.3<4.7<4.4<4.1<4.2<4.211Cl-PF3OUdS<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.71H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)<2.6<2.6<2.5<2.7<2.6<2.8<2.6<2.5<2.5<2.51H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.72-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol<2.6 UJ<2.6 UJ<2.5<2.7<2.6<2.8<2.6 <2.5 UJ <2.5 UJ <2.52-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <2.6 UJ<2.6 UJ<2.5<2.7<2.6<2.8<2.6 <2.5 UJ <2.5 UJ <2.56:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate<4.3<4.3<4.1<4.5<4.3<4.7<4.4<4.1<4.2<4.29Cl-PF3ONS<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7DONA<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid<2.6<2.6<2.5<2.7<2.6<2.8<2.6<2.5<2.5<2.5N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide<4.3 UJ<4.3 UJ<4.1 UJ <4.5 UJ <4.3 UJ <4.7 <4.4 UJ <4.1 UJ <4.2 UJ <4.2N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide<2.6 UJ<2.6 UJ<2.5 UJ <2.7 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.8 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.5 UJ <2.5 UJ <2.5N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid<1.71.8<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid2.22<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorobutanoic Acid74741114119.98.5<4.16.3<4.2Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorodecanoic Acid<1.71.9<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)<2.6<2.6<2.5<2.7<2.6<2.8<2.6<2.5<2.5<2.5Perfluorododecanoic Acid<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluoroheptanoic Acid45482.4<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)<2.6 UJ<2.6<2.5<2.7<2.6<2.8<2.6<2.5<2.5<2.5Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid5.15.2<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorohexanoic Acid16152.53.72.62.52<1.62.2<1.7Perfluorononanesulfonic acid<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorononanoic Acid3.12.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorooctadecanoic acid<2.6 R<2.6<2.5<2.7<2.6<2.8<2.6<2.5<2.5<2.5Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide5.24.7<1.7<1.8<1.72.2<1.8<1.61.8<1.7Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluoropentanoic Acid62060012171412104.57.3<1.7Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluorotridecanoic Acid<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7Perfluoroundecanoic Acid<1.7<1.7<1.7<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.8<1.6<1.7<1.7PFOA23213.3<1.8<1.7<1.9<1.83.62.2<1.7PFOS45473.51.9<1.7<1.94125<1.7Notes:Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limitAbbreviations:B - analyte detected in an associated blankR - Rejected, data should not be usedJ - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or preciseng/L - nanograms per literQA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSOP - standard operating procedureUJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise. < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit. TR0795 Page 1 of 1July 2020
TABLE B3SUMMARY OF OFFSITE SEEPS MASS DISCHARGE Chemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.SeepFlow (gpm)Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) (ng/L)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) (ng/L)Mass Discharge (17 Compounds) (mg/s)Mass Discharge (20 Compounds) (mg/s)Lock-Dam Seep16190,000190,0000.1960.20SEEP-E174,3004,4000.00480.0049SEEP-F1.05,4005,5000.000340.00035SEEP-G733,5003,5000.0160.016SEEP-H4.52,6002,6000.000720.00074SEEP-I1.82,5002,5000.000280.00029SEEP-J5.11,4001,4000.000460.00047SEEP-K192,3002,4000.00280.00290.220.22Abbreviations:gpm - Gallons per minute ng/L - nanograms per liter mg/s - milligrams per secondTR0795 Page 1 of 1July 2020Total
TR0795
FIGURES
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Cape Fear RiverSeep E
Seep F
Seep G
Seep HSeep I
Seep K
Seep J
Lock-Dam SeepOld Outfall 00
2
Willis Creek
Georgi
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
Figure
B1Raleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_Offsite_Seep_Locations.mxd Last Revised: 6/24/2020 Author: SSomnarainJuly 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,000 0 1,000500 FeetLegend
!(Location of Offsite SeepMouth at Cape Fear River
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:1. Seep E to K samples were collected where the seeps enteredthe Cape Fear River. Their locations on this figure have beenslightly adjusted to facilitate interpretation so that they do notappear to be in the Cape Fear River.2. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is basedon open data from ArcGIS Online and North CarolinaDepartment of Environmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydroshapefile).3. Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community
Southwestern Offsite Seeps Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
TR0795
ATTACHMENT A
Field Logs
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-04-202010:18 10:25 6.41 1.53 140.70 61.51 14.47 lt tan none X
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
57.00
Cloudy
Rain
5
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Other Tracy Ovbey
Lock-Dam Seep
Project Manager:
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Lock and Dam Seep at boat ramo GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)Flow Rate:61.5
03-04-2020 22:08
liters per minute
Latitude:34.8337962
-78.8236701
Table 3
Table 3+
0.41
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
Lock-Dam Seep-030420
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-04-202011:45 11:50 3.85 7.12 159.60 0.08 12.58 clear no
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
55.00
Cloudy
None
2
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Danielle Delgado Other Tracy Ovbey
Seep E
Project Manager:
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)Flow Rate:66
03-04-2020 11:45
liters per minute
Latitude:34.8307047
-78.8230833
Table 3
Table 3+
0.24
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
Seep E-030420
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-03-202212:16 12:20 4.46 5.42 137.70 15.41 16.82 lt tan none
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
55.00
Cloudy
2
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Danielle Delgado Other Tracy Ovbey
Seep F
Project Manager:
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
just before river GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)Flow Rate:3.78
03-03-2020 12:16
liters per minute
Latitude:34.8299146
-78.8225626
Table 3
Table 3+
0.18
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
Seep F-030322
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-04-202012:50 12:55 3.86 7.28 162.50 2.28 15.64 clear no e
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NPPFAS250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
03-04-2020 12:47
Latitude:34.8272885
-78.8229701
sample and flow location GPS Location (if collected)
Spl ID
Seep G-030420
Table 3
Table 3+
0.17
Longitude:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Danielle Delgado Other Tracy Ovbey
Seep G
Project Manager:
Wind (mph)
57.00
Cloudy
None
2
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-04-202013:35 13:40 4.00 5.33 154.70 7.18 16.36 clear no
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NPPFAS250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
03-04-2020 13:35
liters per minute
Latitude:34.825597
-78.8222154
at flow sample area GPS Location (if collected)
Spl ID
Seep H-030420
Table 3
Table 3+
0.12
Longitude:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Danielle Delgado Other Tracy Ovbey
Seep H
Project Manager:
Wind (mph)
55.00
Cloudy
None
2
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:17
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-04-202014:26 14:30 5.08 8.77 162.20 78.32 14.10 lt brown no
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NPPFAS250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
03-04-2020 14:26
liters per minute
Latitude:34.8248994
-78.8219862
sample flow location near river GPS Location (if collected)
Spl ID
Seep I-030420
Table 3
Table 3+
0.09
Longitude:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Danielle Delgado Other Tracy Ovbey
Seep I
Project Manager:
Wind (mph)
55.00
Cloudy
None
2
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:6.8
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-04-202015:10 15:15 6.22 7.32 134.90 71.83 14.83 lt brown none
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
60.00
Cloudy
None
2
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Danielle Delgado Other Tracy Ovbey
Seep J
Project Manager:
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Other
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)Flow Rate:19.5
03-04-2020 15:10
liters per minute
Latitude:34.8239222
-78.821726
Table 3
Table 3+
0.08
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
Seep J-030420
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC03-04-202015:35 15:45 4.27 8.41 179.10 5.91 14.40 clear none
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NPPFAS250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
03-04-2020 15:35
Latitude:34.8208566
-78.8221119
samaple and flow GPS Location (if collected)
Spl ID
Seep K-030420
Table 3
Table 3+
0.14
Longitude:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Bottle Grab
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
KEN STUART, Danielle Delgado Other Tracy Ovbey
Seep K
Project Manager:
Wind (mph)
60.00
Cloudy
None
2
Precipitation:
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
TR0795
ATTACHMENT B
DATA REVIEW NARRATIVES AND
LABORATORY REPORTS
TR0795
Data review narratives are included in this attachment. Due to file size limits, analytical laboratory
reports will be provided separately with the hard copy of the report.
DVM Narrative ReportAssociated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 1274938Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedR537_Prep0.0026PQLPage 1 of 5
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit. The actual detection limits may behigher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 1274938Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLPage 2 of 5
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 12749382-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 12749382-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 1274938N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 1274938N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D 03/04/2020 12749422-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D 03/04/2020 12749422-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D 03/04/2020 1274942N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D 03/04/2020 1274942N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLSeep E-03042003/04/2020 1274946N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep E-03042003/04/2020 1274946N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0041 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0041PQLSeep F-03042003/04/2020 1274950N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0027 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0027PQLSeep F-03042003/04/2020 1274950N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0045 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0045PQLSeep G-03042003/04/2020 1274954N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLSeep G-03042003/04/2020 1274954N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLSeep I-03042003/04/2020 1274962N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLSeep I-03042003/04/2020 1274962N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0044 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0044PQLPage 3 of 5
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSeep J-03042003/04/2020 12749662-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep J-03042003/04/2020 12749662-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep J-03042003/04/2020 1274966N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep J-03042003/04/2020 1274966N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0041 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0041PQLSeep K-03042003/04/2020 12749702-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep K-03042003/04/2020 12749702-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep K-03042003/04/2020 1274970N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep K-03042003/04/2020 1274970N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0042 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0042PQLSeep H-03042003/04/2020 1274958N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLPage 4 of 5
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may bebiased high.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSeep H-03042003/04/2020 1274961Byproduct 40.030 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep H-03042003/04/2020 1274958Byproduct 40.028 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep G-03042003/04/2020 1274957Byproduct 40.044 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep G-03042003/04/2020 1274954Byproduct 40.042 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep F-03042003/04/2020 1274953Byproduct 40.068 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep F-03042003/04/2020 1274950Byproduct 40.067 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep E-03042003/04/2020 1274949Byproduct 40.053 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep E-03042003/04/2020 1274946Byproduct 40.050 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D 03/04/2020 1274945Byproduct 40.49 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D 03/04/2020 1274942Byproduct 40.52 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 1274941Byproduct 40.44 UG/L0.20Cl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20MDLLock-Dam Seep-030420 03/04/2020 1274938Byproduct 40.45 UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20PQLPage 5 of 5

APPENDIX C
Cape Fear River Surface Water Sampling
Report

CAPE FEAR RIVER SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING REPORT
Prepared for
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
22828 NC Highway 87
Fayetteville, NC 28306

Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607

Project Number TR0795
July 2020

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment ii July 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
2 CAPE FEAR RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND ..................................... 1
3 OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 2
4 SCOPE AND METHODS .................................................................................... 3
4.1 Sampling Locations ..................................................................................... 3
4.2 Sampling Methods ....................................................................................... 3
4.3 Analytical Methods ...................................................................................... 4
4.4 Unknown PFAS via TOP Assay .................................................................. 4
5 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 6
5.1 Data Quality ................................................................................................. 6
5.2 PFAS and Precursors ................................................................................... 7
5.3 Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products ............................................... 8
5.4 1,4-Dioxane ................................................................................................. 8
5.5 Other Compounds ........................................................................................ 8
6 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 9
6.1 PFAS ............................................................................................................ 9
6.1.1 Table 3+ Compounds ...................................................................... 9
6.1.2 Method 537M Compounds ........................................................... 10
6.1.3 TOP Assay .................................................................................... 10
6.1.4 Overall PFAS Results ................................................................... 11
6.2 Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products ............................................. 11
6.3 1,4-Dioxane ............................................................................................... 11
6.4 Other Compounds ...................................................................................... 12
7 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 12
8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 14

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment iii July 2020
LIST OF TABLES
Table C1: Sampling Locations and Coordinates
Table C2: Sampling Analytes by Location
Table C3: Summary of Analyte Results by Method
Table C4: Field Parameters
Table C5a: PFAS and TOP Assay Results
Table C5b: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products Results
Table C5c: Other Compounds Results
Table C6: Results of USEPA Method 537M PFAS Analysis Before and After TOP
Oxidation
Table C7: Concentrations of Unknown PFAA Precursors as Determined by TOP Assay

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure C1: Cape Fear River Sampling Locations
Figure C2: PFAS and Precursor
Figure C3: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products
Figure C4: 1,4-Dioxane

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Data Review Narrative

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment iv July 2020
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CFPUA Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
CFR Cape Fear River
DQO Data Quality Objective
EIM Environmental Information Management
DVM Data Verification Module
HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid
NC North Carolina
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ng/L Nanograms per liter
NCHHS North Carolina Health and Human Services
NVHOS Perfluoromethoxysulfonic Acid
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PFAA Perfluoroalkyl Acid
PFCA Perfluorocarboxylic Acid
PFMOAA Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic Acid
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFO2HxA Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) Acid
PFO3OA Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) Acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid
PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid
PMPA perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
ppt part per trillion
PPCPs Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products
PSDA (Hydrolyzed) Acetic acid, 2-fluoro-2-[1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)propoxy]-
RPD Relative Percent Difference

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment v July 2020
R-PSDA Ethanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-[1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoro-1-
(trifluoromethyl)propoxy]-
R-PSDCA Pentanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-4-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-
sulfoethoxy)-
SVOC Semi Volatile Organic Carbon
TOP Total Oxidizable Precursor
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 1 July 2020

1 INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC (Geosyntec) has prepared this report for The Chemours
Company FC, LLC (Chemours). Chemours operates the Fayetteville Works facility in
Bladen County, North Carolina (the Site). The purpose of this report is to describe the
findings of surface water samples collected in the Cape Fear River in January 2020. This
work was performed to assess the potential presence of a range of compounds in the Cape
Fear River.
2 CAPE FEAR RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND
The Cape Fear River and its entire watershed are located within the state of North
Carolina (NC) (Figure C1). The Cape Fear River drains 9,164 square miles and empties
into the Atlantic Ocean near the city of Wilmington, NC.
The Cape Fear River serves as a raw water source for multiple communities, providing
water for upwards of 400,000 people. Fayetteville Public Works Commission
(Fayetteville PWC, Cape Fear River Mile 54) draws water upstream of the Site to supply
the City of Fayetteville. The Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority draws water
from Bladen’s Bluffs (Cape Fear River Mile 84), supplying water in Bladen County, and
from Kings Bluff (Cape Fear River Mile 132), to supply Brunswick, Columbus, New
Hanover and Pender Counties. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) receives
water from Kings Bluff Intake Canal and supplies water to the City of Wilmington and
New Hanover County.
The Cape Fear River also receives wastewater from multiple industrial and community
discharges. Wastewaters from these sources include discharges into the Cape Fear River
from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) or publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) located along the length of the River. Influent to these WWTPs may contain
contaminants which may in turn be discharged into the Cape Fear River. Three of these
WWTPs in the vicinity of the Site include Cross Creek Water Reclamation Facility
(serving Fayetteville, Cape Fear River Mile 63.5), Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation
Facility (serving Fayetteville, Cape Fear River Mile 56.5), and Elizabethtown WWTP
(serving Elizabethtown, Cape Fear River Mile 100) as shown on Figure C1.
Drinking water sourced from the Cape Fear River by the Fayetteville Public Works
Commission, Brunswick County Public Utility, and the CFPUA is known to contain
contaminants including 1,4-dioxane, trihalomethanes, pharmaceutical and personal care
products (PPCPs) and PFAS (CFPUA, 2018). 1,4-Dioxane has recently been identified
in WWTP influent water from 22 out of 25 major POTWs in the Cape Fear River basin;
PFAS were reported in all 25 sampled POTWs (North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality [NCDEQ], 2020). Consequently, the discharges from these

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 2 July 2020

POTWs have the potential to increase in-river concentrations of these chemicals in the
Cape Fear River.
In 2018, Chemours sampled surface water along the length of the Cape Fear River to
assess the concentrations and distribution of PFAS in the Cape Fear River; results were
reported in the Assessment of the Chemical and Spatial Distribution of PFAS in the Cape
Fear River (Geosyntec, 2018). This Report builds upon the 2018 work by assessing
additional inorganic compounds, organic compounds, PPCPs, and PFAS (including
precursor compounds).
3 OBJECTIVES
The goal of this work was to assess the potential presence of a range of inorganic
compounds, organic compounds (e.g. 1,4-dioxane), PPCPs, and per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) in the Cape Fear River. Eleven sampling locations were selected to
meet the following objectives:
 Deep River: sample collected in the Deep River prior to its confluence with the
Cape Fear River to assess inputs into the Cape Fear River;
 Haw River: sample collected in the Haw River prior to its confluence with the
Cape Fear River to assess inputs into the Cape Fear River;
 Cape Fear River Mile 4: sample collected to assess concentrations at the start of
the Cape Fear River;
 Little River: sample collected in the Little River prior to its confluence with the
Cape Fear River to assess inputs into the Cape Fear River;
 Cape Fear River Mile 54: sample collected adjacent to Fayetteville water intake
to assess Cape Fear River concentrations near the Fayetteville water intake;
 Cape Fear River Mile 56.5: sample collected approximately 100 meters
downstream of the Cross Creek Water Reclamation Facility outfall discharge
(sample collected in the mixing zone) to assess contributions from the Water
Reclamation Facility to the Cape Fear River;
 Cape Fear River Mile 63.5: sample collected approximately 100 meters
downstream of the Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation Facility discharge (sample
collected in the mixing zone) to assess contributions from the Water Reclamation
Facility to the Cape Fear River;
 Cape Fear River Mile 76: sample collected directly upstream of the Site to assess
concentrations upriver of the Fayetteville Works facility;

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 3 July 2020

 Cape Fear River Mile 84: sample collected adjacent to Bladen Bluffs intake to
assess concentrations downstream of the Fayetteville Works facility and adjacent
to the intake;
 Cape Fear River Mile 100: sample collected approximately 100 meters
downstream of the Elizabethtown WWTP outfall discharge (sample collected in
the mixing zone) to assess contributions from the WWTP to the Cape Fear River;
and
 Cape Fear River Mile 132: sample collected within the Kings Bluff Intake Canal
which is proximal to the Cape Fear Lock and Dam No. 1 to assess concentrations
adjacent to the intake.
4 SCOPE AND METHODS
4.1 Sampling Locations
Surface water was collected from eleven locations. Eight samples were collected from
the Cape Fear River between River Mile 4 and the Kings Bluffs Intake Canal (River Mile
132). Three samples were collected from tributaries to the Cape Fear River. These
samples were collected from the Haw, Deep, and Little Rivers immediately upstream of
their confluence with the Cape Fear River. Sampling locations are shown in Figure C1,
and sample location coordinates are provided in Table C1.
4.2 Sampling Methods
Samples collected at Cape Fear River Miles 56.5 (Cross Creek Water Reclamation
Facility), 63.5 (Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation Facility), and 100 (Elizabethtown
WWTP), were collected approximately 100 meters downstream of the locations where
the discharges flow into the River, within the expected mixing zones of these discharges.
Samples collected near drinking water intakes at Cape Fear River Mile 54 (Fayetteville
water intake), 84 (Bladen Bluffs), and 132 (Kings Bluff) were collected in the river,
adjacent to the location of the intakes. Samples from Cape Fear River Miles 4 and 76
were collected from the thalweg (the deepest point in the River cross-section at these
locations). Samples in all locations were collected from a depth approximately equivalent
with the mid-point in the water column.
Surface water samples were collected using a peristaltic pump; new, dedicated high
density polyethylene tubing; and new, dedicated silicone tubing for the pump head at each
location. The tubing was lowered halfway through the water column using an anchor
weight and the tubing was fastened to the anchor with the tubing intake pointing upwards.

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 4 July 2020

Surface water was pumped directly from the submerged tubing through the pump head to
a flow-through cell. Field parameters (pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved
oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, turbidity) were monitored over a 5-minute interval,
then parameters were recorded, color and odors were noted, and the flow-through cell
was disconnected. The tubing was cut to provide an un-tampered end, and grab samples
were collected from the discharge of the tubing into the appropriate laboratory-supplied
sampling bottles.
Sampling for organics, semi-volatiles and volatile organic compounds were not
conducted through the silicone tubing since silicone may sorb some of these compounds
and result in a potentially low bias. Instead, these samples were collected using the
reverse-flow method by filling the tubing, retrieving the intake end of the tubing, and
running the pump in reverse to discharge water in the tubing from the intake end into the
bottleware.
Samples for chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and chloramine were collected last, as these
parameters must be analyzed immediately after sample collection. These samples were
analyzed in the field using colorimetric methods.
4.3 Analytical Methods
Samples were analyzed according to the methods listed for each location in Table C2.
Chloramine, chlorine residual, and chlorine dioxide samples were analyzed
colorimetrically in the field. Coliform samples were sent to Microbac Laboratories in
Fayetteville, NC. Samples for remaining analytes were shipped to either Lancaster
Laboratories or TestAmerica. Samples were shipped on the same day as sample
collection.
4.4 Unknown PFAS via TOP Assay
There may be PFAS in samples that are not reported by currently available analytical
methods. The total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay can provide information about the
potential presence of certain PFAS compounds beyond the targeted analytical methods.
The TOP assay estimates the total concentration of polyfluoroalkyl acid (PFAA)
precursors (e.g., fluorotelomers) present in a sample that may be oxidized to PFAAs
quantitated on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method
537M. Some of these PFAA precursors may already be known (that is, they may be
quantitated as target analytes by the Method 537M), but some may be unknown, and these
unknown PFAA precursors would be unaccounted for by the other analytical methods.
The TOP assay, therefore, provides additional information about the PFAS composition,
namely the presence of unknown PFAA precursors, in a sample.
The TOP assay consists of three steps and a calculation:

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 5 July 2020

1. Analysis of the original sample by USEPA Method 537M;
2. Oxidation of the sample; and
3. Analysis of the oxidized sample by USEPA Method 537M.
The calculation is performed as follows:
 During the oxidation step, all PFAA precursors (both known and unknown)
in the original sample are oxidized to form perfluorocarboxylic acids
(PFCAs), while the existing PFCAs (and other PFAAs) already present in the
original sample remain unchanged (Houtz and Sedlak, 2012).
 The total concentration of PFAA precursors (both known and unknown) in the
original sample is then estimated by calculating the increase in PFCA
concentration resulting from the oxidation step.
 The total concentration of unknown PFAA precursors in the original
(unoxidized) sample is then calculated by subtracting the known PFAA
precursors in the original sample from the total concentration of PFAA
precursors (both known and unknown).
While the TOP assay provides an estimate of the total concentrations of unknown PFAA
precursors, it does not provide information on the structure or the concentration of the
individual unknown PFAA precursors. Additionally, the presence of unknown PFAA
precursors will only be observed if the unknown PFAA precursors are oxidized to a PFCA
that is on the USEPA Method 537M analyte list.
As noted above, PFAAs present in the original sample are not expected to oxidize during
the TOP oxidation step (Martin et al, 2019). However, EPA Method 537M compounds
often have elevated reporting limits after TOP oxidation due to analytical effects from the
oxidation step. Therefore, if, after the TOP oxidation step, a given PFAA was not reported
above the reporting limit, or a given PFAA was present at a lower concentration than the
pre-oxidation step concentration, then, during the calculation step, the original reporting
limit or concentration (before oxidation) of the PFAA was used. This assumption enables
the calculation of precursor concentrations.
Table 3+ PFAS are not expected to yield PFAA precursors present on the EPA 537M
analyte list based on research performed by Zhang and Knappe (Zhang et al. 2019). Of
the 111 Table 3+ PFAS studied none formed PFAAs measured by Method 537M after the

1 Table 3+ compounds assessed by Zhang et al for oxidation during TOP assay: HFPO-DA, PFMOAA,
PMPA, PEPA, PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, PFO4DA, PFO5DA, Hydro-PS Acid, NVHOS and Hydro-EVE Acid.
Table 3+ compounds not assessed by Zhang et al for oxidation during TOP assay: PFECA-B, PFECA-G,
PES, PFESA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, R-PSDCA, EVE Acid and R-EVE.

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 6 July 2020

oxidation step. Therefore these 11 compounds were not expected to contribute to the
estimated mass of unknown PFAA precursors in samples assessed in this report.
5 RESULTS
This section provides details related to data quality and discusses results of the sampling.
A summary of analyte results by method is provided in Table C3. Surface water field
parameters are provided in Table C4. Tables C5a, C5b, and 5c provide analytical results.
TOP Assay results are provided in Tables C6 and C7.
5.1 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
was conducted. The DVM and the manually reviewed 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, which included a review of 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:

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 7 July 2020

 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 (formerly Byproduct 4),
Hydrolyzed PSDA (formerly Byproduct 5), 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
(R-PSDA [formerly Byproduct 4], Hydrolyzed PSDA [formerly Byproduct 5], 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 actual value.
5.2 PFAS and Precursors
The concentration of Total Table 3+ (20 compounds) ranged between below the reporting
limits in several samples (samples from the Deep River, Haw River, Cape Fear River
Mile 4, Cape Fear River Mile 56.5, and Cape Fear River Mile 76) to a maximum
concentration of 122 nanograms per liter (ng/L) at River Mile 84. The highest individual
compound concentration was PFMOAA at 36 ng/L from the sample collected at Cape
Fear River Mile 84. In total, 9 Table 3+ compounds (including Hexafluoropropylene
Oxide Dimer Acid [HFPO-DA]) were reported in samples from this event (Table C5a).
By excluding the three compounds with matrix interference (R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed
PSDA, and R-EVE ), the sum of reported Table 3+ (17 compounds) ranged from below
the reporting limit to a maximum concentration of 69 ng/L at River Mile 84.
Method 537M compounds were reported in all samples and ranged in concentration from
15.4 ng/L (Deep River) to 90.5 ng/L (Cape Fear River Mile 100, the Elizabethtown
WWTP). The Method 537M compound with the highest measured concentration was

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 8 July 2020

perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) at Cape Fear River Mile 100 (Elizabethtown WWTP)
at 27 ng/L (Figure C2; Table C5a). In total, nine (9) Method 537M compounds were
reported in samples collected from this event (Table C5a).
TOP assay results are provided in Tables C6 and C7. Table C6 provides the results of
the EPA Method 537M results before and after the TOP oxidation step, and shows which
analytes are known oxidizable precursors to PFAAs present in EPA Method 537M, which
analytes are existing PFCAs, and which compounds are not expected to change in
concentration as a result of the TOP oxidation step. Table 7 provides the calculation of
the concentration of unknown PFAA precursors present in each sample. Concentrations
of precursors ranged from below the reporting limit (Deep River sample) to 42.2 ng/L
(Haw River sample). Precursors were reported at similar concentrations in all eight of the
Cape Fear River samples as well as in the Little River sample.
5.3 Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products
Total concentrations from the 73 target PPCPs (excluding sucralose) ranged from 300
nanograms per liter (ng/L) at Cape Fear River Mile 542 to 2,150 ng/L at Elizabethtown
WWTP (Figure C3; Table C5b). Sucralose concentrations were the highest of all the
PPCP compounds with concentrations ranging from 1,400 ng/L at Cape Fear River Mile
132 to 9,900 ng/L at the Elizabethtown WWTP (Figure C3; Table C5b). Tris(2‐
Chloroethyl) Phosphate and Acesulfame-K were the second and third highest reported
compounds at 540 and 500 ng/L, respectively, in the Elizabethtown WWTP sample. In
total, 30 PPCP compounds were reported in samples collected from this event, and 13 of
these compounds were found in every individual sample (Table C5b).
Of the 74 PPCPs analyzed, two were fluorinated PPCPs (fluoxetine and dexamethasone),
and of these two, one was present (fluoxetine). Fluoxetine was present in samples from
Cross Creek Water Reclamation Facility (10 ng/L; Cape Fear River Mile 56.5) and
Elizabethton WWTP (6 ng/L; Cape Fear River Mile 100).
5.4 1,4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane concentrations varied from not present above the reporting limit (Little River
sample) to 1,500 ng/L (Deep River sample).
5.5 Other Compounds
Samples were analyzed for other compounds during this work as shown in Table C2.
Analyzed compounds included metals, metalloids, anions, volatile organic carbon

2 Average of parent and duplicate sample results.

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 9 July 2020

(VOCs), semi volatile carbon (SVOCs), haloacetic acids, chlorinated acids,
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), pesticides, and other compounds found in the USEPA
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (USEPA, 2009) and the USEPA Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rules (UCMR3 and UCMR4, USEPA 2012 and USEPA,
2016c). The results for these compounds are provided in Table C5c.
Metals were the most commonly reported compounds, with barium, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, and strontium reported in every sample, and manganese and zinc
reported in some samples; all metals concentrations were below USEPA MCLs except
for iron and manganese which were above USEPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Level for all samples. Chloride and perchlorate were also reported in every sample, and
bromide, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide were reported in
some samples.
The only reported VOC (method 525.2 and 524.2) was chloroform (100 ng/L and 200
ng/L for Cape Fear River Miles 84 and 132, respectively). Results for all of these samples
are qualified, as chloroform was also reported in the associated equipment blanks, which
may indicate cross-contamination between samples. PCBs were not reported in any the
analyzed samples. Dichloroacetic acid (a haloacetic acid) was reported in one sample
(1,000 ng/L at Cape Fear River Mile 84). Coliforms were present in two samples (Cape
Fear River Mile 76 and Cape Fear River Mile 84) but were also present in the blanks.
6 DISCUSSION
Results from this sampling program are presented from upstream to downstream.
6.1 PFAS
6.1.1 Table 3+ Compounds
The most up-stream presence of any Table 3+ compound was in the Little River sample,
which had measurable concentrations of perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
(PMPA; 16 ng/L), R-SPDA (9.1 ng/L), Hydrolyzed PSDA (5.3 ng/L),
Perfluoromethoxysulfonic Acid (NVHOS; 8.5 ng/L), and R-EVE (4.9 ng/L). Only one of
these compounds, R-PSDA, was reported in the next-downstream sample of the
confluence with Little River and upstream of the Fayetteville Works facility (sample
Cape Fear River Mile 54 Duplicate with a concentration of 2.1 ng/L). This suggests Table
3+ PFAS may be entering the Little River, upstream of the Little River sampling location,
and that these compounds are being diluted as they travel downstream in the Cape Fear
River given the downstream non-detect data. As described in Section 5.1 results for R-
PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE may be over-reported. therefore, the reported

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 10 July 2020

results of these compounds are used to understand their presence but not used for
quantitative estimates.
Similarly, R-PSDA was not present again until the sample from the Rockfish Creek Water
Reclamation Facility where it was detected at 2 ng/L, just at the reporting limit, and then
was not present in the next downstream sample located immediately upstream from the
Fayetteville Works facility (Cape Fear River Mile 76).
Table 3+ PFAS are found in each of the samples collected downstream of the Fayetteville
Works facility (Cape Fear River Mile 84, Cape Fear River Mile 100, and CFR Mile 132)
at higher concentrations compared to samples upstream of the Fayetteville Works facility.
Compounds most commonly present in these samples are HFPO-DA, Perfluoro-2-
methoxyacetic Acid (PFMOAA), Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) Acid (PFO2HxA),
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) Acid (PFO3OA), PMPA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA,
and R-EVE.
6.1.2 Method 537M Compounds
Method 537M compounds were reported along the length of the Cape Fear River. Water
samples from the mouth of the Haw River had higher concentrations than the samples
from the mouth of the Deep River or the Little River. The Cross Creek Water Reclamation
Facility and the Elizabethtown WWTP both also appear to be sources of Method 537M
compounds to the Cape Fear River as total Method 537M concentrations increase in each
of these mixing zone samples compared with River samples (Table C5a; Figure C2).
Concentration of method 537M PFAS were generally consistent between Cape Fear River
Mile 76 (upstream of Fayetteville Works facility; 68.2 ng/L total concentration) and Cape
Fear River Mile 84 (Bladen Bluffs; 68.0 ng/L total concentration), which is consistent
with prior studies showing these compounds do not increase in concentration as the River
flows past the Fayetteville Works facility (Geosyntec, 2018; Geosyntec, 2019).
6.1.3 TOP Assay
The TOP assay analysis identified a fraction of PFAS in the Cape Fear River which had
not been previously quantified: unknown oxidizable PFAA precursors. The unknown
oxidizable PFAA precursors were not present in the Deep River but were present in every
other sample collected during this sampling event, with the highest concentration of total
unknown oxidizable PFAA precursors found in the Haw River Sample at 36.8 ng/L. Total
unknown oxidizable PFAA precursor concentrations in the Cape Fear River range from
19.2 to 36.8 ng/L over the length of the study area, with slight increases associated with
the Cross Creek Water Reclamation Facility and Elizabethtown WWTP compared to the
closest upstream samples. Given the relatively constant level of TOP assay detections

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 11 July 2020

upstream and downstream of the Site, the TOP assay identified PFAS fraction in the Cape
Fear River is interpreted to originate from non-Chemours sources.
6.1.4 Overall PFAS Results
Combined concentrations of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate (PFOS) at all locations were below the 70-ng/L USEPA Lifetime Health
Advisory level (USEPA, 2016a, 2016b). Combined PFOA and PFOS concentrations
ranged from 6.5 ng/L (Deep River) to 19.8 ng/L (Haw River). Within the Cape Fear River
(excluding samples from the Haw, Deep, and Little Rivers), combined concentrations of
PFOA and PFOS ranged from 13.9 ng/L (Cape Fear River Mile 54) to 18.3 ng/L (Cape
Fear River Mile 84).
Concentrations of HFPO-DA were below the 140-ng/L HFPO-DA provisional health
goal (NCDEQ and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
[NCDHHS], 2018). Concentrations ranged from below reporting limits to 13 ng/L (Cape
Fear River Mile 84). HFPO-DA was only reported in samples downstream of the
Fayetteville Works facility.
6.2 Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products
Where reported, PPCPs were present at part per trillion (ppt or ng/L) levels in River
samples collected for this sampling program. Concentrations increased in samples
collected from WWTP mixing zones (Cross Creek Water Reclamation Facility and
Elizabethtown WWTP; Table C5b; Figure C3). This is expected, since these products are
used by communities and discharged to their WWTPs.
The reported fluorinated PPCP fluoxetine which was found in two samples (Cross Creek
Reclamation Facility at Cape Fear River Mile 56.5 [10 ng/L] and Elizabethtown WWTP
at Cape Fear River Mile 100 [6 ng/L]).
6.3 1,4-Dioxane
NCDEQ’s in-stream target for 1,4-dioxane is 350 ng/L for streams used as a water supply
(NCDEQ Surface Water Standards, 2019), based on the USEPA risk assessment
indicating a drinking water concentration representing a 10-6 increased cancer risk level
for 1,4-dioxane is 350 ng/L (USEPA 1,4-dioxane Fact Sheet)3. All samples collected in
support of this work in the Cape Fear River, Deep River, and Haw River contained 1,4-
dioxane above the NCDEQ in-stream target value. The sample from the Little River was
the only sample to not contain reportable levels of 1,4-dioxane. Concentrations of 1,4-
dioxane are relatively consistent throughout the Cape Fear River with concentrations

3 There is no maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,4-dioxane.

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 12 July 2020

ranging between 780 ng/L and 1,300 ng/L and average concentrations of 1,000 ng/L.
Results are provided in Figure C4 and Table C5c.
6.4 Other Compounds
The Haw and Deep River samples generally contained similar concentrations of metals.
Concentrations in the Little River are lower than the Haw, Deep, or Cape Fear River
concentrations. Some metals concentrations increase in the Cross Creek Water
Reclamation Facility and Elizabethtown WWTP effluent mixing zones, and then return
to average in-River concentrations. Iron and manganese concentrations exceed the
USEPA secondary maximum contaminant levels set for cosmetic and aesthetic effects
(USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Regulation, 2018).
7 SUMMARY
In January 2020, surface water samples were collected from 11 locations along the length
of the Cape Fear River and associated tributaries, the Deep, Haw and Little Rivers. These
samples were collected to evaluate the presence and concentrations of a range of
inorganic compounds, organic compounds (e.g. 1,4-dioxane), PPCPs, and PFAS in the
Cape Fear River. This report focuses on presenting and interpreting concentrations
results and trends for PFAS, PPCPs, 1,4-dioxane throughout the watershed.
PFAS were present along the entire sampled length of the Cape Fear River and in sampled
tributaries. The PFAS present were separated into three groupings, PFAS analyzed by
Method 537M, PFAS identified using the TOP assay, and PFAS analyzed by the Table
3+ method. Similar to prior events, Method 537M PFAS were present along the entire
sampled length of the river and tributaries. The presence of these Method 537M PFAS in
the Cape Fear River was not associated with the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility.
Also similar to prior events, Table 3+ PFAS increase in concentration as the river passes
the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility. For the first time, TOP assay PFAS compounds
were additionally assessed in this event. These PFAS were present along the entire length
of the Cape Fear River and were interpreted to not be associated with the Fayetteville
Works facility.
Combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS at all locations were below the 70-ng/L
USEPA Lifetime Health Advisory level (USEPA, 2016a, 2016b). Combined PFOA and
PFOS concentrations ranged from 6.5 ng/L (Deep River) to 19.8 ng/L (Haw River).
Concentrations of HFPO-DA were below the 140-ng/L HFPO-DA provisional health
goal (NCDEQ and NCHHS, 2018). Concentrations ranged from below reporting limits
to 13 ng/L (Cape Fear River Mile 84). HFPO-DA was only reported in samples
downstream of the Fayetteville Works facility.

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 13 July 2020

PPCPs were present in the Cape Fear River and originate in part from WWTP sources.
1,4-Dioxane was also present throughout the sampled Cape Fear River above the NCDEQ
in-stream target value of 350 ng/L at all locations.

Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 14 July 2020

8 REFERENCES
CFPUA, 2018. 2018 Annual Water Quality Report: Sweeny Water Treatment Plant.
https://www.cfpua.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/777 Accessed 7 May 2020.
Geosyntec, 2018. Assessment of the Chemical and Spatial Distribution of PFAS in the
Cape Fear River. Prepared for The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec, 2019. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and
Paragraph 11.1 Characterization of PFAS at Intakes. Prepared for The Chemours
Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec, 2020a. Matrix Interference During Analysis of Table 3+ Compounds.
Prepared for Chemours. Prepared for The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec, 2020b, Mass Loading Model Update – November 2019 Sampling Event.
Prepared for The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Houtz, Erika F., and David L. Sedlak. 2012. ‘Oxidative Conversion as a Means of
Detecting Precursors to Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Urban Runoff’, Environmental
Science & Technology, 46: 9342-9349.
Martin, Deborah, Gabriel Munoz, Sandra Mejia-Avendano, Sung Vo Duy, Yuan Yao,
Konstantin Volchek, Carl E. Brown, Jinxia Liu, and Sebastien Sauve. 2019.
‘Zwitterionic, cationic, and anionic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
integrated into total oxidizable precursor assay of contaminated groundwater’,
Talanta, 195: 533-542
NCDEQ Surface Water Standards, 2019. Subchapter 02B – Surface Water and Wetland
Standards. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/surface-water-standards Accessed 30
April 2020.
NCDEQ and NCDHHS, 2018. Secretaries’ Science Advisory Board; Review of the North
Carolina Drinking Water Provisional Health Goal for GenX. Draft. August 29,
2018. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/GenX/SAB/SAB-GenX-Report-draft-08-29-
2018.pdf Accessed 7 May 2020.
NCDEQ, 2020, Managing Emerging Compounds in Water. https://deq.nc.gov/news/key-
issues/emerging-compounds/managing-emerging-compounds-water. Accessed
27 March 2020.USEPA, 2009. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
United State Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA, 2012. Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. United State
Environmental Protection Agency.
Cape Fear River Chemical Assessment 15 July 2020
USEPA 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).
USEPA 822-R-16-005.
USEPA, 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS).
USEPA 822-R-16-004. USEPA, 2016c. Fourth Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule. United State Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA, 2017. Technical Fact Sheet – 1,4-Dioxane. United State Environmental
Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
03/documents/ffrro_factsheet_contaminant_14-dioxane_january2014_final.pdf
Accessed 1 May 2020.
USEPA, 2018, 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
Tables,https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201803/documents/dwtable2018.pdf
Zhang, Chuhui, Zachary R. Hopkins, James McCord, Mark J. Strynar, and Detlef R. U.
Knappe. 2019. ‘Fate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids in the Total
Oxidizable Precursor Assay and Implications for the Analysis of Impacted
Water’, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 6: 662-668.
TABLES
TABLE C1SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND COORDINATES The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.Easting NorthingDeep RiverBefore confluence with Cape Fear River1984036 672148Haw RiverBefore confluence with Cape Fear River1984584 672261Cape Fear River Mile 4 After confluence of Deep and Haw Rivers1996196 652595Little RiverNear its confluence with the Cape Fear River2077563 550992Cape Fear River Mile 54 Adjacent to Fayetteville water intake2040550 486255Cape Fear River Mile 56.5 100-meters downstream of the Cross Creek Water Reclamation Facility2043401 475660Cape Fear River Mile 63.5 100-meters downstream of the Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation Facility 2050522 444267Cape Fear River Mile 76 Directly upstream of the Site2052819 398182Cape Fear River Mile 84 Adjacent to Bladen Bluffs intake2066252 361171Cape Fear River Mile 100 100-meters downstream of Elizabethtown WWTP2128297 318922Cape Fear River Mile 132 Within the Kings Bluff Intake Canal2213192 239033Notes:Coordinate system : North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 1983, feet)Sampling details are provided in Table 4. CoordinatesLocationDescriptionTR0795July 2020
TABLE C2SAMPLING ANALYTES BY LOCATION The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.Method Analyte GroupDeep RiverHaw RiverCape Fear River Mile 4Little River Cape Fear River Mile 54 Cape Fear River Mile 56.5 Cape Fear River Mile 63.5 Cape Fear River Mile 76 Cape Fear River Mile 84 Cape Fear River Mile 100Cape Fear River Mile 132DuplicateMatrix SpikeMatrix spike DuplicateTrip BlankEquipment Blank1613BDioxins and furans-------✔✔-✔----✔200.8 / 200.7 Metals✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔245.1Mercury✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔218.6Chromium, Hexavalent✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔300.1 / 353.2 Inorganic anions✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔365 / 14500-P Phosphate✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔331.0Perchlorate✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔335.4Total Cyanide-------✔✔-✔----✔5310CTOC-------✔✔-✔----✔4500 CL F Chloramine, Chlorine Residual, and Chlorine Dioxide - - -----✔✔-✔----✔504.1EDB and DBCP-------✔✔-✔----✔505 PCBs, Toxaphene, & Chlordane-------✔✔-✔----✔515.3Chlorinated Acids-------✔✔-✔----✔5221,4 Dioxane✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔524.2Trihalomethanes-------✔✔-✔---✔✔525.2Organics-------✔✔-✔----✔525.3Semivolatiles-------✔✔-✔----✔530 Select SVOC-------✔✔-✔----✔531.2Carbamate Pesticides-------✔✔-✔----✔537 (modified) PFAS (all)✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔Table 3+ Table 3+ (all)✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔Top assay 537 Top assay 537✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔547Glyphosate-------✔✔-✔----✔548.1Endothall-------✔✔-✔----✔549.2Diquat-------✔✔-✔----✔552.2HAA5 Analytes-------✔✔-✔----✔552.3Haloacetic Acids-------✔✔-✔----✔9222BTotal Coliforms by Presence/Absence-------✔✔-✔----✔L211Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔L200 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔L220Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔L221 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔-✔Notes:✔ - Sample collected at location for specified analyte group - - Sample not collected at location for specified analyte groupTOC - Total Organic CarbonDBCP - DibromochloropropaneEDB - Ethylene DibromidePCB- Polychlorinated BiphenylSVOC - Semi-Volatile Organic CarbonPFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl SubstancesHAA5 - Haloacetic AcidTR0795July 2020
TABLE C3SUMMARY OF ANALYTE RESULTS BY METHOD The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.Method Analyte GroupDeep RiverHaw RiverCape Fear River Mile 4Little RiverCape Fear River Mile 54Cape Fear River Mile 56.5Cape Fear River Mile 63.5Cape Fear River Mile 76Cape Fear River Mile 84Cape Fear River Mile 100Cape Fear River Mile 132Trip BlankEquipment Blank1613BDioxins and furans-------NY-N-N200.8 / 200.7 MetalsYYYYYYYYYYY-Y245.1MercuryNNNNNNNNNNN-N218.6Chromium, HexavalentNNNNNNNNNNN-N300.1 / 353.2 Inorganic anionsYYYYYYYYYYY-Y365 / 14500-P PhosphateNNNNNYYNNYN-N331.0PerchlorateYYYYYYYYYYY-N335.4Total Cyanide-------NN-N-N5310CTOC- - -- - -YY-Y-Y4500 CL F Chloramine, Chlorine Residual, and Chlorine Dioxide - - -----YY-Y-N504.1EDB and DBCP-------NN-N-N505 PCBs, Toxaphene, & Chlordane-------NN-N-N515.3Chlorinated Acids-------NN-N-N5221,4 Dioxane (GC/MS SIM)YYYNYYYYYYY-N524.2Trihalomethanes-------YY-YNY525.2Organics-------NN-N-N525.3Semivolatiles-------NN-N-N530 Select SVOC-------NN-N-N531.2Carbamate Pesticides-------NN-N-N537 (modified) PFAS (all)YYYYYYYYYYYNNTable 3+ Table 3+ (all)NNNNYNYNYYYNNTop assay 537 Top assay 537YYYYYYYYYYY-N547Glyphosate-------NN-N-N548.1Endothall-------NN-N-N549.2Diquat-------NN-N-N552.2HAA5 Analytes-------NY-N-N552.3Haloacetic Acids-------NN-N-N9222BTotal Coliforms by Presence/Absence-------YY-Y-YL211Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----YYYYYYY-NL200 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----YYYYYYY-NL220Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----YYYYYYY-NL221 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products----YYYYYYY-NNotes:Y - At least one compound detected above reporting limit at location for specified analyte groupN - No compound detected above reporting limit at location for specified analyte group- - Sample not collected at location for specified analyte groupTOC - Total Organic CarbonDBCP - DibromochloropropaneEDB - Ethylene DibromidePCB- Polychlorinated BiphenylSVOC - Semi-Volatile Organic CarbonPFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl SubstancesHAA5 - Haloacetic AcidTR0795July 2020
TABLE C4FIELD PARAMETERSThe Chemours Company, FC, LLC.Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.Sample IDLocationSample Date Time pH DO (mg/L) ORP (mV)Turbidity (NTU)Specific Conductance (mS/cm)Temperature (oC)Color OdorFAY-DEEP-012120Deep River01-21-2020 13:05 NC 11.12 186.6 17.63 118.99 7.78clear NoneFAY-HAW-012120Haw River01-21-2020 13:48 7.22 10.83 196.5 28.18 136.95 9.82tan NoneFAY-RM-4-012120Cape Fear River Mile 4 01-21-2020 15:02 7.44 11.09 213.7 25.64 129.15 9.11clear NoneFAY-LITTLERIVERMOUTH-012320 Little River01-23-2020 11:40 7.09 11.36 113.8 8.04 0.15 8.49clear NoneFAY-RM-54-012220Cape Fear River Mile 54 01-22-2020 10:42 7.49 11.32 134.8 22.22 104.93 7.75 muddy NoneFAY-CROSS-012220Cape Fear River Mile 56.5 01-22-2020 12:34 6.90 11.23 188.4 43.15 101.57 9.78clear Faint odorFAY-ROCKFISH-012220Cape Fear River Mile 63.5 01-22-2020 15:00 7.01 11.23 238.4 21.87 112.43 9.32clear NoneFAY-RM-76-012320Cape Fear River Mile 76 01-23-2020 11:00 7.21 11.11 108.6 15.14 103.17 7.87 muddy NoneFAY-RM-84-012320Cape Fear River Mile 84 01-23-2020 14:48 7.07 11.16 166.4 16.55 96.76 8.25 slight brown clear NoneFAY-ELIZABETHTOWN-012320 Cape Fear River Mile 100 01-23-2020 17:20 7.03 10.35 179.0 57.09 0.23 11.26clear NoneFAY-RM-132-012420Cape Fear River Mile 132 01-24-2020 10:42 6.74 10.09 151.3 15.20 106.51 9.23 muddy NoneNotes:NC - Not collectedmg/L - Milligrams per litermV- MillivoltsmS/cm - Millisiemens per centimeter°C - Degrees CelciusTR0795July 2020
TABLE C5a
PFAS AND TOP ASSAY RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID Deep River Haw River
Cape Fear River
Mile 4 Little River Cape Fear River
Mile 54
Field Sample ID FAY-DEEP RIVER-
012120
FAY-HAW RIVER-
012120
FAY-CFR-RM-4-
012120
FAY-LITTLE
RIVER MOUTH-
012320
Fay-CFR-RM-54-
012220
Sample Date 21-01-20 21-01-20 21-01-20 23-01-20 22-01-20
FS FS FS FS FS
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
Hfpo Dimer Acid <2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.6 <2.6
PFMOAA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
PFO2HxA <2<2<2<2<2
PFO3OA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFO4DA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFO5DA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PMPA <10 <10 <10 16 <10
PEPA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
PS Acid <2<2<2<2<2
Hydro-PS Acid <2<2<2<2<2
R-PSDA <2 <2 <2 9.1 <2
Hydrolysed PSDA <2 <2 <2 5.3 <2
R-PSDCA <2<2<2<2<2
NVHOS <2 <2 <2 8.5 <2
EVE Acid <2<2<2<2<2
Hydro-EVE Acid <2<2<2<2<2
R-EVE <2<2<24.9 <2
PES <2<2<2<2<2
PFECA B <2<2<2<2<2
PFECA-G <2<2<2<2<2
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <4.3 <4.4 <4.8 <4.3 UJ <4.4
11Cl-PF3OUdS <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)<2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.6 UJ <2.6
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.8
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.9 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.9 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <4.3 <4.4 <4.8 <4.3 UJ <4.4
9Cl-PF3ONS <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
DONA <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.6 UJ <2.6
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <4.3 UJ <4.4 UJ <4.8 UJ <4.3 UJ <4.4 UJ
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.9 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid <1.7 4 J 3.1 J 2.7 J 2.9 J
Perfluorobutanoic Acid <4.3 7.6 5.9 <4.3 UJ 5
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluorodecanoic Acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)<2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.6 UJ <2.6
Perfluorododecanoic Acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.8
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid <1.7 16 12 <1.7 UJ 8.8
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)<2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.6 UJ <2.6
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid 1.9 3.4 3.1 8.2 3.1
Perfluorohexanoic Acid 3.4 23 17 3.6 13
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluorononanoic Acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid <2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.6 UJ <2.6
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.8
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluoropentanoic Acid 3.6 J 15 J 12 J 9.5 J 9.5 J
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.8
PFOA 2.5 8.8 7 3.4 J 5.9
PFOS 4 11 8.9 10 J 8
Total Method 537 PFAS 15.4 88.8 69.0 37.4 56.2
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or
precise
µg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate
or precise.
< -Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Method used for Table 3+ Lab SOP - Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compound SOP
Method used for Other PFAS and HFPO-DA - EPA 537 Rev. 1.1 modified
QA/QC
TR0795 Page 1 of 4 July 2020
TABLE C5a
PFAS AND TOP ASSAY RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
Hfpo Dimer Acid
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid
Hydro-PS Acid
R-PSDA
Hydrolysed PSDA
R-PSDCA
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
DONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Method 537 PFAS
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or
precise
µg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate
or precise.
< -Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Method used for Table 3+ Lab SOP - Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compoun
Method used for Other PFAS and HFPO-DA - EPA 537 Rev. 1.1
QA/QC
Cape Fear River
Mile 54
Cape Fear River
Mile 56.5
Cape Fear River
Mile 63.5
Cape Fear River
Mile 76
Cape Fear River
Mile 84
FAY-CFR-RM-54-
012220-D
FAY- Cross Creek
Rec-012220
FAY-Rockfish
Creek Rec-012220
FAY-CFR-RM-76-
012320
FAY-CFR-RM-84-
INTAKE-012320
22-01-20 22-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 23-01-20
DUP FS FS FS FS
<2.6 <2.6 <2.8 <2.5 13
<5 <5 UJ <5 <5 36
<2 <2 <2 <2 14
<2 <2 <2 <2 3.8
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<10 <10 <10 <10 22
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 UJ <2 <2 <2
2.1 <2 2 <2 5.6
<2 <2 <2 <2 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 5 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.0
2.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 122.0
<4.3 <4.3 <4.7 <4.2 <4.2 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 UJ
<2.6 <2.6 <2.8 <2.5 <2.5 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7
<2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.8 UJ <2.5 UJ <2.5 UJ
<2.6 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.8 UJ <2.5 UJ <2.5 UJ
<4.3 <4.3 <4.7 <4.2 <4.2
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7
<2.6 <2.6 <2.8 <2.5 <2.5 UJ
<4.3 UJ <4.3 UJ 6.5 J <4.2 UJ <4.2 UJ
<2.6 UJ 12 J <2.8 R <2.5 UJ <2.5 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 UJ
3 J 4.1 J 3 J 3.9 4.1
55.5<4.7 5.6 J 5.6 J
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 UJ
<2.6 <2.6 <2.8 <2.5 UJ <2.5 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7
9.1 7.5 8.4 10 10
<2.6 <2.6 UJ <2.8 <2.5 <2.5
2.9 5 3.2 4.5 4
13 16 13 14 15
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 UJ
<2.6 <2.6 UJ <2.8 <2.5 <2.5
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7
9.7 J 12 J 9.9 J 12 11
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 UJ
<1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 UJ
6 7.6 6.1 7.2 J 7.3 J
8.7 8.7 8.2 11 J 11 J
57.4 78.4 58.3 68,2 68.0
TR0795 Page 2 of 4 July 2020
TABLE C5a
PFAS AND TOP ASSAY RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
Hfpo Dimer Acid
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid
Hydro-PS Acid
R-PSDA
Hydrolysed PSDA
R-PSDCA
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
DONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Method 537 PFAS
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or
precise
µg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate
or precise.
< -Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Method used for Table 3+ Lab SOP - Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compoun
Method used for Other PFAS and HFPO-DA - EPA 537 Rev. 1.1
QA/QC
Cape Fear River
Mile 100
Cape Fear River
Mile 132 Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank
FAY-
Elizabethtown
WWTP-012320
FAY-CFR-RM-132-
012420 EB3-012320 EB4-012420 EB1-012120
23-01-20 24-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20 21-01-20
FS FS EB EB EB
5.1 7 <2.6 <2.6 <3
19 30 <5 <5 <5
7.4 15 <2 <2 <2
<2 2.9 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
13 16 <10 <10 <10
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2.5 5.1 J <2 <2 <2
9.1 12 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
4.4 6.9 J <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
44.5 70.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
61.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
<4.7 UJ <4.3 UJ <4.3 <4.3 <5
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<2.8 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 <2.6 <3
<1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <2
<2.8 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 <2.6 <3
<2.8 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 <2.6 <3
<4.7 UJ <4.3 <4.3 <4.3 <5
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <2
<2.8 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 <2.6 <3
<4.7 UJ <4.3 UJ <4.3 <4.3 <5
<2.8 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 <2.6 <3
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
4.5 J 3.6 <1.7 <1.7 <2
5.4 J 4.6 J <4.3 <4.3 <5
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<2.8 UJ <2.6 UJ <2.6 <2.6 <3
<1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <2
7 J 7.8 <1.7 <1.7 <2
<2.8 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <3
4.3 3.6 <1.7 <1.7 <2
27 12 <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<2.8 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <3
<1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <2
26 J 10 J <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
<1.9 UJ <1.7 UJ <1.7 <1.7 <2
6.9 J 6.4 J <1.7 <1.7 <2
9.4 J 9.6 J <1.7 <1.7 <2
90.5 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
TR0795 Page 3 of 4 July 2020
TABLE C5a
PFAS AND TOP ASSAY RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Table 3+ Lab SOP (ng/L)
Hfpo Dimer Acid
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
PEPA
PS Acid
Hydro-PS Acid
R-PSDA
Hydrolysed PSDA
R-PSDCA
NVHOS
EVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PES
PFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
DONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Method 537 PFAS
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or
precise
µg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate
or precise.
< -Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Method used for Table 3+ Lab SOP - Cl. Spec. Table 3 Compoun
Method used for Other PFAS and HFPO-DA - EPA 537 Rev. 1.1
QA/QC
Equipment Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank
EB2-012220 TB1-012120 TB2- 012220 TB3-012320 TB4-012420
22-01-20 21-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20
EB TB TB TB TB
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<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
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<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
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
<4.5 <4.4 <4.3 <4.3 <4.3
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<4.5 <4.4 <4.3 <4.3 <4.3
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<4.5 <4.4 <4.3 <4.3 <4.3
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<4.5 <4.4 <4.3 <4.3 <4.3
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<2.7 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
<1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TR0795 Page 4 of 4 July 2020
TABLE C5b
PHARMACEUTICALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Cape Fear River
Mile 54
Cape Fear River
Mile 54
Cape Fear River
Mile 56.5
Cape Fear River
Mile 63.5
Cape Fear River
Mile 76
Cape Fear River
Mile 84
Fay-CFR-RM-54-
012220
FAY-CFR-RM-54-
012220-D
FAY- Cross Creek
Rec-012220
FAY-Rockfish
Creek Rec-012220
FAY-CFR-RM-76-
012320
FAY-CFR-RM-84-
INTAKE-012320
22-01-20 22-01-20 22-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 23-01-20
FS DUP FS FS FS FS
Pharmaceutical Parameter Lab Method Units
Pentachlorophenol L200 ng/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol L200 ng/L <100 <100 100 <100 <100 <100
4-N-Nonylphenol L200 ng/L <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500
4-n-Octylphenol L200 ng/L <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500
4-tert-Octylphenol L200 ng/L <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500
Bisphenol A L200 ng/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
Phenylphenol L200 ng/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
Tetrabromobisphenol A L200 ng/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
17alpha-Estradiol L211 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
17alpha-Ethynyl estradiol L211 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
cis-Testosterone L211 ng/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Diethylstilbestrol L211 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Estradiol 17B L211 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Estriol L211 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Estrone L211 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Progesterone L211 ng/L 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
trans-Testosterone L211 ng/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Acetaminophen L220 ng/L <5 <5 14 <5 <5 <5
Antipyrine L220 ng/L <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Atenolol L220 ng/L 3 J 2 J 80 4 3 3
Azithromycin L220 ng/L <5 <5 9 <5 <5 <5
Caffeine L220 ng/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Carbadox L220 ng/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Carbamazepine L220 ng/L 8 8 61 12 9 8
Cotinine L220 ng/L 6696 5 6
Dexamethasone L220 ng/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Diazepam L220 ng/L <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Diltiazem L220 ng/L 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
Erythromycin L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Fluoxetine (Prozac)L220 ng/L <1 <1 10 <1 <1 <1
Iopromide L220 ng/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Lincomycin L220 ng/L 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Meprobamate L220 ng/L 2 2 14 3 2 2
Monensin L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
N,N-Diethyl-3-Methylbenzamide L220 ng/L 17 17 11 16 15 15
Narasin L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Nicotine L220 ng/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Oleandomycin L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Paraxanthine L220 ng/L 18 18 11 17 17 18
Primidone L220 ng/L 11 11 110 14 11 11
Roxithromycin L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Salinomycin L220 ng/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Sulfadiazine L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Sulfadimethoxine L220 ng/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Sulfamethazine L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Sulfamethizole L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Sulfamethoxazole L220 ng/L 12 12 67 14 12 12
Sulfasalazine L220 ng/L <5 <5 8 <5 <5 <5
Sulfathiazole L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Theobromine L220 ng/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Trimethoprim L220 ng/L <1 <1 16 <1 <1 <1
Tris(1-Chloro-2-Propyl)Phosphate L220 ng/L 90 90 350 110 90 90
Tris(2-Chloroethyl) Phosphate L220 ng/L <10 <10 30 <10 <10 <10
Tylosin L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Virginiamycin M1 L220 ng/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Acesulfame-K L221 ng/L 110 130 90 110 170 150
Bezafibrate L221 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chloramphenicol L221 ng/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Chlorotetracycline L221 ng/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Clofibric Acid L221 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Diclofenac L221 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 9.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Gemfibrozil L221 ng/L 1 1 1.4 1 1 1
Ibuprofen L221 ng/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Levothyroxine (Synthroid)L221 ng/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Naproxen L221 ng/L 6646 5 6
Penicillin G L221 ng/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Penicillin V L221 ng/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Phenytoin L221 ng/L 22216 2<3
Prednisone L221 ng/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Salicylic Acid L221 ng/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Sucralose L221 ng/L 1,500 1,500 8,100 2,100 1,600 1,500
Theophylline L221 ng/L <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Triclocarban L221 ng/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Triclosan L221 ng/L <51 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
QA/QC
Sample Date
Field Sample ID
Location ID
Page 1 of 2 July 2020
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may
not be accurate or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit
may not be accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

TR0795
TABLE C5b
PHARMACEUTICALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Pharmaceutical Parameter Lab Method Units
Pentachlorophenol L200 ng/L
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol L200 ng/L
4-N-Nonylphenol L200 ng/L
4-n-Octylphenol L200 ng/L
4-tert-Octylphenol L200 ng/L
Bisphenol A L200 ng/L
Phenylphenol L200 ng/L
Tetrabromobisphenol A L200 ng/L
17alpha-Estradiol L211 ng/L
17alpha-Ethynyl estradiol L211 ng/L
cis-Testosterone L211 ng/L
Diethylstilbestrol L211 ng/L
Estradiol 17B L211 ng/L
Estriol L211 ng/L
Estrone L211 ng/L
Progesterone L211 ng/L
trans-Testosterone L211 ng/L
Acetaminophen L220 ng/L
Antipyrine L220 ng/L
Atenolol L220 ng/L
Azithromycin L220 ng/L
Caffeine L220 ng/L
Carbadox L220 ng/L
Carbamazepine L220 ng/L
Cotinine L220 ng/L
Dexamethasone L220 ng/L
Diazepam L220 ng/L
Diltiazem L220 ng/L
Erythromycin L220 ng/L
Fluoxetine (Prozac)L220 ng/L
Iopromide L220 ng/L
Lincomycin L220 ng/L
Meprobamate L220 ng/L
Monensin L220 ng/L
N,N-Diethyl-3-Methylbenzamide L220 ng/L
Narasin L220 ng/L
Nicotine L220 ng/L
Oleandomycin L220 ng/L
Paraxanthine L220 ng/L
Primidone L220 ng/L
Roxithromycin L220 ng/L
Salinomycin L220 ng/L
Sulfadiazine L220 ng/L
Sulfadimethoxine L220 ng/L
Sulfamethazine L220 ng/L
Sulfamethizole L220 ng/L
Sulfamethoxazole L220 ng/L
Sulfasalazine L220 ng/L
Sulfathiazole L220 ng/L
Theobromine L220 ng/L
Trimethoprim L220 ng/L
Tris(1-Chloro-2-Propyl)Phosphate L220 ng/L
Tris(2-Chloroethyl) Phosphate L220 ng/L
Tylosin L220 ng/L
Virginiamycin M1 L220 ng/L
Acesulfame-K L221 ng/L
Bezafibrate L221 ng/L
Chloramphenicol L221 ng/L
Chlorotetracycline L221 ng/L
Clofibric Acid L221 ng/L
Diclofenac L221 ng/L
Gemfibrozil L221 ng/L
Ibuprofen L221 ng/L
Levothyroxine (Synthroid)L221 ng/L
Naproxen L221 ng/L
Penicillin G L221 ng/L
Penicillin V L221 ng/L
Phenytoin L221 ng/L
Prednisone L221 ng/L
Salicylic Acid L221 ng/L
Sucralose L221 ng/L
Theophylline L221 ng/L
Triclocarban L221 ng/L
Triclosan L221 ng/L
QA/QC
Sample Date
Field Sample ID
Location ID Cape Fear River
Mile 100
Cape Fear River
Mile 132
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank
FAY-Elizabethtown
WWTP-012320
FAY-CFR-RM-132-
012420 EB2-012220 EB3-012320 EB4-012420
23-01-20 24-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20
FS FS EB EB EB
<100 <100 <100 <100 <100
<100 <100 <100 <100 <100
<500 <500 <500 <500 <500
<500 <500 <500 <500 <500
<500 <500 <500 <500 <500
<100 <100 <100 <100 <100
<100 <100 <100 <100 <100
<100 <100 <100 <100 <100
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
10 <5 <5 <5 <5
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
40 2 <1 <1 <1
19 <5 <5 <5 <5
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5
38 9 <1 <1 <1
14 5 <1 <1 <1
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
6.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
6 <1 <1 <1 <1
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50
<0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
12 2 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
15 14 <5 <5 <5
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
32 14 <5 <5 <5
190 10 <5 <5 <5
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<1 2 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
290 10 <1 <1 <1
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5
1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50
17 <1 <1 <1 <1
300 80 <10 <10 <10
540 <10 <10 <10 <10
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1
500 180 <10 <10 <10
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
62 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
5.6 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
11 5 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
42 2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50
9,900 1,400 <25 <25 <25
<5 <5 <5 <5 <5
<1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Page 2 of 2 July 2020
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may
not be accurate or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit
may not be accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.

TR0795
TABLE C5c
OTHER COMPOUNDS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Deep River Haw River
Cape Fear River
Mile 4 Little River Cape Fear River
Mile 54
Cape Fear River
Mile 54
FAY-DEEP
RIVER-012120
FAY-HAW RIVER-
012120
FAY-CFR-RM-
4-012120
FAY-Little
River Mouth-
012320
Fay-CFR-RM-54-
012220
FAY-CFR-RM-54-
012220-D
21-01-20 21-01-20 21-01-20 23-01-20 22-01-20 22-01-20
FS FS FS FS FS DUP
Other Analytes Lab Method Units
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1613B ng/L ------------
Antimony 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000
Arsenic 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000
Barium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 20,600 27,200 24,600 27,500 27,300 29,200
Beryllium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
Cadmium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
Calcium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 7,660,000 7,630,000 7,320,000 2,140,000 6,570,000 7,190,000
Chromium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <1,600 1,700 J <1,600 <1,600 <1,600 <1,600
Cobalt 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <1,500 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500
Copper 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <12,000 <12,000 <12,000 <12,000 <12,000 <12,000
Iron 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 741,000 677,000 645,000 J 466,000 972,000 864,000
Lead 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <7,100 <7,100 <7,100 <7,100 <7,100 <7,100
Magnesium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 3,040,000 2,940,000 2,900,000 973,000 2,690,000 2,900,000
Manganese 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 34,100 83,800 75,900 16,100 77,100 81,400
Molybdenum 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000
Nickel 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <2,100 <2,100 <2,100 <2,100 <2,100 <2,100
Potassium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 3,190,000 3,120,000 3,080,000 1,840,000 3,040,000 3,280,000
Selenium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000
Silver 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000
Sodium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 8,800,000 12,500,000 11,400,000 3,850,000 9,590,000 10,600,000
Strontium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 53,000 62,100 57,100 15,200 50,200 54,700
Vanadium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L 2,400 J 2,900 J 1,900 J <1,900 2,800 J 2,800 J
Zinc 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L <3,700 <3,700 3,800 J 5,400 J 4,300 J 3,900 J
Thallium 200.8 ng/L <130 <130 <130 <130 <130 <130
Hexavalent Chromium 218.6 ng/L <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 UJ <150 UJ
Mercury 245.1 ng/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
Bromide 300.0 ng/L <1,300,000 <1,300,000 <1,300,000 31,000 <1,300,000 <1,300,000
Chlorate 300.0 ng/L ------<10,000 ----
Chloride 300.0 ng/L 9,700,000 B 11,300,000 B 10,800,000 B 5,700,000 9,600,000 J 9,700,000 J
Chlorite 300.0 ng/L ------<20,000 ----
Fluoride 300.0 ng/L <250,000 <250,000 <250,000 <100,000 <250,000 <250,000
Nitrate 300.0/353.2 ng/L 1,000,000 J 880,000 J 900,000 J <1,000,000 UJ 840,000 J 850,000 J
Nitrite 300.0/353.2 ng/L <250,000 <250,000 <250,000 <100,000 <250,000 <250,000
Sulfate 300.0 ng/L 9,300,000 B 11,400,000 B 11,400,000 B <15,000,000 9,900,000 J 9,900,000 J
Bromate 300.1 ng/L ------<5,000 ----
Perchlorate 331.0 ng/L 70 70 70 50 110 100
Cyanide 335.4 ng/L ------------
Phosphate 365.1/4500-P ng/L <250,000 <250,000 <250,000 <65,000 <250,000 <250,000
Chloramine 4500 CL F ng/L ------------
Chlorine 4500 CL F ng/L ------------
Chlorine Dioxide 4500 CL F ng/L ------------
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 504.1 ng/L ------------
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)504.1 ng/L ------------
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 505/552.2 ng/L ------------
Chlordane 505 ng/L ------------
PCB 1016 505 ng/L ------------
PCB 1221 505 ng/L ------------
PCB 1232 505 ng/L ------------
PCB 1242 505 ng/L ------------
PCB 1248 505 ng/L ------------
PCB 1254 505 ng/L ------------
PCB 1260 505 ng/L ------------
Total PCB (congeners)505 ng/L ------------
Toxaphene 505 ng/L ------------
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 515.3 ng/L ------------
Dalapon 85 515.3 ng/L ------------
Dicamba 515.3 ng/L ------------
Dinoseb 515.3 ng/L ------------
Pentachlorophenol 515.3 ng/L ------------
Picloram 515.3 ng/L ------------
Silvex 515.3 ng/L ------------
1,4-Dioxane 522 ng/L 1,500 1,000 1,200 <70 960 990
Bromodichloromethane 524.2 ng/L ------------
Bromoform 524.2 ng/L ------------
Chlorodibromomethane 524.2 ng/L ------------
Chloroform 524.2 ng/L ------------
Alachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Aldrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Atrazine 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Benzo[A]Pyrene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Adipate 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Butachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Dieldrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Endrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Heptachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Heptachlor Epoxide 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Hexachlorobenzene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Lindane 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Methoxychlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Metolachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Metribuzin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Propachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Simazine 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L ------------
Alpha-BHC 525.3 ng/L ------------
Chlorpyrifos 525.3 ng/L ------------
Dimethipin 525.3 ng/L ------------
Merphos Oxide 525.3 ng/L ------------
Mocap 525.3 ng/L ------------
Oxyfluorfen 525.3 ng/L ------------
Permethrin 525.3 ng/L ------------
Tebuconazole 525.3 ng/L ------------
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Page 1 of 6 July 2020

TR0795
TABLE C5c
OTHER COMPOUNDS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Deep River Haw River
Cape Fear River
Mile 4 Little River Cape Fear River
Mile 54
Cape Fear River
Mile 54
FAY-DEEP
RIVER-012120
FAY-HAW RIVER-
012120
FAY-CFR-RM-
4-012120
FAY-Little
River Mouth-
012320
Fay-CFR-RM-54-
012220
FAY-CFR-RM-54-
012220-D
21-01-20 21-01-20 21-01-20 23-01-20 22-01-20 22-01-20
FS FS FS FS FS DUP
Other Analytes Lab Method Units
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Buytlated Hydroxyanisole 530 ng/L ------------
O-Toluidine 530 ng/L ------------
Quinoline 530 ng/L ------------
3-Hydroxycarbofuran 531.2 ng/L ------------
Aldicarb 531.2 ng/L ------------
Aldicarb Sulfone 531.2 ng/L ------------
Aldicarb Sulfoxide 531.2 ng/L ------------
Carbaryl 531.2 ng/L ------------
Carbofuran 531.2 ng/L ------------
Methomyl 531.2 ng/L ------------
Oxamyl 531.2 ng/L ------------
Total Organic Carbon 5310 C-2011 ng/L ------------
Glyphosate 547 ng/L ------------
Endothall 548.1 ng/L ------------
Diquat Dibromide 549.2 ng/L ------------
Dibromoacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L ------------
Dichloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L ------------
Monobromoacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L ------------
Monochloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L ------------
Total Haloacetic Acids(5)552.2/552.3 ng/L ------------
Trichloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L ------------
Bromochloroacetic Acid 552.3 ng/L ------------
Bromodichloroacetic acid 552.3 ng/L ------------
Chlorodibromoacetic acid 552.3 ng/L ------------
Tribromoacetic acid 552.3 ng/L ------------
Coliforms (Presence/Absence) 9222B Absent/Present ------------
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value
may not be accurate or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting
limit may not be accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Page 2 of 6 July 2020

TR0795
TABLE C5c
OTHER COMPOUNDS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Other Analytes Lab Method Units
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1613B ng/L
Antimony 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Arsenic 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Barium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Beryllium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Cadmium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Calcium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Chromium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Cobalt 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Copper 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Iron 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Lead 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Magnesium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Manganese 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Molybdenum 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Nickel 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Potassium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Selenium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Silver 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Sodium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Strontium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Vanadium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Zinc 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Thallium 200.8 ng/L
Hexavalent Chromium 218.6 ng/L
Mercury 245.1 ng/L
Bromide 300.0 ng/L
Chlorate 300.0 ng/L
Chloride 300.0 ng/L
Chlorite 300.0 ng/L
Fluoride 300.0 ng/L
Nitrate 300.0/353.2 ng/L
Nitrite 300.0/353.2 ng/L
Sulfate 300.0 ng/L
Bromate 300.1 ng/L
Perchlorate 331.0 ng/L
Cyanide 335.4 ng/L
Phosphate 365.1/4500-P ng/L
Chloramine 4500 CL F ng/L
Chlorine 4500 CL F ng/L
Chlorine Dioxide 4500 CL F ng/L
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 504.1 ng/L
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)504.1 ng/L
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 505/552.2 ng/L
Chlordane 505 ng/L
PCB 1016 505 ng/L
PCB 1221 505 ng/L
PCB 1232 505 ng/L
PCB 1242 505 ng/L
PCB 1248 505 ng/L
PCB 1254 505 ng/L
PCB 1260 505 ng/L
Total PCB (congeners)505 ng/L
Toxaphene 505 ng/L
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 515.3 ng/L
Dalapon 85 515.3 ng/L
Dicamba 515.3 ng/L
Dinoseb 515.3 ng/L
Pentachlorophenol 515.3 ng/L
Picloram 515.3 ng/L
Silvex 515.3 ng/L
1,4-Dioxane 522 ng/L
Bromodichloromethane 524.2 ng/L
Bromoform 524.2 ng/L
Chlorodibromomethane 524.2 ng/L
Chloroform 524.2 ng/L
Alachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Aldrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Atrazine 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Benzo[A]Pyrene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Adipate 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Butachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Dieldrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Endrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Heptachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Heptachlor Epoxide 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Hexachlorobenzene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Lindane 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Methoxychlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Metolachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Metribuzin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Propachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Simazine 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Alpha-BHC 525.3 ng/L
Chlorpyrifos 525.3 ng/L
Dimethipin 525.3 ng/L
Merphos Oxide 525.3 ng/L
Mocap 525.3 ng/L
Oxyfluorfen 525.3 ng/L
Permethrin 525.3 ng/L
Tebuconazole 525.3 ng/L
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Cape Fear River
Mile 56.5
Cape Fear River Mile
63.5
Cape Fear River
Mile 76
Cape Fear River
Mile 84
Cape Fear River
Mile 100
Cape Fear River
Mile 132
FAY- Cross Creek
Rec-012220
FAY-Rockfish
Creek Rec-012220
FAY-CFR-RM-76-
012320
FAY-CFR-RM-84-
INTAKE-012320
FAY-
Elizabethtown
WWTP-012320
FAY-CFR-RM-132-
012420
22-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 23-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20
FS FS FS FS FS FS
-- -- <0.000127 0.000119 J -- <0.000204
<16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000
<16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000
18,800 24,400 25,200 26,100 20,300 26,100
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000
8,690,000 6,970,000 6,000,000 6,140,000 10,000,000 6,350,000
<1,600 <1,600 <1,600 <1,600 <1,600 <1,600
<1,500 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500
<12,000 <12,000 <12,000 <12,000 <12,000 <12,000
658,000 728,000 674,000 757,000 738,000 710,000
<7,100 <7,100 <7,100 <7,100 <7,100 <7,100
5,740,000 3,920,000 2,490,000 2,560,000 2,410,000 2,500,000
81,300 73,600 64,000 J 58,900 64,800 70,600
3,000 J <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000
2,900 J <2,100 <2,100 <2,100 <2,100 <2,100
6,290,000 3,890,000 2,800,000 2,910,000 5,330,000 2,920,000
<16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000
<5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000
29,200,000 16,300,000 9,250,000 9,370,000 28,400,000 36,300,000
46,300 47,200 45,300 46,800 49,800 46,100
2,000 J 2,100 J <1,900 2,200 J <1,900 2,700 J
165,000 25,300 5,300 J 5,100 J 27,100 5,800 J
<130 <130 <130 <130 <130 <130
<150 UJ <150 UJ <150 <150 <150 <150
<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
<1,300,000 <1,300,000 78,000 77,000 63,000 --
-- -- <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 --
17,500,000 J 10,400,000 J 9,900,000 9,700,000 29,000,000 10,000,000
-- -- <20,000 <20,000 <20,000 --
<250,000 <250,000 <100,000 <100,000 <100,000 <100,000
4,000,000 J 1,100,000 J <1,000,000 UJ <1,000,000 UJ 3,200,000 <1,000,000 UJ
<250,000 <250,000 <100,000 <100,000 <100,000 <100,000
20,900,000 J 10,800,000 J <15,000,000 <15,000,000 <15,000,000 <15,000,000
-- -- <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 --
200 120 110 120 80 130
-- -- <5,000 <5,000 -- <5,000
2,400,000 J 400,000 J <65,000 <65,000 880,000 --
-- -- 510,000 0 -- 300,000
-- -- 40,000 50,000 -- 10,000
-- --00-- 110,000
-- -- <20 <20 -- <20
-- -- <10 <10 -- <10
-- -- -- -- -- <100
-- -- <200 <200 -- <200
-- -- <80 <80 -- <80
-- -- <190 <190 -- <190
-- -- <230 <230 -- <230
-- -- <260 <260 -- <260
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <100 <100 -- --
-- -- <200 <200 -- --
-- -- <100 <100 -- --
-- -- <1,000 <1,000 -- <1,000
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <1,000 <1,000 -- <1,000
-- -- <1,000 <1,000 -- <1,000
-- -- <200 <200 -- <200
-- -- <40 <40 -- <40
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <200 <200 -- <200
800 940 1,300 1,200 780 860
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <200 <200 -- <200
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <100 200 B --100 B
-- -- <100 <100 -- <200
-- -- <100 <100 -- <200
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <20 <20 -- <20
-- -- <600 <600 -- <600
-- -- <600 <600 -- <1,320
-- -- <100 <100 -- <8,000
-- -- <100 <100 -- <200
-- -- <10 <10 -- <10
-- -- <40 <40 -- <40
-- -- <20 <20 -- <20
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <20 <20 -- <20
-- -- <100 <100 -- <100
-- -- <100 <100 -- <800
-- -- <100 <100 -- <800
-- -- <100 <100 -- <6,000
-- -- <70 <70 -- <70
-- -- <10 <10 -- <10
-- -- <30 <30 -- <30
-- -- <200 <200 -- <200
-- -- <70 <70 -- <70
-- -- <30 <30 -- <30
-- -- <50 <50 -- <50
-- -- <40 <40 -- <40
-- -- <200 <200 -- <200
Page 3 of 6 July 2020

