2022.03.31_CCOA.p2a_Interim Seep Remediation O-M Report_No7

TR0795A ES-1 March 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Operations and Maintenance Report #7 (O&M Report #7) has been prepared to document the
operations, maintenance, and performance of the flow-through cells at Seeps A, B, C, and D from
January 1 through February 28, 2022. The median flow rate processed by the Seep A, B, and C,
and D FTCs was 67, 155, 25, and 70 gallons per minute (gpm), respectively. As documented in
the previous O&M Reports #1 through #6, the FTC systems are capable of capturing total base
flow under favorable hydraulic conditions, and additionally capture and treat a portion of wet
weather flow as well. In total, over the two-month reporting period, the systems processed
approximately 27,800,000 gallons of seep flow. Composite samples from performance monitoring
indicated that the average PFAS removal efficiency of the captured base flow was approximately
98.5%, and the FTCs are estimated to have prevented approximately 41.6 pounds (lbs) of PFAS
from being discharged to the Cape Fear River in the reporting period, and 272.5 lbs of PFAS over
the lifetime of the systems to date.

TR0795A i March 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4
2. Inspections, Operation, and Maintenance .................................................................................5
2.1 Inspections .......................................................................................................................5
2.2 Duty Cycling ...................................................................................................................5
2.3 FTC Management During River Flooding ......................................................................6
2.4 Material Changeouts ........................................................................................................6
2.5 Issues Encountered and Resolutions ...............................................................................7
3. Data Collected ..........................................................................................................................9
3.1 Pressure Transducers .......................................................................................................9
3.2 Rainfall and River Stage ..................................................................................................9
3.3 Operational and Treatment Performance Monitoring .....................................................9
3.3.1 Performance Monitoring .....................................................................................9
3.3.2 Breakthrough Monitoring ..................................................................................10
3.3.3 Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................10
3.3.4 Rain Event Monitoring ......................................................................................10
3.4 Deviations ......................................................................................................................11
3.4.1 Transducer Monitoring Deviations ...................................................................11
3.4.2 Water Quality ....................................................................................................11
3.4.3 Performance Monitoring Sampling Deviations .................................................11
4. Results.....................................................................................................................................12
4.1 System Flowrates and Operational Periods ...................................................................12
4.1.1 System Flowrate ................................................................................................12
4.1.2 Bypass Flow ......................................................................................................13
4.2 Performance Monitoring Analytical Results .................................................................13
4.3 System Effectiveness .....................................................................................................14
4.4 Wet Weather Sampling Results .....................................................................................15
4.5 River Elevation and Precipitation ..................................................................................15
4.6 Water Quality ................................................................................................................16
5. Summary .................................................................................................................................17
6. References ...............................................................................................................................18

TR0795A ii March 2022

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1a-d Summary of Operations and Maintenance Activities – Seeps A-D
Table 2a-d Sampling Summary – Seeps A-D
Table 3a-d Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results – Seeps A-D
Table 4a-d Summary of Wet Weather Analytical Results – Seeps A-D
Table 5 Cape Fear River Elevation and Precipitation Statistics
Table 6a-d Water Quality Data – Seeps A-D

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 River Level and Seep C FTC As-Built Elevations
Figure 2a-d Measured Discharge Flowrate – Seeps A-D
Figure 3a-d Influent Water Elevation and Bypass Flow – Seeps A-D

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Transducer Data Reduction
Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Data Review Narrative

TR0795A iii March 2022
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
% percent
CO Addendum Addendum to Consent Order Paragraph 12
DB Discharge Basin
DO Dissolved oxygen
ESB Effluent Stilling Basin
FB1 Filter Bed-1
FB2 Filter Bed-2
FTC flow-through cell
ft msl feet mean sea level
GAC granular activated carbon
gpm gallons per minute
HDPE high-density polyethylene
HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer
IC Inlet Chamber
IP Individual Permit
ISB Influent Stilling Basin
lbs pounds
mg/L milligrams per liter
ng/L nanograms per liter
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PFMOAA perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
PMPA perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
TB Transfer Basin
TSS total suspended solids
USGS United States Geological Survey

TR0795A 4 March 2022
1. INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C. (Geosyntec) has prepared this Interim Seep Remediation
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Report #7 (“O&M Report #7”) on behalf of The Chemours
Company FC, LLC (Chemours) to provide a summary report of Operations and Maintenance for
the flow-through cells (FTCs) installed as the interim remediation systems at Seeps A, B, C and D
at the Chemours Fayetteville Works Site (the Site). This O&M Report #7 has been prepared for
the operational period of January 1 through February 28, 2022. The next O&M Report (#8) will
cover the bimonthly period of March 1 through April 30, 2022.
As the O&M Report #1 from March 31, 2021 presented FTC performance data for the first time,
detailed information was provided on the hydraulic mechanics of the system, flood management
practices, data collection methodology and reduction process, and flow calculation formulas. As a
simplifying step for presentation clarity, at various sections in this O&M Report #7, reference is
made to these details in O&M Report #1. For an overview of the hydraulic functionality of the
system, see Section 1.1 of O&M Report #1.

TR0795A 5 March 2022
2. INSPECTIONS, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
The following sections describe the inspections, operation, and maintenance activities completed
at the four FTCs during the current reporting period (January 1 through February 28, 2022).
2.1 Inspections
Per the CO Addendum, routine inspections occurred on a weekly basis (at a minimum), and also
occurred after 0.5 inches or greater rain events within a 24-hour period. An Inspection Form was
filled out by operation, maintenance, and monitoring personnel during each inspection.
The routine inspections included, but were not limited to:
 documenting the system duty cycle (i.e., lead/lag orientation of the GAC filter beds)
 measuring and collecting operational parameters/data, notably water elevation data that are
used to evaluate influent flowrate and the occurrence (if any) of bypass
 documenting any potential observed issues, such as sediment accumulation in the
impoundment basin, structural problems, GAC fouling, and debris that is impairing flow
through the system
 inspecting the autosamplers
 photographing the conditions observed, including any bypass flow
A summary of the inspection and maintenance events completed during this reporting period is
provided in Tables 1a-d for Seeps A-D, respectively. Further details of these events are provided
in the following subsections.
2.2 Duty Cycling
As described in Section 1.1 of the O&M Report #1, the Seep FTCs are constructed of two filter
beds which operate in series. Tables 1a-d detail the filter bed configurations for Seeps A, B, C, and
D over the reporting period of January 1 through February 28, 2022. The approximate number of
days each filter bed was in lead during the reporting period for Seeps A, B, C, and D is summarized
in the table below:

Seep FB1 Lead (days) FB2 Lead (days) Total Uptime in Reporting
Period (days)
A 34 25 59
B 31 28 59
C 41 18 59
D 40 19 59

TR0795A 6 March 2022
2.3 FTC Management During River Flooding
As described in the Interim Seeps Remediation System Plan (Geosyntec, 2020), to treat total base
flow of each seep, it was necessary to install the interim remedies within the floodway. The
historical river elevations were referenced to develop the design elevations of key features such as
the spillway and the top of the wall. Additionally, an action level was developed for autosampler
removal to prevent damage to electronic components by flood waters. Based on a review of the
historical record, a W.O. Huske Lock and Dam gage height of 10 feet (or approximately 38 feet
above mean sea level) was selected as the action level for removing autosamplers. Review of
historical river stage data indicated that once the river level exceeded this action level, it would
typically continue to rise past the level of the FTC walls.
During the reporting period, the Cape Fear River rose above the action level on January 4, 2022
and returned below the action level on January 6, 2022. More details regarding the Cape Fear River
are described in Section 4.5.
2.4 Material Changeouts
The table below summarizes the material changeouts through this reporting period:
Seep Filter Bed
GAC Changeouts
Date GAC Age/Lead Days GAC Removed
(pounds [lbs])
C FB2 1/5/2022 80/21 6,000
A FB1 1/13/2022 170/118.5 18,000
B FB2 1/19/2022 226/137 27,000
A FB2 1/26/2022 56/11 18,000
C FB2 1/31/2022 27/0 9,000
A FB1 2/2/2022 22/10.5 18,000
C FB1 2/4/2022 52/30 9,000
C FB2 2/7/2022 8/1 9,000
D FB1 2/11/2022 108/84.5 27,000
A FB2 2/17/2022 22/14.5 18,000
B FB1 2/18/2022 163/29 18,000
C FB1 2/23/2022 20/18 9,000
Total 186,000

TR0795A 7 March 2022
2.5 Issues Encountered and Resolutions
In January, most notably after the heavy rains in the first half of the month, the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring team observed that turbidity in the seepage water and in the
impoundments appeared to be more severe compared to previous storm events in 2021. In the
catchments of Seeps A and C in particular, construction activities to support installation of the
long-term groundwater remedy were initiated in 4Q 2021, during drought conditions, and largely
consisted of clearing and grubbing; treatment equipment pad and material laydown area
installation; and road building. It was suspected that the heavy rains in early January introduced
suspended sediment from cleared areas and fines from newly placed stone into the impoundments.
Although the conditions of the erosion and sediment control permit were being met, the following
enhancements were installed:
 1,320 linear feet (LF) of reinforced silt fence in the Seep A catchment
 1,260 LF of reinforced silt fence in the Seep C catchment
 150 LF of jute porous baffles in Seep A tributaries
 20 LF of jute porous baffles in Seep C tributaries
 215 tons of Class B riprap and 300 square yards of geotextile in Seep A for rock checks
and flow velocity reduction
 2 acres of mulch laid on recently cleared land
 Four 4-inch diameter corrugated drainage pipes (50 LF each) in Seep C catchment to
redistribute consolidated drainage
 8 Floc Logs (pre-approved Applied Polymer Systems [APS] model 703D#3) in the Seep
C tributaries
The operations team additionally observed that typical maintenance practices, such as removal of
the top layer of GAC, were less effective than typical at lowering the elevation of the impoundment
at Seeps A and C specifically; and that the Seeps A and C filter beds were becoming difficult to
dewater via pumping out the underdrains, indicating either deep penetration of sediment into the
GAC, and/or clogged gravel and underdrain piping. To complement the erosion and sediment
control enhancements discussed above, the following actions were also taken within the Seep A
and C FTCs:
 The gravel drainage layer in the filter beds was removed during a GAC changeout event,
and the perforated underdrain pipes were temporarily dismantled, cleaned, and re-installed.
Fresh gravel was installed over the cleaned pipes. At Seep C in particular, a significant
amount of GAC was identified in several underdrain pipes that was throttling flow.
 Cleanouts were installed on each underdrain line to facilitate jetting of the lines on a routine
basis in the future. Jetting will be performed from the transfer basin and will not require
intrusive work in the filter beds.

TR0795A 8 March 2022
 A sacrificial layer of GAC was installed in the Inlet Chambers, to enhance filtration of
suspended solids prior to baseflow entering the lead filter bed.
Similar retrofits will be performed at Seeps B and D as a preventative measure in the next reporting
period. Additionally, batten strips will be installed in the four FTCs that will allow for the
geotextile separation layer between the gravel and GAC layers to be more securely bound to the
concrete sidewalls, mitigating the risk of GAC migration into the gravel and underdrain pipes.