TR0795
TABLE C5c
OTHER COMPOUNDS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Other Analytes Lab Method Units
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Buytlated Hydroxyanisole 530 ng/L
O-Toluidine 530 ng/L
Quinoline 530 ng/L
3-Hydroxycarbofuran 531.2 ng/L
Aldicarb 531.2 ng/L
Aldicarb Sulfone 531.2 ng/L
Aldicarb Sulfoxide 531.2 ng/L
Carbaryl 531.2 ng/L
Carbofuran 531.2 ng/L
Methomyl 531.2 ng/L
Oxamyl 531.2 ng/L
Total Organic Carbon 5310 C-2011 ng/L
Glyphosate 547 ng/L
Endothall 548.1 ng/L
Diquat Dibromide 549.2 ng/L
Dibromoacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Dichloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Monobromoacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Monochloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Total Haloacetic Acids(5)552.2/552.3 ng/L
Trichloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Bromochloroacetic Acid 552.3 ng/L
Bromodichloroacetic acid 552.3 ng/L
Chlorodibromoacetic acid 552.3 ng/L
Tribromoacetic acid 552.3 ng/L
Coliforms (Presence/Absence) 9222B Absent/Present
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value
may not be accurate or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting
limit may not be accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Cape Fear River
Mile 56.5
Cape Fear River Mile
63.5
Cape Fear River
Mile 76
Cape Fear River
Mile 84
Cape Fear River
Mile 100
Cape Fear River
Mile 132
FAY- Cross Creek
Rec-012220
FAY-Rockfish
Creek Rec-012220
FAY-CFR-RM-76-
012320
FAY-CFR-RM-84-
INTAKE-012320
FAY-
Elizabethtown
WWTP-012320
FAY-CFR-RM-132-
012420
22-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 23-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20
FS FS FS FS FS FS
----<30 <30 --<30
----<7 <7 --<7
----<20 <20 --<20
----<4,000 <4,000 --<4,000
----<500 <500 --<500
----<800 <800 --<800
----<500 <500 --<500
----<4,000 <4,000 --<4,000
----<900 <900 --<900
----<4,000 <4,000 --<4,000
----<2,000 <2,000 --<2,000
----5,900,000 6,000,000 --7,600,000
----<6,000 <6,000 ----
----<9,000 <9,000 --<9,000
----<400 <400 --<400
----<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000
----<1,000 1,000 --<1,000
----<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000
----<2,000 <2,000 --<2,000
----<2,000 <2,000 --<2,000
----<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000
----<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000
----<1,000 <1,000 --<1,000
----<2,000 <2,000 --<2,000
----<4,000 <4,000 --<4,000
----Present B Present B --Absent
Page 4 of 6 July 2020

TR0795
TABLE C5c
OTHER COMPOUNDS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Other Analytes Lab Method Units
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1613B ng/L
Antimony 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Arsenic 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Barium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Beryllium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Cadmium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Calcium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Chromium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Cobalt 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Copper 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Iron 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Lead 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Magnesium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Manganese 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Molybdenum 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Nickel 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Potassium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Selenium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Silver 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Sodium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Strontium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Vanadium 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Zinc 200.7 Rev. 4.4 ng/L
Thallium 200.8 ng/L
Hexavalent Chromium 218.6 ng/L
Mercury 245.1 ng/L
Bromide 300.0 ng/L
Chlorate 300.0 ng/L
Chloride 300.0 ng/L
Chlorite 300.0 ng/L
Fluoride 300.0 ng/L
Nitrate 300.0/353.2 ng/L
Nitrite 300.0/353.2 ng/L
Sulfate 300.0 ng/L
Bromate 300.1 ng/L
Perchlorate 331.0 ng/L
Cyanide 335.4 ng/L
Phosphate 365.1/4500-P ng/L
Chloramine 4500 CL F ng/L
Chlorine 4500 CL F ng/L
Chlorine Dioxide 4500 CL F ng/L
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 504.1 ng/L
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)504.1 ng/L
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 505/552.2 ng/L
Chlordane 505 ng/L
PCB 1016 505 ng/L
PCB 1221 505 ng/L
PCB 1232 505 ng/L
PCB 1242 505 ng/L
PCB 1248 505 ng/L
PCB 1254 505 ng/L
PCB 1260 505 ng/L
Total PCB (congeners)505 ng/L
Toxaphene 505 ng/L
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 515.3 ng/L
Dalapon 85 515.3 ng/L
Dicamba 515.3 ng/L
Dinoseb 515.3 ng/L
Pentachlorophenol 515.3 ng/L
Picloram 515.3 ng/L
Silvex 515.3 ng/L
1,4-Dioxane 522 ng/L
Bromodichloromethane 524.2 ng/L
Bromoform 524.2 ng/L
Chlorodibromomethane 524.2 ng/L
Chloroform 524.2 ng/L
Alachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Aldrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Atrazine 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Benzo[A]Pyrene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Adipate 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Butachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Dieldrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Endrin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Heptachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Heptachlor Epoxide 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Hexachlorobenzene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Lindane 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Methoxychlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Metolachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Metribuzin 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Propachlor 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Simazine 525.2 Rev 2.0 ng/L
Alpha-BHC 525.3 ng/L
Chlorpyrifos 525.3 ng/L
Dimethipin 525.3 ng/L
Merphos Oxide 525.3 ng/L
Mocap 525.3 ng/L
Oxyfluorfen 525.3 ng/L
Permethrin 525.3 ng/L
Tebuconazole 525.3 ng/L
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank
EB1-012120 EB2-012220 EB3-012320 EB4-012420 TB1-012320 TB2-012420
21-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20
EB EB EB EB TB TB
---- <0.00011 <0.000266 ----
<16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 ----
<16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 ----
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 ----
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 ----
<1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 ----
<96,000 <96,000 <96,000 <96,000 ----
<1,600 <1,600 <1,600 <1,600 ----
<1,500 <1,500 <1,500 <1,500 ----
<12,000 <12,000 <12,000 <12,000 ----
<40,000 UJ <40,000 <40,000 <40,000 ----
<7,100 <7,100 <7,100 <7,100 ----
<40,000 <40,000 <40,000 <40,000 ----
<3,000 <3,000 <3,000 <3,000 ----
<2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 ----
<2,100 <2,100 <2,100 <2,100 ----
<204,000 <204,000 <204,000 <204,000 ----
<16,000 <16,000 <16,000 <16,000 ----
<5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 ----
246,000 J <239,000 <239,000 <239,000 ----
<730 <730 <730 <730 ----
<1,900 <1,900 <1,900 <1,900 ----
<3,700 <3,700 <3,700 <3,700 ----
<130 <130 <130 <130 ----
<150 <150 UJ <150 <150 ----
<50 <50 <50 <50 ----
<1,300,000 <250,000 <10,000 <10,000 ----
---- <10,000 <10,000 ----
1,000,000 J <200,000 <2,000,000 <2,000,000 ----
---- <20,000 <20,000 ----
<250,000 <50,000 <100,000 <100,000 ----
<250,000 <50,000 <1,000,000 UJ <1,000,000 UJ ----
<250,000 <50,000 <100,000 <100,000 ----
2,300,000 J <300,000 <15,000,000 <15,000,000 ----
----<5,000 <5,000 ----
<50 --<50 <50 ----
----<5,000 <5,000 ----
<250,000 <250,000 <65,000 <65,000 ----
--------------
--------------
--------------
----<20 <20 ----
----<10 <10 ----
------<100 ----
----<200 <200 ----
----<80 <80 ----
----<190 <190 ----
----<230 <230 ----
----<260 <260 ----
----<100 <100 ----
----<100 <100 ----
----<200 <200 ----
----<100 ------
----<1,000 <1,000 ----
----<100 <100 ----
----<1,000 <1,000 ----
----<1,000 <1,000 ----
----<200 <200 ----
----<40 <40 ----
----<100 ------
----<200 ------
<70 --<70 <70 ----
----<100 <100 <100 <100
----<200 <200 <200 <200
----<100 <100 <100 <100
----200 J 400 J <100 <100
----<200 <200 ----
----<200 <200 ----
----<100 <100 ----
----<20 <20 ----
----<600 <600 ----
----<1,320 <1,320 ----
----<8,000 <8,000 ----
----<200 <200 ----
----<10 <10 ----
----<40 <40 ----
----<20 <20 ----
----<100 <100 ----
----<100 <100 ----
----<20 <20 ----
----<100 <100 ----
----<800 <800 ----
----<800 <800 ----
----<6,000 <6,000 ----
----<70 <70 ----
----<10 ------
----<30 ------
----<200 ------
----<70 ------
----<30 ------
----<50 ------
----<40 ------
----<200 ------
Page 5 of 6 July 2020

TR0795
TABLE C5c
OTHER COMPOUNDS RESULTS
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Other Analytes Lab Method Units
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Buytlated Hydroxyanisole 530 ng/L
O-Toluidine 530 ng/L
Quinoline 530 ng/L
3-Hydroxycarbofuran 531.2 ng/L
Aldicarb 531.2 ng/L
Aldicarb Sulfone 531.2 ng/L
Aldicarb Sulfoxide 531.2 ng/L
Carbaryl 531.2 ng/L
Carbofuran 531.2 ng/L
Methomyl 531.2 ng/L
Oxamyl 531.2 ng/L
Total Organic Carbon 5310 C-2011 ng/L
Glyphosate 547 ng/L
Endothall 548.1 ng/L
Diquat Dibromide 549.2 ng/L
Dibromoacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Dichloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Monobromoacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Monochloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Total Haloacetic Acids(5)552.2/552.3 ng/L
Trichloroacetic Acid 552.2/552.3 ng/L
Bromochloroacetic Acid 552.3 ng/L
Bromodichloroacetic acid 552.3 ng/L
Chlorodibromoacetic acid 552.3 ng/L
Tribromoacetic acid 552.3 ng/L
Coliforms (Presence/Absence) 9222B Absent/Present
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
B - analyte detected in an associated blank
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
J - Analyte detected. Reported value
may not be accurate or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting
limit may not be accurate or precise.
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank
Equipment
Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank
EB1-012120 EB2-012220 EB3-012320 EB4-012420 TB1-012320 TB2-012420
21-01-20 22-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20 23-01-20 24-01-20
EB EB EB EB TB TB
----<30 ------
----<7 ------
----<20 ------
----<4,000 <4,000 ----
----<500 <500 ----
----<800 <800 ----
----<500 <500 ----
----<4,000 <4,000 ----
----<900 <900 ----
----<4,000 <4,000 ----
----<2,000 <2,000 ----
----720,000 J 650,000 J ----
----<6,000 <6,000 ----
----<9,000 <9,000 ----
----<400 <400 ----
----<1,000 ------
----<1,000 ------
----<1,000 ------
----<2,000 ------
----<2,000 ------
----<1,000 <1,000 ----
----<1,000 ------
----<1,000 ------
----<2,000 ------
----<4,000 ------
----Present -- Absent ----
Page 6 of 6 July 2020

TR0795
TABLE C6 RESULTS OF EPA METHOD 537M PFAS ANALYSIS BEFORE AND AFTER TOP OXIDATION The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.CAS numberFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120FAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOXFAY-HAW RIVER-012120FAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120FAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOXFAY-LITTLE RIVER MOUTH-012320LITTLE RIV MOUTH-012320-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220FAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-DFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D-POSTOXFAY- Cross Creek Rec-012220FAY-Cross Ck Rec-012220-POSTOXFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-012220Rockfish Crk Rec-012220-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320FAY-CFR-RM-76-012320-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-012320CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-012320-POSTOXFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-012320Elizabethtn WWTP-012320-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420FAY-CFR-RM-132-012420-POSTOX10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate120226-60-0<4.3 <25 <4.4 <25 <4.8 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.4 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.7 <25 <4.2 <25 <4.2 <25 <4.7 <25 <4.3 <2511Cl-PF3OUdS83329-89-9<1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.8 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <101H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)39108-34-4<2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.9 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.6 <151H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)757124-72-4<1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.8 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <102-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol1691-99-2<2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.9 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.6 <152-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol24448-09-7<2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.9 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.6 <156:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate27619-97-2<4.3 <25 <4.4 <25 <4.8 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.4 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.7 <25 <4.2 <25 <4.2 <25 <4.7 <25 <4.3 <259Cl-PF3ONS73606-19-6<1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.8 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10DONA958445-44-8<1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.8 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (N-EtFOSAA)2991-50-6<2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.9 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.6 <15N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide4151-50-2<4.3 <25 <4.4 <25 <4.8 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.4 <25 <4.3 <25 <4.3 <25 6.5 <25 <4.2 <25 <4.2 <25 <4.7 <25 <4.3 <25N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide31506-32-8<2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.9 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 <2.6 <15 12 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.5 <15 <2.8 <15 <2.6 <15N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (N-MeFOSAA)2355-31-9<1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.8 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide754-91-6<1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.8 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.7 <10 <1.9 <10 <1.7 <10Perfluorobutanoic acid375-22-4<4.3 <4.3 7.6 7.6 5.9 5.9 <4.3 <4.355555.55.5<4.7 <4.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4 4.6 4.6Perfluoropentanoic acid2706-90-33.6 3.6 15 27 12 22 9.5 16 9.5 20 9.7 19 12 22 9.9 18 12 20 11 22 26 38 10 17Perfluorohexanoic acid307-24-43.4 3.4 23 35 17 25 3.6 12 13 22 13 21 16 23 13 22 14 22 15 24 27 34 12 19Perfluoroheptanoic acid375-85-9<1.7 <1.7 16 22 12 18 <1.7 <1.7 8.8 14 9.1 14 7.5 13 8.4 14 10 14 10 14 7 7 7.8 10Perfluorooctanoic acid335-67-12.5 2.5 8.8 14 7 12 3.4 3.4 5.9 10 6 6 7.6 12 6.1 6.1 7.2 10 7.3 11 6.9 11 6.4 6.4Perfluorononanoic acid375-95-1<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorodecanoic acid335-76-2<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluoroundecanoic acid2058-94-8<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorododecanoic acid307-55-1<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorotridecanoic acid72629-94-8<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorotetradecanoic acid376-06-7<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorohexadecanoic acid67905-19-5<2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.9 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.8 <2.8 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.8 <2.8 <2.6 <2.6Perfluorooctadecanoic acid16517-11-6<2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.9 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.8 <2.8 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.8 <2.8 <2.6 <2.6Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid375-73-5<1.7 <1.7 4 4 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.9 3 3 4.1 4.1 3 3 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.5 3.6 3.6Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid2706-91-4<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid355-46-41.9 1.9 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.1 8.2 8.2 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 5 5 3.2 3.2 4.5 4.5 4 4 4.3 4.3 3.6 3.6Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid375-92-8<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid1763-23-14 4 11 18 8.9 14 10 15 8 16 8.7 13 8.7 13 8.2 13 11 13 11 15 9.4 11 9.6 13Perfluorononane sulfonic acid68259-12-1<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid335-77-3<1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.9 <1.9 <1.7 <1.7Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid79780-39-5<2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.9 <2.9 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.8 <2.8 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.8 <2.8 <2.6 <2.6Sum of EPA Method 537M analytes15 15 89 131 69 103 37 57 56 93 57 84 78 98 58 79 68 93 68 100 91 115 58 77Notes:ng/L - nanograms per literTOP - total oxidizable precursorsPFAA - perfluoroalkyl acidPFAS - perfluoroalkyl substancesPFCA - perfluorocarboxylic acidPFSA - perfluorosulfonic acid<- Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.Concentration (ng/L)Cape Fear River Mile 132Deep River Haw RiverCape Fear River Mile 4Little RiverCape Fear River Mile 56.5Cape Fear River Mile 63.5Cape Fear River Mile 76Cape Fear River Mile 84Cape Fear River Mile 54Cape Fear River Mile 100Known oxidizable PFAA precursors present in EPA Method 537M: These compounds are expected to oxidize during TOP assay oxidationTerminal oxidation products (PFCAs): The concentration of these compounds is expected to increase after the TOP oxidation step from both known and unknown precursorsTerminal PFAS compounds (PFSAs): The concentration of these compounds is expected to neither increase nor decrease after the TOP oxidation stepTR0795July 2020
TABLE C7CONCENTRATIONS OF UNKNOWN PFAA PRECURSORS AS DETERMINED BY TOP ASSAY The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.FAY-DEEP RIVER-012120FAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOXFAY-HAW RIVER-012120FAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120FAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOXFAY-LITTLE RIVER MOUTH-012320LITTLE RIV MOUTH-012320-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220FAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-DFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D-POSTOXFAY- Cross Creek Rec-012220FAY-Cross Ck Rec-012220-POSTOXFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-012220Rockfish Crk Rec-012220-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320FAY-CFR-RM-76-012320-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-012320CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-012320-POSTOXFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-012320Elizabethtn WWTP-012320-POSTOXFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420FAY-CFR-RM-132-012420-POSTOX15 15 89 131 69 103 37 57 56 93 57 84 78 98 58 79 68 93 68 100 91 115 58 770000000000001206.500000000015 15 89 131 69 103 37 57 56 93 57 84 66 98 52 79 68 93 68 100 91 115 58 77Notes:ng/L - nanograms per literTOP - total oxidizable precursorsPFAA - perfluoroalkyl acidPFCA - perfluorocarboxylic acidPFSA - perfluorosulfonic acid1- see Table 62- see Table 63- sum of PFCAs and PFSAs; see Table 64- sum of unknown PFAA precursors = (sum of PFAAs post-oxidation - sum of PFAAs pre-oxidation) - (sum of known oxidizable PFAA precursors pre-oxidation - sum of known oxidizable PFAA precursors post-oxidation)20After the TOP oxidation step, if a given PFAA was not detected above the reporting limit, or a given PFAA was present at a lower concentration than the pre-oxidation step sample, then the during the calculation step, the original reporting limit or concentration (before oxidation) of the PFAA was used.19212532254234203727Sum of EPA Method 537M analytes1Sum of Known Oxidizable PFAA Precursors in EPA Method 537M2Sum of PFAAs in EPA Method 537M3Sum of Unknown PFAA Precursors Present in Sample40Cape Fear River Mile 100Cape Fear River Mile 132Concentration of Unknown PFAA Precursors as Determined by TOP Assay (ng/L)Deep River Haw RiverCape Fear River Mile 4Little River Cape Fear River Mile 54Cape Fear River Mile 56.5Cape Fear River Mile 63.5Cape Fear River Mile 76Cape Fear River Mile 84TR0795July 2020
FIGURES
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
Cape Fear River Mile 132
Start ofCape FearRiver
Wilmington
Raleigh
Cape Fear River Mile 1003
Cape Fear River Mile 63.52
Cape Fear River Mile 56.51
ChemoursFayettevilleWorks
Cape Fear River Mile 84
Cape Fear River Mile 76
Little River
Cape Fear River Mile 4
Cape Fear River Mile 54
Cape Fear River Sampling Locations
The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.
Figure
C1Raleigh
Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Misc\TR0795_River Water Sample Locations.mxd; jkasunic; 05/06/2020July 2020
³
10 0 105 Miles
Note:WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
1.Sample collected 100 meters downstream of Cross Creek Water Reclamation Facility.
2.Sample collected 100 meters downstream of Rockfish Water Reclamation Facility.
3.Sample collected 100 meters downstream of Elizabethtown WWTP.Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community.
Projection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere; Units in Meter
Legend
!5 Sampling Location
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Cape Fear River
!5 !5
Haw RiverDeep River
500 0 500250 Feet
PFAS and PrecursorsThe Chemours Company, FC, LLC.FigureC2RaleighJuly 2020050100150200250Concentration (ng/L)EPA 537 method PFASTable 3+ (17 Compounds)Sum of R-PSDA, Hydrolysed PSDA and R-EVEUnknown PFAS via TOP assayDirection of River FlowNotes:* Locations are 100-m downstream from a wastewater treatment plant orwater reclamation facilityOnly compounds above detections limits were included in the chartng/L - nanograms per literPFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances***
Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care ProductsThe Chemours Company, FC, LLC.FigureC3RaleighJuly 202002,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000Concentration (ng/L)SucraloseTotal PPCPDirection of River FlowNotes:* Locations are 100-m downstream from a wastewater treatment plant orwater reclamation facilityµg/L - micrograms per literTotal PPCP includes 29 compounds and excludes sucralose.Only coumpounds above reporting limits are included Total PPCP***
1,4-Dioxane The Chemours Company, FC, LLC.FigureC4RaleighJuly 202002004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,4-Dioxane (ng/L)Direction of River FlowNotes:* Locations are 100-m downstream from a wastewater treatment plant orwater reclamation facilityµg/L - micrograms per literWhite bar represents a concentration below the reporting limit***
ATTACHMENT A
Data Review Narrative
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY Baseline River Samp 120 updated.doc 1 of 3
ADQM DATA REVIEW
NARRATIVE
Site Chemours FAY – Fayetteville
Project Baseline River Sampling 1/20 (updated)
Project Reviewer Michael Aucoin, AECOM as a Chemours contractor
Sampling Dates January 21 - 24, 2020
Analytical Protocol
Laboratory Analytical Method Parameter(s)
Eurofins Lancaster (ELLE) EPA 537 Rev. 1.1
modified
PFAS1
ELLE Cl. Spec. Table 3
Compound SOP
Table 3+ compounds
ELLE 200.7 Rev.
4.4/200.8/245.1
Total Metals
ELLE 218.6 Hexavalent Chromium
ELLE and Eurofins Eaton
(EEA)
300.0/300.1 Anions including nitrate, nitrite
EEA 331.0 Perchlorate
ELLE 335.4 Cyanide
EEA 353.2 Nitrate and nitrite
ELLE and EEA 365.1/4500-P E-2011 Phosphate
EEA 504.1 EDB/DBCP
EEA 505 PCB/Toxaphene/Chlordane
EEA 515.3 Chlorinated Acids
EEA 522 1,4-Dioxane
ELLE 524.2 Trihalomethanes
EEA 525.2 Organics
EEA 525.3 Semivolatiles
EEA 530 Select SVOC
EEA 531.2 Carbamate Pesticides
EEA 547 Glyphosate
EEA 548.1 Endothall
EEA 549.2 Diquat
EEA 552.2 HAA5 Analytes
EEA 552.3 Haloacetic Acids
ELLE 1613B 2,3,7,8-TCDD
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY Baseline River Samp 120 updated.doc 2 of 3
Laboratory Analytical Method Parameter(s)
ELLE 5310 C-2011 Total Organic Carbon
Microbac Fayetteville 9222B Coliform Presence/Absence
EEA L200 Phenolic Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
EEA L211 Estrogens and Other Hormones
EEA L220 Pharmaceutically Active Compounds - Positive
EEA L221 Pharmaceutically Active Compounds - Negative
1 Perfluoroalkylsubstances, a list of 36 compounds including HFPO-DA.
Sample Receipt
The following items are noted for this data set:
•All samples were received in satisfactory condition and within EPA temperature guidelines on
January 22 - 25, 2020.
•Sample IDs reported by the laboratory were modified to append the term “-POSTOX” in the
Locus EIM database to reflect post-oxidation PFAS analysis of some samples.
Data Review
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 below:
•The non-detect result for N-methylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide in one water sample was
qualified R and is considered to be unusable due to a very poor surrogate spike recovery.
•Results for chloroform, chloride and sulfate in one or more water samples were qualified B and
the reported results may be biased high, or false positives, due to a comparable concentration
found in associated equipment rinsate blanks.
•Several analytical results have been qualified J as estimated, and non-detect results qualified UJ
indicating an estimated reporting limit, due to a poor or very poor recovery of a surrogate, lab
control spike, or matrix spike; sample preparation and/or analysis which exceeded the laboratory
established hold time; and poor field duplicate or lab replicate precision. See the Data
Verification Module (DVM) Narrative Report for which samples were qualified, the specific
reasons for qualification, and potential bias in reported results.
•The non-PFAS results for samples were reported by the laboratory to the method detection limit
(MDL); results reported between the MDL and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) are qualified J and
are considered to be estimated values.
Attachments
The DVM Narrative report is attached. The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on an
AECOM network shared drive and are available to be posted on external shared drives, or on a flash
drive.
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY Baseline River Samp 120 updated.doc 3 of 3
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)/control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the RPD
between these spikes
•Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
•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.
DVM Narrative ReportOne or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244771N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedR537_Prep0.0028PQLPage 1 of 35
Contamination detected in equipment blank(s). Sample result does not differ significantly from the analyte concentration detected in the associatedequipment blank(s).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243803Sulfate11.4 MG/L1.5300.0B5.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243803Chloride10.8 MG/L1.0300.0B2.0MDLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243801Sulfate9.3 MG/L1.5300.0B5.0MDLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243801Chloride9.7 MG/L1.0300.0B2.0MDLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243802Sulfate11.4 MG/L1.5300.0B5.0MDLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243802Chloride11.3 MG/L1.0300.0B2.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-84-012320 01/23/2020 1246868Chloroform0.2 UG/L0.1524.2B0.5MDLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246874Chloroform0.1 UG/L0.1524.2B0.5MDLPage 2 of 35
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLElizabethtn WWTP-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246876PHfpo Dimer Acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 12469089Cl-PF3ONS0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 124690811Cl-PF3OUdS0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PerfluorononanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 12469081H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420-POSTOX01/24/2020 1246908PHfpo Dimer Acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 12439192-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0029 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0029PQLEB2-012220-POSTOX 01/22/2020 1244783PHfpo Dimer Acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB2-012220-POSTOX 01/22/2020 1244783PPerfluoropentanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 12447672-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 124690810:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.0043 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0026 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLPage 3 of 35
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20201246908PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020124688410:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.0042ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0042PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0025UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884PerfluorononanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/202012468841H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.0017ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/202012468849Cl-PF3ONS0.0017ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020124688411Cl-PF3OUdS0.0017ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D-POSTOX01/22/20201244779PHfpo Dimer Acid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D-POSTOX01/22/20201244779PPFOA0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-POSTOX01/22/20201244775PHfpo Dimer Acid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880PerfluorononanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.0017ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLPage 4 of 35
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320 01/23/2020 12468809Cl-PF3ONS0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320 01/23/2020 124688011Cl-PF3OUdS0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320 01/23/2020 1246880Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876PerfluorononanoicAcid0.0019 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 12468761H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.0019 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 12468769Cl-PF3ONS0.0019 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 124687611Cl-PF3OUdS0.0019 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876DONA0.0019 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020 1246884PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020 1246884PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.0019 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0019 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)0.0019 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 12468766:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.0047 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0047PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0028 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.0019 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.0019 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 124687610:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.0047 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0047PQLRockfish Crk Rec-012220-POSTOX01/22/2020 1244771PHfpo Dimer Acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLPage 5 of 35
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsTB4-012420-POSTOX 01/24/2020 1246904PHfpo Dimer Acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 124688810:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.0043 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 12468882-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 12468882-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 12468886:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.0043 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.0026 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888PerfluorononanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 12468881H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.0017 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 12468889Cl-PF3ONS0.0017 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLPage 6 of 35
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020124688811Cl-PF3OUdS0.0017ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888DONA0.0017ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.0017UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.0043UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLPage 7 of 35
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220 01/22/2020 1244543Hexavalent Chromium0.00015 MG/L0.00015218.6UJ0.0005MDLEB2-01222001/22/2020 1244545Hexavalent Chromium0.00015 MG/L0.00015218.6UJ0.0005MDLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244538Hexavalent Chromium0.00015 MG/L0.00015218.6UJ0.0005MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/2020 1244544Hexavalent Chromium0.00015 MG/L0.00015218.6UJ0.0005MDLFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244542Hexavalent Chromium0.00015 MG/L0.00015218.6UJ0.0005MDLPage 8 of 35
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit. The actual detection limits may behigher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEB1-01212001/21/2020 1243804Iron0.0400 MG/L0.0400200.7 Rev. 4.4UJ200.70.200MDLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244767Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244770PFMOAA0.005 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJ0.005PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244767PFMOAA0.005 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJ0.005PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244767Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244770PFESA-BP20.002 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJ0.002PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244767PFESA-BP20.002 ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJ0.002PQLPage 9 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Hfpo Dimer Acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorononanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorooctaneSulfonamide0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 9Cl-PF3ONS0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 11Cl-PF3OUdS0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLPage 10 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX DONA0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX 6:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorohexaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX 10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX Hfpo Dimer Acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX 2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PFOS0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX 2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLPage 11 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsoctanesulfonamido)-ethanolEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX 6:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.015 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorohexanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PFOA0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorohexaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorononanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX 01/21/2020 1243923POSTOX Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLPage 12 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOXPerfluorononanesulfonic acid0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOXPerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOXPerfluorooctaneSulfonamide0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOX9Cl-PF3ONS0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOX1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOX11Cl-PF3OUdS0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOXPerfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLEB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243923POSTOXDONA0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOX10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXHfpo Dimer Acid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXPerfluorooctadecanoicacid0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOX2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXPFOS0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXPerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXN-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOX2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXPerfluoropentanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXPerfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOX6:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXN-ethylperfluorooctane0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLPage 13 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitssulfonamidoacetic acidFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorohexanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PFOA0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorodecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorohexaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorononanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX PerfluorooctaneSulfonamide0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX 9Cl-PF3ONS0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243911POSTOX 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulf0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLPage 14 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsonate (4:2 FTS)FAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOX11Cl-PF3OUdS0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXPerfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243911POSTOXDONA0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorododecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXHfpo Dimer Acid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorooctadecanoicacid0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPFOS0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXN-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluoropentanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX6:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXN-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorohexanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLPage 15 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorododecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPFOA0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorodecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorohexaneSulfonic Acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorobutanoic Acid0.025UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorononanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorotetradecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXN-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorononanesulfonic acid0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorooctaneSulfonamide0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX9Cl-PF3ONS0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOX11Cl-PF3OUdS0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXPerfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLPage 16 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsTB1-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243927POSTOXDONA0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOX10:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXHfpo Dimer Acid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorooctadecanoicacid0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOX2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXN-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOX2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.015ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOX6:2 Fluorotelomersulfonate0.025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXN-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorodecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorodecaneSulfonic Acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorohexaneSulfonic Acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorobutanoic Acid0.025UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)0.01ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorononanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/20201243915POSTOXPerfluorotetradecanoicAcid0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLPage 17 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX Perfluorononanesulfonic acid0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX PerfluorooctaneSulfonamide0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX 9Cl-PF3ONS0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX 11Cl-PF3OUdS0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid (PFDoS)0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX DONA0.01 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.01PQLPage 18 of 35
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 12439192-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0029 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0029PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243919N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0048 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0048PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243919N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0029 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0029PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220 01/22/2020 12447752-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220 01/22/2020 12447752-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLElizabethtn WWTP-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246876PN-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 12447672-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244767N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 12469082-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 12469082-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020 12468842-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020 12468842-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020 1246884N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLPage 19 of 35
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-DEEP RIVER-01212001/21/202012439112-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-01212001/21/202012439112-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0042UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0042PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-01222001/22/20201244775N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-01222001/22/20201244775N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0044UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0044PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/202012447792-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/202012447792-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244779N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244779N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/202012468802-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/202012468802-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0042UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0042PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-01212001/21/202012439152-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-01212001/21/202012439152-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLPage 20 of 35
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-HAW RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243915N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243915N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0044 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0044PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0047 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0047PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243911N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243911N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 12468762-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 1246876N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/2020 12468762-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLLITTLE RIV MOUTH-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246888PN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLLITTLE RIV MOUTH-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246888PN-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLTB4-012420-POSTOX 01/24/2020 1246904PN-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.015 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.015PQLTB4-012420-POSTOX 01/24/2020 1246904PN-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.025PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/2020 1246888N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 12447712-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 12447712-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0028 ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLPage 21 of 35
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded by a factor of 2. The reported non-detect result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsEB3-012320-Z01/23/20204547345Nitrate1MG/L1300.0UJ0MDLEB4-01242001/24/20204548296Nitrate1MG/L1300.0UJ0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20204548308Nitrate1MG/L1300.0UJ0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320-Z01/23/20204547371Nitrate1MG/L1300.0UJ0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-84-012320-Z01/23/20204547357Nitrate1MG/L1300.0UJ0MDLFAY-LittleRiverMouth-012320-Z01/23/20204547378Nitrate1MG/L1300.0UJ0MDLPage 22 of 35
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may bebiased high.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsLITTLE RIV MOUTH-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246888PPerfluorohexanoicAcid0.012 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246880PPerfluorohexanoicAcid0.022 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLCFR-RM-84-INTAKE-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246884PPerfluorohexanoicAcid0.024 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420-POSTOX01/24/2020 1246908PPerfluorohexanoicAcid0.019 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLElizabethtn WWTP-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246876PPerfluorohexanoicAcid0.034 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLPage 23 of 35
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may be biasedhigh.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244542Sulfate10.8 MG/L1.5300.0J5.0MDLFAY-DEEP RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243801Nitrate1.0 MG/L0.25300.0J0.50MDLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120 01/21/2020 1243802Nitrate0.88 MG/L0.25300.0J0.50MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/2020 1244544Sulfate9.9 MG/L1.5300.0J5.0MDLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244538Sulfate20.9 MG/L1.5300.0J5.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220 01/22/2020 1244543Sulfate9.9 MG/L1.5300.0J5.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243803Nitrate0.90 MG/L0.25300.0J0.50MDLEB1-01212001/21/2020 1243804Sulfate2.3 MG/L1.5300.0J5.0MDLEB1-01212001/21/2020 1243804Chloride1.0 MG/L1.0300.0J2.0MDLPage 24 of 35
High relative percent difference (RPD) observed between field duplicate and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/2020 4546194Atenolol0.002 ug/L0.001L220J0MDLFay-CFR-RM-54-012220 01/22/2020 4546190Atenolol0.003 ug/L0.001L220J0MDLPage 25 of 35
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Detects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244771PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.0099UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.0027UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888PFOA0.0034UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.0095UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-LITTLE RIVERMOUTH-01232001/23/20201246888PFOS0.01UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244771PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.003UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/20201246876PFOS0.0094UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/20201246876Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.0054UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0047PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/20201246876PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.0045UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/20201246876PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.007UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/20201246876PFOA0.0069UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-Elizabethtown WWTP-01232001/23/20201246876PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.026UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.0056UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0042PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-01212001/21/20201243915PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.004UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-01212001/21/20201243915PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.015UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880PFOA0.0072UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246880PFOS0.011UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-POSTOX01/22/20201244775PPerfluoropentanoicAcid0.02UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D-POSTOX01/22/20201244779PPerfluoropentanoicAcid0.019UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244779PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.003UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244779PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.0097UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-01222001/22/20201244775PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.0029UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0018PQLFAY-DEEP RIVER-01212001/21/20201243911PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.0036UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLPage 26 of 35
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Detects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020 1246884PFOA0.0073 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/2020 1246884PFOS0.011 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320 01/23/2020 1246880Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.0056 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0042PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PFOA0.0064 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.01 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908PFOS0.0096 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244767PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.012 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244767PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.0041 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0017PQLCFR-RM-84-INTAKE-012320-POSTOX01/23/2020 1246884PPerfluoropentanoicAcid0.022 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220 01/22/2020 1244775PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.0095 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0018PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243919PerfluorobutaneSulfonic Acid0.0031 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243919PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.012 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0019PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-012420 01/24/2020 1246908Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.0046 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0043PQLPage 27 of 35
Quality review criteria exceeded between the REP (laboratory replicate) and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244542Phosphate0.40MG/L0.25365.1J365.10.31MDLFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244542Nitrate1.1MG/L0.25300.0J0.50MDLFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244542Chloride10.4MG/L1.0300.0J2.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244544Nitrate0.85MG/L0.25300.0J0.50MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244544Chloride9.7MG/L1.0300.0J2.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246887R-EVE0.005UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.002PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-INTAKE-01232001/23/20201246884R-EVE0.003UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.002PQLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244538Phosphate2.4MG/L0.25365.1J365.10.31MDLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244538Nitrate4.0MG/L0.25300.0J0.50MDLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244538Chloride17.5MG/L1.0300.0J2.0MDLFAY- Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244767N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.012ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0026PQLFAY-CFR-RM-54-01222001/22/20201244543Nitrate0.84MG/L0.25300.0J0.50MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-01222001/22/20201244543Chloride9.6MG/L1.0300.0J2.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20201246911R-EVE0.0069UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.002PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20201246908R-EVE0.0047UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.002PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20201246911Byproduct 40.0051UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.002PQLFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20201246908Byproduct 40.004UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.002PQLPage 28 of 35
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded by a factor of 2. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-ElizabethtownWWTP-012320-Z01/23/2020 4547380Nitrate3.1 MG/L1300.0J0MDLPage 29 of 35
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/2020K0A0362-01E. ColiPresent/100mlSM9222 B-2006J1PQLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/2020K0A0362-01Total ColiformPresent/100mlSM9222 B-2006J1PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-01232001/23/2020K0A0362-02E. ColiPresent/100mlSM9222 B-2006J1PQLFAY-CFR-RM-84-01232001/23/2020K0A0362-02Total ColiformPresent/100mlSM9222 B-2006J1PQLEB3-01232001/23/2020K0A0362-03E. ColiPresent/100mlSM9222 B-2006J1PQLEB3-01232001/23/2020K0A0362-03Total ColiformPresent/100mlSM9222 B-2006J1PQLPage 30 of 35
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above the rejection limit. Thereported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-76-012320 01/23/2020 1246867Manganese0.0640 MG/L0.0030200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120 01/21/2020 1243803Iron0.645 MG/L0.0400200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.200MDLPage 31 of 35
The preparation hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.022 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX PerfluorohexanoicAcid0.035 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.027 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX PFOS0.018 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-HAW RIVER-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243915POSTOX PFOA0.014 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.018 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PFOA0.012 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluorohexanoicAcid0.025 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PerfluoropentanoicAcid0.022 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLFAY-CFR-RM-4-012120-POSTOX01/21/2020 1243919POSTOX PFOS0.014 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.01PQLPage 32 of 35
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244771N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0065 UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedJ537_Prep0.0047PQLPage 33 of 35
The result is estimated since the concentration is between the method detection limit and practical quantitation limit.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20201246874Vanadium0.0027MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-CFR-RM-132-01242001/24/20201246874Zinc0.0058MG/L0.0037200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0200MDLFAY-CFR-RM-4-01212001/21/20201243803Vanadium0.0019MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-CFR-RM-4-01212001/21/20201243803Zinc0.0038MG/L0.0037200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0200MDLEB1-01212001/21/20201243804Sodium0.246MG/L0.239200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.71.00MDLEB4-01242001/24/20201246873Chloroform0.4UG/L0.1524.2J0.5MDLEB4-01242001/24/20201246873Total Organic Carbon0.65MG/L0.505310 C-2011J1.0MDLEB3-01232001/23/20201246871Chloroform0.2UG/L0.1524.2J0.5MDLEB3-01232001/23/20201246871Total Organic Carbon0.72MG/L0.505310 C-2011J1.0MDLFAY-CFR-RM-84-01232001/23/20201246868Vanadium0.0022MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-CFR-RM-84-01232001/23/20201246868Zinc0.0051MG/L0.0037200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0200MDLFAY-CFR-RM-84-01232001/23/202012468682,3,7,8-TCDD0.119PG/L0.04011613BJ1613B3.88MDLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244538Molybdenum0.0030MG/L0.0020200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244538Nickel0.0029MG/L0.0021200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-Cross Creek Rec-01222001/22/20201244538Vanadium0.0020MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-01222001/22/20201244543Vanadium0.0028MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-01222001/22/20201244543Zinc0.0043MG/L0.0037200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0200MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244544Vanadium0.0028MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-CFR-RM-54-012220-D01/22/20201244544Zinc0.0039MG/L0.0037200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0200MDLFAY-CFR-RM-76-01232001/23/20201246867Zinc0.0053MG/L0.0037200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0200MDLFAY-HAW RIVER-01212001/21/20201243802Chromium0.0017MG/L0.0016200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0150MDLFAY-HAW RIVER-01212001/21/20201243802Vanadium0.0029MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-DEEP RIVER-01212001/21/20201243801Vanadium0.0024MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLPage 34 of 35
The result is estimated since the concentration is between the method detection limit and practical quantitation limit.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:BASELINE RIVER SAMPLING 1/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResult TypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-Rockfish Creek Rec-01222001/22/2020 1244542Vanadium0.0021 MG/L0.0019200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0100MDLFAY-Little River Mouth-01232001/23/2020 1246870Zinc0.0054 MG/L0.0037200.7 Rev. 4.4J200.70.0200MDLPage 35 of 35

APPENDIX D
Supplemental Analytical Tables
TABLE D1
SEEP AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling
Location ID CFR-BLADEN CFR-BLADEN CFR-KINGS CFR-MILE-76 Intake River Water at Facility
Field Sample ID CAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-040220 CAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-040220-D CAP1Q20-CFR-KINGS-040620 CAP1Q20-CFR-RM-76-040220 EXCESS RIVER WATER-24-040320
Sample Date 4/2/2020 4/2/2020 4/6/2020 4/2/2020 4/3/2020
QA/QC Field Duplicate
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)320-60035-1 320-60035-1 320-60032-1 320-60032-1 320-60029-1
Lab Sample ID 320-60035-1 320-60035-2 320-60032-3 320-60032-1 320-60029-4
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
11Cl-PF3OUdS <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS) <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS) <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
9Cl-PF3ONS <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
ADONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
NaDONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid 3.9 3.7 4.3 4.8 4.2
Perfluorobutanoic Acid 5.1 4.9 5.2 5.2 8.4
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorodecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorododecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid 11 12 13 13 12
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid 4.1 4.3 4.8 4 4.3
Perfluorohexanoic Acid 15 15 14 14 16
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorononanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid <2 UJ <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoropentanoic Acid 12 11 11 12 11
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFOA 7.8 7.8 6.2 7.3 6.9
PFOS 12 12 11 11 8.3
Total Other PFAS 71 71 70 71 71
TR0795 Page 1 of 4 July 2020
TABLE D1
SEEP AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling
GBC-1 OLDOF-1 OUTFALL 002 SEEP-A SEEP-B
CAP1Q20-GBC-1-040220 CAP1Q20-OLDOF-1-24-040320 CAP1Q20-OUTFALL 002-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-A-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-B-24-040320
4/2/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020
320-60031-1 320-60031-1 320-60031-1 320-60027-1 320-60027-1
320-60031-2 320-60031-4 320-60031-3 320-60027-1 320-60027-2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2.3 <2 3.8 <2 <2
8.2 77 5.2 260 500
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 2.4
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 25 9.5 110 150
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 4.1 3.1 2.3
2.5 16 13 44 40
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 8 <2 18 15
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
7.4 140 11 700 1,200
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2.8 33 8.1 31 24
<2 2 11 4.1 3
23 300 66 1,200 1,900
TR0795 Page 2 of 4 July 2020
TABLE D1
SEEP AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling
SEEP-C SEEP-D TARHEEL WC-1 EQBLK
CAP1Q20-SEEP-C-24-040320 CAP1Q20-SEEP-D-24-040320 CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320 CAP1Q20-WC-1-24-040320 CAP1Q20-EQBK-1-040320
4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/3/2020 4/2/2020
Equipment Blank
320-60027-1 320-60027-1 320-60032-1 320-60031-1 320-60032-1
320-60027-3 320-60027-4 320-60032-2 320-60031-1 320-60032-4
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 4 3.8 <2
340 190 5.5 5.9 <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
230 110 11 2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2.5 2.1 4.6 <2 <2
86 43 14 3.5 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 3.1 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
1,700 820 12 7.8 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2
20 12 8.2 5 <2
3.1 <2 12 2.7 <2
2,400 1,200 71 31 ND
TR0795 Page 3 of 4 July 2020
TABLE D1
SEEP AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP SW Sampling
EQBLK EQBLK
CAP1Q20-EQBK-2-040320 CAP1Q20-EB-040620
4/3/2020 4/6/2020
Equipment Blank Equipment Blank
320-60029-1 320-60029-1
320-60029-1 320-60029-2
<2 <2 Notes:
<2 <2 Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
<20 <20 ND - no listed analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits
<20 <20 ng/L - nanograms per liter
<2 <2 QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
<4 <4 SDG - Sample Delivery Group
<20 <20 UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
<2 <2 < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
<2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1
<20 <20
<2 <2
<2 <2
<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
ND ND
TR0795 Page 4 of 4 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
Location ID BLADEN-1D LTW-01 LTW-02 LTW-03 LTW-03 LTW-04
Field Sample ID CAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-021120 CAP1Q20-LTW-01-022420 CAP1Q20-LTW-02-022420 CAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520 CAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D CAP1Q20-LTW-04-022020
Sample Date 2/11/2020 2/24/2020 2/24/2020 2/25/2020 2/25/2020 2/20/2020
QA/QC Field Duplicate
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)320-58585-1 320-58971-1 320-58971-1 320-58966-1 320-58966-1 320-58849-1
Lab Sample ID 320-58585-1 320-58971-1 320-58971-2 320-58966-1 320-58966-2 320-58849-6
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
11Cl-PF3OUdS <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
9Cl-PF3ONS <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
ADONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
NaDONA <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid <2 2.2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorobutanoic Acid 4.1 140 70 120 120 390
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorodecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorododecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid <2 41 14 18 17 67
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid <2 5.1 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorohexanoic Acid <2 24 11 14 12 39
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorononanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoropentanoic Acid 5 400 300 640 640 1,500
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 UJ <2 <2
PFOA <2 27 <2 <2 <2 6.9
PFOS <2 9.7 <2 <2 <2 <2
Total Other PFAS 9 650 400 790 790 2,000
TR0795 Page 1 of 8 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
LTW-05 PIW-1D PIW-1S PIW-3D PIW-7D PIW-7S
CAP1Q20-LTW-05-021920 CAP1Q20-PIW-1D-021420 CAP1Q20-PIW-1S-021320 CAP1Q20-PIW-3D-022420 CAP1Q20-PIW-7D-021920 CAP1Q20-PIW-7S-021920
2/19/2020 2/14/2020 2/13/2020 2/24/2020 2/19/2020 2/19/2020
320-58849-1 320-58652-1 320-58612-1 320-58971-1 320-58849-1 320-58849-1
320-58849-5 320-58652-1 320-58612-6 320-58971-3 320-58849-1 320-58849-2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 2.4 <2 3.4
220 67 21 61 110 270
<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
350 14 11 27 55 74
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 4.3 3.9 <2 4
74 9.4 6.2 20 18 42
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 3.8 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2,000 140 34 120 930 980
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2.4 6.6 14 28 <2 13
<2 <2 3.9 10 <2 4.8
2,600 240 94 280 1,100 1,400
TR0795 Page 2 of 8 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
PW-04 PW-06 PW-07 PW-09 PW-11 PZ-22
CAP1Q20-PW-04-021120 CAP1Q20-PW-06-020620 CAP1Q20-PW-07-021420 CAP1Q20-PW-09-021220 CAP1Q20-PW-11-021320 CAP1Q20-PZ-22-022020
2/11/2020 2/6/2020 2/14/2020 2/12/2020 2/13/2020 2/20/2020
320-58585-1 320-58586-1 320-58652-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58849-1
320-58585-2 320-58586-1 320-58652-2 320-58612-2 320-58612-5 320-58849-7
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <85 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <140 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <20 UJ <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <87 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <43 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 UJ <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
11 11 30 <2 210 120
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 UJ <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
7.8 5 5 <2 450 35
<2 <2 <89 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 4.2 <2
3.8 3.7 3.9 <2 44 18
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 3.7 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 UJ <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
23 14 20 <2 2,000 980
<2 <2 <29 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 UJ <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 5.6 <2 <2 24 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
46 39 59 ND 2,700 1,200
TR0795 Page 3 of 8 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
SMW-10 SMW-10 SMW-11 SMW-12 EB EB
CAP1Q20-SMW-10-021020 CAP1Q20-SMW-10-021020-D CAP1Q20-SMW-11-021120 CAP1Q20-SMW-12-021220 CAP1Q20-EB-020620 CAP1Q20-EB-021020
2/10/2020 2/10/2020 2/11/2020 2/12/2020 2/6/2020 2/10/2020
Field Duplicate Equipment Blank Equipment Blank
320-58586-1 320-58586-1 320-58585-1 320-58612-1 320-58586-1 320-58586-1
320-58586-4 320-58586-5 320-58585-3 320-58612-1 320-58586-2 320-58586-6
<2 <2 <8.7 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <15 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <91 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <240 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <39 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <64 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <91 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <11 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <8.7 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <8.7 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <87 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <40 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <20 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <140 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <9.1 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 16 17 <2 <2
<2 <2 <15 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <14 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <21 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <25 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <8.7 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 11 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <41 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <7.7 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <26 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <7.3 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <12 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <21 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <16 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <14 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 42 44 <2 <2
<2 <2 <13 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <59 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <50 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <39 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <25 <2 <2 <2
ND ND 69 61 ND ND
TR0795 Page 4 of 8 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
EB EB EB EB EB EB
CAP1Q20-EB-021120 CAP1Q20-EB-021220 CAP1Q20-EB-01-021320 CAP1Q20-EB-02-021320 CAP1Q20-EB-021420 CAP1Q20-EB-021920
2/11/2020 2/12/2020 2/13/2020 2/13/2020 2/14/2020 2/19/2020
Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank
320-58585-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58652-1 320-58849-1
320-58585-4 320-58612-3 320-58612-8 320-58612-9 320-58652-3 320-58849-4
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<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 <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
ND ND ND ND ND ND
TR0795 Page 5 of 8 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
EB EB EB EQBLK FBLK FBLK
CAP1Q20-EB-022020 EB-022420 EB-022520 CAP1Q20-EQBLK-02-032720 CAP1Q20-FB-020620 CAP1Q20-FB-021020
2/20/2020 2/24/2020 2/25/2020 3/27/2020 2/6/2020 2/10/2020
Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank
320-58849-1 320-58971-1 320-58966-1 320-59859-1 320-58586-1 320-58586-1
320-58849-9 320-58971-5 320-58966-3 320-59859-1 320-58586-3 320-58586-7
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<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 <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
ND ND ND ND ND ND
TR0795 Page 6 of 8 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
FBLK FBLK FBLK FBLK FBLK FBLK
CAP1Q20-FB-021120 CAP1Q20-FB-021220 CAP1Q20-FB-021320 CAP1Q20-FB-021420 CAP1Q20-FB-021920 CAP1Q20-FB-022020
2/11/2020 2/12/2020 2/13/2020 2/14/2020 2/19/2020 2/20/2020
Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank Field Blank
320-58585-1 320-58612-1 320-58612-1 320-58652-1 320-58849-1 320-58849-1
320-58585-5 320-58612-4 320-58612-7 320-58652-4 320-58849-3 320-58849-8
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1
<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<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 <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
ND ND ND ND ND ND
TR0795 Page 7 of 8 July 2020
TABLE D2
GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OTHER PFAS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Program
Location ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
QA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Other PFAS (ng/L)
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
11Cl-PF3OUdS
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
9Cl-PF3ONS
ADONA
NaDONA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
Total Other PFAS
Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling Q1 2020 CAP MW Sampling
FBLK FBLK
FB-022420 FB-022520
2/24/2020 2/25/2020
Field Blank Field Blank
320-58971-1 320-58966-1
320-58971-4 320-58966-4
<2 <2 Notes:
<2 <2 Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
<20 <20 ND - no listed analytes were detected above the associated reporting limits
<20 <20 ng/L - nanograms per liter
<2 <2 QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
<4 <4 SDG - Sample Delivery Group
<20 <20 UJ – Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
<2 <2 < - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
<2.1 <2.1
<2.1 <2.1
<20 <20
<2 <2
<2 <2
<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
ND ND
TR0795 Page 8 of 8 July 2020