TR0795A 9 March 2022
3. DATA COLLECTED
The FTC includes design components to measure water levels in the system, precipitation, water
quality, and PFAS removal performance. The W.O. Huske Lock and Dam gage station is also used
to reference nearby precipitation and river levels.
3.1 Pressure Transducers
The IC and Effluent Stilling Basin (ESB) are each equipped with a stilling well in which a non-
vented Levelogger® is installed below the operational water level. The water levels acquired from
processing the transducer data are used to estimate flows the system processes, and to record the
occurrence of flow that is diverted past the system via the Bypass Spillway. Section 4.1 of the
O&M Report #1 describes the process used to calculate the flowrates through the FTC based on
the water levels.
The pressure transducer data were downloaded regularly as part of routine inspections (weekly at
a minimum). Additionally, manual water level measurements were collected in the basins and
stilling wells whenever transducers were downloaded to equilibrate the transducer readings
(discussed in Section 4.1).
3.2 Rainfall and River Stage
Precipitation and river stage are monitored by using the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
weather monitoring station at the W.O. Huske Dam (gage 02105500). This station is
approximately 1,200 feet from Seep C and records precipitation and river elevation data every 15
minutes.
3.3 Operational and Treatment Performance Monitoring
Operational and performance monitoring of the system includes the composite collection of water
samples from various locations in the system, and direct measurement of water quality parameters.
The operational and performance monitoring is completed on a regular basis to evaluate:
 PFAS removal efficiency (i.e., performance monitoring)
 breakthrough of PFAS compounds between GAC filter beds, using grab samples on an as-
needed basis (i.e., breakthrough monitoring)
 water quality parameters specified in the CO Addendum
 potential effects of 0.5-inch rain events on PFAS concentrations (i.e., wet weather
monitoring)
3.3.1 Performance Monitoring
Composite samples for performance monitoring are collected using portable, battery-powered
autosamplers (e.g., Teledyne ISCO 6712 Full-Size Portable Sampler). At the end of the sampling
period, the operation, maintenance, and monitoring personnel fill laboratory-supplied sample
containers from the common container within the autosampler. Sampling is conducted in

TR0795A 10 March 2022
accordance with the PFAS Quality Assurance Project Plan (AECOM, 2018). Any adjustments
made to address potential deficiencies (e.g., low battery power, river flooding) are documented on
the Inspection Form.
During this reporting period, seven performance monitoring samples were collected at Seep A,
five performance monitoring samples were collected at Seeps B and C, and four performance
monitoring samples were collected at Seep D. Dates of composite periods for each sample are
listed in Table 2.
Samples were stored on wet ice in a cooler until shipment to an external laboratory (Eurofins
TestAmerica Laboratories Sacramento or Lancaster). Chain-of-custody documents were
completed and included with each shipment. Performance monitoring samples were analyzed for
Table 3+ PFAS, as outlined in the Interim Seep Remediation System Plan (Geosyntec, 2020).
3.3.2 Breakthrough Monitoring
Grab samples were collected from the IC, TB, and ESB at Seeps A-D for evaluation of system
performance and the need for GAC changeouts. Twelve breakthrough monitoring samples each
were collected from Seeps A during this reporting period, eight breakthrough monitoring samples
were collected from Seeps B and C, and seven breakthrough monitoring samples were collected
from Seep D during this reporting period (35 total).
3.3.3 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality in the IC and ESB at Seeps A-D was generally monitored at the same frequency as
performance monitoring described above. Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, turbidity, specific
conductivity, temperature, and total suspended solids (TSS) were measured using a calibrated In-
Situ Aqua TROLL 500 Multiparameter Sonde.
3.3.4 Rain Event Monitoring
Wet weather samples were collected at a frequency of once per calendar month following a rain
event of at least 0.5 inches within a 24-hour period. Composite samples for wet weather monitoring
are collected using Teledyne ISCO 6712 Full-Size Portable Samplers (the same make and model
as performance monitoring discussed above, but a dedicated set for wet weather sampling only).
The wet weather autosamplers are equipped with Teledyne 674 rain gauges that measure rainfall
depth. When rainfall exceeds 0.5 inches in a 24-hour period, the rain gauge sends a signal to the
Teledyne 6712 to begin a sampling cycle, where the autosampler collects aliquots every hour for
24 hours. Operation, maintenance, and monitoring personnel fill sample containers and follow the
same sample collection protocols for wet weather as described in Section 3.3.1 above.
Wet weather monitoring samples were analyzed for Table 3+ PFAS, as outlined in the Interim
Seep Remediation System Plan (Geosyntec, 2020). Table 2 lists the wet weather samples collected
at Seeps A-D during the reporting period and the associated cumulative rainfall prior to the
sampling timeframe.

TR0795A 11 March 2022
3.4 Deviations
Deviations for each of the data types collected are described below.
3.4.1 Transducer Monitoring Deviations
One instance of a transducer download was unsuccessful during this reporting period: the effluent
transducer data at Seep D was inadvertently overwritten during retrieval on the January 17 O&M
field event. Data for this location was lost for January 10 through January 17, 2022.
3.4.2 Water Quality
At Seeps C and D, water quality parameters were collected once in January and twice and
February. The operations, maintenance, and monitoring staff reported that water quality
parameters were collected twice during January; however, the data from the first half of January
were inadvertently misplaced. There were no deviations in water quality measurements at Seeps
A and B.
3.4.3 Performance Monitoring Sampling Deviations
The planned number of performance monitoring samples were collected at Seeps A-D per the
Interim Seep Remediation Plan (Geosyntec, 2020). Deviations in sample composite lengths are
described below.
 On January 4, 2022, the Cape Fear River flooded and rose above the action level for
removing autosamplers (Section 2.3), interrupting the 14-day composite samples that
began on January 1. To maintain the sampling program for the first half of January, the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring staff re-programmed the autosamplers to collect
two 24-hour composite samples at Seeps A-C (January 8 and 12). At Seep D, only one 24-
hour sample was collected on January 12. An internal computer error in the autosampler
prevented collection of the sample scheduled for the first week of January, and any follow-
up attempt to collect a resample was inadvertently overlooked.
 On February 15, 2022, the 14-day composite sample for Seep A that started on February 1
was identified as incomplete due to a mechanical malfunction within the autosampler that
was previously undetectable. To maintain the sampling program in February for Seep A,
the operation, maintenance, and monitoring staff re-programmed the autosamplers to
collect four 24-hour composite samples (February 20, 23, 24, and 25).

TR0795A 12 March 2022
4. RESULTS
The results for each type of data collected are described in detail in the following subsections. A
brief overview of the results is as follows:
Reporting Period
Metric Seep A Seep B Seep C Seep D Total
Duration 59 days (January 1 – February 28, 2022)
Rainfall, Actual (in) 5.59 (January 1 – February 28, 2022)
Rainfall, Historical
Average (in) 5.17 (January 1- February 28, 2004-2020)
River Above
Spillway (days) * 0.1 0 0 0.1 N/A
Operational Period
(days) 59 59 59 59 N/A
Median Flow Rate
(gpm) 67 155 25 70 317
Seep Volume
Treated (gallons) 7,000,000 12,900,000 2,500,000 5,400,000 27,800,000
PFAS Removed
(lbs) 9.3 24.9 1.7 5.6 41.6
* Seeps A and D are approximately 1 foot lower in elevation than Seeps B and C.
4.1 System Flowrates and Operational Periods
4.1.1 System Flowrate
A detailed discussion of pressure transducer water level measurements in the Effluent Stilling
Basin, and the data reduction process to convert these levels to flow rates, is provided in Sections
3.1, 3.4.1, and 4.1.1 of O&M Report #1. This data reduction process, updated for the current
reporting period, is provided in Appendix A. Figures 2a-d show the measurable flowrates through
the FTC over the reporting period for Seeps A-D, respectively.
The flowrate statistics calculated from measurable discharge flowrates for Seeps A-D for the
current reporting period are tabulated below:

TR0795A 13 March 2022
Flowrate Metric Seep A Seep B Seep C Seep D
Median Flow Rate (gpm) during
the Reporting Period 67 155 25 70
95th percentile Flow Rate (gpm)
during the Reporting Period 241 301 80 301
Design Basis Flow Rate * (gpm) 205 226 76 183
* The design basis flow rate was selected as the 95th percentile value of dry weather base flow from flume
pre-design data.
Using the measured and extrapolated flowrate calculations, approximately 7,000,000 gallons,
12,900,000 gallons, 2,500,000 gallons, and 5,400,000 gallons of water (27,800,000 gallons total)
were treated by the Seeps A, B, C, and D FTCs, respectively, from January 1 through February 28,
2022.
4.1.2 Bypass Flow
A discussion of pressure transducer water level measurements in the FTC Influent Stilling Basin
(ISB), and the data reduction process to convert these levels to the elevation of the bypass spillway,
is provided in Section 3.1, 3.4.1, and 4.1.2 of O&M Report #1. This data reduction process,
updated for the current reporting period, is provided in Appendix A.
The influent water level elevation and occurrences of bypass flow for Seeps A-D for the reporting
period are shown in Figures 3a-d. The total rainfall received in January was approximately 4.54
inches, which is approximately double the historical average of 2.28 inches. In February, the total
rainfall was 1.05 inches, approximately 64% less than the historical average of 2.89 inches. The
effects on turbidity from the early January heavy rains, and the actions taken within the catchments
and within the FTCs, are discussed in Section 2.5. The instances of bypass caused by these heavy
rains were generally addressed in Seeps B and D, with maintenance events as needed lowering the
impoundment below the spillway similar to previous reporting periods. At Seeps A and C, prior to
the overhaul of the gravel drainage layer and underdrain piping within the filter beds, the
maintenance events had a reduced effectiveness compared to previous reporting periods. In late
January, after the improvements had been implemented in both FTCs, maintenance events at Seeps
A and C were observed to be effective again, and the impoundment was generally maintained
below the level of the spillway from January 25 through February 28.
4.2 Performance Monitoring Analytical Results
Analytical results for the composite performance monitoring samples are provided in Table 3 and
summarized below. Laboratory analytical results are compiled in Appendix B.

TR0795A 14 March 2022
Analytical Results – Performance
Monitoring Seep A Seep B Seep C Seep D
Average Influent Total Table 3+
PFAS, 17 compounds (ng/L) 171,400 194,000 84,200 92,800
Average Effluent Total Table 3+
PFAS, 17 compounds (ng/L) 8,800 240 430 50
Average Removal Efficiency (%) 94.9 99.9 99.5 >99.9

4.3 System Effectiveness
System effectiveness, defined by the percentage removal of the combined concentrations of the
three indicator parameters (HFPO-DA, PFMOAA and PMPA), is determined on a monthly
average basis for the system using volume weighted concentrations of the influent and effluent
samples. Volume weighted concentrations were developed in the event that either the influent and
effluent autosamplers have different compositing durations or that the two composite sampling
periods in the month have different durations (e.g., 14 days and 10 days). Both circumstances could
arise due to a potential equipment malfunction or severe weather event. Weighting by volume
provides a representative assessment of mass present in both the influent and effluent over time;
samples corresponding to greater flow volumes will have a proportionately higher weight. System
effectiveness is calculated using the equation presented in Section 4.3 of the O&M Report #1.
Based on the system flowrate data (Section 4.1.1) and the performance monitoring composite
sample data of the three indicator compounds (Section 4.2), the overall system effectiveness for
Seeps A-D was calculated to be 97.7%. The system effectiveness for the individual Seeps is
presented below:
System
Effectiveness
Seep A Seep B Seep C Seep D Overall
Average Jan Feb Jan Feb Jan Feb Jan Feb
% 88.4 95.6 99.8 99.8 99.0 99.3 >99.9 99.9 97.7

The system effectiveness for Seep A in January (88.4%) was above the requirement of 80%, but it
is noted that the system effectiveness for the four systems is typically higher, between 95-100%.
The January 20 – 31 composite sample for Seep A indicated an overall removal effectiveness of
Table 3+ PFAS of approximately 78-79%, whereas the other performance monitoring data in
January for Seep A indicate nearly 100% removal.