APPENDIX E
Supplemental Flow Data
TABLE E1
SEEP A FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level (kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
4/2/2020 2:09:11 PM 1.84 0.616 194 2,910
4/2/2020 2:24:11 PM 1.81 0.604 185 2,770
4/2/2020 2:39:11 PM 1.93 0.646 221 3,310
4/2/2020 2:54:11 PM 1.89 0.632 208 3,120
4/2/2020 3:09:11 PM 1.86 0.623 200 3,010
4/2/2020 3:24:11 PM 1.83 0.612 191 2,860
4/2/2020 3:39:11 PM 1.84 0.614 193 2,890
4/2/2020 3:54:11 PM 1.82 0.610 190 2,850
4/2/2020 4:09:11 PM 1.81 0.605 185 2,780
4/2/2020 4:24:11 PM 1.80 0.602 183 2,740
4/2/2020 4:39:11 PM 1.81 0.604 185 2,770
4/2/2020 4:54:11 PM 1.80 0.601 182 2,730
4/2/2020 5:09:11 PM 1.80 0.603 184 2,760
4/2/2020 5:24:11 PM 1.81 0.606 186 2,790
4/2/2020 5:39:11 PM 1.76 0.587 172 2,570
4/2/2020 5:54:11 PM 1.76 0.589 173 2,600
4/2/2020 6:09:11 PM 1.77 0.592 175 2,630
4/2/2020 6:24:11 PM 1.78 0.597 179 2,680
4/2/2020 6:39:11 PM 1.73 0.578 164 2,460
4/2/2020 6:54:11 PM 1.75 0.587 171 2,570
4/2/2020 7:09:11 PM 1.76 0.589 173 2,600
4/2/2020 7:24:11 PM 1.79 0.599 180 2,710
4/2/2020 7:39:11 PM 1.67 0.560 151 2,270
4/2/2020 7:54:11 PM 1.68 0.563 154 2,300
4/2/2020 8:09:11 PM 1.70 0.569 158 2,370
4/2/2020 8:24:11 PM 1.72 0.575 162 2,440
4/2/2020 8:39:11 PM 1.72 0.575 162 2,440
4/2/2020 8:54:11 PM 1.75 0.585 170 2,550
4/2/2020 9:09:11 PM 1.77 0.591 175 2,620
4/2/2020 9:24:11 PM 1.79 0.599 181 2,710
4/2/2020 9:39:11 PM 1.71 0.573 160 2,410
4/2/2020 9:54:11 PM 1.72 0.577 164 2,450
4/2/2020 10:09:11 PM 1.74 0.581 167 2,500
4/2/2020 10:24:11 PM 1.74 0.581 167 2,500
4/2/2020 10:39:11 PM 1.71 0.571 160 2,400
4/2/2020 10:54:11 PM 1.72 0.577 163 2,450
4/2/2020 11:09:11 PM 1.73 0.579 165 2,480
4/2/2020 11:24:11 PM 1.73 0.579 165 2,480
4/2/2020 11:39:11 PM 1.73 0.578 165 2,470
4/2/2020 11:54:11 PM 1.73 0.580 166 2,490
4/3/2020 12:09:11 AM 1.73 0.579 165 2,480
4/3/2020 12:24:11 AM 1.72 0.577 164 2,450
4/3/2020 12:39:11 AM 1.77 0.593 176 2,640
4/3/2020 12:54:11 AM 1.77 0.593 176 2,640
4/3/2020 1:09:11 AM 1.76 0.590 174 2,600
4/3/2020 1:24:11 AM 1.77 0.592 175 2,630
4/3/2020 1:39:11 AM 1.76 0.590 173 2,600
4/3/2020 1:54:11 AM 1.76 0.588 172 2,580
4/3/2020 2:09:11 AM 1.75 0.586 170 2,550
4/3/2020 2:24:11 AM 1.72 0.576 163 2,440
4/3/2020 2:39:11 AM 1.80 0.601 182 2,730
4/3/2020 2:54:11 AM 1.79 0.600 181 2,720
4/3/2020 3:09:11 AM 1.80 0.602 183 2,750
4/3/2020 3:24:11 AM 1.81 0.607 187 2,800
4/3/2020 3:39:11 AM 1.76 0.589 173 2,590
4/3/2020 3:54:11 AM 1.77 0.592 175 2,630
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E1
SEEP A FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level (kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
4/3/2020 4:09:11 AM 1.77 0.593 176 2,630
4/3/2020 4:24:11 AM 1.77 0.593 176 2,640
4/3/2020 4:39:11 AM 1.71 0.572 160 2,400
4/3/2020 4:54:11 AM 1.71 0.571 160 2,400
4/3/2020 5:09:11 AM 1.73 0.578 164 2,460
4/3/2020 5:24:11 AM 1.75 0.586 170 2,560
4/3/2020 5:39:11 AM 1.71 0.571 160 2,400
4/3/2020 5:54:11 AM 1.73 0.580 166 2,490
4/3/2020 6:09:11 AM 1.77 0.591 174 2,610
4/3/2020 6:24:11 AM 1.77 0.593 176 2,630
4/3/2020 6:39:11 AM 1.72 0.574 161 2,420
4/3/2020 6:54:11 AM 1.72 0.577 164 2,450
4/3/2020 7:09:11 AM 1.73 0.578 164 2,470
4/3/2020 7:24:11 AM 1.73 0.580 166 2,490
4/3/2020 7:39:11 AM 1.75 0.585 169 2,540
4/3/2020 7:54:11 AM 1.76 0.588 172 2,580
4/3/2020 8:09:11 AM 1.76 0.589 173 2,590
4/3/2020 8:24:11 AM 1.75 0.585 169 2,540
4/3/2020 8:39:11 AM 1.78 0.594 177 2,650
4/3/2020 8:54:11 AM 1.78 0.594 177 2,650
4/3/2020 9:09:11 AM 1.78 0.594 177 2,650
4/3/2020 9:24:11 AM 1.76 0.589 173 2,590
4/3/2020 9:39:11 AM 1.81 0.604 185 2,770
4/3/2020 9:54:11 AM 1.78 0.596 179 2,680
4/3/2020 10:09:11 AM 1.77 0.593 176 2,630
4/3/2020 10:24:11 AM 1.73 0.579 165 2,470
4/3/2020 10:39:11 AM 1.87 0.625 202 3,030
4/3/2020 10:54:11 AM 1.85 0.618 196 2,950
4/3/2020 11:09:11 AM 1.81 0.604 185 2,770
4/3/2020 11:24:11 AM 1.78 0.596 179 2,680
4/3/2020 11:39:11 AM 1.66 0.555 148 1,730 Level logger disturbed. Water level is average of the recordings before and after.
4/3/2020 11:50:52 AM 1.66 0.555 148 2,220 Level logger disturbed. Water level is average of the recordings before and after.
4/3/2020 12:05:52 PM 1.54 0.514 121 1,810
4/3/2020 12:20:52 PM 1.49 0.500 112 1,680
4/3/2020 12:35:52 PM 1.68 0.562 153 2,290
4/3/2020 12:50:52 PM 1.63 0.546 142 2,130
4/3/2020 1:05:52 PM 1.57 0.526 128 1,930
4/3/2020 1:20:52 PM 1.53 0.513 120 1,810
4/3/2020 1:35:52 PM 1.69 0.566 156 2,340
4/3/2020 1:50:52 PM 1.65 0.551 145 2,170
4/3/2020 2:05:52 PM 1.59 0.533 133 2,000
4/3/2020 2:20:52 PM 1.56 0.521 125 1,880
Total 249,080
Acronyms:
ft - feet gpm - gallons per minute
gal - gallons kPa - kilopascals
* - Flow volumes are calculated as the total volume of flow passing through the flume for the duration of the interval where the interval duration is
calculated as the time between the present recording and the previous recording.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E2
SEEP B-TR1 FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
02-04-20 2:30:00 PM 1.14 0.381 57.7 870
02-04-20 2:45:00 PM 1.11 0.372 54.3 810
02-04-20 3:00:00 PM 1.06 0.355 48.1 720
02-04-20 3:15:00 PM 1.02 0.342 43.7 650
02-04-20 3:30:00 PM 1.04 0.347 45.2 680
02-04-20 3:45:00 PM 1.02 0.341 43.3 650
02-04-20 4:00:00 PM 1.00 0.334 41.0 610
02-04-20 4:15:00 PM 0.974 0.326 38.6 580
02-04-20 4:30:00 PM 0.980 0.328 39.2 590
02-04-20 4:45:00 PM 0.981 0.328 39.3 590
02-04-20 5:00:00 PM 0.977 0.327 38.9 580
02-04-20 5:15:00 PM 0.966 0.323 37.7 570
02-04-20 5:30:00 PM 0.905 0.303 31.9 480
02-04-20 5:45:00 PM 0.904 0.302 31.8 480
02-04-20 6:00:00 PM 0.903 0.302 31.7 480
02-04-20 6:15:00 PM 0.923 0.309 33.6 500
02-04-20 6:30:00 PM 0.837 0.280 26.1 390
02-04-20 6:45:00 PM 0.853 0.285 27.4 410
02-04-20 7:00:00 PM 0.874 0.292 29.2 440
02-04-20 7:15:00 PM 0.886 0.296 30.2 450
02-04-20 7:30:00 PM 0.814 0.272 24.3 360
02-04-20 7:45:00 PM 0.821 0.275 24.8 370
02-04-20 8:00:00 PM 0.830 0.278 25.5 380
02-04-20 8:15:00 PM 0.845 0.283 26.7 400
02-04-20 8:30:00 PM 0.834 0.279 25.8 390
02-04-20 8:45:00 PM 0.867 0.290 28.6 430
02-04-20 9:00:00 PM 0.891 0.298 30.6 460
02-04-20 9:15:00 PM 0.912 0.305 32.5 490
02-04-20 9:30:00 PM 0.841 0.281 26.4 400
02-04-20 9:45:00 PM 0.853 0.285 27.4 410
02-04-20 10:00:00 PM 0.858 0.287 27.8 420
02-04-20 10:15:00 PM 0.877 0.293 29.4 440
02-04-20 10:30:00 PM 0.829 0.277 25.4 380
02-04-20 10:45:00 PM 0.854 0.286 27.5 410
02-04-20 11:00:00 PM 0.863 0.289 28.2 420
02-04-20 11:15:00 PM 0.871 0.291 28.9 430
02-04-20 11:30:00 PM 0.871 0.291 28.9 430
02-04-20 11:45:00 PM 0.873 0.292 29.1 440
03-04-20 12:00:00 AM 0.875 0.293 29.2 440
03-04-20 12:15:00 AM 0.864 0.289 28.3 420
03-04-20 12:30:00 AM 0.921 0.308 33.4 500
03-04-20 12:45:00 AM 0.914 0.306 32.7 490
03-04-20 1:00:00 AM 0.908 0.304 32.2 480
03-04-20 1:15:00 AM 0.914 0.306 32.7 490
03-04-20 1:30:00 AM 0.926 0.310 33.8 510
03-04-20 1:45:00 AM 0.903 0.302 31.7 480
03-04-20 2:00:00 AM 0.895 0.299 31.0 460
03-04-20 2:15:00 AM 0.879 0.294 29.6 440
03-04-20 2:30:00 AM 0.928 0.311 34.0 510
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E2
SEEP B-TR1 FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
03-04-20 2:45:00 AM 0.931 0.312 34.3 510
03-04-20 3:00:00 AM 0.932 0.312 34.4 520
03-04-20 3:15:00 AM 0.950 0.318 36.2 540
03-04-20 3:30:00 AM 0.904 0.302 31.8 480
03-04-20 3:45:00 AM 0.902 0.302 31.6 470
03-04-20 4:00:00 AM 0.905 0.303 31.9 480
03-04-20 4:15:00 AM 0.908 0.304 32.2 480
03-04-20 4:30:00 AM 0.851 0.285 27.2 410
03-04-20 4:45:00 AM 0.844 0.282 26.6 400
03-04-20 5:00:00 AM 0.851 0.285 27.2 410
03-04-20 5:15:00 AM 0.877 0.293 29.4 440
03-04-20 5:30:00 AM 0.841 0.281 26.4 400
03-04-20 5:45:00 AM 0.862 0.288 28.1 420
03-04-20 6:00:00 AM 0.888 0.297 30.4 460
03-04-20 6:15:00 AM 0.903 0.302 31.7 480
03-04-20 6:30:00 AM 0.851 0.285 27.2 410
03-04-20 6:45:00 AM 0.855 0.286 27.5 410
03-04-20 7:00:00 AM 0.856 0.286 27.6 410
03-04-20 7:15:00 AM 0.866 0.290 28.5 430
03-04-20 7:30:00 AM 0.881 0.295 29.8 450
03-04-20 7:45:00 AM 0.885 0.296 30.1 450
03-04-20 8:00:00 AM 0.896 0.300 31.1 470
03-04-20 8:15:00 AM 0.889 0.297 30.5 460
03-04-20 8:30:00 AM 0.918 0.307 33.1 500
03-04-20 8:45:00 AM 0.923 0.309 33.6 500
03-04-20 9:00:00 AM 0.916 0.306 32.9 490
03-04-20 9:15:00 AM 0.914 0.306 32.7 490
03-04-20 9:30:00 AM 0.970 0.325 38.2 570
03-04-20 9:45:00 AM 0.954 0.319 36.5 550
03-04-20 10:00:00 AM 0.939 0.314 35.1 530
03-04-20 10:15:00 AM 0.912 0.305 32.5 490
03-04-20 10:30:00 AM 1.03 0.346 45.0 670
03-04-20 10:45:00 AM 1.02 0.342 43.7 650
03-04-20 11:00:00 AM 0.992 0.332 40.4 610
03-04-20 11:15:00 AM 0.958 0.321 36.9 550
03-04-20 11:30:00 AM 1.08 0.362 50.5 760
03-04-20 11:45:00 AM 1.02 0.343 43.9 660
03-04-20 12:00:00 PM 0.992 0.332 40.4 610
03-04-20 12:15:00 PM 0.957 0.320 36.8 550
03-04-20 12:30:00 PM 1.17 0.393 62.4 940
03-04-20 12:45:00 PM 1.15 0.386 59.6 890
03-04-20 1:00:00 PM 1.12 0.375 55.5 830
03-04-20 1:15:00 PM 1.05 0.351 46.8 700
03-04-20 1:30:00 PM 1.20 0.402 66.2 990
03-04-20 1:45:00 PM 1.16 0.387 60.1 900
03-04-20 2:00:00 PM 1.11 0.371 54.0 810
03-04-20 2:15:00 PM 1.05 0.352 47.0 710
03-04-20 2:30:00 PM 1.17 0.392 62.3 930
Total 51,480
Acronyms:
ft - feet gpm - gallons per minute
gal - gallons kPa - kilopascals
* - Flow volumes are calculated as the total volume of flow passing through the flume for the duration of the
interval where the interval duration is calculated as the time between the present recording and the previous
recording.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E3
SEEP B-TR2 FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water Level
(kPa)
Water
Level (ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
4/2/2020 2:30:00 PM 0.990 0.331 40.2 600
4/2/2020 2:45:00 PM 0.959 0.321 37.0 560
4/2/2020 3:00:00 PM 0.913 0.305 32.6 490
4/2/2020 3:15:00 PM 0.884 0.296 30.0 450
4/2/2020 3:30:00 PM 0.893 0.299 30.8 460
4/2/2020 3:45:00 PM 0.874 0.292 29.2 440
4/2/2020 4:00:00 PM 0.852 0.285 27.3 410
4/2/2020 4:15:00 PM 0.831 0.278 25.6 380
4/2/2020 4:30:00 PM 0.835 0.279 25.9 390
4/2/2020 4:45:00 PM 0.831 0.278 25.6 380
4/2/2020 5:00:00 PM 0.837 0.280 26.1 390
4/2/2020 5:15:00 PM 0.835 0.279 25.9 390
4/2/2020 5:30:00 PM 0.782 0.262 21.9 330
4/2/2020 5:45:00 PM 0.785 0.263 22.1 330
4/2/2020 6:00:00 PM 0.786 0.263 22.2 330
4/2/2020 6:15:00 PM 0.797 0.267 23.0 340
4/2/2020 6:30:00 PM 0.733 0.245 18.5 280
4/2/2020 6:45:00 PM 0.753 0.252 19.9 300
4/2/2020 7:00:00 PM 0.775 0.259 21.4 320
4/2/2020 7:15:00 PM 0.790 0.264 22.5 340
4/2/2020 7:30:00 PM 0.685 0.229 15.5 230
4/2/2020 7:45:00 PM 0.691 0.231 15.9 240
4/2/2020 8:00:00 PM 0.702 0.235 16.6 250
4/2/2020 8:15:00 PM 0.717 0.240 17.5 260
4/2/2020 8:30:00 PM 0.704 0.236 16.7 250
4/2/2020 8:45:00 PM 0.734 0.246 18.6 280
4/2/2020 9:00:00 PM 0.762 0.255 20.5 310
4/2/2020 9:15:00 PM 0.782 0.262 21.9 330
4/2/2020 9:30:00 PM 0.710 0.238 17.1 260
4/2/2020 9:45:00 PM 0.723 0.242 17.9 270
4/2/2020 10:00:00 PM 0.726 0.243 18.1 270
4/2/2020 10:15:00 PM 0.742 0.248 19.1 290
4/2/2020 10:30:00 PM 0.694 0.232 16.1 240
4/2/2020 10:45:00 PM 0.724 0.242 17.9 270
4/2/2020 11:00:00 PM 0.731 0.245 18.4 280
4/2/2020 11:15:00 PM 0.736 0.246 18.7 280
4/2/2020 11:30:00 PM 0.733 0.245 18.5 280
4/2/2020 11:45:00 PM 0.735 0.246 18.6 280
4/3/2020 12:00:00 AM 0.734 0.246 18.6 280
4/3/2020 12:15:00 AM 0.726 0.243 18.1 270
4/3/2020 12:30:00 AM 0.784 0.262 22.0 330
4/3/2020 12:45:00 AM 0.773 0.259 21.2 320
4/3/2020 1:00:00 AM 0.764 0.256 20.6 310
4/3/2020 1:15:00 AM 0.774 0.259 21.3 320
4/3/2020 1:30:00 AM 0.784 0.262 22.0 330
4/3/2020 1:45:00 AM 0.760 0.254 20.3 300
4/3/2020 2:00:00 AM 0.755 0.253 20.0 300
4/3/2020 2:15:00 AM 0.738 0.247 18.8 280
4/3/2020 2:30:00 AM 0.788 0.264 22.3 330
4/3/2020 2:45:00 AM 0.792 0.265 22.6 340
4/3/2020 3:00:00 AM 0.787 0.263 22.2 330
4/3/2020 3:15:00 AM 0.812 0.272 24.1 360
4/3/2020 3:30:00 AM 0.765 0.256 20.7 310
4/3/2020 3:45:00 AM 0.760 0.254 20.3 300
4/3/2020 4:00:00 AM 0.763 0.255 20.5 310
4/3/2020 4:15:00 AM 0.763 0.255 20.5 310
4/3/2020 4:30:00 AM 0.705 0.236 16.7 250
4/3/2020 4:45:00 AM 0.703 0.235 16.6 250
4/3/2020 5:00:00 AM 0.711 0.238 17.1 260
4/3/2020 5:15:00 AM 0.736 0.246 18.7 280
4/3/2020 5:30:00 AM 0.699 0.234 16.4 250
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E3
SEEP B-TR2 FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water Level
(kPa)
Water
Level (ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
4/3/2020 5:45:00 AM 0.717 0.240 17.5 260
4/3/2020 6:00:00 AM 0.745 0.249 19.3 290
4/3/2020 6:15:00 AM 0.759 0.254 20.3 300
4/3/2020 6:30:00 AM 0.711 0.238 17.1 260
4/3/2020 6:45:00 AM 0.714 0.239 17.3 260
4/3/2020 7:00:00 AM 0.714 0.239 17.3 260
4/3/2020 7:15:00 AM 0.725 0.243 18.0 270
4/3/2020 7:30:00 AM 0.734 0.246 18.6 280
4/3/2020 7:45:00 AM 0.744 0.249 19.2 290
4/3/2020 8:00:00 AM 0.752 0.252 19.8 300
4/3/2020 8:15:00 AM 0.745 0.249 19.3 290
4/3/2020 8:30:00 AM 0.774 0.259 21.3 320
4/3/2020 8:45:00 AM 0.774 0.259 21.3 320
4/3/2020 9:00:00 AM 0.772 0.258 21.2 320
4/3/2020 9:15:00 AM 0.770 0.258 21.0 320
4/3/2020 9:30:00 AM 0.824 0.276 25.0 380
4/3/2020 9:45:00 AM 0.802 0.268 23.4 350
4/3/2020 10:00:00 AM 0.792 0.265 22.6 340
4/3/2020 10:15:00 AM 0.762 0.255 20.5 310
4/3/2020 10:30:00 AM 0.889 0.297 30.5 460
4/3/2020 10:45:00 AM 0.878 0.294 29.5 440
4/3/2020 11:00:00 AM 0.853 0.285 27.4 410
4/3/2020 11:15:00 AM 0.821 0.275 24.8 370
4/3/2020 11:30:00 AM 0.946 0.317 35.8 540
4/3/2020 11:45:00 AM 0.893 0.299 30.8 460
4/3/2020 12:00:00 PM 0.857 0.287 27.7 420
4/3/2020 12:15:00 PM 0.808 0.270 23.8 360
4/3/2020 12:30:00 PM 0.975 0.326 38.7 580
4/3/2020 12:45:00 PM 0.931 0.312 34.3 510
4/3/2020 1:00:00 PM 0.890 0.298 30.6 460
4/3/2020 1:15:00 PM 0.839 0.281 26.2 390
4/3/2020 1:30:00 PM 1.04 0.346 45.1 680
4/3/2020 1:45:00 PM 0.973 0.326 38.5 580
4/3/2020 2:00:00 PM 0.936 0.313 34.8 520
4/3/2020 2:15:00 PM 0.895 0.299 31.0 460
4/3/2020 2:30:00 PM 1.03 0.345 44.5 670
Total 33,730
Acronyms:
ft - feet gpm - gallons per minute
gal - gallons kPa - kilopascals
* - Flow volumes are calculated as the total volume of flow passing through the flume for the duration of the
interval where the interval duration is calculated as the time between the present recording and the previous
recording.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E4
SEEP B-2 FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow Volume
(gal)*Notes
4/2/2020 2:30:00 PM 1.56 0.523 126 1,890
4/2/2020 2:45:00 PM 1.54 0.514 121 1,810
4/2/2020 3:00:00 PM 1.49 0.500 112 1,680
4/2/2020 3:15:00 PM 1.46 0.489 106 1,590
4/2/2020 3:30:00 PM 1.49 0.498 111 1,660
4/2/2020 3:45:00 PM 1.46 0.489 106 1,590
4/2/2020 4:00:00 PM 1.44 0.483 103 1,540
4/2/2020 4:15:00 PM 1.42 0.474 97.9 1,470
4/2/2020 4:30:00 PM 1.42 0.476 98.8 1,480
4/2/2020 4:45:00 PM 1.43 0.479 101 1,510
4/2/2020 5:00:00 PM 1.44 0.481 102 1,530
4/2/2020 5:15:00 PM 1.42 0.476 98.6 1,480
4/2/2020 5:30:00 PM 1.38 0.462 91.1 1,370
4/2/2020 5:45:00 PM 1.38 0.462 91.5 1,370
4/2/2020 6:00:00 PM 1.38 0.462 91.3 1,370
4/2/2020 6:15:00 PM 1.39 0.465 93.1 1,400
4/2/2020 6:30:00 PM 1.33 0.444 82.4 1,240
4/2/2020 6:45:00 PM 1.35 0.451 85.5 1,280
4/2/2020 7:00:00 PM 1.37 0.459 89.6 1,340
4/2/2020 7:15:00 PM 1.38 0.463 91.8 1,380
4/2/2020 7:30:00 PM 1.28 0.427 74.0 1,110
4/2/2020 7:45:00 PM 1.29 0.431 75.9 1,140
4/2/2020 8:00:00 PM 1.30 0.435 78.1 1,170
4/2/2020 8:15:00 PM 1.31 0.437 78.8 1,180
4/2/2020 8:30:00 PM 1.31 0.439 79.6 1,190
4/2/2020 8:45:00 PM 1.34 0.447 83.9 1,260
4/2/2020 9:00:00 PM 1.35 0.453 86.5 1,300
4/2/2020 9:15:00 PM 1.39 0.464 92.2 1,380
4/2/2020 9:30:00 PM 1.30 0.436 78.5 1,180
4/2/2020 9:45:00 PM 1.32 0.442 81.3 1,220
4/2/2020 10:00:00 PM 1.32 0.443 81.6 1,220
4/2/2020 10:15:00 PM 1.33 0.446 83.4 1,250
4/2/2020 10:30:00 PM 1.29 0.431 76.2 1,140
4/2/2020 10:45:00 PM 1.31 0.440 80.1 1,200
4/2/2020 11:00:00 PM 1.33 0.445 82.9 1,240
4/2/2020 11:15:00 PM 1.32 0.443 81.6 1,220
4/2/2020 11:30:00 PM 1.33 0.443 81.9 1,230
4/2/2020 11:45:00 PM 1.32 0.443 81.6 1,220
4/3/2020 12:00:00 AM 1.33 0.445 82.7 1,240
4/3/2020 12:15:00 AM 1.31 0.438 79.5 1,190
4/3/2020 12:30:00 AM 1.37 0.458 89.4 1,340
4/3/2020 12:45:00 AM 1.36 0.454 87.0 1,310
4/3/2020 1:00:00 AM 1.37 0.458 89.1 1,340
4/3/2020 1:15:00 AM 1.36 0.455 87.5 1,310
4/3/2020 1:30:00 AM 1.38 0.461 90.8 1,360
4/3/2020 1:45:00 AM 1.35 0.453 86.7 1,300
4/3/2020 2:00:00 AM 1.35 0.452 86.0 1,290
4/3/2020 2:15:00 AM 1.33 0.446 83.4 1,250
4/3/2020 2:30:00 AM 1.37 0.460 90.1 1,350
4/3/2020 2:45:00 AM 1.38 0.461 90.8 1,360
4/3/2020 3:00:00 AM 1.39 0.464 92.5 1,390
4/3/2020 3:15:00 AM 1.41 0.470 95.6 1,430
4/3/2020 3:30:00 AM 1.36 0.455 87.7 1,320
4/3/2020 3:45:00 AM 1.36 0.455 87.5 1,310
4/3/2020 4:00:00 AM 1.35 0.452 86.2 1,290
4/3/2020 4:15:00 AM 1.36 0.454 87.2 1,310
4/3/2020 4:30:00 AM 1.29 0.433 77.0 1,150
4/3/2020 4:45:00 AM 1.29 0.432 76.6 1,150
4/3/2020 5:00:00 AM 1.31 0.437 78.8 1,180
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E4
SEEP B-2 FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow Volume
(gal)*Notes
4/3/2020 5:15:00 AM 1.32 0.442 81.4 1,220
4/3/2020 5:30:00 AM 1.29 0.432 76.6 1,150
4/3/2020 5:45:00 AM 1.31 0.437 78.8 1,180
4/3/2020 6:00:00 AM 1.34 0.448 84.0 1,260
4/3/2020 6:15:00 AM 1.34 0.448 84.2 1,260
4/3/2020 6:30:00 AM 1.29 0.432 76.3 1,140
4/3/2020 6:45:00 AM 1.31 0.437 78.8 1,180
4/3/2020 7:00:00 AM 1.31 0.437 79.0 1,190
4/3/2020 7:15:00 AM 1.32 0.440 80.4 1,210
4/3/2020 7:30:00 AM 1.32 0.443 81.7 1,230
4/3/2020 7:45:00 AM 1.34 0.449 84.7 1,270
4/3/2020 8:00:00 AM 1.33 0.446 83.4 1,250
4/3/2020 8:15:00 AM 1.34 0.449 84.7 1,270
4/3/2020 8:30:00 AM 1.35 0.453 86.5 1,300
4/3/2020 8:45:00 AM 1.37 0.459 89.8 1,350
4/3/2020 9:00:00 AM 1.36 0.455 87.7 1,320
4/3/2020 9:15:00 AM 1.36 0.455 87.9 1,320
4/3/2020 9:30:00 AM 1.40 0.469 95.2 1,430
4/3/2020 9:45:00 AM 1.39 0.465 92.9 1,390
4/3/2020 10:00:00 AM 1.38 0.462 91.5 1,370
4/3/2020 10:15:00 AM 1.37 0.457 88.9 1,330
4/3/2020 10:30:00 AM 1.50 0.503 114 1,710
4/3/2020 10:45:00 AM 1.48 0.494 109 1,630
4/3/2020 11:00:00 AM 1.44 0.483 103 1,540
4/3/2020 11:15:00 AM 1.40 0.469 94.8 1,420
4/3/2020 11:30:00 AM 1.53 0.510 119 1,780
4/3/2020 11:45:00 AM 1.47 0.492 108 1,610
4/3/2020 12:00:00 PM 1.43 0.479 101 1,510
4/3/2020 12:15:00 PM 1.38 0.463 91.7 1,380
4/3/2020 12:30:00 PM 1.55 0.518 123 1,850
4/3/2020 12:45:00 PM 1.50 0.500 113 1,690
4/3/2020 1:00:00 PM 1.46 0.489 106 1,590
4/3/2020 1:15:00 PM 1.42 0.474 97.7 1,470
4/3/2020 1:30:00 PM 1.59 0.531 132 1,970
4/3/2020 1:45:00 PM 1.55 0.520 124 1,870
4/3/2020 2:00:00 PM 1.49 0.500 112 1,680
4/3/2020 2:15:00 PM 1.45 0.487 105 1,570
4/3/2020 2:30:00 PM 1.60 0.534 134 2,010
Total 133,900
Acronyms:
ft - feet gpm - gallons per minute
gal - gallons kPa - kilopascals
* - Flow volumes are calculated as the total volume of flow passing through the flume for the duration of the
interval where the interval duration is calculated as the time between the present recording and the previous
recording.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E5
SEEP C FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
02-04-20 2:30:00 PM 1.37 0.458 89.2 1,340
02-04-20 2:45:00 PM 1.34 0.448 84.0 1,260
02-04-20 3:00:00 PM 1.30 0.434 77.4 1,160
02-04-20 3:15:00 PM 1.27 0.425 73.1 1,100
02-04-20 3:30:00 PM 1.29 0.430 75.6 1,130
02-04-20 3:45:00 PM 1.27 0.424 73.0 1,090
02-04-20 4:00:00 PM 1.25 0.418 70.1 1,050
02-04-20 4:15:00 PM 1.23 0.411 66.9 1,000
02-04-20 4:30:00 PM 1.23 0.413 67.9 1,020
02-04-20 4:45:00 PM 1.23 0.412 67.5 1,010
02-04-20 5:00:00 PM 1.23 0.412 67.5 1,010
02-04-20 5:15:00 PM 1.24 0.416 69.1 1,040
02-04-20 5:30:00 PM 1.18 0.396 60.9 910
02-04-20 5:45:00 PM 1.19 0.397 61.3 920
02-04-20 6:00:00 PM 1.19 0.400 62.3 930
02-04-20 6:15:00 PM 1.21 0.405 64.6 970
02-04-20 6:30:00 PM 1.14 0.382 55.5 830
02-04-20 6:45:00 PM 1.17 0.390 58.5 880
02-04-20 7:00:00 PM 1.19 0.397 61.1 920
02-04-20 7:15:00 PM 1.20 0.402 63.1 950
02-04-20 7:30:00 PM 1.10 0.367 50.0 750
02-04-20 7:45:00 PM 1.10 0.369 50.7 760
02-04-20 8:00:00 PM 1.12 0.373 52.1 780
02-04-20 8:15:00 PM 1.14 0.380 54.5 820
02-04-20 8:30:00 PM 1.12 0.374 52.3 780
02-04-20 8:45:00 PM 1.15 0.383 55.8 840
02-04-20 9:00:00 PM 1.18 0.393 59.8 900
02-04-20 9:15:00 PM 1.20 0.401 62.7 940
02-04-20 9:30:00 PM 1.13 0.376 53.3 800
02-04-20 9:45:00 PM 1.14 0.382 55.4 830
02-04-20 10:00:00 PM 1.14 0.382 55.3 830
02-04-20 10:15:00 PM 1.16 0.388 57.6 860
02-04-20 10:30:00 PM 1.11 0.371 51.2 770
02-04-20 10:45:00 PM 1.14 0.381 54.9 820
02-04-20 11:00:00 PM 1.15 0.383 55.8 840
02-04-20 11:15:00 PM 1.15 0.384 56.2 840
02-04-20 11:30:00 PM 1.14 0.382 55.4 830
02-04-20 11:45:00 PM 1.14 0.383 55.7 830
03-04-20 12:00:00 AM 1.14 0.381 54.9 820
03-04-20 12:15:00 AM 1.13 0.379 54.4 820
03-04-20 12:30:00 AM 1.19 0.397 61.2 920
03-04-20 12:45:00 AM 1.18 0.396 60.9 910
03-04-20 1:00:00 AM 1.17 0.392 59.3 890
03-04-20 1:15:00 AM 1.18 0.394 60.1 900
03-04-20 1:30:00 AM 1.19 0.398 61.7 930
03-04-20 1:45:00 AM 1.17 0.392 59.4 890
03-04-20 2:00:00 AM 1.16 0.389 58.3 870
03-04-20 2:15:00 AM 1.15 0.383 55.8 840
03-04-20 2:30:00 AM 1.21 0.403 63.8 960
03-04-20 2:45:00 AM 1.20 0.402 63.1 950
03-04-20 3:00:00 AM 1.20 0.400 62.6 940
03-04-20 3:15:00 AM 1.23 0.410 66.6 1,000
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E5
SEEP C FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
03-04-20 3:30:00 AM 1.17 0.392 59.2 890
03-04-20 3:45:00 AM 1.17 0.392 59.3 890
03-04-20 4:00:00 AM 1.17 0.392 59.3 890
03-04-20 4:15:00 AM 1.17 0.393 59.6 890
03-04-20 4:30:00 AM 1.12 0.373 52.0 780
03-04-20 4:45:00 AM 1.11 0.371 51.2 770
03-04-20 5:00:00 AM 1.13 0.377 53.5 800
03-04-20 5:15:00 AM 1.15 0.384 56.2 840
03-04-20 5:30:00 AM 1.11 0.372 51.8 780
03-04-20 5:45:00 AM 1.13 0.379 54.3 810
03-04-20 6:00:00 AM 1.16 0.387 57.3 860
03-04-20 6:15:00 AM 1.17 0.393 59.6 890
03-04-20 6:30:00 AM 1.12 0.375 52.9 790
03-04-20 6:45:00 AM 1.13 0.377 53.4 800
03-04-20 7:00:00 AM 1.13 0.376 53.3 800
03-04-20 7:15:00 AM 1.14 0.380 54.5 820
03-04-20 7:30:00 AM 1.15 0.384 56.3 840
03-04-20 7:45:00 AM 1.16 0.387 57.2 860
03-04-20 8:00:00 AM 1.17 0.390 58.5 880
03-04-20 8:15:00 AM 1.16 0.388 57.7 870
03-04-20 8:30:00 AM 1.18 0.394 60.1 900
03-04-20 8:45:00 AM 1.19 0.397 61.3 920
03-04-20 9:00:00 AM 1.19 0.397 61.3 920
03-04-20 9:15:00 AM 1.18 0.394 60.2 900
03-04-20 9:30:00 AM 1.23 0.411 66.9 1,000
03-04-20 9:45:00 AM 1.21 0.405 64.5 970
03-04-20 10:00:00 AM 1.19 0.399 62.1 930
03-04-20 10:15:00 AM 1.17 0.391 59.0 890
03-04-20 10:30:00 AM 1.29 0.432 76.6 1,150
03-04-20 10:45:00 AM 1.28 0.427 74.2 1,110
03-04-20 11:00:00 AM 1.26 0.422 71.9 1,080
03-04-20 11:15:00 AM 1.21 0.405 64.4 970
03-04-20 11:30:00 AM 1.35 0.451 85.7 1,290
03-04-20 11:45:00 AM 1.28 0.427 74.3 1,110
03-04-20 12:00:00 PM 1.25 0.418 70.0 1,050
03-04-20 12:15:00 PM 1.20 0.400 62.4 940
03-04-20 12:30:00 PM 1.37 0.457 88.7 1,330
03-04-20 12:45:00 PM 1.32 0.441 80.9 1,210
03-04-20 1:00:00 PM 1.28 0.428 74.5 1,120
03-04-20 1:15:00 PM 1.29 0.431 76.2 1,140
03-04-20 1:30:00 PM 1.35 0.451 85.9 1,290
03-04-20 1:45:00 PM 1.31 0.438 79.2 1,190
03-04-20 2:00:00 PM 1.26 0.422 71.8 1,080
03-04-20 2:15:00 PM 1.21 0.404 64.2 960
03-04-20 2:30:00 PM 1.32 0.441 80.8 1,210
Total 91,390
Acronyms:
ft - feet gpm - gallons per minute
gal - gallons kPa - kilopascals
* - Flow volumes are calculated as the total volume of flow passing through the flume for the duration of the
interval where the interval duration is calculated as the time between the present recording and the previous
recording.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E6
SEEP D FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Corrected
Flow Rate
(gpm)*
Flow
Volume
(gal)**
Notes
4/2/2020 2:30:00 PM 1.99 0.66 242 120 1,800
4/2/2020 2:45:00 PM 1.96 0.65 233 120 1,800
4/2/2020 3:00:00 PM 1.87 0.62 206 120 1,800
4/2/2020 3:15:00 PM 1.84 0.62 199 120 1,800
4/2/2020 3:30:00 PM 1.86 0.62 204 120 1,800
4/2/2020 3:45:00 PM 1.84 0.62 199 120 1,800
4/2/2020 4:00:00 PM 1.82 0.61 193 120 1,800
4/2/2020 4:15:00 PM 1.79 0.60 185 120 1,800
4/2/2020 4:30:00 PM 1.78 0.60 184 120 1,800
4/2/2020 4:45:00 PM 1.77 0.59 180 120 1,800
4/2/2020 5:00:00 PM 1.75 0.59 175 120 1,800
4/2/2020 5:15:00 PM 1.75 0.58 174 120 1,800
4/2/2020 5:30:00 PM 1.68 0.56 156 120 1,800
4/2/2020 5:45:00 PM 1.67 0.56 156 120 1,800
4/2/2020 6:00:00 PM 1.68 0.56 158 120 1,800
4/2/2020 6:15:00 PM 1.69 0.57 160 120 1,800
4/2/2020 6:30:00 PM 1.62 0.54 142 120 1,800
4/2/2020 6:45:00 PM 1.63 0.55 146 120 1,800
4/2/2020 7:00:00 PM 1.66 0.55 152 120 1,800
4/2/2020 7:15:00 PM 1.67 0.56 155 120 1,800
4/2/2020 7:30:00 PM 1.56 0.52 131 120 1,800
4/2/2020 7:45:00 PM 1.57 0.52 131 120 1,800
4/2/2020 8:00:00 PM 1.57 0.53 132 120 1,800
4/2/2020 8:15:00 PM 1.59 0.53 136 120 1,800
4/2/2020 8:30:00 PM 1.57 0.53 132 120 1,800
4/2/2020 8:45:00 PM 1.60 0.53 138 120 1,800
4/2/2020 9:00:00 PM 1.62 0.54 143 120 1,800
4/2/2020 9:15:00 PM 1.64 0.55 147 120 1,800
4/2/2020 9:30:00 PM 1.56 0.52 130 120 1,800
4/2/2020 9:45:00 PM 1.57 0.53 133 120 1,800
4/2/2020 10:00:00 PM 1.57 0.53 132 120 1,800
4/2/2020 10:15:00 PM 1.58 0.53 134 120 1,800
4/2/2020 10:30:00 PM 1.52 0.51 122 120 1,800
4/2/2020 10:45:00 PM 1.56 0.52 129 120 1,800
4/2/2020 11:00:00 PM 1.58 0.53 133 120 1,800
4/2/2020 11:15:00 PM 1.56 0.52 130 120 1,800
4/2/2020 11:30:00 PM 1.54 0.51 125 120 1,800
4/2/2020 11:45:00 PM 1.52 0.51 121 120 1,800
4/3/2020 12:00:00 AM 1.49 0.50 116 116 1,740
4/3/2020 12:15:00 AM 1.48 0.49 113 113 1,700
4/3/2020 12:30:00 AM 1.51 0.51 120 120 1,800
4/3/2020 12:45:00 AM 1.50 0.50 118 118 1,770
4/3/2020 1:00:00 AM 1.49 0.50 115 115 1,730
4/3/2020 1:15:00 AM 1.48 0.50 114 114 1,710
4/3/2020 1:30:00 AM 1.48 0.50 113 113 1,700
4/3/2020 1:45:00 AM 1.46 0.49 109 109 1,630
4/3/2020 2:00:00 AM 1.51 0.51 120 120 1,800
4/3/2020 2:15:00 AM 1.49 0.50 116 116 1,740
4/3/2020 2:30:00 AM 1.55 0.52 127 120 1,800
4/3/2020 2:45:00 AM 1.56 0.52 130 120 1,800
4/3/2020 3:00:00 AM 1.56 0.52 130 120 1,800
4/3/2020 3:15:00 AM 1.58 0.53 135 120 1,800
4/3/2020 3:30:00 AM 1.54 0.51 125 120 1,800
4/3/2020 3:45:00 AM 1.54 0.51 126 120 1,800
4/3/2020 4:00:00 AM 1.55 0.52 127 120 1,800
4/3/2020 4:15:00 AM 1.55 0.52 127 120 1,800
4/3/2020 4:30:00 AM 1.50 0.50 116 116 1,750
4/3/2020 4:45:00 AM 1.49 0.50 115 115 1,730
4/3/2020 5:00:00 AM 1.51 0.50 119 119 1,790
4/3/2020 5:15:00 AM 1.54 0.52 126 120 1,800
4/3/2020 5:30:00 AM 1.50 0.50 118 118 1,770
4/3/2020 5:45:00 AM 1.52 0.51 122 120 1,800
4/3/2020 6:00:00 AM 1.56 0.52 130 120 1,800
4/3/2020 6:15:00 AM 1.58 0.53 134 120 1,800
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E6
SEEP D FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Corrected
Flow Rate
(gpm)*
Flow
Volume
(gal)**
Notes
4/3/2020 6:30:00 AM 1.53 0.51 124 120 1,800
4/3/2020 6:45:00 AM 1.54 0.51 125 120 1,800
4/3/2020 7:00:00 AM 1.53 0.51 123 120 1,800
4/3/2020 7:15:00 AM 1.52 0.51 121 120 1,800
4/3/2020 7:30:00 AM 1.52 0.51 121 120 1,800
4/3/2020 7:45:00 AM 1.51 0.51 120 120 1,800
4/3/2020 8:00:00 AM 1.51 0.50 119 119 1,790
4/3/2020 8:15:00 AM 1.51 0.50 119 119 1,790
4/3/2020 8:30:00 AM 1.56 0.52 129 120 1,800
4/3/2020 8:45:00 AM 1.58 0.53 134 120 1,800
4/3/2020 9:00:00 AM 1.61 0.54 141 120 1,800
4/3/2020 9:15:00 AM 1.66 0.55 152 120 1,800
4/3/2020 9:30:00 AM 1.75 0.58 174 120 1,800
4/3/2020 9:45:00 AM 1.77 0.59 181 120 1,800
4/3/2020 10:00:00 AM 1.77 0.59 180 120 1,800
4/3/2020 10:15:00 AM 1.76 0.59 178 120 1,800
4/3/2020 10:30:00 AM 1.88 0.63 209 120 1,800
4/3/2020 10:45:00 AM 1.86 0.62 205 120 1,800
4/3/2020 11:00:00 AM 1.85 0.62 202 120 1,800
4/3/2020 11:15:00 AM 1.82 0.61 194 120 1,800
4/3/2020 11:30:00 AM 1.96 0.65 233 120 1,800
4/3/2020 11:45:00 AM 1.83 0.61 195 120 1,800
4/3/2020 12:00:00 PM 1.84 0.61 198 120 1,800
4/3/2020 12:15:00 PM 1.81 0.61 192 120 1,800
4/3/2020 12:30:00 PM 1.99 0.67 245 120 1,800
4/3/2020 12:45:00 PM 1.85 0.62 201 120 1,100
4/3/2020 12:54:08 PM 1.74 0.58 172 120 1,800 Level logger disturbed. Water level is average of the recordings before and after.
4/3/2020 1:09:08 PM 1.63 0.55 145 120 1,800
4/3/2020 1:24:08 PM 1.58 0.53 133 120 1,800
4/3/2020 1:39:08 PM 1.75 0.58 174 120 1,800
4/3/2020 1:54:08 PM 1.69 0.57 160 120 1,800
4/3/2020 2:09:08 PM 1.65 0.55 150 120 1,800
4/3/2020 2:24:08 PM 1.61 0.54 140 120 1,800
4/3/2020 2:39:08 PM 1.74 0.58 171 120 1,800
Total 174,840
Notes:
Acronyms:
ft - feet gpm - gallons per minute
gal - gallons kPa - kilopascals
* - The maximum flow rate that can be accurately measured for the flume installed at Seep D is 120 GPM. This maximum flow rate was assumed any time the measured water level
indicated a flow rate greater than 120 GPM. A larger flume was installed at Seep D after this sampling event.
** - Flow volumes are calculated as the total volume of flow passing through the flume for the duration of the interval where the interval duration is calculated as the
time between the present recording and the previous recording.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E7
OLD OUTFALL FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
4/2/2020 2:45:00 PM 3.03 1.01 721 10,800
4/2/2020 3:00:00 PM 3.00 1.00 702 10,500
4/2/2020 3:15:00 PM 2.97 0.99 682 10,200
4/2/2020 3:30:00 PM 2.97 0.99 685 10,300
4/2/2020 3:45:00 PM 2.97 0.99 683 10,200
4/2/2020 4:00:00 PM 2.95 0.99 673 10,100
4/2/2020 4:15:00 PM 2.93 0.98 657 9,860
4/2/2020 4:30:00 PM 2.94 0.98 666 9,990
4/2/2020 4:45:00 PM 2.94 0.98 665 9,980
4/2/2020 5:00:00 PM 2.93 0.98 663 9,940
4/2/2020 5:15:00 PM 2.95 0.99 670 10,000
4/2/2020 5:30:00 PM 2.90 0.97 644 9,660
4/2/2020 5:45:00 PM 2.90 0.97 641 9,620
4/2/2020 6:00:00 PM 2.90 0.97 644 9,670
4/2/2020 6:15:00 PM 2.91 0.97 648 9,720
4/2/2020 6:30:00 PM 2.85 0.95 613 9,200
4/2/2020 6:45:00 PM 2.87 0.96 624 9,360
4/2/2020 7:00:00 PM 2.90 0.97 641 9,610
4/2/2020 7:15:00 PM 2.91 0.97 648 9,730
4/2/2020 7:30:00 PM 2.81 0.94 593 8,900
4/2/2020 7:45:00 PM 2.81 0.94 594 8,910
4/2/2020 8:00:00 PM 2.83 0.95 600 9,000
4/2/2020 8:15:00 PM 2.85 0.95 611 9,170
4/2/2020 8:30:00 PM 2.83 0.95 600 9,000
4/2/2020 8:45:00 PM 2.86 0.96 618 9,270
4/2/2020 9:00:00 PM 2.89 0.97 636 9,540
4/2/2020 9:15:00 PM 2.91 0.97 646 9,680
4/2/2020 9:30:00 PM 2.84 0.95 609 9,140
4/2/2020 9:45:00 PM 2.85 0.95 614 9,220
4/2/2020 10:00:00 PM 2.85 0.95 615 9,230
4/2/2020 10:15:00 PM 2.87 0.96 626 9,400
4/2/2020 10:30:00 PM 2.81 0.94 593 8,900
4/2/2020 10:45:00 PM 2.85 0.95 613 9,190
4/2/2020 11:00:00 PM 2.85 0.95 616 9,230
4/2/2020 11:15:00 PM 2.85 0.95 616 9,240
4/2/2020 11:30:00 PM 2.85 0.95 614 9,210
4/2/2020 11:45:00 PM 2.86 0.96 620 9,300
4/3/2020 12:00:00 AM 2.85 0.95 614 9,220
4/3/2020 12:15:00 AM 2.85 0.95 616 9,240
4/3/2020 12:30:00 AM 2.90 0.97 642 9,630
4/3/2020 12:45:00 AM 2.89 0.97 639 9,580
4/3/2020 1:00:00 AM 2.89 0.97 639 9,580
4/3/2020 1:15:00 AM 2.89 0.97 635 9,520
4/3/2020 1:30:00 AM 2.91 0.97 646 9,680
4/3/2020 1:45:00 AM 2.87 0.96 628 9,410
4/3/2020 2:00:00 AM 2.88 0.96 629 9,430
4/3/2020 2:15:00 AM 2.85 0.95 616 9,240
4/3/2020 2:30:00 AM 2.91 0.97 647 9,710
4/3/2020 2:45:00 AM 2.91 0.97 647 9,710
4/3/2020 3:00:00 AM 2.91 0.97 648 9,730
4/3/2020 3:15:00 AM 2.93 0.98 660 9,900
4/3/2020 3:30:00 AM 2.88 0.96 632 9,470
4/3/2020 3:45:00 AM 2.88 0.96 630 9,460
4/3/2020 4:00:00 AM 2.89 0.97 635 9,530
4/3/2020 4:15:00 AM 2.88 0.96 632 9,470
4/3/2020 4:30:00 AM 2.83 0.95 601 9,010
4/3/2020 4:45:00 AM 2.83 0.95 600 9,000
4/3/2020 5:00:00 AM 2.83 0.95 605 9,070
4/3/2020 5:15:00 AM 2.86 0.96 621 9,310
4/3/2020 5:30:00 AM 2.82 0.94 598 8,970
TR0795 Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E7
OLD OUTFALL FLUME DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Time
Water
Level
(kPa)
Water
Level
(ft)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Flow
Volume
(gal)*
Notes
4/3/2020 5:45:00 AM 2.85 0.95 613 9,200
4/3/2020 6:00:00 AM 2.88 0.96 629 9,440
4/3/2020 6:15:00 AM 2.89 0.97 635 9,520
4/3/2020 6:30:00 AM 2.84 0.95 607 9,110
4/3/2020 6:45:00 AM 2.84 0.95 611 9,160
4/3/2020 7:00:00 AM 2.84 0.95 607 9,110
4/3/2020 7:15:00 AM 2.85 0.95 612 9,180
4/3/2020 7:30:00 AM 2.87 0.96 623 9,350
4/3/2020 7:45:00 AM 2.86 0.96 621 9,310
4/3/2020 8:00:00 AM 2.88 0.96 629 9,440
4/3/2020 8:15:00 AM 2.87 0.96 625 9,370
4/3/2020 8:30:00 AM 2.90 0.97 643 9,640
4/3/2020 8:45:00 AM 2.90 0.97 642 9,630
4/3/2020 9:00:00 AM 2.89 0.97 635 9,520
4/3/2020 9:15:00 AM 2.89 0.97 634 9,510
4/3/2020 9:30:00 AM 2.95 0.99 672 10,100
4/3/2020 9:45:00 AM 2.92 0.98 652 9,780
4/3/2020 10:00:00 AM 2.90 0.97 643 9,640
4/3/2020 10:15:00 AM 2.87 0.96 625 9,370
4/3/2020 10:30:00 AM 3.00 1.00 703 10,500
4/3/2020 10:45:00 AM 2.98 1.00 691 10,400
4/3/2020 11:00:00 AM 2.95 0.99 670 10,000
4/3/2020 11:15:00 AM 2.90 0.97 641 9,610
4/3/2020 11:30:00 AM 3.02 1.01 717 10,800
4/3/2020 11:45:00 AM 2.96 0.99 677 10,200
4/3/2020 12:00:00 PM 2.92 0.98 657 9,850
4/3/2020 12:15:00 PM 2.87 0.96 628 9,410
4/3/2020 12:30:00 PM 3.04 1.02 729 6,940
4/3/2020 12:39:31 PM 3.01 1.01 708 10,600 Level logger disturbed. Water level is average of the recordings before and after.
4/3/2020 12:54:31 PM 2.97 1.00 687 10,300
4/3/2020 1:09:31 PM 2.90 0.97 645 9,670
4/3/2020 1:24:31 PM 3.07 1.03 748 11,200
4/3/2020 1:39:31 PM 3.03 1.01 722 10,800
4/3/2020 1:54:31 PM 2.97 0.99 683 10,200
4/3/2020 2:09:31 PM 2.93 0.98 657 9,860
4/3/2020 2:24:31 PM 3.04 1.02 728 10,900
4/3/2020 2:39:31 PM 3.02 1.01 716 10,700
Total 932,160
Acronyms:
ft - feet gpm - gallons per minute
gal - gallons kPa - kilopascals
* - Flow volumes are calculated as the total volume of flow passing through the flume for the duration of the interval where the interval duration is
calculated as the time between the present recording and the previous recording.
TR0795 Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE E8WILLIS CREEK VOLUMETRIC DISCHARGE CALCULATIONSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Distance Along Measured Cross SectionMeasured Water Column DepthMeasured Water Column DepthCalculated Creek Cell Area2Measured Creek VelocityCalculated Discharge Through Creek Cell Area1(ft)(in)(ft)(ft2)(ft/s)(ft3/s)Eastern bank1000.0-0.00-Bottom of creek5141.172.920.140.70middle of creek570.58-0.24-top of creek500.00-0.27-bottom10403.3311.30.033.49middle10201.67-0.31-top1000.00-0.33-bottom15252.0813.50.034.88middle1512.51.04-0.36-top1500.00-0.46-bottom20211.754.380.031.79middle2010.50.88-0.41-top2000.00-0.36-bottom25181.53.750.041.05middle2590.8-0.28-top2500.0-0.36-bottom30221.84.580.011.10middle30110.9-0.24-top3000.0-0.31-Eastern bank of creek83500.0-0.00-Associated Measurement Notes11.91Location: Chemours Fayetteville5344Station: Willis Creek 01 (SW-WC-01)337.15Date: 03 April 2020Acronyms- - data not measured or calculatedin - inches ft - feetft2 - square feetft/s - feet per secondft3/s - cubic feet per secondgpm - gallons per minuteNotes1 Discharge is calculated as product of creek velocity measured at the mid-depth (feet per second) times the cross sectional area of each measurement cell. 2 Measurement cell areas are calculated assuming a trapezoidal geometry based on distances between Measurement points and the measured water column depths. A measurement cell is an areal section from the width of the river channel. Measurement PointTotal Volumetric Discharge(ft3/s)(gpm)(L/s)Cell234567TR0795Page 1 of 1July 2020
TABLE E9GEORGIA BRANCH CREEK VOLUMETRIC DISCHARGE CALCULATIONSChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.Distance Along Measured Cross SectionMeasured Water Column DepthMeasured Water Column DepthCalculated Creek Cell Area2Measured Creek VelocityCalculated Discharge Through Creek Cell Area1(ft)(in)(ft)(ft2)(ft/s)(ft3/s)South bank1000.0-0-bottom5373.17.710.040.85middle518.51.5-0.11-top500.0-0.16-bottom10282.313.540.023.39middle10141.2-0.25-top1000.0-0.27-bottom15221.810.420.022.81middle15110.9-0.27-top1500.0-0.32-bottom20191.68.540.032.39middle208.50.7-0.28-top2000.0-0.3-bottom2516.51.47.400.021.11middle258.250.7-0.15-top2500.0-0.22-North bank73000.03.440-Associated Measurement Notes10.55Location: Chemours Fayetteville4734Station: Georgia Branch 01 (SW-GB-01)298.65Date: 02 April 2020Acronyms- - data not measured or calculatedin - inches ft - feetft2 - square feetft/s - feet per secondft3/s - cubic feet per secondgpm - gallons per minuteNotes1 Discharge is calculated as product of creek velocity measured at the mid-depth (feet per second) times the cross sectional area of each measurement cell. 2 Measurement cell areas are calculated assuming a trapezoidal geometry based on distances between Measurement points and the measured water column depths. A measurement cell is an areal section from the width of the river channel. Measurement PointTotal Volumetric Discharge(ft3/s)(gpm)(L/s)Cell23456TR0795Page 1 of 1July 2020
TABLE E10
OUTFALL 002 FLOW RATE
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Date Outfall 002 Flow
(MGD)
Total Daily
Volume (gal)
Hours of Sample
Collection
Approximate Total
Volume during 24
hour Sample
Collection (gal)
4/2/2020 22.5 22,466,000 9 8,424,750
4/3/2020 23.4 23,416,000 15 14,635,000
24 23,059,750
Notes:
Acronyms:
gal - gallons
MGD - millions of gallons per day
4/2/2020 3:00 pm to 4/3/2020 3:00 pm
Daily flow rates collected from facility Discharge Monitoring Reports.
Total flow volume for 24-hour temporal composite sample collected at 3 pm on 4/3/2020 approximated
based on flow rates for 4/2/2020 and 4/3/2020
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE E11
RIVER FLOW RATES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Pathway/ Location
Sample
Collection
Timepoint
Flow Gauging Location1 Travel Time Offset
(hr)2
Adjusted Flow
Gauging
Timepoint
Composite Sample
24-Hour Flow
Volume (MGD)3
Grab Sample
Instantaneous
Flow Rate (ft3/s)4
Upstream River Water and
Groundwater 4/2/2020 9:30 William O Huske Lock
and Dam -- 4/2/2020 9:30 3,410 --
Tarheel (Composite Sample) 4/3/2020 15:00
William O Huske Lock
and Dam 6 4/3/2020 9:00 2,550 --
Tarheel (Grab Sample) 4/2/2020 15:45
William O Huske Lock
and Dam 5 4/2/2020 10:45 -- 4,740
Bladen Bluff 4/2/2020 14:45
William O Huske Lock
and Dam 3 4/2/2020 11:45 -- 4,690
Kings Bluff 4/6/2020 10:15
Cape Fear River Lock and
Dam #1 -- 4/6/2020 10:15 -- 2,890
Notes:
Acronyms:
ft3/s - cubic feet per second
hr - hours
MGD - millions of gallons per day
1 - Flow rate measured at USGS gauging station #02105500 located at William O Huske Lock & Dam and USGS gauging station # 02105769 located at Lock and
Dam #1 near Kelly, North Carolina
2 - Flow rates measured at William O Huske Lock and Dam were used for mass loading assessments at Tarheel and Bladen Bluff sample locations. Travel times
between William O Huske Lock and Dam and the downstream locations were estimated based on the results of a numerical model of the Cape Fear River
developed by Geosyntec which developed a regression curve between the USGS reported gage heights at William O Huske Lock and Dam and travel times.
3 - Total flow volume for composite samples is based on measurements taken over 24-hour sample collection period.
4 - Instantaneous flow rate for grab samples is the recorded flow rate at the time of grab sample collection.
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020

APPENDIX F
Field Forms
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-11-2020 Time:15:10 Water Volume =
19.1
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
15:20 19.17 200.00 1000.00 11.74 0.32 27.80 263.59 Cloudy No
15:25 19.18 200.00 1000.00 7.47 0.17 36.60 36.39 Clear No
15:30 19.18 200.00 1000.00 6.16 0.12 62.40 22.09 Clear No
15:35 19.18 200.00 1000.00 6.1 0.10 52.10 16.21 Clear No
15:40 19.18 200.00 1000.00 5.95 0.09 47.80 11.58 Clear No
15:45 19.19 200.00 1000.00 5.89 0.08 41.70 4.80 Cleat No
15:50 19.19 200.00 1000.00 5.92 0.07 36.70 5.43 Clear No
15:55 19.19 200.00 1000.00 5.82 0.07 32.00 7.87 Clear No
16:00 19.19 200.00 1000.00 5.8 0.08 27.20 4.25 Clear No
16:05 19.19 200.00 1000.00 5.87 0.07 23.10 4.46 Clear No
16:08 19.19 200.00 600.00 5.77 0.06 20.10 3.92 Cleat No
16:11 19.19 200.00 600.00 5.75 0.06 17.80 5.02 Clear No
16:14 19.19 200.00 600.00 5.8 0.06 14.80 5.56 Clear No
16:17 19.20 200.00 600.00 5.72 0.06 12.60 4.44 Clear No
16:20 19.20 200.00 600.00 5.83 0.06 10.00 5.05 Clear No
16:23 19.20 200.00 600.00 5.85 0.06 8.10 4.93 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:16:25
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.07 19.54 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.57 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.48 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.47 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.44 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.58 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.54 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.53 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.62 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.63 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.43 Volume is in milliliters.
0.08 19.65 Volume is in milliliters.
0.08 19.60 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 19.56 Volume is in milliliters.
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Brandon Weidner
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
Bladen-1D
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
3.33Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.67 19.97
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-3.056
02-11-2020
Low Flow: Geo Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS19.57
Screen Interval:
37 - 47
5.85pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.07
4.93
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
75.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.06
8.10
CAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-021120 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.09 19.74 Volume is in milliliters.
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)5
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 14:45 6.51 8.41 118.80 16.88 16.88 Cloudy None X
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
65.00
Sunny
None
7
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-040220
04-02-2020
Latitude:34.7724499460634
-78.7982437201578
Table 3
Table 3+
0.09
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, James Briggs Tracy Ovbey
CFR-BLADEN
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Peri Pump Grab
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-06-2020 10:15 7.25 7.45 56.70 12.68 17.71 Clear No
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
67.00
Sunny
None
9
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
, Brandon Weidner Tracy Ovbey
CFR-KINGS
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Peri Pump Grab
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
04-06-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.09
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-CFR-KINGS-040620
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 09:20 7.03 8.89 77.10 3.81 14.61
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
51.00
Sunny
None
9
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-CFR-RM-76-040220
04-02-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.00
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE, Tracy Ovbey
CFR-RM-76
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Peri Pump Grab
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 15:45 6.73 8.34 100.50 14.85 17.04 Cloudy None
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
67.00 4.1
Sunny
None
8
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220
04-02-2020
Latitude:34.744500909033
-78.7854432967294
Staff gauge water level, ft:
Table 3
Table 3+
0.10
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, James Briggs Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Peri Pump Grab
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 15:00 6.80 8.59 142.30 12.09 18.02
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
4/3/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.32
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:39 7.48 8.68 85.70 9.70 18.74
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
EXCESS RIVER
WATER
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
4/3/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.12
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-EXCESS RIVER WATER-24-
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 13:45 4.91 8.29 120.80 20.69 16.99 Cloudy N/A
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
64.00
Sunny
None
11
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-GBC-1-040220
04-02-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.10
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
MATT SCHEUER, Tracy Ovbey
GBC-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Peri Pump Grab
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-24-2020 Time:14:07 Water Volume =
12.65 28.75
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
14:30 12.76 200.00 1000.00 3.9 0.43 151.50 22.94 Clear No
14:35 12.78 200.00 1000.00 3.92 0.20 259.30 33.42 Clear No
14:40 12.78 200.00 1000.00 3.92 0.13 307.60 36.36 Clesr No
14:45 12.79 200.00 1000.00 3.91 0.10 327.70 28.03 Clear No
14:50 12.79 200.00 1000.00 3.89 0.11 336.70 19.26 Clear No
14:55 12.80 200.00 1000.00 3.89 0.10 346.10 16.70 Clear No
15:00 12.80 200.00 1000.00 3.89 0.09 354.90 14.10 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:15:05
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
Cloudy
Rain
Wind (mph)4
Precipitation:
Sky:
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.10 15.35 Volume is in milliliters.
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.09
354.90
CAP1Q20-LTW-01-022420 WEATHER CONDITIONS
53.00
250 mL poly NP
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
2.576
02-24-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS15.31
Screen Interval:
11.0-26.0
3.89pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.10
14.10
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
LTW-01
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
1.85Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.10 15.07
0.10 15.38 Volume is in milliliters.
0.10 15.31 Volume is in milliliters.
0.10 15.45 Volume is in milliliters.
0.10 15.39 Volume is in milliliters.
0.10 15.25 Volume is in milliliters.
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-24-2020 Time:10:57 Water Volume =
8.35 40.65
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
11:20 8.43 200.00 1000.00 5.37 0.28 113.70 9.73 Clear No
11:25 8.45 200.00 1000.00 5.02 0.16 118.50 2.91 Clear No
11:30 8.44 200.00 1000.00 4.94 0.07 112.90 1.20 Clear No
11:35 8.45 200.00 1000.00 4.85 0.09 111.50 0.72 Clear No
11:40 8.45 200.00 1000.00 4.85 0.07 107.70 0.09 Clear No
11:45 8.45 200.00 1000.00 4.86 0.06 105.20 0.09 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:11:50Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
Cloudy
Rain
Wind (mph)4
Precipitation:
Sky:
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 16.07 Volume is in milliliters.
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.06
105.20
CAP1Q20-LTW-02-022420 WEATHER CONDITIONS
54.00
250 mL poly NP
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
5.168
02-24-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS15.94
Screen Interval:
28.0-38.0
4.86pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.06
0.09
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
LTW-02
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
1.59Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.08 15.83
0.06 15.94 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 15.98 Volume is in milliliters.
0.06 15.93 Volume is in milliliters.
0.06 15.87 Volume is in milliliters.
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-20-2020 Time:12:31 Water Volume =
6.41 28.5
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
12:48 7.62 250.00 4.14 1.01 300.50 40.12 Clear No
12:53 9.15 250.00 4.15 0.96 348.90 47.97 Clear No
12:58 9.87 250.00 4.16 0.93 367.50 55.08 Clear No
13:03 10.38 250.00 4.18 0.84 369.20 22.30 Clear No
13:08 10.97 250.00 4.22 0.82 367.70 19.53 Clear No
13:13 11.64 250.00 4.25 0.79 362.50 18.75 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:13:25
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
Cloudy
Rain
Wind (mph)2
Precipitation:
Sky:
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
100.22 12.95
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.79
362.50
CAP1Q20-LTW-04-022020 WEATHER CONDITIONS
44.00
250 mL poly NP
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
3.534
02-20-2020
Low Flow: Geo Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS13.17
Screen Interval:
12.0-27.0
4.25pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
94.42
18.75
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
OTHER Ezio Ambrosetti
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
LTW-04
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
104.47 12.97
94.42 13.17
98.67 13.09
95.20 13.04
94.09 13.16
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-19-2020 Time:15:00 Water Volume =
8.01 48.25
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
15:20 8.21 300.00 1200.00 4.12 0.90 394.20 286.28 Cloudy No
15:25 8.25 300.00 1500.00 4.13 0.39 416.80 264.62 Cloudy No
15:30 8.26 300.00 1500.00 4.16 0.27 415.00 71.40 Slightly Cloudy No
15:35 8.26 300.00 1500.00 4.18 0.25 407.40 74.70 Slightly Cloudy No
15:40 8.27 300.00 1500.00 4.25 0.16 379.10 59.50 Slightly
Cloudy No
15:45 8.27 300.00 1500.00 4.29 0.13 359.90 37.70 Slightly Cloudy No
15:50 8.28 300.00 1500.00 4.3 0.12 351.20 31.40 Clear No
15:55 8.29 300.00 1500.00 4.31 0.23 350.00 32.10 Clear No
16:00 8.29 300.00 1500.00 4.32 0.20 343.90 30.70 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:16:05
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)11
Precipitation:
Sky:
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.13 15.93 Volume is in milliliters.
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.20
343.90
CAP1Q20-LTW-05-021920 WEATHER CONDITIONS
51.00
250 mL poly NP
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
6.438
02-19-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS16.07
Screen Interval:
29.0-44.0
4.32pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.12
30.70
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Ezio Ambrosetti
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
LTW-05
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
3.49Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.13 15.54
0.13 15.89 Volume is in milliliters.
0.13 16.15 Volume is in milliliters.
0.13 16.03 Volume is in milliliters.
0.12 16.07 Volume is in milliliters.
0.13 16.08 Volume is in milliliters.
0.12 16.00 Volume is in milliliters.
0.12 16.18 Volume is in milliliters.
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 13:50 6.73 8.77 104.90 15.57 20.55
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
OLDOF-1-040220
4/2/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.16
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Parameters taken during 24hr sampling program GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
0
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
OLDOF-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Other
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:42 3.63 8.90 235.50 4.58 17.17
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
5
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
OLDOF-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
4/3/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.30
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-OLDOF-1-24-040320
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:36 7.44 8.29 111.30 9.53 20.27
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
4
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
OUTFALL 002
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
4/3/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.20
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-OUTFALL 002-040320
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-14-2020 Time:10:34 Water Volume =
11.31 31.72
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
10:48 11.36 230.00 1150.00 3.69 0.65 387.80 49.90 Clear No
10:53 11.36 230.00 1150.00 3.69 0.26 412.20 50.60 Clear No
10:58 11.36 230.00 1150.00 3.68 0.17 435.90 32.75 Clear No
11:03 11.36 230.00 1150.00 3.67 0.14 449.60 21.43 Clear No
11:08 11.36 230.00 1150.00 3.67 0.12 447.70 16.16 Clear No
11:13 11.36 230.00 1150.00 3.66 0.09 439.10 12.81 Clear No
11:18 11.36 230.00 1150.00 3.66 0.08 430.60 6.95 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:11:20
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.20 14.97 Volume is in milliliters.
0.20 15.09 Volume is in milliliters.
0.20 14.39 Volume is in milliliters.
0.20 14.73 Volume is in milliliters.
0.20 14.89 Volume is in milliliters.
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PIW-1D
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
1.82Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.20 14.04
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
3.266
02-14-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS15.09
Screen Interval:
24.5 to 29.5
3.66pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.20
6.95
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
46.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.08
430.60
CAP1Q20-PIW-1D-021420 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.20 14.43 Volume is in milliliters.
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)10
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-13-2020 Time:12:45 Water Volume =
13.13 22.2
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
13:17 13.25 250.00 1250.00 3.66 2.33 424.20 35.03 Clear No
13:22 13.28 250.00 1250.00 3.55 2.30 442.00 31.31 Clear No
13:27 13.31 250.00 1250.00 3.54 2.42 451.40 16.13 Clear No
13:32 13.34 250.00 1250.00 3.55 2.46 454.00 9.95 Clear No
13:37 13.34 250.00 1250.00 3.56 2.43 455.20 7.59 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:13:40
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.41 17.34 Volume is in milliliters.
0.40 16.69 Volume is in milliliters.
0.40 16.43 Volume is in milliliters.
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Brandon Weidner
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PIW-1S
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
1.32Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.40 18.17
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
1.451
02-13-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS16.43
Screen Interval:
7.8 - 17.8
3.56pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.40
7.59
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
80.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
2.43
455.20
CAP1Q20-PIW-1S-021320 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.40 17.85 Volume is in milliliters.
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)8
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-24-2020 Time:12:04 Water Volume =
13.15 26.79
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
12:20 13.52 200.00 1000.00 6.53 0.18 -39.20 114.41 Cloudy No
12:25 13.54 200.00 1000.00 6.24 0.11 -50.00 133.74 Cloudy No
12:30 13.55 200.00 1000.00 6.19 0.09 -51.90 59.00 Clear No
12:35 13.57 200.00 1000.00 6.09 0.08 -50.80 39.63 Clear Mo
12:40 13.58 200.00 1000.00 5.88 0.07 -50.20 40.25 Cleat No
12:45 13.58 200.00 1000.00 5.86 0.06 -50.40 32.96 Clear Mo
12:50 13.58 200.00 1000.00 5.79 0.06 -52.80 20.10 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:12:55
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.10 15.95 Volume is in milliliters.
0.10 16.12 Water seems to have iron oxide sediment. Volume is in milliliters.
0.11 15.87 Volume is in milliliters.
0.11 15.94 Volume is in milliliters.
0.10 16.14 Volume is in milliliters.
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PIW-3D
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
1.85Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.13 15.84
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
2.182
02-24-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS16.12
Screen Interval:
19 - 24
5.79pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.10
20.10
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
52.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.06
CAP1Q20-PIW-3D-022420 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.12 15.84 Volume is in milliliters.
Cloudy
Rain
Wind (mph)4
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-19-2020 Time:11:40 Water Volume =
4.21 37
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
12:07 4.21 300.00 900.00 6.12 0.14 -0.20 176.11 Cloudy No
12:15 4.25 300.00 2400.00 5.45 0.07 30.70 76.34 Cloudy No
12:20 4.26 300.00 1500.00 5.48 0.05 27.30 44.53 Cloudy No
12:25 4.26 300.00 1500.00 5.47 0.05 25.10 34.38 Clear No
12:30 4.26 300.00 1500.00 5.46 0.04 25.50 27.93 Clesr No
12:35 4.26 300.00 1500.00 5.48 0.04 21.20 33.27 Cleat No
12:40 4.26 300.00 1500.00 5.43 0.04 23.20 21.97 Clear No
12:45 4.26 300.00 1500.00 5.49 0.03 21.10 24.16 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:12:53
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.07 15.31 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 15.35 Volume is in milliliters.
0.06 15.36 Volume is in milliliters.
87.29 15.31 Volume is in milliliters.
0.08 15.28 Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 15.22 Volume is in milliliters.
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Ezio Ambrosetti
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PIW-7D
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
3.25Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.12 15.55
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
5.246
02-19-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS15.36
Screen Interval:
29 - 34
5.49pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.06
24.16
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
54.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.03
21.10
CAP1Q20-PIW-7D-021920 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters.
0.07 15.46 Volume is in milliliters.
Cloudy
Rain
Wind (mph)12
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-19-2020 Time:12:45 Water Volume =
3.93
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
12:55 4.32 220.00 0.29 3.01 1.57 239.50 55.00 Cloudy None
13:00 4.35 220.00 0.29 3.56 0.66 194.20 44.10 Clear None
13:05 4.36 220.00 0.29 4.23 0.47 154.50 26.30 Clear None
13:10 4.38 220.00 0.29 4.19 0.47 144.60 22.10 Clear None
13:15 4.40 220.00 0.29 4.27 0.46 130.90 20.10 Clear None
13:20 4.41 220.00 0.29 4.51 0.34 123.20 17.20 Clear None
13:25 4.41 220.00 0.29 4.26 0.35 115.90 13.70 Clear None
13:30 4.42 220.00 0.29 4.32 0.32 110.20 14.90 Clear None
13:35 4.41 220.00 0.29 4.31 0.33 108.20 12.20 Clear None
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:13:54Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.09 13.67
0.09 12.83
0.09 13.20
0.09 13.31
0.09 12.82
0.09 12.64
0.09 12.92
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
BRANDON WEIDNER E. Helton
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PIW-7S
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
2.61Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.oC
0.09 12.57
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-0.629
02-19-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS13.67
Screen Interval:
7 - 17
4.31pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.09
12.20
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
50.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.33
108.20
CAP1Q20-PIW-7S-021920 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
0.09 12.61
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)7
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-10-2020 Time:13:22 Water Volume =
28.12
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
13:47 28.80 100.00 3.68 0.31 124.60 2.43 Clear No
13:50 29.01 100.00 3.64 0.26 145.90 5.48 Clear No
13:53 29.28 100.00 3.61 0.22 202.40 11.52 Clear No
13:56 29.61 100.00 3.68 0.19 100.00 75.16 Cleat No
13:59 29.96 100.00 3.69 0.18 140.90 55.79 Clear No
14:02 30.25 100.00 3.7 0.20 182.40 48.53 Clear No
14:04 35.59 100.00 3.74 0.19 158.70 25.41 Clear No
14:07 3.71 100.00 3.76 0.22 140.40 19.98 Clear No
14:09 30.78 100.00 3.77 0.28 140.80 20.82 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:
Field Parameters
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.37 19.83 Well goes dry, will allow recharge,
continue tomorrow
0.36 19.08
0.37 19.13
0.37 19.42
0.38 19.04
0.35 18.99
0.35 18.97
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
Well ran dry
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Brandon Weidner
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PW-04
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
0.63Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.37 19.22
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-4.499
02-10-2020
Low Flow: Geo Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS19.83
Screen Interval:
17 - 27
3.77pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.37
20.82
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
69.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.28
140.80
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
0.36 19.20
Sunny
None
Wind (mph)9
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-11-2020 Time:09:43 Water Volume =
28
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
10:07 29.05 100.00 0.05 3.79 0.19 316.90 5.73 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:10:10
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)7
Precipitation:
Sky:
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Only took one set of parameters. Purged well dry the day before
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.19
316.90
CAP1Q20-PW-04-021120 WEATHER CONDITIONS
69.00
250 mL poly NP
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-4.48
02-11-2020
Low Flow: Geo Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS19.06
Screen Interval:
17 - 27
3.79pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.37
5.73
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
Well ran dry
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Brandon Weidner
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PW-04
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
0.053Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.37 19.06
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-06-2020 Time:15:05 Water Volume =
19.6
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
15:23 20.98 225.00 4.83 1.07 235.10 15.06 Clear No
15:26 20.98 225.00 4.69 1.06 243.10 9.47 Clear No
15:29 20.98 225.00 4.71 1.07 228.80 8.00 Clear No
15:32 20.98 225.00 4.62 1.12 194.40 5.64 Clear No
15:35 20.98 225.00 4.77 1.18 162.80 5.19 Clear No
15:38 20.99 225.00 4.58 1.35 146.80 6.99 Clear No
15:41 20.99 225.00 4.6 1.36 142.30 5.08 Clear No
15:44 20.99 225.00 4.81 1.34 136.10 3.93 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:15:45
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.05 18.41
0.05 18.44
0.05 18.47
0.05 18.77
0.05 18.75
0.05 18.52
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
BRANDON WEIDNER Luke Tart
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PW-06
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
1.5Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.oC
0.06 18.97
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-3.136
02-06-2020
Low Flow: Geo Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS18.47
Screen Interval:
19 - 29
4.81pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.05
3.93
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
75.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
1.34
136.10
CAP1Q20-PW-06-020620 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
0.06 18.90
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)15
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-10-2020 Time:11:40 Water Volume =
40.72
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
12:07 40.72 4.52 5.39 233.80 259.19 Cloudy No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:
Field Parameters
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
RECORD OF WELL Development
Well ran dry
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Brandon Weidner
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
PW-07
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.09 19.31
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-6.515
02-10-2020
Temp.(oC)PFAS19.31
Screen Interval:
28 - 38
4.52pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.09
259.19
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
66.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
5.39
233.80
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Used bailer to get parameters, then bailed dry, will continue tomorrow
Sunny
None
Wind (mph)7
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-12-2020 Time:10:15 Water Volume =
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
10:35 40.75 500.00 4.74 6.29 263.10 999.90 Brown No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:10:30
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
Well ran dry
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Brandon Weidner
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
bottom of well
PW-07
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Other
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.17 19.80
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
0
02-12-2020
Temp.(oC)PFAS19.80
Screen Interval:
28 - 38
4.74pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.17
999.90
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
62.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
6.29
263.10
CAP1Q20-PW-07-021420 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Used bailer to sample, only could retrieve two bottles of sample, will
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)4
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-13-2020 Time:10:17 Water Volume =
41.08
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
10:37 41.08 480.00 4.83 6.68 195.70 999.90 Brown No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:10:40
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
Well ran dry
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Brandon Weidner
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
bottom of well
PW-07
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Grab
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.12 22.72
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-6.573
02-13-2020
Temp.(oC)PFAS22.72
Screen Interval:
28 - 38
4.83pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.12
999.90
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
74.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
6.68
195.70
CAP1Q20-PW-07-021420 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in milliliters. Sampled two bottles will come back later to try
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)5
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-14-2020 Time:09:37 Water Volume =
40.75
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
10:05 40.75 500.00 4.71 6.40 144.80 999.90 Brown No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:10:05
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MEGAN JUNOD Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
PW-07
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Grab
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
500Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
0.13 13.80
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-6.52
02-14-2020
Temp.(oC)PFAS13.80
Screen Interval:
28 - 38
4.71pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.13
999.90
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
53.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
6.40
144.80
CAP1Q20-PW-07-021420 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Volume is in ml
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)10
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-11-2020 Time:11:46 Water Volume =
24.27 57.7
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
11:48 26.11 250.00 11.58 0.33 86.00 8.34 Clear No
11:52 26.63 250.00 11.79 0.28 80.60 6.53 Clear No
11:57 26.82 250.00 12.09 0.22 69.40 6.91 Clear No
12:02 26.86 250.00 12.17 0.17 53.40 21.55 Clear No
12:07 26.82 250.00 12.13 0.14 33.60 31.64 Clear No
12:12 26.81 250.00 12.06 0.14 17.00 34.16 Clear No
12:17 26.80 250.00 11.89 0.14 2.90 40.62 Clear No
12:23 26.80 250.00 11.64 0.26 -5.50 64.95 Clear No
12:27 26.76 250.00 10.9 0.13 -1.10 203.25 Cloudy No
12:32 26.74 250.00 10.52 0.13 -1.10 213.44 Cloudy No
12:37 26.74 250.00 10.48 0.15 -6.50 197.82 Cloudy No
12:42 26.73 250.00 10.29 0.10 -13.50 204.46 Cloudy No
12:47 26.73 250.00 10.18 0.09 -21.00 187.14 Cloudy No
12:52 26.73 250.00 10.07 0.09 -27.50 182.83 Cloudy No
12:57 26.73 250.00 9.96 0.09 -34.10 177.01 Cloudy No
13:02 26.73 250.00 9.93 0.09 -38.50 151.45 Cloudy No
13:07 26.73 250.00 9.85 0.09 -44.80 176.55 Cloudy No
13:12 26.73 250.00 9.81 0.08 -49.30 157.00 Cloudy No
13:17 26.73 250.00 9.76 0.09 -54.30 139.99 Clear No
13:22 26.73 250.00 9.72 0.07 -59.40 132.17 Cloudy No
13:27 26.73 250.00 9.67 0.08 -64.60 129.26 Cloudy No
13:32 26.73 250.00 9.64 0.08 -71.00 113.49 Slightly Cloudy No
13:37 26.73 250.00 9.61 0.08 -75.90 126.12 Slightly Cloudy No
13:42 26.73 250.00 9.58 0.07 -81.50 125.74 Slightly Cloudy No
13:47 26.73 250.00 9.55 0.06 -86.50 111.15 Clear No
13:52 26.73 250.00 9.53 0.06 -91.40 113.60 Slightly Cloudy No
13:57 26.73 250.00 9.49 0.06 -96.50 103.68 Slightly Cloudy No
14:02 26.73 250.00 9.44 0.06 -101.20 109.12 Clear No
14:07 26.73 250.00 9.43 0.06 -106.00 96.05 Clear No
14:12 26.73 250.00 9.41 0.06 -109.90 99.14 Clear No
14:17 26.73 250.00 9.38 0.05 -114.80 96.12 Clear No
14:22 26.73 250.00 9.37 0.05 -118.40 108.69 Clear No
14:27 26.73 250.00 9.34 0.05 -122.30 108.03 Clear No
14:32 26.73 250.00 9.31 0.05 -127.90 93.61 Clear No
14:37 26.74 250.00 9.29 0.05 -13.90 82.38 Clear No
14:42 26.73 250.00 9.29 0.05 -135.70 84.67 Clear No
14:47 26.73 250.00 9.22 0.05 -144.90 95.81 Clear No
15:02 26.73 250.00 9.13 0.04 -159.30 86.86 Clear No
14:52 26.73 250.00 9.2 0.04 -147.50 89.68 Clear No
14:57 26.73 250.00 9.16 0.04 -153.10 76.68 Clear No
15:02 26.73 250.00 9.13 0.40 -159.30 86.86 Clear No
Comments
765.41 18.08
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
5.349Peristaltic Pump
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MATT SCHEUER
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
52
within screen
PW-09
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Temp.
oC
523.02 18.05
1382.00 18.34
1296.80 18.35
1187.40 18.17
977.84 18.24
732.81 18.35
453.42 18.43
221.71 18.49
195.20 18.51
184.88 18.40
173.87 18.46
165.50 18.53
158.03 18.31
150.98 18.53
148.27 18.42
143.76 18.38
140.27 18.21
137.77 18.20
134.94 18.22
131.80 18.26
130.43 18.30
128.84 18.34
127.26 18.29
125.40 18.22
124.06 18.23
122.57 18.39
121.06 18.40
120.17 18.38
119.33 18.32
118.30 18.16
117.77 18.33
116.87 18.23
115.98 18.29
115.30 18.31
114.83 18.18
112.76 18.30
110.82 18.39
112.44 18.33
111.49 18.36
110.82 18.39
15:07 2673.00 250.00 9.14 0.04 -165.30 73.52 Clear No
15:12 26.73 250.00 9.09 0.04 -177.60 67.50 Clear No
15:17 26.74 250.00 9.14 0.05 -183.20 66.91 Clear No
15:22 26.63 250.00 9.1 0.05 -178.90 69.94 Clear No
15:27 26.73 250.00 9.03 0.04 -188.70 80.23 Clear No
15:32 26.73 250.00 9.05 0.04 -193.00 60.89 Clear No
15:37 26.74 250.00 8.99 0.05 -181.90 71.67 Clear No
15:42 26.73 250.00 8.95 0.04 -195.50 65.54 Clear No
15:47 26.73 250.00 8.92 0.04 -203.00 61.41 Clear No
15:52 26.73 250.00 8.93 0.04 -209.50 70.06 Clear No
15:57 26.66 250.00 8.86 0.04 -220.00 64.85 Clear No
16:02 26.66 250.00 8.82 0.04 -222.80 66.32 Clear No
16:07 26.73 250.00 8.82 0.04 -220.50 68.90 Clear No
16:12 26.66 250.00 8.77 0.04 -224.90 57.25 Clear No
16:17 26.66 250.00 8.76 0.04 -223.60 60.93 Clear No
16:22 26.66 250.00 8.72 0.04 -227.50 59.35 Clear No
16:27 26.66 250.00 8.71 0.04 -226.40 59.64 Clear No
16:32 26.66 250.00 8.66 0.04 -222.90 52.89 Clear No
16:37 26.66 250.00 8.66 0.04 -221.70 59.58 Clear No
16:42 26.66 250.00 8.63 0.04 -223.10 55.09 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)16
Precipitation:
Sky:
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.04
WEATHER CONDITIONS
70.00
250 mL poly NP
Temperature (F):
02-11-2020
Temp.(oC)PFAS18.02
Screen Interval:
44 - 54
8.63pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
103.49
55.09
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
111.19 18.40
109.98 18.18
110.01 18.23
109.14 18.21
108.60 18.25
108.15 18.15
107.66 18.20
107.25 18.22 No
107.07 18.31
106.47 18.20
106.06 18.22
105.76 18.27
105.46 18.14
105.05 18.19
104.76 18.30
103.83 18.15
103.49 18.02 Ran out of time, continue tomorrow
104.47 18.06
104.25 18.22
103.97 18.22
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-12-2020 Time:09:46 Water Volume =
24.5
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
09:48 26.04 220.00 9.21 0.16 -36.80 58.87 Clear No
09:53 26.31 220.00 9.52 0.20 -73.70 48.52 Clear No
09:58 26.42 220.00 10.43 0.13 -90.00 43.70 Clear None
10:03 26.46 220.00 10.52 0.13 -93.10 58.80 Clear None
10:08 26.47 220.00 10.67 0.12 -96.90 48.18 Clear No
10:13 26.46 220.00 9.87 0.13 -90.00 74.34 Clear No
10:18 26.46 220.00 9.41 0.12 -106.80 78.30 Clear No
10:23 26.46 220.00 9.37 0.13 -122.30 65.10 Clear No
10:28 26.46 220.00 9.33 0.12 -139.90 65.20 Clear No
10:33 26.46 220.00 9.22 0.11 -154.80 63.52 Clear No
10:38 26.46 220.00 9.18 0.12 -172.70 59.26 Clear No
10:43 26.64 220.00 9.15 0.12 -185.10 60.14 Clear No
10:48 26.46 220.00 9 0.14 -198.50 56.13 Clear No
10:53 26.46 220.00 8.98 0.11 -216.90 58.70 Clear No
10:58 26.46 220.00 8.94 0.14 -232.90 52.57 Clear No
11:03 26.42 220.00 8.96 0.10 -236.50 42.70 Clear None
11:08 26.42 220.00 8.89 0.14 -233.48 41.50 Clear None
11:13 26.42 220.00 8.81 0.11 -237.60 41.90 Clear No
11:18 26.42 220.00 8.77 0.16 -233.00 41.60 Clear No
11:23 26.42 220.00 8.73 0.11 -236.40 40.40 Clear No
11:28 26.42 220.00 8.72 0.10 -239.20 38.80 Clear No
11:33 26.42 220.00 8.62 0.11 -246.40 38.30 Clear No
11:38 26.42 220.00 8.6 0.09 -246.20 37.60 Clear No
11:43 26.42 220.00 8.55 0.08 -234.00 37.80 Clear No
11:48 26.42 220.00 8.42 0.08 -223.70 36.80 Clear No
11:53 26.42 220.00 8.42 0.07 -222.00 36.50 Clear No
11:58 26.42 220.00 8.38 0.10 -216.80 35.20 Clear No
12:03 26.42 220.00 8.3 0.07 -207.10 35.10 Clear None
12:08 26.42 220.00 8.32 0.09 -212.00 34.00 Clear No
12:13 26.42 220.00 8.39 0.08 -223.50 34.20 Clear No
12:18 26.42 220.00 8.3 0.06 -210.70 33.30 Clear No
12:23 26.42 220.00 8.15 0.08 -197.40 33.10 Clear No
12:28 26.42 220.00 8.09 0.07 -185.60 33.00 Clear No
12:33 26.42 220.00 8.2 0.07 -197.80 30.30 Clear No
12:38 26.44 220.00 8.09 0.07 -187.60 32.70 Clear No
12:43 26.44 220.00 8.04 0.07 -185.00 32.40 Clear No
12:48 26.44 220.00 8.06 0.07 -184.60 32.20 Clear No
12:53 26.44 220.00 7.94 0.06 -170.70 32.20 Clear No
12:58 26.44 220.00 8.05 0.06 -184.20 31.80 Clear None
13:03 26.43 220.00 8 0.08 -174.80 31.60 Clear No
13:08 26.44 220.00 8.03 0.06 -180.00 29.60 Clear No
108.25 17.35
107.63 17.33
107.06 17.28
110.17 17.39
109.54 17.37
108.38 17.33
108.14 17.45
108.34 17.43
107.88 17.43
111.47 17.57
110.17 17.45
109.20 17.41
112.03 17.49
111.38 17.51
111.36 17.50
114.39 17.49
112.97 17.46
112.88 17.55
113.37 17.50
11.56 17.64
115.63 17.45
115.66 17.56
114.83 17.53
114.04 17.49
119.81 17.37
118.64 17.42 Hach In-Use
117.18 17.33
126.77 17.19
121.90 17.27
121.23 17.31
136.41 17.11
131.98 17.11
128.16 17.20
147.74 17.00
144.55 17.03
136.94 17.14
158.62 16.96
168.25 17.04
174.05 17.01
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MATT SCHEUER Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PW-09
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Temp.
oC
118.61 16.98
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
-3.92Peristaltic Pump
Comments
124.24 17.00
13:13 26.44 220.00 7.96 0.06 -173.20 30.20 Clear No
13:18 26.44 220.00 7.92 0.07 -168.40 29.30 Clear No
13:23 26.44 220.00 7.97 0.06 -169.50 28.80 Clear No
13:28 26.44 220.00 7.85 0.07 -160.00 28.60 Clear No
13:33 26.44 220.00 7.82 0.05 -159.00 28.00 Clear No
13:38 26.44 220.00 7.79 0.07 -157.10 27.60 Clear No
13:43 26.44 220.00 7.8 0.07 -159.00 27.20 Clear No
13:48 26.44 220.00 7.82 0.05 -162.30 26.40 Clear No
13:53 26.44 220.00 7.69 0.05 -149.10 26.11 Clear No
13:58 26.42 220.00 7.81 0.05 -159.80 25.30 Clear None
14:03 26.42 220.00 7.7 0.05 -150.90 23.90 Clear None
14:08 26.41 220.00 7.68 0.06 -148.40 20.60 Clear No
14:13 26.41 220.00 7.63 0.06 -143.80 19.70 Clear No
14:17 26.41 220.00 7.67 0.06 -146.20 18.30 Clear No
14:22 26.41 220.00 7.65 0.06 -147.20 17.70 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:14:28Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
104.22 17.20
106.21 17.18
106.15 17.18
107.67 17.22
105.76 17.21
105.23 17.22
105.98 17.26
105.88 17.23
104.62 17.20
107.42 17.26
107.19 17.17
106.03 17.24
106.77 17.28
109.35 17.27
108.73 17.27
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temperature (F):
02-12-2020
Temp.(oC)PFAS17.18
Screen Interval:
44 - 54
7.65pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
106.15
17.70
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
59.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.06
CAP1Q20-PW-09-021220 WEATHER CONDITIONS
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)10
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-13-2020 Time:09:38 Water Volume =
30.06 67.51
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
09:41 30.27 200.00 4.48 0.51 -82.40 9.72 Clear No
09:46 30.18 200.00 4.5 0.76 -79.10 13.89 Clear No
09:51 30.10 200.00 4.5 0.67 -76.50 16.52 Clear No
09:56 30.04 200.00 4.46 0.50 -72.90 20.59 Clear No
10:01 30.05 200.00 4.49 0.72 -69.70 23.40 Clear No
10:06 30.05 200.00 4.48 0.75 -64.40 29.98 Clear No
10:11 30.05 200.00 4.49 0.70 -62.70 31.34 Clear No
10:16 30.05 200.00 4.5 0.67 -60.20 40.61 Clear No
10:21 30.05 200.00 4.53 0.70 -59.30 31.38 Clear No
10:26 30.05 200.00 4.52 0.67 -57.70 28.01 Clear No
10:31 30.05 200.00 4.53 0.66 -56.70 26.63 Clear No
10:36 30.05 200.00 4.53 0.79 -54.20 27.53 Clear No
10:41 30.05 200.00 4.53 0.72 -52.10 27.30 Clear No
10:46 30.07 200.00 4.54 0.69 -50.80 26.19 Clear No
10:51 30.07 200.00 4.54 0.73 -49.90 24.55 Clear No
10:56 30.07 200.00 4.54 0.67 -48.50 24.66 Clear No
11:01 30.07 200.00 4.54 0.75 -48.70 23.80 Clear No
11:06 30.07 200.00 4.54 0.69 -47.60 23.82 Clear No
11:11 4.53 200.00 4.53 0.72 -46.60 22.51 Clear No
11:16 30.07 200.00 4.53 0.69 -45.80 22.34 Clear No
11:21 30.06 200.00 4.53 0.73 -44.70 20.65 Clear No
11:26 30.06 200.00 4.54 0.69 -43.60 19.84 Clear No
11:31 30.06 200.00 4.53 0.72 -42.50 19.05 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:11:42
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
392.61 19.13
391.78 19.17
391.91 19.19
392.71 19.36
392.78 19.19
392.17 19.15
391.06 19.02
391.23 18.94
392.26 18.93
391.32 18.92
390.55 18.79
391.66 18.96
391.31 18.82
392.05 18.82
391.32 18.81
398.55 18.63
400.12 18.80
390.95 19.04
401.45 18.42
397.38 19.12
396.79 18.58
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MATT SCHEUER Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PW-11
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
395.37 18.33
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
5.992
02-13-2020
Double valve pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS19.19
Screen Interval:
53 - 63
4.53pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
391.91
19.05
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
68.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.72
CAP1Q20-PW-11-021320 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
395.49 18.31
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)11
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-20-2020 Time:12:25 Water Volume =
6.11
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
12:50 250.00 1250.00 4.51 0.17 267.10 5.10 Clear No
12:55 250.00 1250.00 4.54 0.13 248.80 1.86 Clear No
13:00 250.00 1250.00 4.46 0.09 195.40 0.41 Clear No
13:05 250.00 1250.00 4.48 0.07 166.70 1.27 Clear No
13:10 250.00 1250.00 4.49 0.06 149.60 3.52 Clear No
13:15 250.00 1250.00 4.49 0.05 139.30 1.07 Clear No
13:20 250.00 1250.00 4.49 0.05 133.30 1.23 Clear No
13:25 250.00 1250.00 4.5 0.04 127.40 0.26 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:13:30
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.10 14.13
0.10 14.18
0.10 14.09 Total purge volume in ml
0.10 13.67
0.10 13.80
0.10 14.11
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 1
BRANDON WEIDNER
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
PZ-22
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Peristaltic Pump
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
2.31Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.oC
0.11 12.53
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-0.251
02-20-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS14.09
Screen Interval:
36.0-46.0
4.50pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.10
0.26
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
40.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
0.04
127.40
CAP1Q20-PZ-22-022020 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
0.11 13.02
Cloudy
Rain
Wind (mph)7
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 14:07 4.06 8.60 124.50 15.07 18.65
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
0
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
SEEP-A-1-040220
4/2/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.17
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Parameters taken during 24hr sampling program GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
0
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-A-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Other
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:10 6.41 2.95 60.60 9.86 18.14 Cloudy None
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
5
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-SEEP-A-24-040320
04-03-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.34
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Charles Pace Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-A-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 13:41 4.56 7.46 123.00 8.68 18.36
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
SEEP-B-1-040220
4/2/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.12
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Parameters taken during 24hr sampling program GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
0
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-B-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Other
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:20 5.18 7.36 101.80 12.81 17.62
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
5
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-B-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
4/3/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.15
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-SEEP-B-24-040320
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 13:20 4.07 8.33 183.90 39.30 18.04
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
SEEP-C-1-040220
4/2/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.14
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
 Parameters taken during 24hr sampling program GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
0
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-C-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Other
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:30 5.09 8.89 103.00 17.38 17.02
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
5
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-C-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
4/3/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.12
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-SEEP-C-24-040320
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 13:00 3.93 8.43 140.30 4.93 19.45
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
SEEP-D-1-040220
4/2/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.19
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Parameters taken during 24hr sampling program GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
0
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-D-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Other
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:33 4.17 8.85 144.30 4.64 16.98
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
SEEP-D-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
4/3/2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.16
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-SEEP-D-24-040320
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-10-2020 Time:11:30 Water Volume =
28.2 52.07
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
12:24 28.20 200.00 5.67 3.71 137.70 18.20 Clear NA
12:29 28.20 200.00 5.51 4.26 126.20 65.40 Clear NA
12:34 28.20 200.00 5.68 5.58 127.70 25.30 Clear No
12:39 28.20 200.00 5.53 5.40 124.60 26.79 Clear No
12:44 28.20 200.00 5.54 5.56 124.70 25.49 Clear No
12:48 28.20 200.00 5.53 5.32 122.70 23.08 Clear No
12:53 28.20 200.00 5.55 5.29 119.50 19.76 Clear No
12:57 28.20 200.00 5.54 4.91 111.90 19.50 Clear No
13:02 28.20 200.00 5.67 4.72 110.40 13.29 Clear No
13:07 28.20 200.00 5.67 4.55 111.20 17.58 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:13:13
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
77.08 18.19
75.28 18.17
74.95 18.14
74.97 18.14
74.08 18.14
76.79 18.32
74.63 18.12
74.68 18.28
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
MS/REP/D
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MATT SCHEUER Daniel Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
44
within screen
SMW-10
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Other
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
84.45 18.64
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
3.819
02-10-2020
Double valve pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS18.17
Screen Interval:
39 to 49
5.67pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
75.28
17.58
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
66.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
4.55
111.20
CAP1Q20-SMW-10-021020 WEATHER CONDITIONS
CAP1Q20-SMW-10-021020-D
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
71.65 18.23
Partly Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)7
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-11-2020 Time:08:37 Water Volume =
13.21 27.79
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
11:10 13.25 200.00 4.31 5.55 166.10 4.14 Clear No
11:15 13.25 200.00 4.33 5.48 150.60 4.11 Clear No
11:20 13.25 200.00 4.35 5.47 145.80 4.05 Clear No
11:25 13.25 200.00 4.33 5.62 147.40 3.98 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:11:30
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
40.89 17.13
40.91 17.03
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MATT SCHEUER Danielle Delgado
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
22
within screen
SMW-11
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
40.87 17.10
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
2.333
02-11-2020
Peristaltic Pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS17.03
Screen Interval:
13 to 23
4.33pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
40.91
3.98
Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
70.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
5.62
147.40
CAP1Q20-SMW-11-021120 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
40.89 17.12
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)18
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Well ID: Well Diameter: Inches
Samplers:Event:
Purging Data Pump Depth:
Pump Loc:
Method:Date:02-12-2020 Time:15:08 Water Volume =
78.4
Time DTW Pump Rate Vol.pH DO Redox Turbidity Color Odor
24 hr.ft.ml/min.gal.mg/L mV NTU
15:20 78.41 3.74 6.55 180.90 2.60 Clear No
15:25 78.41 3.76 5.12 75.70 0.07 Clear No
15:30 78.41 3.79 5.81 70.00 8.45 Clear No
15:35 78.41 3.8 9.18 91.60 0.13 Clear No
15:40 78.41 3.79 9.19 104.00 0.43 Clear No
15:45 78.41 3.79 9.19 104.20 0.01 Clear No
15:50 78.41 3.79 9.13 104.30 0.02 Clear No
15:55 78.41 3.79 9.14 98.90 0.00 Clear No
Sampling Data Zero HS:
Method:Date: Time:16:00
Field Parameters
a
a
Sample ID:
DuplicateID:
0.06 17.19
0.06 17.19
0.06 17.19
0.06 17.17
251.64 17.12
0.06 17.11
RECORD OF WELL SAMPLING
= (Total Depth of Well - Depth To Water ) x Casing Volume per Foot
Chemours Fayetteville 2
MATT SCHEUER
WATER VOLUME CALCULATION
Quarterly Tracy Ovbey
within screen
SMW-12
Project Manager:
Depth to Well Bottom (ft.):
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
Total Volume Purged (gallons):
Temp.
oC
6.00 17.19
Initial Depth to Water (ft.):
Temperature (F):
-12.544
02-12-2020
Double valve pump
Temp.(oC)PFAS17.19
Screen Interval:
88 to 98
3.79pH
STABILIZED PARAMETERS
0.06Spec. Cond.(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
64.00
250 mL poly NP
DO (mg/L)
ORP (mV)
9.14
98.90
CAP1Q20-SMW-12-021220 WEATHER CONDITIONS
Comments
SAMPLE SET
Table 3+
PFAS
Parameter Method
EPA 537 Modified
PFAS
Bottle
Table 3
2-250 mL poly
250 mL poly
NP
NP
Pres.
4.78 17.18
Cloudy
None
Wind (mph)9
Precipitation:
Sky:
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 14:12 7.11 6.17 113.10 7.03 17.85
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CAP1Q20-WC-1-24-040320
04-03-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.20
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20); EPA 537 Modified
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
WC-1
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dupmg/L mV NTU oC
03-31-2020 12:00 Yes
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
Partly Sunny
None
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-83-033120
03-31-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE, Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
No parameters collected.
3.5 Day Composite
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dupmg/L mV NTU oC
04-02-2020 13:00
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
Sunny
None
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-48-040220
04-02-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE, Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
No parameters collected.
3.5 Day Composite
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-03-2020 15:00 6.80 8.59 142.30 12.09 18.02
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-040320
04-07-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
0.32
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3 (Special); Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
LUKE TART, Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Quarterly CAP
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
24H ISCO
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dupmg/L mV NTU oC
0:30
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
78.00 1.8
Sunny 78
None 0
9
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-83-040620
04-06-2020
Latitude:0
0
Staff gauge water level, ft:
Temperature, deg C:
Rain, mm:
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
0250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE, Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
No parameters collected.
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-09-2020 06:30
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
72.00
Sunny
None
14
Marsh
McBirney
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-040920
SAMPLE SET
04-09-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
Multi Meter Used:
Velocity Meter Used:
Multi Meter ID:
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Actual Sample ID: CFR-TARHEEL-83-040920
3.5 Day Composite
Method
ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3+(20)
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
0 Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
Stream Depth TOP half of water column (ft):
Stream Depth BOTTOM half of water column (ft):
Samples taken from:ISCO
Stream Velocity TOP half of water column (ft/sec):
Stream Velocity BOTTOM half of water column (ft/sec):
Velocity Meter ID:
Total Water Depth (ft):
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-19-2020 01:30
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
70.00
Sunny
None
6
Marsh
McBirney
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-041920
SAMPLE SET
04-19-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
PFAS
PFAS
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
Multi Meter Used:
Velocity Meter Used:
Multi Meter ID:
Stream Depth TOP half of water column (ft):
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Actual Sample ID: CFR-TARHEEL-83-041920
Method
ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3+(20)
250 mL poly
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
0 Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
Stream Depth BOTTOM half of water column (ft):
Samples taken from:0
Stream Velocity TOP half of water column (ft/sec):
Stream Velocity BOTTOM half of water column (ft/sec):
Velocity Meter ID:
Total Water Depth (ft):
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
04-22-2020 13:30
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
66.00
Sunny
None
1
Marsh
McBirney
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-042220
SAMPLE SET
04-27-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
Multi Meter Used:
Velocity Meter Used:
Multi Meter ID:
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Actual Sample ID: CFR-TARHEEL-83-042220
3.5 Day Composite
Method
ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3+(20)
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
Stream Depth TOP half of water column (ft):
Stream Depth BOTTOM half of water column (ft):
Samples taken from:ISCO
Stream Velocity TOP half of water column (ft/sec):
Stream Velocity BOTTOM half of water column (ft/sec):
Velocity Meter ID:
Total Water Depth (ft):
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dupmg/L mV NTU oC
04-26-2020 00:49
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
72.00
Cloudy
Rain
Marsh McBirney
Stream Depth BOTTOM half of water column (ft):
Samples taken from:ISCO
Stream Velocity TOP half of water column (ft/sec):
Stream Velocity BOTTOM half of water column (ft/sec):
Velocity Meter ID:
Total Water Depth (ft):
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
No parameters collected.
3.5 Day Composite
Method
ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3+(20)250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
Multi Meter Used:
Velocity Meter Used:
Multi Meter ID:
Stream Depth TOP half of water column (ft):
GPS Location (if collected)
04-30-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-83-042620
SAMPLE SET
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dupmg/L mV NTU oC
04-29-2020 11:49
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
72.00
Cloudy
Rain
Marsh McBirney
Stream Depth BOTTOM half of water column (ft):
Samples taken from:ISCO
Stream Velocity TOP half of water column (ft/sec):
Stream Velocity BOTTOM half of water column (ft/sec):
Velocity Meter ID:
Total Water Depth (ft):
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
No parameters collected.
3.5 Day Composite
Method
ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3+(20)250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
Multi Meter Used:
Velocity Meter Used:
Multi Meter ID:
Stream Depth TOP half of water column (ft):
GPS Location (if collected)
04-30-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.mS/cm
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-83-042920
SAMPLE SET
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dupmg/L mV NTU oC
05-02-2020 23:49
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
86.00 7
Sunny 29
None 0
12
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-62-050220
05-04-2020
Latitude:0
0
Staff gauge water level, ft:
Temperature, deg C:
Rain, mm:
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Method
SAMPLE SET ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
EPA 537 Modified; Table 3+(20)250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
CHARLES PACE, Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
No parameters collected.
3.5 Day Composite
Site Name:Location ID:
Samplers:Event:
Date:
Spl Date Time pH DO Redox Turbidity Temp.Color Odor Dup
mg/L mV NTU oC
05-06-2020 11:49
Sampling Data
Method:
Pres.
NP
NP
NP
68.00
Sunny
None
8
Marsh
McBirney
PFAS 250 mL poly
BottleParameter
2-250 mL poly
Spl ID
CFR-TARHEEL-050620
SAMPLE SET
05-06-2020
Latitude:0
0
Table 3
Table 3+
Longitude:
Spec. Cond.
mS/cm
GPS Location (if collected)
250 mL poly
PFAS
PFAS
Wind (mph)
Precipitation:
Multi Meter Used:
Velocity Meter Used:
Multi Meter ID:
EPA 537 Modified
Comments
Actual Sample ID: CFR-TARHEEL-83-050620
3.5 Day Composite
Method
ALL PARAMETERS ANALYZED
Table 3+(20)
SW SEEP SAMPLING RECORD
Chemours Fayetteville
, E. Helton Tracy Ovbey
CFR-TARHEEL
Project Manager: Weekly River
Stream Depth TOP half of water column (ft):
Stream Depth BOTTOM half of water column (ft):
Samples taken from:ISCO
Stream Velocity TOP half of water column (ft/sec):
Stream Velocity BOTTOM half of water column (ft/sec):
Velocity Meter ID:
Total Water Depth (ft):
Temperature (F):
Sky:
Flow Rate:
WEATHER CONDITIONS

APPENDIX G
Laboratory Reports and DVM Report

ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY CAP MW Sampling.doc 1 of 3
ADQM DATA REVIEW
NARRATIVE

Site Chemours FAY – Fayetteville

Project CAP MW Sampling

Project Reviewer Michael Aucoin, AECOM as a Chemours contractor

Sampling Dates February 6, 2020
February 10 – 14, 2020
February 19 – 20, 2020
February 24 - 25, 2020

Analytical Protocol

Laboratory Analytical Method Parameter(s)
TestAmerica - Sacramento 537 Modified PFAS(1)
TestAmerica - Sacramento Cl. Spec. Table 3
Compound SOP
Table 3+ compounds

1 Perfluoroalkylsubstances, a list of 37 compounds including HFPO-DA.

Sample Receipt

The following items are noted for this data set:

• All samples were received in satisfactory condition and within EPA temperature guidelines on:

February 13 - 15, 2020
February 22, 2020
February 27, 2020

Data Review

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 below:

• Some Table 3 results were qualified B and the reported results may be biased high, or false
positives, due to a comparable concentration found in the associated equipment blank.
• Several analytical results have been qualified J as estimated, and non-detect results qualified UJ
indicating an estimated reporting limit, due to a poor recovery of a surrogate, lab control spike, or
matrix spike; sample analysis which exceeded the laboratory established hold time; and poor field
duplicate or lab replicate precision.. See the Data Verification Module (DVM) Narrative Report
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY CAP MW Sampling.doc 2 of 3
for which samples were qualified, the specific reasons for qualification, and potential bias in
reported results.