TR0795A 15 March 2022
4.4 Wet Weather Sampling Results
Wet weather monitoring samples were collected at Seeps A-D during the reporting period (Table
2), and their analytical results are shown in Table 4 and summarized below. Laboratory analytical
results are compiled in Appendix B. As noted in Paragraph 2(a)(iii) in the CO Addendum, these
results are not to be used to determine compliance under Paragraph 2(a)(vi).
Analytical Result – Wet Weather
Monitoring Seep A Seep B Seep C Seep D
Influent Total Table 3+ PFAS, 17
compounds (ng/L) 170,000 175,000 73,500 91,000
Effluent Total Table 3+ PFAS, 17
compounds (ng/L) 220 120 300 20
Removal Efficiency (%) 99.9 99.9 99.6 >99.9

4.5 River Elevation and Precipitation
The Cape Fear River was monitored using the existing USGS weather monitoring station at the
W.O. Huske Dam (gage 02105500), as described in Section 3.2.
Three key river elevations, in reference to the FTC at Seeps A-D were monitored for their effect
on system performance:
(i) When the river rises above the top of the discharge weir (Weir 3), head differentials
throughout the FTC are reduced and flow through the system is hindered.
(ii) When the river rises above the invert of the Bypass Spillway, the influent and effluent
water elevation are equal and flow through the system ceases.
(iii) When the river rises above the top of the FTC walls, maintenance is required to repair
any damages from flooding.
A statistical summary of the Cape Fear River elevation relative to these key elevations is provided
in Table 5. The Cape Fear River rose above the discharge weir elevation at Seeps A-D over January
4-7, 2022. The Cape Fear River rose above the Bypass Spillway elevation at Seeps A and D on
January 6, 2022. The river did not rise above the elevations of the top of the FTC walls at any point
during the reporting period.
The changes in elevation of the Cape Fear River during the reporting period (January 1 through
February 28, 2022) are shown in Figure 1. For clarity of presentation, Figure 1 shows the key FTC
elevations at Seep C only.

TR0795A 16 March 2022
4.6 Water Quality
The water quality measurements collected during reporting period are provided in Table 6 and
described below:
 DO: No significant differences were observed in the fluctuations of DO between influent
and effluent locations at all four seeps. On a median basis, the DO changed by less than 1
mg/L. Aerobic (>2 mg/L) conditions were maintained during the process. The FTC systems
do not involve biological activity to treat influent water, therefore, DO is not expected to
decrease or increase significantly over the system’s residence time.
 Temperature: At all four seeps, the median temperature of the effluent was within 1°C of
the median temperature of the influent during this reporting period. Due to the relatively
short residence time in the FTC, temperature is not expected to change significantly
throughout the FTC.
 Specific Conductance: Similar to the above parameters, there appeared to be only a minor
effect on conductivity. The FTC is expected to have little effect on the anion/cation content
of the seep baseflow. For all four Seeps, the difference in median specific conductance
across influent and effluent locations ranged between −11.2 and −33.0 µS/cm.
 pH: From the IC to the ESB, the median pH of treated water increased at Seeps A, B, and
D (1.9, 0.8, and 1.9 S.U., respectively). The pH decreased slightly (1.2 S.U.) at Seep C.
The decrease at Seep C appears to be anomalous; since startup in December 2020, the pH
at Seep C has consistently increased from the IC to the ESB, which is anticipated due to
the inflow’s contact with the concrete walls of the FTC and the GAC in the filter beds. The
median effluent pH at the four seeps is generally circumneutral and ranged from 6.0 to 7.5
S.U. in this reporting period.
 Turbidity and TSS: The median turbidity of the influent water at Seeps A, B, C, and D
ranged from 1.2 to 208.7 NTU. The FTCs significantly decreased the turbidity of the
influent water. The median turbidity of the effluent water at Seeps A-D ranged from 0.3 to
38.9 NTU. The TSS was observed to be 0.0 mg/L for all influent and effluent monitoring
locations.

TR0795A 17 March 2022
5. SUMMARY
The following summarizes the FTCs’ performance after the completion of the latest reporting
period (January 1 through February 28, 2022):
 Conclusions reached from the previous months of operation, as documented in previous
O&M Reports, remain unchanged. Flow data from Seeps A, B, C, and D indicate the
systems are capable of treating more than the design basis flow rate under favorable
hydraulic conditions. Wet weather flow is frequently captured, in some cases fully
captured, and treated equally to dry weather flows when captured.
 Performance monitoring results indicate the average PFAS removal efficiency of captured
baseflow at Seeps A-D is approximately 98.5%. To date, the A-D FTCs have prevented
approximately 272.5 lbs of PFAS from being discharged to the Cape Fear River.
 Monitoring of the Seeps A and C impoundments indicated higher than past levels of
turbidity in this reporting period as compared to previous months, and actions were taken
in the catchments to enhance the existing erosion and sediment controls that were already
in place as part of compliance with construction permits. Overhauling the filter beds of the
FTCs identified migration of sediment and GAC into the gravel drainage and perforated
underdrain pipes. After improving the catchment erosion controls, and after overhauling
the underdrain components in particular, the FTCs appeared to return to their previous
effectiveness. Additional improvements are underway to improve the separation of the
GAC and gravel layers.
The next reporting period (March 1 through April 30, 2022) will be detailed in O&M Report #8,
to be submitted no later than May 31, 2022.

TR0795A 18 March 2022
6. REFERENCES
AECOM, 2018. Poly and Perfluoroalkyl Substance Quality Assurance Project Plan. August 2018.
Geosyntec, 2020. Interim Seep Remediation System Plan. Chemours Fayetteville Works. 31
August 2020.
Geosyntec, 2021a. Interim Seep Remediation Operation and Maintenance Report #1. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. 31 March 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021b. Interim Seep Remediation Operation and Maintenance Report #2. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. 31 May 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021c. Interim Seep Remediation Operation and Maintenance Report #3. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. 30 July 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021d. Interim Seep Remediation Operation and Maintenance Report #4. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. 30 September 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021e. Interim Seep Remediation Operation and Maintenance Report #5. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. 30 November 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021f. Interim Seep Remediation Operation and Maintenance Report #6. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. 31 January 2022.