Attachments

The DVM Narrative report is attached. The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on an
AECOM network shared drive and are available to be posted on external shared drives, or on a flash
drive.
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY CAP MW Sampling.doc 3 of 3
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)/control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the RPD
between these spikes
• Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
• 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.

DVM Narrative ReportContamination detected in equipment blank(s). Sample result does not differ significantly from the analyte concentration detected in the associatedequipment blank(s).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PMPA0.077UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PMPA0.076UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PFO2HxA0.010ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PFO2HxA0.010ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PFMOAA0.014ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PFMOAA0.014ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PFESA-BP20.0029ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-BLADEN-1D-02112002/11/2020320-58585-1PFESA-BP20.0029ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2NVHOS0.0025UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2NVHOS0.0024UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PMPA0.12UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PMPA0.12UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PFO2HxA0.0095ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PFO2HxA0.0095ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PFMOAA0.0099ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PFMOAA0.010ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLPage 1 of 16
Contamination detected in equipment blank(s). Sample result does not differ significantly from the analyte concentration detected in the associatedequipment blank(s).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PFESA-BP20.0026ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2PFESA-BP20.0026ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2R-EVE0.0024UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-09-02122002/12/2020320-58612-2PMPA0.016UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-PW-09-02122002/12/2020320-58612-2PMPA0.017UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-PW-09-02122002/12/2020320-58612-2PFO2HxA0.0050ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-09-02122002/12/2020320-58612-2PFO2HxA0.0054ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-09-02122002/12/2020320-58612-2PFMOAA0.017ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-PW-09-02122002/12/2020320-58612-2PFMOAA0.018ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2Byproduct 40.0032UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PMPA0.12UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PMPA0.13UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.010PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PFO2HxA0.12ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PFO2HxA0.13ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PFMOAA0.042ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PFMOAA0.045ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PFESA-BP20.018ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 2 of 16
Contamination detected in equipment blank(s). Sample result does not differ significantly from the analyte concentration detected in the associatedequipment blank(s).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3PFESA-BP20.019ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 3 of 16
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid0.020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.0020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.0020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2PerfluorooctaneSulfonamide0.0020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 4 of 16
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Byproduct 60.031UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.031PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Byproduct 60.031UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.031PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7EVE Acid0.049UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.049PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7EVE Acid0.049UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.049PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFECA-G0.082UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.082PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFECA-G0.082UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.082PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFESA-BP10.053UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.053PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFESA-BP10.053UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.053PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFECA B0.12UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFECA B0.12UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO5DA0.067ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.067PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO5DA0.067ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.067PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PES0.092UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.092PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PES0.092UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.092PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Byproduct 60.031UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.031PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Byproduct 60.031UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.031PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1EVE Acid0.049UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.049PQLPage 5 of 16
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reporting limit may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1EVE Acid0.049UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.049PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFECA-G0.082UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.082PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFECA-G0.082UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.082PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFESA-BP10.053UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.053PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFESA-BP10.053UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.053PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFECA B0.12UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFECA B0.12UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO5DA0.067ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.067PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO5DA0.067ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.067PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PES0.092UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.092PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PES0.092UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.092PQLPage 6 of 16
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above 10%. The actual detectionlimits may be higher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PIW-1D-02142002/14/2020320-58652-1Byproduct 50.012UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.012PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-1D-02142002/14/2020320-58652-1Byproduct 50.012UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.012PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3R-EVE0.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3R-EVE0.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3Byproduct 40.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3Byproduct 40.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3Byproduct 50.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3Byproduct 50.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-FB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-4R-EVE0.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-FB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-4R-EVE0.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-FB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-4Byproduct 40.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-FB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-4Byproduct 40.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-FB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-4Byproduct 50.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-FB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-4Byproduct 50.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 7 of 16
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit. The actual detection limits may behigher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3PFMOAA0.0050ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02142002/14/2020320-58652-3PFMOAA0.0050ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPUJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-02252002/25/2020320-58966-1PerfluoroundecanoicAcid0.0020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 8 of 16
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may bebiased high.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2PFO5DA0.0031ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2PFO5DA0.0033ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 9 of 16
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may be biasedhigh.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-EB-02122002/12/2020320-58612-3Byproduct 50.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-EB-02122002/12/2020320-58612-3Byproduct 50.0020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2R-EVE0.0024UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-04-02112002/11/2020320-58585-2Byproduct 40.0036UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-06-02062002/06/2020320-58586-1Byproduct 40.063UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-06-02062002/06/2020320-58586-1Byproduct 40.062UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3R-EVE0.017UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3R-EVE0.018UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3Byproduct 40.032UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-SMW-11-02112002/11/2020320-58585-3Byproduct 40.034UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 10 of 16
High relative percent difference (RPD) observed between field duplicate and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-LTW-03-02252002/25/2020320-58966-1PEPA2.5UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.047PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-02252002/25/2020320-58966-1PEPA2.5UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.047PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-02252002/25/2020320-58966-1PFO4DA0.18ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.079PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-02252002/25/2020320-58966-1PFO4DA0.17ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.079PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D02/25/2020320-58966-2PES0.59UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.046PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D02/25/2020320-58966-2PES0.59UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.046PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D02/25/2020320-58966-2PFECA B0.78UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.060PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D02/25/2020320-58966-2PFECA B0.78UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.060PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D02/25/2020320-58966-2PEPA3.5UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.047PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-022520-D02/25/2020320-58966-2PEPA4.5UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.047PQLPage 11 of 16
Quality review criteria exceeded between the REP (laboratory replicate) and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-LTW-03-02252002/25/2020320-58966-1Byproduct 52.8UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.058PQLCAP1Q20-LTW-03-02252002/25/2020320-58966-1Byproduct 52.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.058PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-1S-02132002/13/2020320-58612-6PFO4DA1.9ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0079PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-1S-02132002/13/2020320-58612-6PFO4DA0.25ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0079PQLPage 12 of 16
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PMPA4.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep1.1PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PMPA3.9UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep1.1PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1NVHOS1.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.11PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1NVHOS1.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.11PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFMOAA180ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.42PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFMOAA180ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.42PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PEPA0.64UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.093PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PEPA0.63UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.093PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO2HxA34ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO2HxA34ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO3OA3.9ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO3OA3.9ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO4DA0.76ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFO4DA0.74ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1R-EVE0.58UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.14PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1R-EVE0.60UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.14PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Byproduct 40.50UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.32PQLPage 13 of 16
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Byproduct 40.54UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.32PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Byproduct 50.94UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Byproduct 50.94UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFESA-BP20.081ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.061PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1PFESA-BP20.070ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.061PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Hydro-EVE Acid0.26UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.056PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-7D-02192002/19/2020320-58849-1Hydro-EVE Acid0.26UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.056PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PMPA5.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep1.1PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PMPA5.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep1.1PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7NVHOS1.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.11PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7NVHOS1.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.11PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFMOAA190ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.42PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFMOAA200ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.42PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PEPA1.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.093PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PEPA1.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.093PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO2HxA39ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO2HxA40ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLPage 14 of 16
The analysis hold time for this sample was exceeded. The reported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO3OA3.7ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO3OA4.0ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO4DA0.40ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFO4DA0.46ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.16PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7R-EVE0.59UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.14PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7R-EVE0.62UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.14PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Byproduct 40.45UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.32PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Byproduct 40.44UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.32PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Byproduct 51.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Byproduct 51.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.12PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFESA-BP20.066ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.061PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7PFESA-BP20.065ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.061PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Hydro-EVE Acid0.15UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.056PQLCAP1Q20-PZ-22-02202002/20/2020320-58849-7Hydro-EVE Acid0.15UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.056PQLPage 15 of 16
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit. The reported result may be biasedlow.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP MW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-PIW-1D-02142002/14/2020320-58652-1R-EVE0.29UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.014PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-1D-02142002/14/2020320-58652-1R-EVE0.30UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.014PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-1D-02142002/14/2020320-58652-1Byproduct 40.41UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.032PQLCAP1Q20-PIW-1D-02142002/14/2020320-58652-1Byproduct 40.41UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.032PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2R-EVE0.026UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2R-EVE0.026UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2Byproduct 40.067UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2Byproduct 40.068UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2Byproduct 50.0061UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-PW-07-02142002/14/2020320-58652-2Byproduct 50.0062UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 16 of 16
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY CAP SW Sampling update.doc 1 of 3
ADQM DATA REVIEW
NARRATIVE

Site Chemours FAY – Fayetteville

Project CAP SW Sampling (updated)

Project Reviewer Michael Aucoin, AECOM as a Chemours contractor

Sampling Dates March 26 - 27, 2020
April 2 – 3, 2020
April 6, 2020

Analytical Protocol

Laboratory Analytical Method Parameter(s)
TestAmerica - Sacramento 537 Modified PFAS(1)
TestAmerica - Sacramento Cl. Spec. Table 3
Compound SOP
Table 3+ compounds

1 Perfluoroalkylsubstances, a list of 37 compounds including HFPO-DA.

Sample Receipt

The following items are noted for this data set:

• All samples were received in satisfactory condition and within EPA temperature guidelines on:

March 28, 2020
April 7, 2020

Data Review

Please note the following byproduct parameter names have been updated as follows:

Old CASN New CASN New Common Name Previous Common
Name
EVS1429 2416366-18-0 R-PSDA Byproduct 4
EVS1430 2416366-19-1 Hydrolyzed PSDA Byproduct 5
EVS1431 2416366-21-5 R-PSDCA Byproduct 6
29311-67-9 (unchanged) 29311-67-9 (unchanged) PS Acid PFESA-BP1
749836-20-2 (unchanged) 749836-20-2
(unchanged) Hydro-PS Acid PFESA-BP2

ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY CAP SW Sampling update.doc 2 of 3

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 below:

• Some Table 3 results were qualified B and the reported results may be biased high, or false
positives, due to a comparable concentration found in the associated equipment blank.

Analytical results not originally qualified by the DVM because the equipment blank was
originally shown with an incorrect sample collection date, or was found in another SDG, had the
B qualifier added for the following reasons:

o CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-040320
▪ BP-5 was reported at 17 ng/L, and the equipment blank (CAP1Q20-EBK-2-040320) had
18 ng/L
o CAP1Q20-CFR-KINGS-040620
▪ BP-5 was reported at 14 ng/L, and the equipment blank (CAP1Q20-EB-040620) had 4.6
ng/L

Analytical results originally qualified by the DVM because an equipment blank was originally
shown with an incorrect sample collection date, or was found in another SDG, had the B qualifier
removed for the following reasons:

o CAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-040220 (SDG 320-60029-1). There was no blank associated with
this sample.
▪ PFMOAA
▪ PFO2HxA
▪ PFO3OA
▪ BP-5
▪ R-EVE
o CAP1Q20-EXCESS RIVER WATER-24-040320 (320-60029-1). The only blank associated with
this sample is CAP1Q20-EBK-2-040320
▪ PFMOAA
▪ PFO2HxA
▪ PFO3OA
▪ R-EVE

• Some analytical results have been qualified J as estimated, and non-detect results qualified UJ
indicating an estimated reporting limit, due to a poor recovery of a lab control spike or matrix
spike; and poor lab replicate precision. See the Data Verification Module (DVM) Narrative
Report for which samples were qualified, the specific reasons for qualification, and potential bias
in reported results.

Attachments

The DVM Narrative report is attached. The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on an
AECOM network shared drive and are available to be posted on external shared drives, or on a flash
drive.
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY CAP SW Sampling update.doc 3 of 3
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)/control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the RPD
between these spikes
• Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
• 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.

DVM Narrative ReportContamination detected in equipment blank(s). Sample result does not differ significantly from the analyte concentration detected in the associatedequipment blank(s).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP SW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-04032004/03/2020320-60032-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.017UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-KINGS-04062004/06/2020320-60032-3Hydrolyzed PSDA0.014UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 1 of 7
Contamination detected in equipment blank(s). Sample result does not differ significantly from the analyte concentration detected in the associatedequipment blank(s).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP SW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-04032004/03/2020320-60032-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.018UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLEXCESS RIVER WATER-24-04032004/03/2020320-60029-4Hydrolyzed PSDA0.016UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPBPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 2 of 7
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit. The actual detection limits may behigher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP SW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 3 of 7
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may bebiased high.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP SW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-TARHEEL-03272003/26/2020320-59859-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.025UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-TARHEEL-03272003/26/2020320-59859-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.027UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 4 of 7
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may be biasedhigh.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP SW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1R-PSDA0.0083UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1Hydrolyzed PSDA0.015UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1Hydrolyzed PSDA0.015UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1R-EVE0.0028UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1R-EVE0.0027UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-04032004/03/2020320-60032-2R-EVE0.0028UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-04032004/03/2020320-60032-2R-EVE0.0030UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-TARHEEL-03272003/26/2020320-59859-2R-PSDA0.014UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-TARHEEL-03272003/26/2020320-59859-2R-PSDA0.013UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-TARHEEL-03272003/26/2020320-59859-2R-EVE0.0061UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-TARHEEL-03272003/26/2020320-59859-2R-EVE0.0067UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-04032004/03/2020320-60032-2R-PSDA0.014UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-TARHEEL-24-04032004/03/2020320-60032-2R-PSDA0.013UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 5 of 7
Quality review criteria exceeded between the REP (laboratory replicate) and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP SW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1R-PSDA0.0094UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 6 of 7
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit but above the rejection limit. Thereported result may be biased low.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:CAP SW SamplingAnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1PFMOAA0.041ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLCAP1Q20-CFR-BLADEN-04022004/02/2020320-60035-1PFMOAA0.041ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0050PQLPage 7 of 7
DVM Narrative ReportAssociated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non-detect result isunusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/20201274938Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedR537_Prep0.0026PQLPage 1 of 5
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the lower control limit. The actual detection limits may behigher than reported.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/20201274938Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLPage 2 of 5
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/202012749382-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/202012749382-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/20201274938N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/20201274938N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D03/04/202012749422-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D03/04/202012749422-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D03/04/20201274942N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D03/04/20201274942N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLSeep E-03042003/04/20201274946N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep E-03042003/04/20201274946N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0041UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0041PQLSeep F-03042003/04/20201274950N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0027ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0027PQLSeep F-03042003/04/20201274950N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0045UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0045PQLSeep G-03042003/04/20201274954N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLSeep G-03042003/04/20201274954N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0043UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0043PQLSeep I-03042003/04/20201274962N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0026ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0026PQLSeep I-03042003/04/20201274962N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0044UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0044PQLPage 3 of 5
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported result is unusable.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSeep J-03042003/04/202012749662-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep J-03042003/04/202012749662-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep J-03042003/04/20201274966N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep J-03042003/04/20201274966N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0041UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0041PQLSeep K-03042003/04/202012749702-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep K-03042003/04/202012749702-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep K-03042003/04/20201274970N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0025ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0025PQLSeep K-03042003/04/20201274970N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0042UG/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0042PQLSeep H-03042003/04/20201274958N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0028ug/LEPA 537 Rev.1.1 modifiedUJ537_Prep0.0028PQLPage 4 of 5
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may bebiased high.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Offsite Seeps 2020AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSeep H-03042003/04/20201274961Byproduct 40.030UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep H-03042003/04/20201274958Byproduct 40.028UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep G-03042003/04/20201274957Byproduct 40.044UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep G-03042003/04/20201274954Byproduct 40.042UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep F-03042003/04/20201274953Byproduct 40.068UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep F-03042003/04/20201274950Byproduct 40.067UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep E-03042003/04/20201274949Byproduct 40.053UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLSeep E-03042003/04/20201274946Byproduct 40.050UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.0020PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D03/04/20201274945Byproduct 40.49UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20PQLLock-Dam Seep-030420-D03/04/20201274942Byproduct 40.52UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20PQLLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/20201274941Byproduct 40.44UG/L0.20Cl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20MDLLock-Dam Seep-03042003/04/20201274938Byproduct 40.45UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJ0.20PQLPage 5 of 5
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY Tarheel Sampling 021420_051120.doc 1 of 3
ADQM DATA REVIEW
NARRATIVE

Site Chemours FAY – Fayetteville

Project Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20

Project Reviewer Michael Aucoin, AECOM as a Chemours contractor

Sampling Dates February 14, 2020
March 31, 2020
April 2, 2020
April 6, 2020
April 8, 2020
April 9, 2020
April 19, 2020
April 22, 2020
April 26, 2020
April 29, 2020
May 2, 2020
May 6, 2020
May 11, 2020

Analytical Protocol

Laboratory Analytical Method Parameter(s)
TestAmerica - Sacramento 537 Modified PFAS(1)
TestAmerica - Sacramento Cl. Spec. Table 3
Compound SOP
Table 3+ compounds

1 Perfluoroalkylsubstances, a list of 37 compounds including HFPO-DA.

Sample Receipt

The following items are noted for this data set:

• All samples were received in satisfactory condition and within EPA temperature guidelines on:

February 19, 2020
April 9, 2020
April 15, 2020
April 25, 2020
May 5, 2020
May 9, 2020
May 12, 2020

ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY Tarheel Sampling 021420_051120.doc 2 of 3
Data Review

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 below:

• R qualifiers applied by the DVM for very poor surrogate (isotope dilution analyte or IDA)
recoveries were overwritten to UJ by the reviewer because data quality is not considered affected
by the laboratory if the IDA signal-to-noise ratio is greater than 10:1, which was achieved for all
IDA in the samples.
• Some analytical results have been qualified J as estimated, and non-detect results qualified UJ
indicating an estimated reporting limit, due to a poor recovery of a surrogate, lab control spike, or
matrix spike; and poor field duplicate or lab control spike precision. See the Data Verification
Module (DVM) Narrative Report for which samples were qualified, the specific reasons for
qualification, and potential bias in reported results.

Attachments

The DVM Narrative report is attached. The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on an
AECOM network shared drive and are available to be posted on external shared drives, or on a flash
drive.
ADQM Data Review Narrative - FAY Tarheel Sampling 021420_051120.doc 3 of 3
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)/control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the RPD
between these spikes
• Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
• 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.

DVM Narrative ReportOnly one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Nondetects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCFR-TARHEEL-48-04022004/02/2020320-60098-3Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-48-04022004/02/2020320-60098-3N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-48-04022004/02/2020320-60098-3Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-2Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4Perfluorooctadecanoicacid0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-2N-ethylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0020UG/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-2Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 1 of 7
One or more surrogates had relative percent recovery (RPR) values less than the data rejection level. The reported non detect report-ing limit is an estimated value.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCFR-TARHEEL-48-04022004/02/2020320-60098-32-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-48-04022004/02/2020320-60098-32-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0040ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0040PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-22-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-42-(N-ethyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0020ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-42-(N-methyl perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamido)-ethanol0.0040ug/L537 ModifiedUJ3535_PFC0.0040PQLPage 2 of 7
Associated LCS and/or LCSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may bebiased high.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-2Byproduct 50.0084UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4Byproduct 50.020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-48-04022004/02/2020320-60098-3Byproduct 50.014UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-03312003/31/2020320-60098-1Byproduct 50.0082UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-03312003/31/2020320-60098-1Byproduct 50.0082UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 3 of 7
Associated MS and/or MSD analysis had relative percent recovery (RPR) values higher than the upper control limit. The reported result may be biasedhigh.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsFAY-CFR-TARHEEL-02142002/14/2020320-58729-1R-EVE0.0024UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLFAY-CFR-TARHEEL-02142002/14/2020320-58729-1R-EVE0.0027UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLFAY-CFR-TARHEEL-02142002/14/2020320-58729-1Byproduct 40.0034UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLFAY-CFR-TARHEEL-02142002/14/2020320-58729-1Byproduct 40.0034UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLFAY-CFR-TARHEEL-02142002/14/2020320-58729-1Byproduct 50.0042UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLFAY-CFR-TARHEEL-02142002/14/2020320-58729-1Byproduct 50.0050UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-03312003/31/2020320-60098-1R-EVE0.0021UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 4 of 7
High relative percent difference (RPD) observed between field duplicate and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-2PerfluorohexaneSulfonic Acid0.0039UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-2Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.0058UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-033120-D03/31/2020320-60098-2PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.013UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-03312003/31/2020320-60098-1PerfluorohexaneSulfonic Acid0.0083UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-03312003/31/2020320-60098-1Perfluorobutanoic Acid0.011UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0035PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-03312003/31/2020320-60098-1PerfluoroheptanoicAcid0.016UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0025PQLPage 5 of 7
High relative percent difference (RPD) observed between LCS and LCSD samples. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4PerfluorotridecanoicAcid0.0027UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 6 of 7
Only one surrogate has relative percent recovery (RPR) values outside control limits and the parameter is a PFC (Detects).LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Tarheel Sampling 2/14/20 - 5/11/20AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4PerfluorotetradecanoicAcid0.0031UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4Perfluorohexadecanoicacid (PFHxDA)0.0025ug/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLCFR-TARHEEL-83-04062004/06/2020320-60098-4PerfluorododecanoicAcid0.0021UG/L537 ModifiedJ3535_PFC0.0020PQLPage 7 of 7

APPENDIX H
Supporting Calculations – Onsite
Groundwater Pathway
Appendix H
1 July 2020
APPENDIX H
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS – ON SITE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Based on the conceptual site model, the Black Creek Aquifer and the Flood Plain deposits at the
river bank are the primary hydrogeologic units that are potentially in hydraulic connection with
the Cape Fear River. The Cape Fear River stage is lower than the top of the Black Creek Aquifer,
except during peak rainfall or flooding, indicating that the Cape Fear River is a discharge boundary
for the aquifer. Onsite groundwater from the Black Creek Aquifer discharging to the Cape Fear
River is therefore a potential pathway for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mass
loading to the Cape Fear River. This pathway was identified as Transport Pathway Number 5 in
the PFAS mass loading design in the. The objective of the supporting calculations presented in
this appendix is to estimate PFAS mass loading from onsite groundwater discharge based on
calculated PFAS mass flux for segments of the Black Creek Aquifer along the river frontage.
APPROACH
The PFAS mass loading from onsite groundwater discharge was estimated as follows. Supporting
data are provided in Table H1:
1. The Cape Fear River frontage was divided into 8 segments (Figure H1). Each segment
includes at least one groundwater monitoring well that is considered representative of the
Black Creek Aquifer and that is included in the Corrective Action Plan (Geosyntec, 2019b).
2.The thickness of the Black Creek Aquifer (h) was estimated for each segment based on the
segment length and the cross-sectional area of the Black Creek Aquifer, as determined by
the three-dimensional hydrostratigraphic model of the Site, constructed using CTech’s
Earth Volumetric Studio (EVS) software (Geosyntec, 2019b):ℎ= 𝐴𝐴𝑙𝑙
where h is the Black Creek Aquifer thickness [ft];
A is the cross-sectional area of the Black Creek Aquifer [ft2]; and
l is the segment length [ft].
The EVS model output for each segment is presented in Figure H2.
3.The hydraulic gradient (i) was derived based on the groundwater level contour map. For
each segment, the gradient was estimated based on the distance between contour lines in
the vicinity of the river frontage (Figure H3):
Appendix H
2 July 2020
𝑖𝑖= 𝛥𝛥ℎ𝑑𝑑
where i is the hydraulic gradient [ft/ft];
Δh is the head difference between two contour lines [ft]; and
d is the estimated distance between the contour lines [ft]
This approach is considered to best represent the likely groundwater fluxes discharging
from the Black Creek Aquifer to the Cape Fear River. Based on hydrographs from wells
along the river presented in Figure H-4 hydraulic gradients in the aquifer are relatively
constant over time. With the exception of large changes in the river level (over ten feet),
these wells respond to river level fluctuation in a subdued manner.
4.The hydraulic conductivity (K) was estimated for each segment using the results of slug
tests conducted for select monitoring wells representative of the Black Creek Aquifer. The
range of slug test results for LTW-02, LTW-03, and LTW-05 were used to determine the
hydraulic conductivity of segments 3,4, and 7, respectively since these wells are located in
the corresponding segments. For other segments where no slug tests were performed, the
range of slug test results for the entire Black Creek Aquifer were used to determine the
hydraulic conductivity. In both cases, the minimum hydraulic conductivity and the
geometric mean hydraulic conductivity were used to calculate a range of mass flux values.
Table H2 provides the results of the slug tests and the minimum and geometric mean
hydraulic conductivities for each segment.
5.The total Table 3+ PFAS concentration for each segment was determined based on grab
samples collected from monitoring wells. For segments with two wells, the average total
Table 3+ PFAS concentration was used. PFAS analytical results for these groundwater
samples are presented in Appendix D of this report.
6.Mass flux for each segment, representing the PFAS mass loading to the river from
groundwater, was determined as follows:𝑄𝑄=𝑙𝑙ℎ𝐾𝐾𝑖𝑖𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾
where Q is the mass flux [mg/sec];
l is the segment length [ft];
h is the Black Creek Aquifer thickness [ft];
K is the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer [ft/sec];
i is the hydraulic gradient [ft/ft];
Appendix H
3 July 2020
C is the total Table 3+ concentration [ng/L]; and
f is the conversion factor between cubic feet and liters and between ng and mg.
7.The total mass flux for the groundwater pathway was calculated as the sum of the
individual mass flux results for the 8 segments.
POTENTIAL FUTURE METHODOLOGY MODIFCATIONS
Periodically, adjustments to this calculation methodology may be required based on changes in
conditions or refinement of Site knowledge.
REFERENCES
Geosyntec, 2019. Corrective Action Plan. Chemours Fayetteville Works. December 2019.
TR0795
TABLES
TABLE H1
ONSITE GROUNDWATER PATHWAY SUPPORTING DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Total Table 3+
Concentration4
(ng/L)
Average Total
Table 3+
Concentration for
Segment
(ng/L)
Minimum Mass
Discharge
(mg/sec)
Geometric Mean
Mass Discharge
(mg/sec)
Total Table 3+
Concentration4
(ng/L)
Average Total
Table 3+
Concentration for
Segment
(ng/L)
Minimum Mass
Dicharge
(mg/sec)
Geometric Mean
Mass Discharge
(mg/sec)
PIW-1S 2/13/2020 1,150 13,400 11.7 20 497.4 0.040 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 12,000 29,000 0.00797 0.142 13,000 30,000 0.00824 0.147
PIW-1D 2/14/2020 46,000 47,000
2 PIW-3D 2/24/2020 873 11,010 12.6 20 454.6 0.044 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 40,000 40,000 0.00988 0.176 41,000 41,000 0.0101 0.180
3 LTW-02 2/24/2020 875 5,560 6.35 20 717.0 0.028 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 80,000 80,000 0.105 0.139 82,000 82,000 0.108 0.143
4 LTW-03 2/25/2020 729 8,340 11.4 20 717.0 0.028 2.0E-05 4.6E-05 220,000 220,000 0.0290 0.0670 230,000 230,000 0.0303 0.0700
5 PZ-22 2/20/2020 656 15,200 23.2 20 753.6 0.027 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 250,000 250,000 0.0515 0.919 250,000 250,000 0.0515 0.919
PIW-7S 2/19/2020 524 16,000 30.5 20 753.6 0.027 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 130,000 180,000 0.0389 0.693 140,000 185,000 0.0399 0.712
PIW-7D 2/19/2020 230,000 230,000
7 LTW-05 2/19/2020 887 17,200 19.4 20 826.9 0.024 1.8E-05 4.8E-05 350,000 350,000 0.0743 0.196 350,000 350,000 0.0743 0.196
8 PW-11 2/13/2020 1,990 56,300 28.3 20 826.9 0.024 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 680,000 680,000 0.473 8.43 680,000 680,000 0.473 8.43
0.790 10.8 0.795 10.8
Notes
1 - Cross sectional areas were determined using the three-dimensional hydrostratigraphic model of the Site, constructed using CTech’s Earth Volumetric Studio (EVS) software (Figure H2)
2 - Vertical and horizontal distances for hydraulic gradient determined from groundwater level contour map for the February 2020 synoptic well gauging round (Figure H3).
3 - Hydraulic conductivity values are based on slug test results presented in Table H2.
4 - Detailed Table 3+ PFAS Concentrations provided in Table 10.
ft - feet
ft/sec - feet per second
ft2 - square feet
mg/sec - milligrams per second
ng/L - nanograms per liter
WellSegment
Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)
1
6
Hydraulic
Gradient (ft/ft)
Horizontal
Distance Between
Contours (ft)2
Groundwater
Contour
Elevation
Difference (ft)2
Average
Thickness of
Black Creek
Aquifer
(ft)
Cross-sectional
Area of Black
Creek Aquifer
(ft2)1
Segment
Length (ft)Sample Date
TotalTotal
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)
Geometric Mean
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/sec)3
Minimum
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/sec)3
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE H2
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Segment Well Slug Test
Observed
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/sec)
Minimum
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/sec)
Geometric Mean
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/sec)
--BCA-01 T1 2.1E-04 2.1E-04 2.8E-04
T1*3.7E-04
T2 2.2E-04
T2*3.7E-04
T3 2.1E-04
T3*3.6E-04
T4 2.2E-04
T4*3.9E-04
--BCA-02 T1 4.6E-04 3.1E-04 5.4E-04
T1*1.0E-03
T2 4.2E-04
T2*9.1E-04
T3 3.4E-04
T3*7.4E-04
T4 3.3E-04
T4*7.4E-04
T5 3.1E-04
T5*6.8E-04
--BCA-04 T1 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 1.4E-03
T1*1.6E-03
T2 1.1E-03
T2*1.7E-03
T3 1.1E-03
T3*1.6E-03
T4 1.1E-03
T4*1.7E-03
T5 1.2E-03
T5*2.3E-03
3 LTW-02 T1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 4.0E-04
T1*4.8E-04
T2 3.2E-04
T2*4.9E-04
T3 3.1E-04
T3*4.7E-04
T4 3.9E-04
T4*5.5E-04
T5 3.0E-04
T5*4.5E-04
4 LTW-03 T1 6.5E-05 2.00E-05 4.6E-05
T2 2.4E-05
T3 2.6E-05
T4 2.6E-04
T5 2.0E-05
7 LTW-05 T1 2.4E-05 1.8E-05 4.8E-05
T1*8.0E-05
T2 1.8E-05
T2*3.5E-05
T4 7.4E-05
T4*1.3E-04
Remaining
Segments (1, 2, 5, 6,
and 8)
All BCA Wells ----1.8E-05 3.2E-04
Notes
* - Screen length used for aquifer thickness
BCA - Black Creek Aquifer
ft/sec - feet per second
TR0795
Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE H3
ONSITE GROUNDWATER FLOW RATE
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Segment
Cross-sectional Area of Black
Creek Aquifer
(ft2)
Hydraulic Gradient (ft/ft)Minimum Hydraulic
Conductivity (ft/sec)
Geometric Mean Hydraulic
Conductivity (ft/sec)
Minimum Flow Rate
(L/sec)
Geometric Mean
Flow Rate (L/sec)
13,400 0.040 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 0.27 4.90
2 11,010 0.044 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 0.25 4.40
3 5,560 0.028 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 1.32 1.74
4 8,340 0.028 2.0E-05 4.6E-05 0.13 0.30
5 15,200 0.027 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 0.21 3.67
16,000 0.027 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 0.22 3.86
7 17,200 0.024 1.8E-05 4.8E-05 0.21 0.56
8 56,300 0.024 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 0.69 12.4
Total 3.30 31.8
Notes
Supporting data for cross-sectional area, hydraulic gradient, and hydraulic conductivity provided in Table H1.
ft - feet
ft/sec - feet per second
ft2 - square feet
L/sec - liters per second
1
6
TR0795 Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TR0795
FIGURES
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
!'A
CapeFear
RiverSeep D
Old Outfall 002
Seep C
Seep B
Seep A
Willis Creek
PIW-1D
LTW-03
PIW-1S
PIW-7S
LTW-02
LTW-05
PIW-7D
PW-11
PZ-22
PIW-3D
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Segment 6
Segment 7
Segment 8
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_Black CreekAquiferSegmentsforGroundwaterPathway.mxd Last Revised: 7/29/2020 Author: jkasunicProjection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Black Creek Aquifer Segmentsfor Groundwater Pathway
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
H1RaleighJuly 2020
1,000 0 1,000500 Feet
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 Department of Environmental QualityOnline 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
Transect Line
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
³
FigureH2Cross-Sections Along Cape Fear River Transect LineChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaRaleighJuly 2020Elevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100PIW-1S/D-1002505007501,000Elevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100-100250500750PIW-3DLTW-01Elevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100-100250500750LTW-02Segment 1Elevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100-100250500750LTW-03Elevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100-100250500LTW-04PZ-22Elevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100-100250500PIW7S/DElevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100-100250500750Elevation (feet NAVD88)50403020100PW-11-1002505007501,000 1,2501,5001,7502,000Segment 2Segment 3Segment 4Segment 5Segment 6Segment 7Segment 8Units(2)Floodplain DepositsBlack Creek Confining UnitBlack Creek AquiferUpper Cape Fear Confining UnitLegendWell screen(1)Notes:NAVD88 – feet North America Datum of 1988 Vertical Exaggeration = 10x1. Wells are projected onto the cross-section.Segment 1Segment 3Segment 2Segment 4Segment 5Segment 6Segment 7Segment 8Distance Along Transect Line (feet)Distance Along Transect Line (feet)Distance Along Transect Line (feet)Distance Along Transect Line (feet)Distance Along Transect Line (feet) Distance Along Transect Line (feet)Distance Along Transect Line (feet)Distance Along Transect Line (feet)NorthSouthNorthSouthNorthSouthNorthSouthNorthSouthNorthSouthNorthSouthLTW-05NorthSouthCape Fear River
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
@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
Fear
Ri
ver
Seep A
Seep B
Seep C
Seep D
Old Outfall 002
BCA-0186.45
BCA-0274.4
BCA-03R100.15
BCA-04120.55
LTW-0138.12
LTW-0242.92
LTW-0340.88
LTW-0443.58
LTW-0542.95
PIW-10DR61.06
PIW-1S34.37
PIW-2D64.18 PIW-3D36.65
PIW-4D42.36
PIW-6S39.77
PIW-7D43.17
PIW-7S43.3
PIW-8D41.74PIW-9D42.61
PW-0952.67
PW-10R48.52
PW-1140.03
PW-1292.13
PW-13115.74 PW-1486.26
PW-15R76.21
PZ-2244.44
SMW-03B92.07
SMW-1047.1
SMW-1234.08
908070604050
50 40
60
7080
90
Segment 10.040
Segment 20.044
Segment 30.028
Segment 40.030
Segment 50.027
Segment 60.027
Segment 70.020
Segment 80.024
Groundwater Elevation Map andHydraulic Gradients - February 2020
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
H3Raleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_GW_Elevation_Map_and_Hydraulic_Conductivities_Feb2020.mxd Last Revised: 6/25/2020 Author: jkasunicJuly 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,100 0 1,100550 Feet
Notes:ft - feetft NAVD88 - feet North American Vertical Datum 1988.1. Depth to water measurements collected on February 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 hydraulic gradient was derived using the groundwater level contoursshown here, based on the distance between contour lines in the vicinity of the river frontage. Vertical and horizontal distances used to estimate hydraulic gradientare provided in Table H1.5. 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).6. 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 feetintervalPotentiometric SurfaceInferred
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Ground SurfaceElevation Contour (ftNAVD88) - 5 ft interval
Transect Line
Site Boundary
Segment 10.040 Hydraulic Gradient (ft/ft)Segment Number
\\projectsitesb.geosyntec.com@SSL\DavWWWRoot\5\FWConsentOrder\Shared Documents\34 - P16 Quarterly Reports\2020 Q1\Report\Appendices\Appendix H - Onsite Groundwater Gradients\[Figure H-4 - Hydrographs.xlsx]FigureH-4Hydrograph for Select Onsite Groundwater Monitoring
Wells and W.O Huske Dam
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
H-4
Raleigh July 2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
27-Nov-201828-Dec-201828-Jan-201928-Feb-201931-Mar-20191-May-20191-Jun-20192-Jul-20192-Aug-20192-Sep-20193-Oct-20193-Nov-20194-Dec-20194-Jan-20204-Feb-20206-Mar-20206-Apr-20207-May-20207-Jun-2020W.O Huske Dam River Elevation (ft NAVD88)Groundwater Elevation (ft NAVD88)Date
LTW-01 LTW-02 LTW-05 PIW-1D PIW-2D PIW-3D PIW-4D PIW-7D PIW-7S PIW-8D W.O. Huske Dam
Notes:
ft - feet
NAVD88 - North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NAVD88 - North American Vertical Datum of
1988

APPENDIX I
Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculations

Appendix I
1 July 2020
APPENDIX I
CAPE FEAR RIVER MASS LOADING CALCULATIONS
This appendix presents the methodology for calculating three types of mass loads:
1. The total measured in-river Table 3+ PFAS mass load based on time-weighted
concentration measurements of Table 3+ 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 Table 3+ 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 Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load to the Cape Fear River defined as the
sum of the measured in-river loads and the remedy prevented loads.
The following sections detailed calculation methods for each type of mass load: Total, River and
Captured Mass Loads.
Total Mass Load Calculation Methodology
The Total Mass Load is calculated following Equation 1 below:
Equation 1: Total Table 3+ Mass Load
𝑀𝑇𝑇3஼ிோ ൌ 𝑚஼ிோ ൅𝑚ோ௘௠௘ௗ௜௘௦
where,
𝑀𝑇𝑇3஼ிோ = is the Total Mass Load of Table 3+ PFAS compounds in the Cape Fear River,
including the mass load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by implemented
remedies;
𝑚஼ிோ = 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;
𝑚ோ௘௠௘ௗ௜௘௦ = is the Captured Mass Load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by
remedies implemented by Chemours;
The following subsections describe how the River and Captured Mass Loads are calculated.
River Mass Load Calculation Methodology
The River Mass Load is the estimated mass, in kilograms, that has reached the Cape Fear River
over a period of time. The River Mass Load, 𝑚஼ிோ, is calculated using primarily composite
Appendix I
2 July 2020
samples from the Cape Fear River and corresponding river flow volumes. The River Mass Load
is calculated for a given time period following Equation 2 below:
Equation 2: River Mass Load
𝑚஼ிோ ൌ ෍෍ 𝑐஼ிோ,௡,௜𝑉஼ிோ,௡
௜ୀ୍
௜ୀଵ௡

where,
𝑚஼ிோ = is the total Table 3+ PFAS mass load estimated from PFAS concentrations in samples
taken in the Cape Fear River downstream of the Site where the river is well mixed and
measured river flow volumes;
n = is the number of mass load time intervals during the monitoring period;
i = represents each of the Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents listed in Table 1.
I = represents total number of Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents included in the summation of
Total Table 3+ concentrations, e.g., 17 or 20;
𝑐஼ிோ,௡,௜ = is the measured or estimated concentration of Table 3+ PFAS for each total mass
loading time interval based on samples collected from the Cape Fear River; and
𝑉஼ிோ,௡ = is the volume of Cape Fear River water that flowed passed the sampling point during
the total mass loading time interval.
Calculation of Time-Weighted Average Concentrations
During a time period, multiple samples will be collected, most of them being composite samples
and some potentially being grab samples. The calculation methodology outlined here considers all
collected samples in the time period, including cases where samples are collected
contemporaneously with each other and cases where composite sample collection events do not
occur successively, as is the case with twice weekly 24 hour composite samples. To facilitate this
calculation the overall time period is separated into discrete time intervals with corresponding
time-weighted concentrations calculated for each interval. The time intervals are defined as the
duration in time between two sampling events, where sampling events consist of:
 Beginning of a composite sample collection;
 End of a composite sample collection; or
 Collection of a grab sample.
Equation 3 shows the formula used to calculate the total flow volume for each interval.
Equation 3: Mass Load Time Interval Concentration
𝑐஼ிோ,௡,௜ ൌ ෍𝑐஼ிோ,௡,௜,௞
௞
𝑤௞
Appendix I
3 July 2020
where
𝑤௞ ൌ
𝑡௡𝑡௞
∑𝑡௡𝑡௞௞

where,
𝑐஼ிோ,௡,௜ = is the measured or estimated concentration of Table 3+ PFAS for each total mass
loading time interval based on samples collected from the Cape Fear River;
n = is the number of mass load time intervals during the monitoring period;
i = is the number of Table 3+ PFAS compounds being summed to determine the total Table 3+
PFAS concentration in the sample;
k = is the number of concentration samples considered in the mass load time interval;
𝑐஼ிோ,௡,௜,௞ = is the measured concentration of Table 3+ PFAS for each sample result
considered in calculating the time-weighted average concentration for a mass load time
interval;
𝑤௞ = is the weighting factor calculated for and applied individually to each concentration;
𝑡௡ = the length of time of the mass load time interval; and
𝑡௞ = the length of time of the collected sample. For composite samples, 𝑡௞ is the total length
of the composite sample collection period. If 𝑡௞ ൏𝑡௡, i.e., the composite sample collection
time is less than the interval time, or a grab sample was collected, then 𝑡௞ is set to equal
the interval time for the purposes of concentration weighting.
Calculation of Travel Time Adjusted Flow Volumes
To calculate the mass load, river flow volumes are calculated for each time interval using United
States Geological Survey (USGS) reported flows at the W.O. Huske Dam. A time offset is applied
to the flow data to account for travel time for the flow passing the W.O. Huske Dam to reach the
CFR-TARHEEL location. River flow passing the W.O. Huske is estimated to have a travel time
between 2 and 12 hours to reach CFR-TARHEEL depending on river flow (e.g., the flow rate
passing W.O. Huske Dam at 8 am will arrive at CFR-TARHEEL at 11 am for a 3 hour travel time).
Travel times are estimated based on the results of a numerical model of the Cape Fear River which
developed a regression curve between the USGS reported gage heights at W.O. Huske Dam and
travel times. Equation 4 shows the formula used to calculate the time offset. The total volume of
flow for each mass loading interval is calculated as the sum of all individual flow measurements
for an interval where each measurement multiplied by its corresponding 15-minute time duration.
Equation 5 shows the formula used to calculate the total flow volume for each interval.
Appendix I
4 July 2020
Equation 4: Travel time offset W.O. Huske Dam to Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
𝑡௢௙௙௦௘௧ ൌ 13,422 ∙ 𝑄஼ிோ ௐைு஽ିଵ ൅ 2.019
where,
𝑡௢௙௙௦௘௧ = is the travel time flow in the Cape Fear River takes in hours to pass from the W.O.
Huske Dam to the Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge based on the measured flow in the Cape
Fear River at the W.O. Huske Dam;
𝑄஼ிோ ௐைு஽ିଵ = is the inverse of the measured flow rate of the Cape Fear River at W.O. Huske
Dam for a given point in time in cubic feet per second; and
13,422 𝑎𝑛𝑑 2.019 = are constant values, slope and intercept of the regression curve,
respectively.

Equation 5: Cape Fear River Flow Volume per Interval
𝑉஼ிோ,௡ ൌ ෍𝑄஼ிோ ௐைு஽,௡,௠ା௧೚೑೑ೞ೐೟ ∙ሺ𝑡௡,௠ െ𝑡௡,௠ିଵሻ
௠

where,
𝑉஼ிோ,௡ = is the volume of Cape Fear River water that flowed past the sampling point during the
total mass loading time interval;
n = signifies total mass loading time intervals number for which the volume is being calculated;
m = is the number of 15-minute flow measurement durations recorded by the USGS station at
W.O. Huske Dam during a total mass loading time interval;
𝑄஼ிோ ௐைு஽,௡,௠ା௧೚೑೑ೞ೐೟ = is the Cape Fear River flow rate (units of volume per time) at Tar Heel
Ferry Road bridge based on the recorded values at W.O.Huske Dam and adjusted for travel
time as described in Equation 4;
ሺ𝑡௡,௠ െ𝑡௡,௠ିଵሻ = is the length of time for the flow measurement durations (units of time
reported typically in 15 minute intervals by USGS).
Complete Calculation of River Mass Load
Based on all the calculation details described above, the full expanded version of the River Mass
Load calculation is shown below in Equation 6.
Equation 6: Expanded River Mass Load Calculation
𝑚஼ிோ ൌ ෍෍ ෍𝑐஼ிோ,௡,௜,௞
௞
𝑡௡𝑡௞
∑𝑡௡𝑡௞௞
෍𝑄஼ிோ ௐைு஽,௡,௠ା௧೚೑೑ೞ೐೟ ∙ሺ𝑡௡,௠ െ𝑡௡,௠ିଵሻ
௠
௜ୀ୍
௜ୀଵ௡

Appendix I
5 July 2020
Captured Mass Load Calculation Methodology
Remedies to be implemented by Chemours (e.g. onsite seeps interim remedies, Outfall 002
remedy) will prevent Table 3+ PFAS mass loads from reaching the Cape Fear River. The specific
methodology for estimating the prevented mass per remedy will be developed on a per remedy
basis. The goal of such calculations will be to estimate for a given time period (i.e. one quarter)
the Table 3+ PFAS mass diverted from reaching the Cape Fear River by the remedy that would
have otherwise reached the Cape Fear River.
Mass Discharge at Bladen Bluffs and Kings Bluff Intakes
This subsection presents the methodology used to calculate mass discharge at Bladen Bluffs and
Kings Bluff Intakes. Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is calculated as:
Equation 7: Mass Discharge at Bladen Bluffs and Kings Bluff Intakes
𝐶𝐹𝑅஽ௌ ൌ ෍𝑀௜ ൌ෍ሺ𝐶௜ ൈ𝑄ሻ
௜ୀூ
௜ୀଵ
௜ୀூ
௜ୀଵ

where,
CFRDS = Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge in the downstream river locations measured in
mass per unit time [MT-1], typically milligrams per second.
i = represents each of the Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents listed in Table 1.
I = represents total number of Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents included in the summation of
Total Table 3+ concentrations, e.g., 17 or 20.
Mi = mass load of each Table 3+ PFAS constituent i with measured units in mass per unit time
[MT-1], typically milligrams per second.
Ci = concentration of each Table 3+ PFAS constituent i with measured units typically in
nanograms per liter.
Qn = volumetric flow rate with measured units in volume per time [L3T-1], typically liters per
second. For Bladen Bluffs, the volumetric flow recorded at W.O. Huske Dam is adjusted
for travel time using Equation 8.
Equation 8: Travel time offset W.O. Huske Dam to Bladen Bluffs Intake
𝑡௢௙௙௦௘௧ି஻஻ூ ൌ 8,826 ∙ 𝑄஼ிோ ௐைு஽ିଵ ൅ 1.530
where,
𝑡௢௙௙௦௘௧ି஻஻ூ = is the travel time flow in the Cape Fear River takes in hours to pass from the
W.O. Huske Dam to the Bladen Bluffs Intake based on the measured flow in the Cape Fear
River at the W.O. Huske Dam;
Appendix I
6 July 2020
𝑄஼ிோ ௐைு஽ିଵ = is the inverse of the measured flow rate of the Cape Fear River at W.O. Huske
Dam for a given point in time in cubic feet per second; and
8,826 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1.530 = are constant values, slope and intercept of the regression curve,
respectively.

* * * * * * *

APPENDIX J
Supporting Calculations – Direct Aerial
Deposition on Cape Fear River

Appendix J
1 July 2020
APPENDIX J
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS – DIRECT AERIAL DEPOSITION ON CAPE FEAR
RIVER
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Nine pathways (main report Table 14) were identified as potentially contributing to observed Cape
Fear River per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) concentrations. These pathways include
direct Table 3+ PFAS aerial deposition to the Cape Fear River. This pathway was identified as
Transport Pathway Number 3 in the PFAS mass loading model. The mass discharge (mass per unit
time measured in milligrams per second [mg/s]) from direct aerial deposition of Table 3+ PFAS
to the Cape Fear River was estimated by scaling air deposition modeling results for
Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA; ERM, 2018). The objective of the supporting
calculations presented in this appendix is to estimate aerially deposited Table 3+ PFAS directly on
the Cape Fear River during a mass loading event.
APPROACH
HFPO-DA mass loading directly to the Cape Fear River was estimated using the reported aerial
extent and deposition contours modeled for October 2018 (ERM, 2018). As depicted in (Table J-1), the
HFPO-DA air loading data (micrograms per meters squared [µg/m2]) provided from ERM (2018)
was used to calculate the net hourly deposition rate (nanograms per meters squared per hour
[ng/m2/hr]) using the Equation 1 below:
Equation 1: Net Hourly Deposition Rate
𝐷𝑅ோ் ൌ 𝑀𝐿஺ூோ
𝑡஺ூோ

where:
𝐷𝑅ோ் = Net hourly deposition rate with units of mass per area per time [M L-2 T-1 i.e.
ng/m2/hr]
𝑀𝐿஺ூோ = Air mass loading of HFPO-DA with units of mass per area [M L-2 i.e. µg/m2]
𝑡஺ூோ = time that air mass loading was modeled [T i.e. hr]
Depositional area along the river was calculated using available data for river width and computed
river lengths where deposition contours were modeled. Eighteen (18) sections (Figure J-1)
provided from FEMA (2007) were selected along the Cape Fear River to measure the average river
width (m). As depicted in Figures J-2 through J-6, sections along the Cape Fear River with
HFPO-DA concentrations contours ranging from 40 to 640 µg/m2 were selected, and the length of
the Cape Fear River along each of the sections was measured. The average river width calculated
in Table J-2 and section lengths from Figures J-2 through J-6 were used to calculate section
areas (m2) as described in Equation 2 below:
Appendix J
2 July 2020
Equation 2: Cape Fear River Surface Area
∑𝐴 ൌ ∑𝐿 ൈ 𝑊஺௏ீ
where:
∑𝐴 = Total spatial area over which deposition occurs [L2 i.e. m2]
∑𝐿 = Total length of river within the HFPO-DA contour 40 µg/m2 [L i.e. m]
𝑊஺௏ீ = average river width [L i.e. m]
Start and end deposition rates (ng/m2/hr) for each section along the Cape Fear River were estimated
based on the deposition contours and corresponding net hourly deposition rate (Table J-1); a
combined deposition rate for each section was calculated as the average of the start and end
deposition rates. River velocity (meters per hour [m/hr]) was estimated from measured flow rates
from USGS (2020) and the calculated river cross sectional area. Section lengths were used to
calculate HFPO-DA travel time based on the river velocities in Table J-3. The combined
deposition rate (ng/m2/hr) from Table J-1, section area (m2), and travel time (hr) were used to
calculate mass HFPO-DA deposited (ng) as follows in Equation 3 below:
Equation 3: Total HFPO-DA Mass Discharge to Cape Fear River
∑𝑀ுி௉ைି஽஺ ൌ ∑ሺ𝐷𝑅஺௏ீ ൈ 𝐴ൈ 𝑡ሻ
where:
∑𝑀ுி௉ைି஽஺ = mass discharge of HFPO-DA into the river with units of mass per time [M T-1
i.e. mg/s]
𝐷𝑅஺௏ீ = average deposition rate based from the ERM model (2018) [L i.e. m]
𝐴 = spatial area over which deposition occurs [L2 i.e. m2]
𝑡 = travel time through the river section length [T i.e. hr]
As reported in the Corrective Action Plan (Geosyntec 2019), ten offsite groundwater seeps south
of Old Outfall 002 (Seeps E to M) were identified on the west bank of the Cape Fear River south
of the Site. Seeps E to M were sampled in October 2019 and Seeps E to K were sampled in March
2020 and analyzed for Table 3+ PFAS. The results of both sampling events indicate that Seeps E
to M show an aerial deposition PFAS signature (concentrations decrease in seeps more distant
from the Site). Accordingly, the offsite seep data were used to build a relationship between HFPO-
DA and other Table 3+ PFAS compounds (Figure J-7). A scaling factor (Table J-4) was used to
estimate mass discharge of Total Table 3+ PFAS compounds to the Cape Fear River as shown in
Equation 4. Table J-5 shows the estimated mass discharges of HFPO-DA and Total Table 3+
compounds to the Cape Fear River.
Equation 4: Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge to Cape Fear River
∑𝑀்்ଷା ൌ ∑𝑀ுி௉ைି஽஺ ൈ 𝑅
where:
Appendix J
3 July 2020
∑𝑀்்ଷା = mass discharge of Total Table 3+ PFAS compounds into the river [MT-1 i.e. mg/s]
∑𝑀ுி௉ைି஽஺ = mass discharge of HFPO-DA into the river [MT-1 i.e. mg/s]
𝑅 = average ratio of measured HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ compounds across the nine offsite
seeps [unitless]

REFERENCES
ERM, 2018. Modeling Report: HFPO-DA Atmospheric Deposition and Screening Groundwater
Effects. 27 April 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007. "A Report of Flood Hazards in Bladen
County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas." (2007) Flood Insurance Study, Federal
Emergency Management Agency. North Carolina Flood Risk Information System
Engineering Model. Cape Fear River ADJ. HEC-RAS 5.0.7.
Geosyntec, 2019. Corrective Action Plan. Chemours Fayetteville Works. December 31, 2019.
USGS, 2020. USGS 02105500 Cape Fear River at Wilm O Huske Lock near Tarheel, NC.
Available at: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=02105500
TR0795
TABLES
TABLE J1
NET HOURLY HFPO-DA DEPOSITION RATE
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Air Loading
(µg/m2)
Air Loading
(ng/m2) Time (year) Time (hour)
Net Hourly
Deposition Rate
(ng/m2/hr)
River Sections Within Air Loading Zones
40 40,000 1 8,760 4.6 Up River Section 2
Down River Section 2
80 80,000 1 8,760 9.1
Up River Section 1
Up River Section 2
Down River Section 1
Down River Section 2
160 160,000 1 8,760 18.3
Center
Up River Section 1
Down River Section 1
320 320,000 1 8,760 36.5 Not used in calculations
640 640,000 1 8,760 73.1 Not used in calculations
Notes:
1. HFPO-DA model values are from ERM (2018). Modeling Report: HFPO-DA Atmospheric Deposition and Screening
Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.
2. Air deposition contours are shown in Figures J-2 through J-6.
3. Net hourly deposition rates are used in the mass discharge calculations, Table J5.
Abbreviations:
HFPO-DA: Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid; or dimer acid.
µg/m2: micrograms per meter square.
ng /L: nanograms per liter.
ng/m2/hr: nanograms per meter square per hour.
Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE J2
ESTIMATION OF CAPE FEAR RIVER AVERAGE WIDTH
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Cross section ID*HEC-RAS Model
Point ID**Easting (ft)Northing (ft)Cape Fear River Width at
Cross Section (m)
0 2,052,368 399,949
1 2,052,366 399,949
2 2,052,334 399,946
3 2,052,254 399,938
4 2,052,155 399,928
5 2,052,095 399,922
6 2,052,093 399,922
18 2,053,460 394,655
19 2,053,436 394,649
20 2,053,281 394,613
21 2,053,277 394,612
22 2,053,180 394,590
23 2,053,079 394,566
24 2,052,977 394,543
25 2,052,949 394,536
26 2,052,924 394,531
7 2,053,113 396,901
8 2,053,070 396,895
9 2,052,990 396,886
10 2,052,891 396,874
11 2,052,831 396,867
12 2,052,815 396,865
21 2,053,373 393,937
22 2,053,349 393,931
23 2,053,271 393,913
24 2,053,174 393,891
25 2,053,115 393,877
26 2,053,081 393,869
13 2,053,209 394,897
14 2,053,130 394,878
15 2,053,032 394,854
16 2,052,974 394,840
17 2,052,961 394,837
31 2,053,769 390,652
32 2,053,729 390,645
33 2,053,643 390,630
34 2,053,602 390,623
35 2,053,572 390,618
27 2,053,560 392,482
28 2,053,430 392,455
29 2,053,370 392,443
30 2,053,322 392,433
1271 2,054,059 387,249
1272 2,054,022 387,215
1273 2,053,995 387,190
1274 2,053,946 387,145
1275 2,053,861 387,067
1276 2,053,812 387,023
1277 2,053,801 387,012
1278 2,053,727 386,945
1193 2,053,950 388,876
1194 2,053,902 388,874
1195 2,053,843 388,871
1196 2,053,717 388,866
1197 2,053,659 388,864
1198 2,053,650 388,863
1199 2,053,600 388,861
1271 2,054,059 387,249
1272 2,054,022 387,215
1273 2,053,995 387,190
1274 2,053,946 387,145
1275 2,053,861 387,067
1276 2,053,812 387,023
1277 2,053,801 387,012
1278 2,053,727 386,945
1498 2,057,643 382,269
1499 2,057,610 382,246
1500 2,057,556 382,208
1501 2,057,461 382,141
1502 2,057,408 382,103
1503 2,057,398 382,096
1504 2,057,358 382,067
619506
614224
614517
72
101
107
101
87
60***
606667
600052
84
163
91
89
76***
612082
606667
608468
616535
613542
610240
Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE J2
ESTIMATION OF CAPE FEAR RIVER AVERAGE WIDTH
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Cross section ID*HEC-RAS Model
Point ID**Easting (ft)Northing (ft)Cape Fear River Width at
Cross Section (m)
1331 2,055,879 386,154
1332 2,055,812 386,120
1333 2,055,753 386,090
1334 2,055,647 386,037
1335 2,055,588 386,007
1336 2,055,566 385,996
1565 2,058,901 380,593
1566 2,058,830 380,549
1567 2,058,774 380,515
1568 2,058,675 380,453
1569 2,058,619 380,418
1570 2,058,518 380,356
1406 2,056,453 383,857
1407 2,056,356 383,798
1408 2,056,301 383,763
1409 2,056,202 383,702
1410 2,056,146 383,667
1411 2,056,113 383,647
1717 2,060,560 377,186
1718 2,060,482 377,157
1719 2,060,421 377,134
1720 2,060,312 377,094
1721 2,060,250 377,071
1722 2,060,232 377,065
1644 2,059,549 379,003
1645 2,059,534 378,996
1646 2,059,474 378,970
1647 2,059,368 378,923
1648 2,059,308 378,896
1649 2,059,275 378,881
2042 2,061,270 371,304
2043 2,061,246 371,290
2044 2,061,179 371,252
2045 2,061,092 371,203
2046 2,061,042 371,174
2047 2,060,966 371,131
1825 2,060,295 374,663
1826 2,060,270 374,661
1827 2,060,201 374,658
1828 2,060,079 374,653
1829 2,060,010 374,650
1830 2,059,995 374,649
1931 2,060,424 373,459
1932 2,060,378 373,442
1933 2,060,372 373,439
1934 2,060,311 373,416
1935 2,060,202 373,376
1936 2,060,140 373,353
1937 2,060,097 373,336
99
Notes:
*Cross sections locations are shown in Figure J-1.
**Model point ID: are locations with northing, easting, and river depths provided in the HEC-RAS model.
1. Data provided from: "A Report of Flood Hazards in Bladen County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas." RiverADJ. HEC-RAS 5.0.7.
(2007) Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency. North Carolina Flood Risk Information System Engineering Model.
Cape Fear RiverADJ. HEC-RAS 5.0.7.
2. The horizontal datum is North American Datum 1983 projected into North Carolina East State Plane (3200).
3. The vertical datum is North American Datum 1988 projected into North Carolina East State Plane (3200).
Abbreviations:
ft: feet
m: meter
100
116
104
100
84
93
91
95
604474
597968
Average River Cross Section Width (m) =
591595
590322
602061
594185
596259
587968
Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE J3
SUMMARY OF FLOW IN CAPE FEAR RIVER AT WILM O'HUSKE LOCK NR TARHEEL, NC
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
Date
USGS Reported
Average
Discharge1
(cfs)
USGS Reported
Average Gage
Height1 (ft)
USGS Reported Total
Precipitation1,2 (inches)
USGS Reported Average
Discharge (L/s)
Measured River Width
(ft)
Estimated River Depth
(ft)Z Value3
Calculated Total
Cross Sectional Area
(ft2)
Calculated River
Velocity (ft/s)
4/2/2020 4,510 3.39 0.00 127,709 323 20 2 5,642 0.8
4/3/2020 3,210 2.79 0.00 90,897 323 19 2 5,495 0.6
Average River Velocity:0.7
Notes:
1)Measurements are recorded from the USGS flow gauging station at the W.O. Huske Dam, ID 02105500 (USGS, 2020).
2)The minimum value recorded by a USGS raingage is 0.01 inches. Anything detected below this threshold is recorded as 0 inches.
3)Z value is an estimated factor used to compute total cross sectional area from river depth.
cfs: cubic feet per second.
ft: feet.
ft2: feet squared.
ft/s: feet per second
L/s: Liter per second.
mph: miles per hour.
USGS - United States Geological Survey.
Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TABLE J4
RATIO OF OTHER PFAS COMPOUNDS TO HFPO-DA Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID SEEP-E SEEP-E SEEP-F SEEP-F SEEP-G SEEP-G SEEP-H SEEP-H SEEP-I SEEP-I
Field Sample ID SEEP-E-0930 Seep E-030420 SEEP-F-0923 Seep F-030420 SEEP-G-0911 Seep G-030420 SEEP-H-0905 Seep H-030420 SEEP-I-0856 Seep I-030420Sample Date 10/22/2019 3/4/2020 10/22/2019 3/4/2020 10/22/2019 3/4/2020 10/22/2019 3/4/2020 10/22/2019 3/4/2020QA/QC --------------------
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)320-55576-1 2091227 320-55576-1 2091227 320-55576-1 2091227 320-55576-1 2091227 320-55576-1 2091227
Lab Sample ID 320-55576-1 1274949 320-55576-2 1274953 320-55576-3 1274957 320-55576-4 1274961 320-55576-5 1274965
Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)
Hfpo Dimer Acid 1,200 950 1,100 1,100 700 730 550 540 570 470PFMOAA480 J 390 900 730 190 220 140 180 130 200
PFO2HxA 800 470 810 640 470 410 350 330 300 280
PFO3OA 170 83 130 110 57 56 28 30 17 18
PFO4DA 83 17 7.3 9.1 9 7.9 <2 <2 <2 <2PFO5DA46<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PMPA 2,300 1,800 2,800 2,100 1,500 1,500 1,200 1,100 1,200 1,100
PEPA 710 600 870 710 490 520 360 360 390 390
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)90 24 9.6 10 22 11 16 9.3 12 12R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)220 J 53 J 92 68 J 79 J 44 J 39 J 30 J 53 J 36
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)2.1 J <2 <2.9 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2NVHOS1561285.4 5 4.3 3.7 4.4 4.5EVE Acid <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Hydro-EVE Acid 7.7 2.3 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
R-EVE 76 20 60 40 39 28 21 J 20 23 J 17
PES <2 <2 <2.3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2PFECA B <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
PFECA-G <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) (ng/L)5,900 4,300 6,600 5,400 3,400 3,500 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,500Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) (ng/L)6,200 4,400 6,800 5,500 3,600 3,500 2,700 2,600 2,700 2,500Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)4.9 4.5 6.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.6 5.3
Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)5.2 4.6 6.2 5.0 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.3
Average Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)4.87Average Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)5.03
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
Abbreviations:
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSOP - standard operating procedure< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
Page 1 of 2 July 2020
TABLE J4
RATIO OF OTHER PFAS COMPOUNDS TO HFPO-DA Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants of NC P.C.
Location ID
Field Sample IDSample DateQA/QC
Sample Delivery Group (SDG)
Lab Sample ID
Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)
Hfpo Dimer AcidPFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DAPFO5DAPMPA
PEPA
PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP1)
Hydro-PS Acid (Formerly PFESA-BP2)R-PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 4)
Hydrolyzed PSDA (Formerly Byproduct 5)
R-PSDCA (Formerly Byproduct 6)NVHOSEVE Acid
Hydro-EVE Acid
R-EVE
PESPFECA B
PFECA-G
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) (ng/L)Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) (ng/L)Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)
Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)
Average Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)Average Ratio of HFPO-DA to Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)
Notes:
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit
Abbreviations:
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality controlSOP - standard operating procedure< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
SEEP-J SEEP-J SEEP-K SEEP-K SEEP-L SEEP-M
SEEP-J-0843 Seep J-030420 SEEP-K-0835 Seep K-030420 SEEP-L-0825 SEEP-M-081810/22/2019 3/4/2020 10/22/2019 3/4/2020 10/22/2019 10/22/2019------------
320-55576-1 2091227 320-55576-1 2091227 320-55576-1 320-55576-1
320-55576-6 1274969 320-55576-7 1274973 320-55576-8 320-55576-9
580 250 640 490 520 570180 J 140 160 210 130 100
350 J 130 320 230 220 190
120 J 16 41 28 18 15
58 4.7 11 5 2.7 <220 J 2.2 4.8 <2 <2 <2
810 J 660 1,300 1,000 1,200 1,300
260 200 400 350 350 410
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2376.9 70 16 44 28110 J 23 130 J 49 120 J 78 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <28.1 J 2.8 5.2 4.7 5.9 5.6<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2.7 <2 3.5 <2 <2 <2
16 13 46 J 25 44 J 26 J
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
2,400 1,400 3,000 2,300 2,500 2,6002,600 1,400 3,100 2,400 2,700 2,7004.1 5.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.6
4.5 5.6 4.8 4.9 5.2 4.7
4.875.03
Page 2 of 2 July 2020
TABLE J5
CALCULATION OF HFPO-DA DEPOSITED MASS AND MASS FLUX
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec Consultants NC P.C.
Section1
Depositon Rate
at Section Start
(µg/m2/yr)
Depositon Rate at
Section End
(µg/m2/yr)
Start Deposition
Rate2
(ng/m2/hr)
End Deposition
Rate2
(ng/m2/hr)
Average
Deposition Rate
(ng/m2/hr)
Section
Distance3
(m)
Average River
Width4
(m)
Section
Area
(m2)
Estimated River
Velocity5
(ft/s)
Estimated
River Velocity
(m/hr)
Estimated
Travel Time
(hr)
Calculated Mass
Deposited
(mg)
Calculated Mass
Discharge
(mg/s)
Center 160 160 18.3 18.3 18 903 99 89,028 0.69 759 1.2 1.9 0.00045
Up River Section 1 160 80 18.3 9.1 14 490 99 48,300 0.69 759 0.6 0.4 0.00018
Up River Section 2 80 40 9.1 4.6 6.8 909 99 89,570 0.69 759 1.2 0.7 0.00017
Down River Section 1 160 80 18.3 9.1 14 586 99 57,813 0.69 759 0.8 0.6 0.00022
Down River Section 2 80 40 9.1 4.6 6.8 565 99 55,672 0.69 759 0.7 0.3 0.00011
Total HFPO-DA:0.0011
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds):0.0055
Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds):0.0057
Notes:
1River sections for air deposition calculations are shown in Figures J-2 through J-6.
2Based on model deposition rate, Table J1.
3Section distances are measured in GIS, presented in Figures J-2 through J-6.
4Calculations for the average river width are presented in Table J2.
5River velocity is calculated as an average from USGS discharge data between April 2 to 3, 2020, Table J3
Abbreviations:
HFPO-DA: Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid; or dimer acid
µg/m2/yr: micrograms per meter square per year
ft/s: feet per second
hr: hours
m/hr: meters per hour
m: meter
m2: meter square
mg/s: milligrams per second
mg: milligrams
ng/m2/hr: nanograms per meter square per hour
Page 1 of 1 July 2020
TR0795
FIGURES
591595
616535
619506
602061
604474
608468
587968614517
59032260005259625
9
594185597968
610240
606667612082
613542
614224
Cape Fear River Cross Sections Locations
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
J1
Notes:1. Cape Fear River cross section locations obtained from "A Report of Flood Hazards in Bladen County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas." (2007) Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency. North Carolina Flood Risk Information System Engineering Model. Cape Fear RiverADJ. HEC-RAS 5.0.7.2. Cross sections used for calculation of average river widths for calculation of aerial mass loading.Raleigh, NC
1 0 10.5 Miles
³
July 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
Cross Section
Length (m): 903.00
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Measurement of Cape Fear River Length at Center Section
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Notes:HFPO-DA - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid; or dimer acid; or GenX
µg / m2/yr - micrograms per square meter per year
HFPO-DA deposition model contours for October 2018 from ERM, 2018, Modeling Report: HFPO-DA Atmospheric Deposition and Screening Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.
Raleigh, NC
1 0 10.5 Miles
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
ite Boundary
40 µg/m2/yr
80 µg/m2/yr
160 µg/m2/yr
320 µg/m2/yr
640 µg/m2/yr J2July 2020
Modeled Deposition Contours, October 2018 Scenario
Length (m): 489.90
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Measurement of Cape Fear River Length at Up-River Section 1
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Notes:HFPO-DA - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid; or dimer acid; or GenX
µg /m2/yr - micrograms per square meter per year
HFPO-DA deposition model contours for October 2018 from ERM, 2018, Modeling Report: HFPO-DA Atmospheric
Deposition and Screening Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.
Raleigh, NC
1 0 10.5 Miles
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
Site Boundary
Modeled Deposition Contours, October 2018 Scenario
40 µg/m2/yr
80 µg/m2/yr
160 µg/m2/yr
320 µg/m2/yr
640 µg/m2/yr J3July 2020
Length (m): 908.05
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Measurement of Cape Fear River Length at Up-River Section 2
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Notes:HFPO-DA - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid; or dimer acid; or GenX
µg / m2/yr - micrograms per square meter
HFPO-DA deposition model contours for October 2018 from ERM, 2018, Modeling Report: HFPO-DA Atmospheric
Deposition and Screening Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.
Raleigh, NC
1 0 10.5 Miles
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
Site Boundary
Modeled Deposition Contours, October 2018 Scenario
40 µg/m2/yr
80 µg/m2/yr
160 µg/m2/yr
320 µg/m2/yr
640 µg/m2/yr J4July 2020
Length (m): 586.39
Measurement of Cape Fear River Length at Down-River Section 1
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Notes:HFPO-DA - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid; or dimer acid; or GenX
µg /m2/yr - micrograms per square meter per year
HFPO-DA deposition model contours for October 2018 from ERM, 2018, Modeling Report: HFPO-DA
Atmospheric Deposition and Screening Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.
Raleigh, NC
1 0 10.5 Miles
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
Site Boundary
Modeled Deposition Contours, October 2018 Scenario
40 µg/m2/yr
80 µg/m2/yr
160 µg/m2/yr
320 µg/m2/yr
640 µg/m2/yr J5July 2020
Length (m): 564.68
Measurement of Cape Fear River Length at Down-River Section 2
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
Notes:HFPO-DA - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid; or dimer acid; or GenX
µg /m2/yr - micrograms per square meter per year
HFPO-DA deposition model contours for October 2018 from ERM, 2018, Modeling Report: HFPO-DA
Atmospheric Deposition and Screening Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.
Raleigh, NC
1 0 10.5 Miles
³
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
Legend
Site Boundary
Modeled Deposition Contours, October 2018 Scenario
40 µg/m2/yr
80 µg/m2/yr
160 µg/m2/yr
320 µg/m2/yr
640 µg/m2/yr J6July 2020
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(Cape Fear RiverSEEP-ESEEP-F
SEEP-G
SEEP-HSEEP-I
SEEP-J
SEEP-K
SEEP-LSEEP-M
Old Outfall 00
2
Willis Creek
Georgi
a

B
r
a
n
c
h

C
r
e
e
k
Figure
J7Raleigh
³Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_Offsite_Seep_Locations.mxd Last Revised: 7/30/2020 Author: jkasunicJuly 2020
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US
1,000 0 1,000500 FeetLegend
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary
Site Boundary
Notes:1. Seep E to M samples were collected where the seeps enteredthe Cape Fear River. Their locations on this figure have beenslightly adjusted to facilitate interpretation so that they do notappear to be in the Cape Fear River.2. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is basedon open data from ArcGIS Online and North CarolinaDepartment of Environmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydroshapefile).3. Basemap Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Southwestern Offsite Seeps Locations

APPENDIX K
Supporting Calculations –Adjacent and
Downstream Offsite Groundwater

Appendix K

1 July 2020
APPENDIX K
ADJACENT AND DOWNSTREAM OFFSITE GROUNDWATER

This appendix presents the methodology for calculating the Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from
adjacent and downstream offsite groundwater to the Cape Fear River. Table 3+ PFAS detected in
offsite groundwater originate from aerial deposition which has occurred in all directions from the
Site (CAP Geosyntec, 2019g). These aerially deposited Table 3+ PFAS have subsequently
infiltrated to groundwater and migrate towards the Cape Fear River where they lead to upstream,
adjacent and downstream offsite groundwater Table 3+ PFAS mass. The upstream offsite
groundwater Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is estimated relatively simply by using measured river
flows and concentrations at River Mile 76 upstream of the Site. Here only the upstream offsite
groundwater Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is present in the river at this location. Conversely, the
adjacent and downstream offsite groundwater Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is difficult to
measure directly since many Table 3+ PFAS mass discharges from all other pathways are present
in the river where these offsite groundwater contributions join the river. Additionally, downstream
offsite groundwater has a relatively small component of the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge
making its additional contributions to the total discharge difficult to distinguish from other
discharges already present.
Therefore, since Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge from offsite groundwater upstream, adjacent, and
downstream of the Site follow the same dynamics (deposition, infiltration, migration, discharge)
the adjacent and downstream Table 3+ PFAS mass discharge is scaled from the upstream offsite
groundwater mass discharge estimate. The downstream offsite groundwater loadings are scaled to
the upstream offsite groundwater loadings based on the length of river adjacent and downstream
of the Site known to be in contact with offsite groundwater containing Table 3+ PFAS compared
to the length of the river upstream also in contact with offsite groundwater containing Table 3+
PFAS. The volume of river flow is assumed to be constant immediately upstream and downstream
of the Site for the purposes of this calculation. This adjacent and downstream offsite mass
discharge is calculated using Equation 1 below:
Equation 1: Total Table 3+ Mass Discharge Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater
𝑀௔ௗ௝ିௗି௚௪ ൌ ෍൫𝐶௨௣ି௚௪,௜ ൈ𝑄஼ிோ൯ ൈ𝑓௔ௗ௝ିௗ
௜ୀூ
௜ୀଵ

where,
𝑀௔ௗ௝ିௗି௚௪ = represents the Total Table 3+ PFAS discharge from offsite adjacent and
downstream groundwater to the Cape Fear River.
i = represents each of the Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents listed in Table 1.
Appendix K

2 July 2020
I = represents total number of Table 3+ SOP PFAS constituents included in the summation of
Total Table 3+ concentrations, e.g., 17 or 20.
𝐶௨௣ି௚௪,௜ = represents the upstream concentration of each PFAS constituent i from measured
units in mass per unit volume [ML-3], typically nanograms per liter.
𝑄஼ிோ = represents the volumetric flow in the Cape Fear River as reported by the United States
Geological Survey gage at the W.O. Huske Dam, station ID 02105500 with units used in
the equation expressed as volume per time [L3T-1], typically liters per second.
𝑓௔ௗ௝ିௗ = represents the unitless scaling factor to adjust offsite upstream groundwater mass
discharge to offsite adjacent and downstream mass discharge. Where 𝑓௨௣ି௔ௗ௝ିௗ is
calculated following Equation 2 below:
Equation 2: Offsite Upstream Groundwater to Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater
Mass Discharge Scaling Factor
𝑓௔ௗ௝ିௗ ൌ 𝑙஼ிோି௔ௗ௝ ൅2𝑙஼ிோିௗ
2𝑙஼ிோି௨௣

where,
𝑙஼ிோି௔ௗ௝ = represents the length of the Cape Fear River adjacent to the Site (i.e. the east bank
of the Cape Fear River opposite the Site) where Table 3+ PFAS have been detected in
offsite groundwater within one mile of the river.
2𝑙஼ிோିௗ = represents the length of the Cape Fear River downstream of the Site where Table
3+ PFAS have been detected in offsite groundwater within one mile of the river. This
quantity is multiplied by two (2) as the river has two downstream sides (east and west)
from which groundwater discharge can reach the Cape Fear River (adjacent only has one
side, east).
2𝑙஼ிோି௨௣ = represents the length of the Cape Fear River upstream of the Site where Table 3+
PFAS have been detected in offsite groundwater within one mile of the river. This quantity
is multiplied by two (2) as the river has two upstream sides (east and west) from which
groundwater discharge can reach the Cape Fear River (adjacent only has one side, east).
Figure K-1 displays the quantities used in calculating the scaling factor 𝑓𝑎𝑑𝑗െ𝑑 on a map of the
Cape Fear River and Table K-1 provides a calculation of 𝑓𝑎𝑑𝑗െ𝑑.

TABLES
TABLE K-1OFFSITE AND ADJACENT DOWNSTREAM GROUNDWATER MASS DISCHARGE SCALING FACTORChemours Fayetteville Works, North CarolinaGeosyntec Consultants of NC, PCItem Value Unit𝑙_(𝐶𝐹𝑅−𝑢𝑝)14.2 miles𝑙_(𝐶𝐹𝑅−𝑎𝑑𝑗)1.7 miles𝑙_(𝐶𝐹𝑅−𝑑) 4.5 miles𝑓_(a𝑑𝑗−𝑑)0.38--Calculation Notes for Offsite Upstream Groundwater to Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater Mass Discharge Scaling Factor𝑓௔ௗ௝ିௗൌ 𝑙஼ிோି௔ௗ௝൅2𝑙஼ிோିௗ2𝑙஼ிோି௨௣where,𝑓௔ௗ௝ିௗൌrepresents the unitless scaling factor to adjust offsite upstream groundwater mass discharge to offsite adjacent and downstream mass discharge. 𝑙஼ிோି௔ௗ௝= represents the length of the Cape Fear River adjacent to the Site (i.e. the east bank of the Cape Fear River opposite the Site) where Table 3+ PFAS have been detected in offsite groundwater within one mile of the river.2𝑙஼ிோିௗ= represents the length of the Cape Fear River downstream of the Site where Table 3+ PFAS have been detected in offsite groundwater within one mile of the river. This quantity is multiplied by two (2) as the river has two downstream sides (east and west) from which groundwater discharge can reach the Cape Fear River (adjacent only has one side, east).2𝑙஼ிோି௨௣= represents the length of the Cape Fear River upstream of the Site where Table 3+ PFAS have been detected in offsite groundwater within one mile of the river. This quantity is multiplied by two (2) as the river has two upstream sides (east and west) from which groundwater discharge can reach the Cape Fear River (adjacent only has one side, east).Page 1 of 1July 2020
FIGURES
!5
!5
!5
ChemoursFayettevilleWorks
Tar Heel Ferry RoadBridge
CFR-BLADEN
Mile 76
4.5 Miles Downstream of Old Outfall
14.2 Miles Upstream of Site
1.6 Miles Adjacent of Site
Estimated Extents of Offsite Groundwater Contributions to Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass LoadsChemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Figure
K-1Raleigh
Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_1MileResidentialDetects.mxd; jkasunic; 07/27/2020July 2020
³
2 0 21 Miles
Notes:Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.
Projection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere; Units in Meter
Legend
Offsite Groundwater Sampling Location with Detected Result
!5 Selected Prior Cape Fear River Sampling Locations
Detected Results within 1 mile of Cape Fear River
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Cape Fear River