TR0795A
TABLES

Table 1a
Summary of Operations and Maintenance Activities - Seep A
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
FB1 FB2 FB1 FB2
Transducers
Downloaded Maintenance Activities Completed Notes
Operational Mode
Arrival DepartureDays Since
Startup
Bypass
Spillway
Flow?
Sampling Performed
Date
Breakthrough
Monitoring
Performance
Monitoring
Wet Weather
Monitoring
01/04/2022 252 Yes X Lead Lag Lead Lag X Skimmed and fluffed FB1.
River level is visibly over outlet pipe. Rain gauge reading of 2.25 inches.
Water at weir plate from back pressure of outfall.
01/05/2022 253 Yes Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A Observed high river levels.
01/06/2022 254 Yes Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed, fluffed, and replaced fabric in FB1.River is visibly over spillway outlet.
01/08/2022 256 --X Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
01/10/2022 258 Yes X Lead Lag Lead Lag X Flushed inlet.Rain gauge reading of 0.5 inches.
01/11/2022 259 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A Water observed in spillway but not bypassing.
01/12/2022 260 No Closed Lead Changeout Lead N/A N/A
01/13/2022 261 No Changeout Lead Lag Lead Skimmed and fluffed FB2. Installed remaining GAC in FB1.Very low turbidity observed in reservoir.
01/15/2022 263 --X Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A N/A
01/17/2022 265 Yes X Lag Lead Lag Lead X N/A Rain gauge reading of 1.5 inches.
01/18/2022 266 Yes Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed and fluffed FB2.Lead appears to not be processing well. Sediment pond very turbid.
01/20/2022 268 Yes Lag Lead Lag Lead
Flushed influent basin. Vacuumed FB1. Skimmed, fluffed, and replaced
fabric at FB2.N/A
01/21/2022 269 Yes X Lag Lead Parallel Parallel Installed filter fabric at FB1 prior to switching operational mode to parallel
processing.
Rain gauge reading of 0.4 inches. Brownish hue and considerable turbidity
in inlet reservoir. Strong flow observed after system set in parallel.
01/24/2022 272 Yes X Parallel Parallel Lead Lag X Fluffed FB2.N/A
01/25/2022 273 --X Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
01/26/2022 274 No Lead Changeout Lead Changeout GAC changeout at FB2.N/A
01/27/2022 275 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1 and FB2.12+ inches of freeboard.
01/29/2022 277 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 10 inches of freeboard. Rain gauge reading of 0.1 inches.
01/31/2022 279 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X Skimmed and fluffed FB1.4 inches of freeboard. Sediment pond appears clear. Double ribbons over
Weir 3.
02/01/2022 280 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and flluffed FB1.Observed clear water.
02/02/2022 281 No Changeout Lead Lag Lead GAC changeout at FB1.N/A
02/03/2022 282 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed, fluffed, and raked FB2.N/A
02/04/2022 283 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A Inlet filter has GAC and has created a 1 inch head difference.
02/05/2022 284 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Wet vacuumed inlet.Water level in reservoir increased by 1 inch from the day before.
02/06/2022 285 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Cleaned and fluffed FB2. Wet vacuumed inlet.Observed an increase in water levels through all cells and reservoir.
02/07/2022 286 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead X N/A 4 inches of freeboard.
02/08/2022 287 Yes Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed and fluffed FB2.N/A
02/09/2022 288 Yes Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed and fluffed both FB1 and FB2. N/A
02/10/2022 289 Yes Lag Lead Lad Lead
Drained FB2 and mid-basin. Drilled holes in mid-basin under drain to allow
for pressure washing. N/A
02/11/2022 290 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead Pressure washing under drains FB2 skim and fluff. 14" of freeboard. Slightly turbid sediment pond.
02/14/2022 293 -- Lag Lead Parallel Parallel X N/A N/A
02/15/2022 294 No Parallel Parallel Lag Lead Skim and fluff FB1. N/A
02/16/2022 295 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A 12" of freeboard.
02/17/2022 296 -- Lead Changeout Lead Lag GAC changeout at FB2. N/A
02/19/2022 298 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A No evidence of bypass. 14” freeboard. Clear sediment pond.
02/20/2022 299 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
02/21/2022 300 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A N/A
02/23/2022 302 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Installed plugs in mid-basin. 12" of freeboard.
02/24/2022 303 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 12" of freeboard.
02/25/2022 304 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB2. 12" of freeboard.
02/28/2022 307 Yes X X X Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1.Rain gauge reading of 0.4 inches. 4.5 inches of freeboard after
maintenance.
Notes
FB1 - Filter Bed 1 GAC - granulated activated carbon
FB2 - Filter Bed 2 ISCO - Teledyne ISCO Autosampler
FTC - flow through cell mm - millimeters
N/A - Not Applicable
TR0795A Page 1 of 4 March 2022
Table 1b
Summary of Operations and Maintenance Activities - Seep B
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
FB1 FB2 FB1 FB2
Transducers
Downloaded Maintenance Activities Completed Notes
Breakthrough
Monitoring
Performance
Monitoring
Wet Weather
Monitoring
ArrivalDays Since
Startup
Bypass
Spillway
Flow?
Sampling Performed Operational Mode
Departure
Date
01/04/2022 211 Yes X Lag Lead Lag Lead X Skimmed and fluffed FB2. River visibly over outlet pipe. Rain gauge reading of 2.25 inches.
01/07/2022 214 Yes Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed, fluffed, and replaced fabric in FB2. Observed decrease in river level.
01/08/2022 215 -- X Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A N/A
01/10/2022 217 Yes Lag Lead Lag Lead X N/A Rain gauge reading of 9/16 inches.
01/11/2022 218 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed and fluffed FB2. Observed water in spillway but not bypassing.
01/12/2022 219 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A 1 inch of freeboard.
01/14/2022 221 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed, fluffed, and replaced fabric in FB2. N/A
01/15/2022 222 -- X Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A N/A
01/17/2022 224 Yes X X Lag Lead Lag Lead X Cleaned FB2. Rain gauge reading of 1.56 inches.
01/19/2022 226 No Lead Changeout Lead Lag Carbon changeout at FB2. N/A
01/24/2022 231 Yes X Lead Lag Lead Lag X Performed maintenance on inlet and FB1. N/A
01/28/2022 235 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Cleaned FB1. N/A
01/29/2022 236 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 4.5 inches of freeboard.
01/30/2022 237 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 5 inches of freeboard.
01/31/2022 238 No X X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A 5 inches of freeboard.
02/01/2022 239 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
02/03/2022 241 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1. N/A
02/04/2022 242 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
02/07/2022 245 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A Rain gauge reading of 0.2 inches. 4 inches of freeboard.
02/08/2022 246 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Cleaned FB1. Rain gauge reading of 1.75 inches.
02/10/2022 248 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 4.75 inches of freeboard.
02/11/2022 249 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skim and fluff FB1. N/A
02/14/2022 252 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A N/A
02/15/2022 253 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag Cleaned FB1. High water column in FB1.
02/16/2022 254 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
02/18/2022 256 -- Changeout Lead Lag Lead GAC Changeout at FB1. N/A
02/19/2022 257 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A No evidence of bypass in spillway. 14” freeboard.
02/20/2022 258 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A Dry spillway.
02/21/2022 259 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead X N/A 12 inches of freeboard.
02/22/2022 260 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed and fluffed FB2. 8 inches of freeboard
02/24/2022 262 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A 12 inches of freeboard.
02/28/2022 266 No X X Lag Lead Lag Lead Cleaned FB2. N/A
03/01/2022 267 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead X 100 lbs of biocoide applied to the inlet reservoir. N/A
Notes
FB1 - Filter Bed 1 GAC - granulated activated carbon
FB2 - Filter Bed 2 ISCO - Teledyne ISCO Autosampler
FTC - flow through cell mm - millimeters
N/A - Not Applicable
TR0795A Page 2 of 4 March 2022
Table 1c
Summary of Operations and Maintenance Activities - Seep C
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
FB1 FB2 FB1 FB2
Performance
Monitoring
Wet Weather
Monitoring
Arrival Departure
Operational Mode
Transducers
DownloadedDate
Bypass
Spillway
Flow?
Sampling Performed
Days Since
Startup Maintenance Activities Completed Notes
Breakthrough
Monitoring
01/04/2022 385 Yes X Lag Lead Lead Closed X Began dewatering FB2.
Large amount of water observed flowing under culvert at access road. Rain
gauge reading of 2 and 7/16 inches. Large head difference in the sump well
at FB2.
01/05/2022 386 No Lead Changeout Lead Changeout N/A Observed river water in outlet and river 2 to 3 feet from the edge of cell.
01/08/2022 389 -- X Lead Lag Lead Lag GAC Changeout at FB1.
01/10/2022 391 Yes Lead Lag Lead Lag X Hard flush in FB1 and influent stilling basin.Rain gauge reading of 9/16 inches. Observed turbid water in reservoir.
01/11/2022 392 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed, fluffed, and replaced fabric in FB1.Observed water in spillway but no bypass.
01/12/2022 393 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 3 inches of freeboard.
01/14/2022 395 Yes Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB2.N/A
01/15/2022 396 -- X Lead Lag Lead Lag GAC Changeout at FB1. N/A
01/17/2022 398 Yes X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A Rain gauge reading of 1.57 inches.
01/19/2022 400 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skim and fluff FB2.N/A
01/24/2022 405 Yes X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A FB1 was frozen.
01/25/2022 406 Yes X Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1.Observed flow of sediment from pond into spillway.
01/26/2022 407 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
01/29/2022 410 No Lead Lag Lead Lag
Ran in parallel for two hours. Inlet filter had a layer of GAC installed in the
forebay on 1/28/2022.3.5 inches of freeboard. Brown hue observed in reservoir.
01/30/2022 411 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Ran in parallel for four hours.2 inches of freeboard. Sediment pond appeared turbid and icy.
01/31/2022 412 No X X Lead Changeout Lead Lag X Removal of GAC from FB2. 2 inches of freeboard. Sediment pond appeared turbid and icy.
02/01/2022 413 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1. Flushed inlet.N/A
02/03/2022 415 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Cleaned out gravel from inlet basin to be replaced with GAC. 5 inches of freeboard.
02/04/2022 416 -- Changeout Lag Lead Lag GAC Changeout at FB1. N/A
02/05/2022 417 No Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Removed GAC from inlet. FB2 appears to not be processing as efficiently as FB1.
02/07/2022 419 No X Parallel Changeout Lead Lag X Refit FB2. Changed to parallel and shut off during changeout of FB2.
Rain gauge reading of 0.2 inches. 6 inches of freeboard. Turbidity observed
in sediment pond.
02/08/2022 420 --X Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
02/13/2022 425 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skim and fluff FB1. N/A
02/14/2022 426 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A N/A
02/15/2022 427 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag Clean FB1. Turbid water through mid and effluent.
02/16/2022 428 --Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A N/A
02/17/2022 429 No Lead Lag Lead Lag
Skimmed, fluffed, and replaced fabric in FB1. Cleaned under drain and mid-
basin.4 inches of freeboard.
02/18/2022 430 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skim and fluff FB2. No evidence of bypass in spillway. 3-4” freeboard
02/19/2022 431 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A Turbidity in sediment pond. 5” freeboard. No evidence of bypass in spillway.
02/20/2022 432 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skim and fluff FB1.N/A
02/21/2022 433 No X Lead Lag Parallel Parallel X N/A N/A
02/23/2022 435 No Changeout Lead Lag Lead FB1 GAC changeout.N/A
02/24/2022 436 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A N/A
02/26/2022 438 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A 12 inches of freeboard.
03/01/2022 441 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead X Cleaned FB2. 5 inches of freeboard.
Notes
FB1 - Filter Bed 1 GAC - granulated activated carbon
FB2 - Filter Bed 2 ISCO - Teledyne ISCO Autosampler
FTC - flow through cell mm - millimeters
N/A - Not Applicable
TR0795A Page 3 of 4 March 2022
Table 1d
Summary of Operations and Maintenance Activities - Seep D
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
FB1 FB2 FB1 FB2Date
Days Since
Startup
Bypass
Spillway
Flow?
Sampling Performed
Breakthrough
Monitoring
Performance
Monitoring
Wet Weather
Monitoring
Arrival Departure Transducers
Downloaded
Operational Mode
Maintenance Activities Completed Notes
01/04/2022 195 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A
Rain gauge reading of 2.25 inches, 4.5 inches of freeboard. River high at
outlet.
01/06/2022 197 Yes Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1.Observed river flowing into spillway.
01/10/2022 201 No Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A Rain gauge reading of 19.5 mm. Kink in influent datalogger cord.
01/12/2022 203 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 10 inches of freeboard.
01/13/2022 204 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1. Fluffed FB2.N/A
01/17/2022 208 No X X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A Rain gauge reading of 2.3 inches. 10 inches of freeboard.
01/20/2022 211 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Skimmed and fluffed FB1.0.5 inches of freeboard.
01/24/2022 215 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A Rain gauge reading of 0.75 inches.
01/25/2022 216 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A
8 inches of freeboard. Low turbidity observed in sediment pond. Layer of
bacteria observed on FB1 matting.
01/26/2022 217 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A 6 inches of freeboard. Little to no turbidty observed in sediment pond.
01/29/2022 220 No Lead Lag Lead Lag N/A
Rain gauge reading of 0.1 inches. 16 inches of freeboard. Sediment pond
does not appear turbid.
01/31/2022 222 No X X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A 14 inches of freeboard. Sediment pond does not appear turbid.
02/02/2022 224 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Wet vacuumed FB1.14 inches of freeboard. Sediment pond appears clear.
02/04/2022 226 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Cleaned FB1. Reservoir appears clear. Low water level in reservoir.
02/07/2022 229 No X Lead Lag Lead Lag X N/A
Rain gauge reading of 0.2 inches. 14 inches of freeboard. Sediment pond
appears clear.
02/09/2022 231 No Lead Lag Lead Lag Post-storm inspection. Over 1 foot of freeboard.
02/10/2022 232 No Lead Lag Lag Lead Clear water.
02/11/2022 233 --Changeout Lead Lag Lead Changeout at FB1. N/A
02/14/2022 236 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead X N/A N/A
02/15/2022 237 --X Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A N/A
02/16/2022 238 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A N/A
02/17/2022 239 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Skim fluff FB2.N/A
02/19/2022 241 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A
Caption:no evidence of bypass in spillway. 14” freeboard. Clean sediment
pond.
02/20/2022 242 No Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A
02/21/2022 243 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead X Low system flows.12 inches of freeboard.
02/24/2022 246 No Lag Lead Lag Lead Skimmed and fluffed FB2.
Reservoir water noted to be more turbid than usual. About 7.5 inches of
freeboard.
02/28/2022 250 --X Lag Lead Lag Lead N/A N/A
03/01/2022 251 No X Lag Lead Lag Lead X Greenclean added to cell and reservoir. N/A
Notes `
FB1 - Filter Bed 1 GAC - granulated activated carbon
FB2 - Filter Bed 2 ISCO - Teledyne ISCO Autosampler
FTC - flow through cell mm - millimeters
N/A - Not Applicable
TR0795A Page 4 of 4 March 2022
Table 2a
Sampling Summary - Seep A
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Sample ID Composite Period
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-010822
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-010822
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-011522
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-011522
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-270-013122
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-276-013122
SEEP A-INFLUENT-24-022022
SEEP A-EFFLUENT-24-022022
SEEP A-INFLUENT-24-022322
SEEP A-EFFLUENT-24-022322
SEEP A-INFLUENT-24-022422
SEEP A-EFFLUENT-24-0022422
SEEP A-INFLUENT-24-022422
SEEP A-EFFLUENT-24-022522
Sample ID Sample Date Sample Time Cumulative Rainfall
(inches)
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-RAIN-23-011122
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-011122
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-RAIN-23-022822
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-022822
Notes
1 Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
2
3
4 Precipitation data obtained from the USGS gauge #02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
Four 24-hour effluent composite samples were collected for February instead of two 14-day composites because of an autosampler error that
compromised the initial two-week composite sample. See Section 3.4.2 for details.
January 11, 2022 0.49
Two 24-hour effluent composite samples were collected for the first half of January because the flooding of the Cape Fear River on January 4-7, 2022,
interrupted the 14-day composite cycle. See Section 3.4.2 for details.
February 28, 2022 18:00 0.33
Wet Weather Composite Sample
January 8, 2022
January 15, 2022
February 22 - February 23, 2022 February 23, 2022
07:00
Performance Monitoring Composite Samples
Sample Date
January 8, 2022
January 15, 2022
February 19 - February 20, 2022 February 20, 2022
February 23 - February 24, 2022 February 24, 2022
January 20 - January 31, 2022 January 31, 2022
February 24 - February 25, 2022 February 25, 2022
TR0795A Page 1 of 4 March 2022
Table 2b
Sampling Summary - Seep B
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Sample ID Composite Period
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-24-010822
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-24-010822
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-24-011522
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-24-011522
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-264-013122
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-276-013122
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-336-021522
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-336-021522
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-312-030122
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-312-030122
Sample ID Sample Date Sample Time Cumulative Rainfall
(inches)
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-011722
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-011722
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-022822
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-022822
Notes
1 Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
2
3 Precipitation data obtained from the USGS gauge #02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
Two 24-hour effluent composite samples were collected for the first half of January because the flooding of the Cape Fear River on January 4-7, 2022,
interrupted the 14-day composite cycle. See Section 3.4.2 for details.
January 20 - January 31, 2022
February 1 - February 15, 2022 February 15, 2022
January 15, 2022 January 15, 2022
January 31, 2022
January 17, 2022 10:15 1.41
February 28, 2022
Wet Weather Composite Sample
Performance Monitoring Composite Samples
Sample Date
January 8, 2022 January 8, 2022
18:00 0.33
February 16 - March 1, 2022 March 1, 2022
TR0795A Page 2 of 4 March 2022
Table 2c
Sampling Summary - Seep C
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Sample ID Composite Period
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-010822
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-24-010822
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-011522
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-24-011522
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-240-013122
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-156-013122
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-192-021522
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-336-021522
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-312-030122
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-282-030122
Sample ID Sample Date Sample Time Cumulative Rainfall
(inches)
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-22-011122
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-011122
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-020822
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-020822
Notes
1 Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
2
3 Precipitation data obtained from the USGS gauge #02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
Wet Weather Composite Sample
February 1 - February 15, 2022 February 15, 2022
Sample Date
Performance Monitoring Composite Samples
January 8, 2022 January 8, 2022
January 15, 2022 January 15, 2022
January 20 - January 31, 2022 January 31, 2022
Two 24-hour effluent composite samples were collected for the first half of January because the flooding of the Cape Fear River on January 4-7, 2022,
interrupted the 14-day composite cycle. See Section 3.4.2 for details.
February 8, 2022 14:10 0.55
February 16 - March 1, 2022 March 1, 2022
January 11, 2022 06:55 0.49
TR0795A Page 3 of 4 March 2022
Table 2d
Sampling Summary - Seep D
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Sample ID Composite Period
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-24-011222
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-24-011222
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-276-013122
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-013122
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-336-021522
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-336-021522
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-312-030122
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-312-030122
Sample ID Sample Date Sample Time Cumulative Rainfall
(inches)
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-011722
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-011722
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-022822
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-022822
Notes
1 Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
2
3 Precipitation data obtained from the USGS gauge #02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
Sample Date
Performance Monitoring Composite Samples
Wet Weather Composite Sample
January 12, 2022 January 12, 2022
February 16 - March 1, 2022 March 1, 2022
January 20 - January 31, 2022 January 31, 2022
February 1 - February 15, 2022 February 15, 2022
A 24-hour effluent composite sample was collected for the first half of January because the flooding of the Cape Fear River on January 4-7, 2022,
interrupted the 14-day composite cycle. See Section 3.4.2 for details.
January 17, 2022 06:55 1.41
February 28, 2022 18:00 0.33
TR0795A Page 4 of 4 March 2022
Table 3a
Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results - Seep A
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-
24-010822
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-
24-010822
SEEP-A-Influent-24-
011522
SEEP-A-Effluent-24-
011522
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-
270-013122
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-
276-013122
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-
24-022022
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-
24-022022
Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date:
8-Jan-02 8-Jan-02 15-Jan-22 15-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 20-Feb-22 20-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 22,000 8.5 >99.9%24,000 15 99.9%25,000 4900 80.4%21,000 580 97.2%
PFMOAA 65,000 28 >99.9%69,000 42 99.9%62,000 12000 80.6%67,000 2,000 97.0%
PFO2HxA 35,000 11 >99.9%36,000 16 >99.9%30,000 6400 78.7%37,000 1,100 97.0%
PFO3OA 13,000 3.3 >99.9%13,000 5 >99.9%11,000 2,300 79.1%12,000 360 97.0%
PFO4DA 6,700 <2.0 100.0%7,100 <2.0 100.0%6,400 1,300 79.7%6,800 190 97.2%
PFO5DA 3,900 <2.0 100.0%3,700 <2.0 100.0%3,000 620 79.3%3,600 100 97.2%
PMPA 15,000 16 99.9%16,000 13 99.9%12,000 2,900 75.8%15,000 470 96.9%
PEPA 5,900 <20 100.0%5,700 <20 100.0%4,700 1,000 78.7%5,800 170 97.1%
PS Acid 2,200 <2.0 100.0%1,400 <2.0 100.0%2,200 450 79.5%800 12 98.5%
Hydro-PS Acid 1,300 <2.0 100.0%1,200 <2.0 100.0%1,000 220 78.0%1,200 34 97.2%
R-PSDA 1,700 J <2.0 100.0%2,200 J <2.0 100.0%390 J 340 J 14.7% 2,200 J 63 J 97.1%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 19,000 J 4.9 J >99.9%25,000 J 4.2 J >99.9%8,300 J 3,600 J 56.6% 25,000 J 650 J 97.4%
R-PSDCA 45 <2.0 100.0%38 <2.0 100.0%37 7 80.8%100 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 1,000 <2.0 100.0%1,100 <2.0 100.0%880 200 77.3%1,100 31 97.2%
EVE Acid 250 <2.0 100.0%170 <2.0 100.0%300 63 79.0%100 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 1,400 <2.0 100.0%1,400 <2.0 100.0%1,200 250 79.2%1,500 43 97.1%
R-EVE 750 J <2.0 100.0%920 J <2.0 100.0%210 J 150 J 28.6% 1,000 J 29 J 97.1%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.7 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <4.8 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)1,2 170,000 67 >99.9%180,000 91 99.9%160,000 33,000 79.4%170,000 5,100 97.0%
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)1 190,000 72 >99.9%210,000 95 >99.9%170,000 37,000 78.2%200,000 5,800 97.1%
Notes
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Table 3 + SOP (ng/ L)
Percent Removal Percent Removal Percent Removal Percent Removal
TR0795A Page 1 of 7 March 2022
Table 3a
Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results - Seep A
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-
24-022322
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-
23-022322
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-
24-022422
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-
24-022422
SEEP-A-INFLUENT-
24-022522
SEEP-A-EFFLUENT-
24-022522
Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date:
23-Feb-22 23-Feb-22 24-Feb-22 24-Feb-22 25-Feb-22 25-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 22,000 2,500 88.6%23,000 290 98.7%18,000 14 99.9%
PFMOAA 74,000 7,800 89.5%64,000 730 98.9%54,000 59 J 99.9%
PFO2HxA 40,000 4,500 88.8%41,000 510 98.8%35,000 27 99.9%
PFO3OA 14,000 1,500 89.3%15,000 180 98.8%12,000 8.5 99.9%
PFO4DA 7,700 860 88.8%9,400 110 98.8%8,100 5.2 99.9%
PFO5DA 3,800 430 88.7%5,000 61 98.8%4,200 3.3 99.9%
PMPA 16,000 1,800 88.8%16,000 200 98.8%14,000 19 99.9%
PEPA 6,000 690 88.5%6,500 72 98.9%5,500 <20 100.0%
PS Acid 860 91 89.4%490 7.8 98.4%420 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 1,400 160 88.6%1,300 16 98.8%1,100 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 2,500 J 260 J 89.6% 3,100 J 27 J 99.1% 2,600 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 28,000 J 2,800 J 90.0% 36,000 J 300 J 99.2% 31,000 J 9.6 J >99.9%
R-PSDCA 110 11 90.0%110 <2.0 100.0%99 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 1,200 140 88.3%1,200 14 98.8%950 2.4 99.7%
EVE Acid 100 12 88.0%59 <2.0 100.0%48 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 1,700 190 88.8%1,500 19 98.7%1,300 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 1,000 J 130 J 87.0% 1,300 J 11 J 99.2% 1,000 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.7 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <4.8 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)1,2 190,000 21,000 88.9%180,000 2,200 98.8%150,000 140 99.9%
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)1 220,000 24,000 89.1%220,000 2,500 98.9%190,000 150 99.9%
Notes
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Percent RemovalPercent Removal Percent Removal
Table 3 + SOP (ng/ L)
TR0795A Page 2 of 7 March 2022
Table 3b
Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results - Seep B
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-
24-010822
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-
24-010822
SEEP-B-Influent-24-
011522
SEEP-B-Effluent-24-
011522
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-
264-013122
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-
276-013122
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-
336-021522
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-
336-021522
Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date:
8-Jan-22 8-Jan-22 15-Jan-22 15-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 15-Feb-22 15-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 29,000 2.3 >99.9%28,000 5.6 >99.9%33,000 24 99.9%24,000 12 >99.9%
PFMOAA 57,000 13 >99.9%76,000 22 >99.9%75,000 260 99.7%86,000 96 99.9%
PFO2HxA 25,000 2 >99.9%29,000 6.6 >99.9%25,000 36 99.9%33,000 35 99.9%
PFO3OA 6,600 <2.0 100.0%7,100 <2.0 100.0%6,400 6.2 99.9%8,200 8 99.9%
PFO4DA 1,200 <2.0 100.0%1,500 <2.0 100.0%1,500 <2.0 100.0%1,500 2 99.8%
PFO5DA 350 <2.0 100.0%220 <2.0 100.0%250 <2.0 100.0%220 <2.0 100.0%
PMPA 28,000 14 >99.9%29,000 14 >99.9%27,000 83 99.7%29,000 37 99.9%
PEPA 15,000 <20 100.0%14,000 <20 100.0%13,000 21 99.8%14,000 <20 100.0%
PS Acid 1200 <2.0 100.0%420 <2.0 100.0%890 <2.0 100.0%340 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 800 <2.0 100.0%770 <2.0 100.0%760 <2.0 100.0%770 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 2,800 J <2.0 100.0%3,100 J <2.0 100.0%710 J 15 J 97.9% 3,400 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 20,000 J <2.0 100.0%23,000 J <2.0 100.0%7,400 J 30 J 99.6% 31,000 J 6.2 J >99.9%
R-PSDCA 48 <2.0 100.0%42 <2.0 100.0%44 <2.0 100.0%42 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 1,800 <2.0 100.0%1,900 <2.0 100.0%1,700 <2.0 100.0%2,000 <2.0 100.0%
EVE Acid 1000 <2.0 100.0%310 <2.0 100.0%680 <2.0 100.0%290 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 1,600 <2.0 100.0%1,600 <2.0 100.0%1,400 <2.0 100.0%1,600 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 1,900 J <2.0 100.0%1,900 J <2.0 100.0%550 J 5.2 J 99.1% 2,000 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)1,2 170,000 32 >99.9%190,000 48 >99.9%190,000 430 99.8%200,000 190 99.9%
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)1 190,000 32 >99.9%220,000 48 >99.9%200,000 480 99.8%240,000 200 99.9%
Notes
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Table 3 + SOP (ng/ L)
Percent Removal Percent RemovalPercent Removal Percent Removal
TR0795A Page 3 of 7 March 2022
Table 3b
Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results - Seep B
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
SEEP-B-INFLUENT-
312-030122
SEEP-B-EFFLUENT-
312-030122
Sample Date: Sample Date:
1-Mar-22 1-Mar-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 24,000 34 99.9%
PFMOAA 98,000 250 99.7%
PFO2HxA 42,000 53 99.9%
PFO3OA 10,000 8.6 99.9%
PFO4DA 1,900 <2.0 100.0%
PFO5DA 220 <2.0 100.0%
PMPA 29,000 110 99.6%
PEPA 14,000 33 99.8%
PS Acid 170 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 730 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 4,300 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 38,000 J 26 J 99.9%
R-PSDCA 100 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 2,100 3.5 99.8%
EVE Acid 130 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 1,400 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 2,300 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)1,2 220,000 490 99.8%
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)1 270,000 520 99.8%
Notes
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Percent Removal
Table 3 + SOP (ng/ L)
TR0795A Page 4 of 7 March 2022
Table 3c
Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results - Seep C
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-
24-010822
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-
24-010822
SEEP-C-Influent-24-
011522
SEEP-C-Effluent-24-
011522
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-
240-013122
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-
156-013122
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-
192-021522
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-
336-021522
Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date:
8-Jan-22 8-Jan-22 15-Jan-22 15-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 15-Feb-22 15-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 14,000 5.3 >99.9%15,000 24 99.8%14,000 210 98.5%13,000 58 99.6%
PFMOAA 34,000 35 99.9%37,000 60 J 99.8%37,000 350 99.1%34,000 260 99.2%
PFO2HxA 16,000 7 >99.9%17,000 14 99.9%13,000 110 99.2%16,000 64 99.6%
PFO3OA 5,600 2 >99.9%5,300 3 99.9%4,000 29 99.3%5,000 18 99.6%
PFO4DA 1,900 <2.0 100.0%2,000 <2.0 100.0%1,600 11 99.3%1,700 6 99.7%
PFO5DA <78 <2.0 100.0%96 <2.0 100.0%100 <2.0 100.0% <78 <2.0 100.0%
PMPA 6,700 12 99.8%6,700 31 99.5% <620 190 0% 3 6,400 73 98.9%
PEPA 2,300 <20 100.0%2,200 <20 100.0%1,500 45 97.0%2,100 <20 100.0%
PS Acid <20 <2.0 100.0% <20 <2.0 100.0% <20 <2.0 100.0% <20 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 310 <2.0 100.0%300 <2.0 100.0%200 2 98.8%260 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 660 J <2.0 100.0%550 J 6.2 J 98.9% <71 22 J 0% 3 530 J 30 J 94.3%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 620 J <2.0 100.0%630 J 4.4 J 99.3% <38 20 J 0% 3 720 J 20 J 97.2%
R-PSDCA <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 510 <2.0 100.0%520 <2.0 100.0% <15 3 0% 3 480 2 99.6%
EVE Acid <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 920 <2.0 100.0%900 <2.0 100.0%600 9 98.5%820 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 570 J <2.0 100.0%550 J 5.3 J 99.0% <72 21 J 0% 3 540 J 14 J 97.4%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)1,2 82,000 62 99.9%87,000 130 99.9%72,000 960 98.7%80,000 480 99.4%
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)1 84,000 62 99.9%89,000 150 99.8%72,000 1,000 98.6%82,000 540 99.3%
Notes
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
3 - Removal percent cannot be calculated due to the elevated reporting limits in the influent sample.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Table 3 + SOP (ng/ L)
Percent Removal Percent Removal Percent Removal Percent Removal
TR0795A Page 5 of 7 March 2022
Table 3c
Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results - Seep C
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
SEEP-C-INFLUENT-
312-030122
SEEP-C-EFFLUENT-
282-030122
Sample Date: Sample Date:
1-Mar-22 1-Mar-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 15,000 35 99.8%
PFMOAA 41,000 320 99.2%
PFO2HxA 23,000 71 99.7%
PFO3OA 7,200 17 99.8%
PFO4DA 2,800 7.1 99.7%
PFO5DA <78 2.2 0% 3
PMPA 8,000 61 99.2%
PEPA 2,800 <20 100.0%
PS Acid <20 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 340 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 1,100 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 1,200 J 21 J 98.3%
R-PSDCA 74 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 580 3.2 99.4%
EVE Acid <17 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 1,100 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 850 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)1,2 100,000 520 99.5%
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)1 110,000 540 99.5%
Notes
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
3 - Removal percent cannot be calculated due to the elevated reporting limits in the influent sample.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Percent Removal
Table 3 + SOP (ng/ L)
TR0795A Page 6 of 7 March 2022
Table 3d
Summary of Performance Monitoring Analytical Results - Seep D
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
SEEP-D-Influent-24-
011222
SEEP-D-Effluent-24-
011222
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-
264-013122
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-
276-013122
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-
336-021522
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-
336-021522
SEEP-D-INFLUENT-
312-030122
SEEP-D-EFFLUENT-
312-030122
Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date: Sample Date:
12-Jan-22 12-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 15-Feb-22 15-Feb-22 1-Mar-22 1-Mar-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 14,000 3.9 >99.9%14,000 <2.0 100.0%12,000 6 >99.9%13,000 6.7 99.9%
PFMOAA 48,000 15 >99.9%41,000 6.1 J >99.9%41,000 48 99.9%42,000 43 99.9%
PFO2HxA 19,000 6.3 >99.9%18,000 2.3 J >99.9%19,000 14 99.9%22,000 13 99.9%
PFO3OA 5,900 2 >99.9%5,200 <2.0 100.0%5,500 3.3 99.9%6,600 2.7 >99.9%
PFO4DA 1,800 <2.0 100.0%1,700 <2.0 100.0%1,500 <2.0 100.0%2,300 <2.0 100.0%
PFO5DA 100 <2.0 100.0%95 <2.0 100.0%98 <2.0 100.0% <78 <2.0 100.0%
PMPA 6,000 <10 100.0%5,400 <10 100.0%5,600 12 99.8%6,300 <10 100.0%
PEPA 1,900 <20 100.0%1,800 <20 100.0%1,900 <20 100.0%2,300 <20 100.0%
PS Acid <20 <2.0 100.0%<20 <2.0 100.0% <20 <2.0 100.0% <20 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 250 <2.0 100.0%210 <2.0 100.0%240 <2.0 100.0%250 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 690 J <2.0 100.0%460 J <2.0 100.0%630 J <2.0 100.0% 970 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 1,400 J <2.0 100.0%1,100 J <2.0 100.0%1,600 J <2.0 100.0% 2,200 J <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDCA <17 <2.0 100.0%<17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0%71 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 610 <2.0 100.0%510 <2.0 100.0%580 <2.0 100.0%560 <2.0 100.0%
EVE Acid <17 <2.0 100.0%<17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 900 <2.0 100.0%760 <2.0 100.0%840 <2.0 100.0%960 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 610 J <2.0 100.0%400 J <2.0 100.0%650 J <2.0 100.0% 790 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0%<6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0%<27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0%<48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)1,2 98,000 27 >99.9%89,000 8.4 >99.9%88,000 83 99.9%96,000 65 99.9%
Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)1 100,000 27 >99.9%91,000 8.4 >99.9%91,000 83 99.9%100,000 65 99.9%
Notes
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Percent Removal Percent Removal Percent Removal
Table 3 + SOP (ng/ L)
Percent Removal
TR0795A Page 7 of 7 March 2022
Table 4a
Summary of Wet Weather Analytical Results - Seep A
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
Seep-A-Influent-Rain-
23-011122
Seep-A-Effluent-Rain-
24-011122
Seep-A-Influent-Rain-
24-022822
Seep-A-Effluent-Rain-
24-022822
Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal
11-Jan-22 11-Jan-22 28-Feb-22 28-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 25,000 8.7 >99.9%23,000 53 99.8%
PFMOAA 61,000 26 >99.9%59,000 130 99.8%
PFO2HxA 34,000 9.5 >99.9%39,000 89 99.8%
PFO3OA 12,000 3 >99.9%13,000 32 99.8%
PFO4DA 6,600 <2.0 100.0%8,600 20 99.8%
PFO5DA 3,500 <2.0 100.0%4,800 10 99.8%
PMPA 15,000 <10 100.0%15,000 43 99.7%
PEPA 5,600 <20 100.0%6,100 <20 100.0%
PS Acid 1,800 <2.0 100.0%390 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 1,200 <2.0 100.0%1,200 3 99.8%
R-PSDA 2,100 J <2.0 100.0%3,100 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 23,000 J 2.8 J >99.9%34,000 J 56 J 99.8%
R-PSDCA 37 <2.0 100.0%100 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 1000 <2.0 100.0%1,100 2.9 99.7%
EVE Acid 260 <2.0 100.0%48 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 1,300 <2.0 100.0%1,400 3.6 99.7%
R-EVE 960 J <2.0 100.0%1,200 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) [1,2]170,000 48 >99.9% 170,000 390 99.8%
Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) [1]190,000 50 >99.9% 210,000 440 99.8%
Notes:
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
B - Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field blanks.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)
TR0795A Page 1 of 4 March 2022
Table 4b
Summary of Wet Weather Analytical Results - Seep B
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
Seep-B-Influent-Rain-
24-011722
Seep-B-Effluent-Rain-
24-011722
Seep-B-Influent-Rain-
24-022822
Seep-B-Effluent-Rain-
24-022822
Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal
17-Jan-22 17-Jan-22 28-Feb-22 28-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 23,000 9.8 >99.9%28,000 18 99.9%
PFMOAA 43,000 23 >99.9%81,000 110 99.9%
PFO2HxA 18,000 9.4 >99.9%38,000 28 99.9%
PFO3OA 4,600 3 99.9%9,700 3.1 >99.9%
PFO4DA 1,100 <2.0 100.0%2,200 <2.0 100.0%
PFO5DA 280 <2.0 100.0%310 <2.0 100.0%
PMPA 24,000 15 99.9%34,000 22 99.9%
PEPA 12,000 <20 100.0%17,000 <20 100.0%
PS Acid 1,200 <2.0 100.0%600 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 660 <2.0 100.0%930 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 2,400 J <2.0 100.0% 5,300 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 15,000 J 5.0 J >99.9% 41,000 J 3.9 J >99.9%
R-PSDCA 34 <2.0 100.0%110 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 1400 <2.0 100.0%2,200 <2.0 100.0%
EVE Acid 1000 <2.0 100.0%510 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 1,200 <2.0 100.0%1,800 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 1,700 J <2.0 100.0% 2,900 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) [1,2]130,000 60 >99.9% 220,000 180 99.9%
Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) [1]150,000 65 >99.9% 270,000 190 99.9%
Notes:
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
B - Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field blanks.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)
TR0795A Page 2 of 4 March 2022
Table 4c
Summary of Wet Weather Analytical Results - Seep C
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
Seep-C-Influent-Rain-
22-011122
Seep-C-Effluent-Rain-
24-011122
Seep-C-Influent-Rain-
24-020822
Seep-C-Effluent-Rain-
24-020822
Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal
11-Jan-22 11-Jan-22 08-Feb-22 08-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 11,000 7.8 99.9%14,000 50 99.6%
PFMOAA 28,000 59 99.8%36,000 310 99.1%
PFO2HxA 13,000 11 99.9%15,000 73 99.5%
PFO3OA 3,900 2 >99.9%5,000 8 99.8%
PFO4DA 1,500 <2.0 100.0%1,800 2 99.9%
PFO5DA 110 <2.0 100.0%82 <2.0 100.0%
PMPA 5,200 11 99.8%5,800 77 98.7%
PEPA 1,700 <20 100.0%1,900 <20 100.0%
PS Acid <20 <2.0 100.0%<20 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 250 <2.0 100.0%240 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 460 J <2.0 100.0% 490 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 480 J <2.0 100.0% 490 J <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDCA <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 390 <2.0 100.0%430 <2.0 100.0%
EVE Acid <17 <2.0 100.0% <17 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 700 <2.0 100.0%770 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 420 J <2.0 100.0% 400 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) [1,2]66,000 91 99.9% 81,000 520 99.4%
Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) [1]67,000 91 99.9% 82,000 520 99.4%
Notes:
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
B - Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field blanks.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)
TR0795A Page 3 of 4 March 2022
Table 4d
Summary of Wet Weather Analytical Results - Seep D
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
Seep-D-Influent-Rain-
24-011722
Seep-D-Effluent-Rain-
24-011722
Seep-D-Influent-Rain-
24-022822
Seep-D-Effluent-Rain-
24-022822
Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal Sample Date: Sample Date:Percent Removal
17-Jan-22 17-Jan-22 28-Feb-22 28-Feb-22
Hfpo Dimer Acid 13,000 5.4 >99.9%13,000 3.2 >99.9%
PFMOAA 40,000 16 >99.9%42,000 <2.0 100.00%
PFO2HxA 17,000 9.3 >99.9%22,000 6.6 >99.9%
PFO3OA 5,000 3 >99.9%7,100 <2.0 100.0%
PFO4DA 1,500 <2.0 100.0%2,400 <2.0 100.0%
PFO5DA 98 <2.0 100.0%160 <2.0 100.0%
PMPA 5,200 <10 100.0%6,600 <10 100.0%
PEPA 1,700 <20 100.0%2,300 <20 100.0%
PS Acid <20 <2.0 100.0%<20 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-PS Acid 230 J <2.0 100.0%260 <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDA 660 J <2.0 100.0% 1,100 J <2.0 100.0%
Hydrolyzed PSDA 1,400 J 2.2 J 99.8% 2,400 J <2.0 100.0%
R-PSDCA <17 <2.0 100.0%75 <2.0 100.0%
NVHOS, Acid Form 530 <2.0 100.0%590 <2.0 100.0%
EVE Acid <17 <2.0 100.0%<17 <2.0 100.0%
Hydro-EVE Acid 770 <2.0 100.0%990 <2.0 100.0%
R-EVE 560 J <2.0 100.0% 970 J <2.0 100.0%
PES <6.7 <2.0 100.0% <6.7 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA B <27 <2.0 100.0% <27 <2.0 100.0%
PFECA-G <48 <2.0 100.0% <48 <2.0 100.0%
Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) [1,2]85,000 33 >99.9% 97,000 9.8 >99.9%
Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds) [1]88,000 35 >99.9% 100,000 9.8 >99.9%
Notes:
1 - Total Table 3+ was calculated including J qualified data but not non-detect data. The total Table 3+ sum is rounded to two significant figures.
2 - Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) does not include R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE.
Bold - Analyte detected above associated reporting limit.
B - Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field blanks.
J - Analyte detected. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ - Analyte not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.
ng/L - nanograms per liter
QA/QC - Quality assurance/ quality control
SOP - standard operating procedure
< - Analyte not detected above associated reporting limit.
ND - No Table 3+ compounds were detected above their associated reporting limits.
Sample Identification Label Key: "Seep - [A, B, C, or D] - [Sample Location Inside FTC] - [# of Aliquots in Composite Sample] - [MMDDYY]"
Table 3+ SOP (ng/L)
TR0795A Page 4 of 4 March 2022
Table 5
Cape Fear River Elevation and Local Precipitation Statistics
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, NC
Percent of
Reporting Period Number of Days Percent of
Reporting Period Number of Days Percent of
Reporting Period Number of Days Percent of
Reporting Period Number of Days
440 59 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 3.4% 2.0 5.3% 3.1
307 59 0.0% 0.0 0.3% 0.2 3.9% 2.3 5.9% 3.5
266 59 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 3.3% 1.9 5.3% 3.1
250 59 0.0% 0.0 0.2% 0.1 4.1% 2.4 5.9% 3.5
5.59
5.17
5.59
5.17
43.44
Notes
1 River elevation and precipitation data from USGS Huske Lock and Dam site 02105500.
2 For clarity of presentation, historical river flooding averages based on Seep C elevations only.
3 The historical average was calculated using available data when the Huske rain gauge was operable.
# of Days of
Operation on
Record
River Above FTC Wall Elevation# of Days in
Reporting
Period
River Above Bypass Spillway
Elevation
B
D
3.7% 9.6%
Historical Year-to-Date Average (2004-2020) [3]
River Above Discharge Weir
Elevation
River Above Discharge Pipe Invert
Elevation
Seep
C
A
Historical Annual Average (2004-2020) [3]
Historical Annual Average (2007-2020) [2]
Precipitation (inches)
Current Reporting Period (Jan - Feb 2022)
Current Reporting Period Historical Average (Jan - Feb 2004-2020) [3]
2022 Year-to-Date
1.7% 2.2%
TR0795A Page 1 of 1 March 2022
Table 6a
Water Quality Data - Seep A
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference
1/8/2022 11.5 11.0 -0.5 5.6 6.2 0.6 110 85.7 -24.4 6 7 1.2 3.29 0.00 -3.30 0 0 0.0
1/31/2022 11.3 11.2 -0.1 4.4 7.7 3.3 141 129 -12.3 6 6 0.3 1.87 1.21 -0.70 0 0 0.0
2/20/2022 8.3 8.2 -0.1 4.0 6.2 2.2 151 129 -22.0 20 19 -0.8 3.31 7.57 4.30 0 0 0.0
2/23/2002 8.0 7.7 -0.3 4.2 5.9 1.7 161 122 -39.0 19 19 0.3 3.58 0.73 -2.90 0 0 0.0
2/24/2002 9.3 9.0 -0.3 7.2 8.0 0.8 162 124 -38.7 13 13 -0.5 1.34 1.04 -0.30 0 0 0.0
2/25/2022 1.9 9.8 7.9 9.2 8.3 -0.9 566 122 -444 14 14 0.5 0.22 0.49 0.30 0 0 0.0
Average 8.4 9.5 1.1 5.8 7.0 1.2 215.2 118.5 -96.7 12.9 13.0 0.1 2.3 1.8 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Median 8.8 9.4 0.6 5.0 6.9 1.9 155.9 122.9 -33.0 13.7 13.6 -0.1 2.6 0.9 -1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes:
DO dissolved oxygen
mg/L milligrams per liter
SU standard units
NTU neophelometric turbidity units
µS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
TSS total suspended solids
NM Not Measured
Temperature Turbidity
(°C) (NTU)
TSS
(mg/L)
pH Specific Conductance
(mg/L) (SU) (µS/cm)Date
DO
TR0795A Page 1 of 4 March 2022
Table 6b
Water Quality Data - Seep B
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference
1/8/2022 10.3 11.3 1.0 6.2 4.5 -1.7 136 102 -34 6 6 0 0.36 0.00 -0.36 0 0 0
1/31/2022 10.7 10.0 -0.7 4.9 7.5 2.6 118 113 -5 9 9 0 1.13 0.00 -1.13 0 0 0
2/15/2021 9.8 10.3 0.5 8.1 7.6 -0.5 146.1 108.8 -37 15 15 0 1.3 0.8 -0.41 0 0 0
3/1/2022 [1]9.3 9.5 0.2 7.2 7.4 0.2 139.4 152.2 13 13 14 1 3.6 0.6 -2.99 0 0 0
Average 10.0 10.3 0.3 6.6 6.8 0.2 134.9 118.9 -16.0 10.8 10.8 0.0 1.6 0.4 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Median 10.1 10.2 0.1 6.7 7.5 0.8 137.8 110.9 -26.9 11.1 11.3 0.2 1.2 0.3 -0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes:
1 - The water quality parameters collected on March 1, 2022, represent the second performance monitoring sample in February (composite period Febrary 16 - March 1, 2022).
DO dissolved oxygen
mg/L milligrams per liter
SU standard units
NTU neophelometric turbidity units
µS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
TSS total suspended solids
NM Not Measured
(mg/L)
TSS
Date
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Specific Conductance
(µS/cm)
Temperature
(°C)
Turbidity
(NTU)
TR0795A Page 2 of 4 March 2022
Table 6c
Water Quality Data - Seep C
Reporting Period 7 (Janaury - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference
1/31/2022 [1]10.3 10.9 0.6 7.6 6.3 -1.3 129.5 120.9 -9.0 9.0 9.5 0.0 208.7 119.3 -89.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
2/15/2021 10.3 9.6 -0.7 6.4 5.9 -0.5 113.7 97.7 -16.0 14.1 14.0 0.0 228.0 38.9 -189.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1/2022 [2]9.4 9.5 0.1 7.5 7.4 -0.1 123.7 112.5 -11.2 13.8 13.2 -0.6 16.8 3.2 -13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Average 10.0 10.0 0.0 7.2 6.5 -0.7 122.3 110.4 -11.9 12.3 12.2 -0.1 151.2 53.8 -97.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Median 10.3 9.6 -0.7 7.5 6.3 -1.2 123.7 112.5 -11.2 13.8 13.2 -0.6 208.7 38.9 -169.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes:
1 - The operations, maintenance, and monitoring staff reported that water quality parameters were collected twice during January; however, the data from the first half of January were inadvertently misplaced.
2 - The water quality parameters collected on March 1, 2022, represent the second performance monitoring sample in February (composite period Febrary 16 - March 1, 2022).
DO dissolved oxygen
mg/L milligrams per liter
SU standard units
NTU neophelometric turbidity units
µS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
TSS total suspended solids
NM Not Measured
(mg/L)
TSS
(SU) (µS/cm) (°C) (NTU)
pH Specific Conductance Temperature Turbidity
Date
DO
(mg/L)
TR0795A Page 3 of 4 March 2022
Table 6d
Water Quality Data - Seep D
Reporting Period 7 (January - February 2022)
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference Influent Effluent Difference
1/31/2022 [1]10.9 11.2 0.3 4.1 7.2 3.1 144.5 105.3 -40.0 8.5 8.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2/15/2021 9.9 10.2 0.3 4.0 5.2 1.2 161.0 116.9 -44.0 12.8 13.1 0.0 2.0 0.5 -1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1/2022 9.4 8.9 -0.5 6.9 6.0 -0.9 144.6 159.9 15.0 14 13 -1.0 1.53 3.23 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Average 10.1 10.1 0.0 5.0 6.2 1.2 150.1 127.4 -22.7 11.7 11.6 -0.1 1.8 1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Median 9.9 10.2 0.3 4.1 6.0 1.9 144.6 116.9 -27.7 12.8 13.1 0.3 2.0 0.5 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes:
1 - The operations, maintenance, and monitoring staff reported that water quality parameters were collected twice during January; however, the data from the first half of January were inadvertently misplaced.
DO dissolved oxygen
mg/L milligrams per liter
SU standard units
NTU neophelometric turbidity units
µS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
TSS total suspended solids
NM Not Measured
TSS
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Specific Conductance
(µS/cm)
Temperature
(°C)
Turbidity
(NTU)Date
DO
(mg/L)
TR0795A Page 4 of 4 March 2022

TR0795A

FIGURES

Legend
River--GAC Changeout
Notes:
As-built survey information for Seep C from RMA Surveying October 2020.
River elevation from USGS Huske Lock and Dam site 02105500, converted to NAVD88.
For clarity of presentation, Figure 1 shows Seep C elevations only.
FB1/FB2 = Filter Bed 1/Filter Bed 2
GAC = Granular Activated Carbon Raleigh, NC March 2022
River Level & FTC As-Built Elevations
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
1
Top of Wall
Spillway
Top of GAC
Discharge Invert
Seep C -FB1Seep A -FB2Seep A -FB1 Seep A -FB1 Seep A -FB2
Seep B -FB2 Seep B -FB1Seep C -FB2
Seep C -FB2
Seep C -FB1
Seep C -FB2 Seep D -FB1
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
1/1/2022 1/8/2022 1/15/2022 1/22/2022 1/29/2022 2/5/2022 2/12/2022 2/19/2022 2/26/2022 3/5/2022Elevation, feet above sea level, NAVD88River Elevation During Flow Through Cell Operation (01/01/2022 through 02/28/2022)
Legend−Measured Discharge Flowrate
Cape Fear River Above Discharge Weir Elevation 67 100
241 286
590 882
Notes:
gpm - gallons per minute
GAC - granular activated carbon
Figure 2a depicts the measured discharge flowrate (solid green) of water processed through the filter beds calculated using the Effluent Stilling Basin transducer data.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
2a
Flowrate Statistics (gpm)
(01/01 -
02/28)Since Startup
Median
95th percentile
Max
Measured Discharge Flowrate
(Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep A
Chemours Fayetteville Works
From January 4 through 7, 2022, the Cape Fear River rose above the elevation of the discharge weir (W3), and head differentials throughout the flow-through cell were reduced and flow
through the system was hindered (pink shading). See Section 4.5 for more details regarding impacts of river flooding.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Flowrate (gpm)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−Impoundment Water Elevation Above Bypass Spillway Cape Fear River Above Spillway
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Figure 3a depicts the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period (blue line). Instances of impoundment bypass flow are shown in orange.
Precipitation data obtained from USGS gauge# 02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Influent Water Elevation and Bypass
Flow (Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep A
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
3a
From January 4 through 7, 2022, the Cape Fear River rose above the elevation of the Bypass Spillway, causing the influent and effluent water elevations to be equal, and consequently ceasing
any flow through the system (pink shading). See Section 4.5 for more details regarding impacts of river flooding.
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
42.5
43
1/1/221/5/221/9/221/13/221/17/221/21/221/25/221/29/222/2/222/6/222/10/222/14/222/18/222/22/222/26/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Measured Discharge Flowrate
Cape Fear River Above Discharge Weir Elevation 155 126
301 266
549 1,153Notes:
gpm - gallons per minute
GAC - granular activated carbon
Figure 2b depicts the measured discharge flowrate (solid green) of water processed through the filter beds calculated using the Effluent Stilling Basin transducer data.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Flowrate Statistics (gpm)
(01/01 -
02/28)Since Startup
Median
95th percentile
Max
From January 5 through 6, 2022, the Cape Fear River rose above the elevation of the discharge weir (W3), and head differentials throughout the flow-through cell were
reduced and flow through the system was hindered (pink shading). See Section 4.5 for more details regarding impacts of river flooding.
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
2b
Measured Discharge Flowrate
(Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep B
Chemours Fayetteville Works
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1/1/221/5/221/9/221/13/221/17/221/21/221/25/221/29/222/2/222/6/222/10/222/14/222/18/222/22/222/26/22Flowrate (gpm)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−Impoundment Water Elevation Above Bypass Spillway
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Figure 3b shows the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period (blue line). Instances of impoundment bypass flow are shown in orange.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Influent Water Elevation and Bypass
Flow (Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep B
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
3b
Precipitation data obtained from USGS gauge# 02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
42.5
43
1/1/221/5/221/9/221/13/221/17/221/21/221/25/221/29/222/2/222/6/222/10/222/14/222/18/222/22/222/26/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Measured Discharge Flowrate
Cape Fear River Above Discharge Weir Elevation 25 60
80 152
273 372
Notes:
gpm - gallons per minute
GAC - granular activated carbon
Figure 2c depicts the measured discharge flowrate (solid green) of water processed through the filter beds calculated using the Effluent Stilling Basin transducer data.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Measured Discharge Flowrate
(Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep C
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
Flowrate Statistics (gpm)
2c
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Median
95th percentile
Max
(01/01 -
02/28)Since Startup
From January 4 through 6, 2022, the Cape Fear River rose above the elevation of the discharge weir (W3), and head differentials throughout the flow-through cell were
reduced and flow through the system was hindered (pink shading). See Section 4.5 for more details regarding impacts of river flooding.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Flowrate (gpm)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−Impoundment Water Elevation Above Bypass Spillway
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Figure 3c shows the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period (blue line). Instances of impoundment bypass flow are shown in orange.
Raleigh, NC March 2022 3c
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
Influent Water Elevation and Bypass
Flow (Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep C
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Precipitation data obtained from USGS gauge# 02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
42.5
43
1/1/221/5/221/9/221/13/221/17/221/21/221/25/221/29/222/2/222/6/222/10/222/14/222/18/222/22/222/26/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Measured Discharge Flowrate Transducer Data Gap--Imputed Discharge Flowrate Cape Fear River Above Discharge Weir Elevation
70 103
Notes:301 315
gpm - gallons per minute 590 836
GAC - granular activated carbon
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Measured Discharge Flowrate
(Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep D
Figure
2d
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Flowrate Statistics (gpm)
(01/01 -
02/28)Since Startup
Median
95th percentile
Max
Figure 2d depicts the measured discharge flowrate (solid green) of water processed through the filter beds calculated using the Effluent Stilling Basin transducer data.
From January 4 through 7, 2022, the Cape Fear River rose above the elevation of the discharge weir (W3), and head differentials throughout the flow-through cell were reduced and flow through
the system was hindered (pink shading). See Section 4.5 for more details regarding impacts of river flooding.
Seep D effluent transducer data from January 10 through 17, 2022, was not retrieved. Where transducer data was missing (grey shading) but flow through the System was observed (i.e., non-
flooding conditions), flowrate was extrapolated (dashed green). The imputed flowrate was calculated as the median of measured flowrates from 3 days before and after the data gap. Section 3
describes the gaps in transducer data record.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1/1/221/5/221/9/221/13/221/17/221/21/221/25/221/29/222/2/222/6/222/10/222/14/222/18/222/22/222/26/22Flowrate (gpm)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−Impoundment Water Elevation Above Bypass Spillway Cape Fear River Above Spillway
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Figure 3d shows the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period (blue line). Instances of impoundment bypass flow are shown in orange.
Precipitation data obtained from USGS gauge# 02105500 at the William O. Huske Lock and Dam.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Influent Water Elevation and Bypass
Flow (Jan - Feb 2022) - Seep D
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
3d
From January 4 through 7, 2022, the Cape Fear River rose above the elevation of the Bypass Spillway, causing the influent and effluent water elevations to be equal, and consequently
ceasing any flow through the system (pink shading). See Section 4.5 for more details regarding impacts of river flooding.
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
42.5
43
1/1/221/5/221/9/221/13/221/17/221/21/221/25/221/29/222/2/222/6/222/10/222/14/222/18/222/22/222/26/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)

TR0795A
APPENDIX A
Transducer Data Reduction

Legend−Discharge Basin Elevation−Weir 3 Elevation--GAC Elevation
Notes:
GAC - granular activated carbon
Figure A1-A shows the discharge basin transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Discharge Basin Water Elevation -
Seep A
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A1-A
36
36.5
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Discharge Basin Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage −Weir 3 Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Discharge Basin Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep A
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A2-A
As water can flow through the flow-through cell both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A2-A compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Elevation
Notes:
Figure A3-A shows the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation -
Seep A
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A3-A
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Inlet Chamber Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep A
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A4-A
As water can flow through the Bypass Spillway both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A4-A compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Discharge Basin Elevation−Weir 3 Elevation--GAC Elevation
Notes:
GAC - granular activated carbon
Figure A1-B shows the discharge basin transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Discharge Basin Water Elevation -
Seep B
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A1-B
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Discharge Basin Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage −Weir 3 Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Discharge Basin Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep B
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A2-B
As water can flow through the flow-through cell both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A2-B compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Elevation
Notes:
Figure A3-B shows the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation -
Seep B
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A3-B
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Inlet Chamber Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep B
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A4-B
As water can flow through the Bypass Spillway both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A4-B compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Discharge Basin Elevation−Weir 3 Elevation--GAC Elevation
Notes:
GAC - granular activated carbon
Figure A1-C shows the discharge basin transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022 A1-C
Figure
Discharge Basin Water Elevation -
Seep C
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Discharge Basin Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage −Weir 3 Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022 A2-C
Figure
Discharge Basin Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep C
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
As water can flow through the flow-through cell both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A2-C compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Elevation
Notes:
Figure A3-C shows the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Figure
A3-C
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation -
Seep C
Chemours Fayetteville Works
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
42.5
43
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Inlet Chamber Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022 A4-C
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep C
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
As water can flow through the Bypass Spillway both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A4-C compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Discharge Basin Elevation−Weir 3 Elevation--GAC Elevation
Notes:
GAC - granular activated carbon
Figure A1-D shows the discharge basin transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Discharge Basin Water Elevation -
Seep D
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A1-D
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Discharge Basin Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage −Weir 3 Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Discharge Basin Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep D
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A2-D
As water can flow through the flow-through cell both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A2-D compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)
Legend−Influent Chamber/Impoundment Elevation
Notes:
Figure A3-D shows the influent transducer data that was collected during the reporting period.
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation -
Seep D
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A3-D
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)
Legend−Inlet Chamber Water Elevation USGS Precipitation (daily totals)−River Stage
Bypass Spillway Elevation
Notes:
Raleigh, NC March 2022
Inlet Chamber Water Elevation and
External Forcings - Seep D
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Figure
A4-D
As water can flow through the Bypass Spillway both as a result of wet weather inflow and elevated river levels from flooding, Figure A4-D compares the available transducer data to precipitation and river stage
elevation data available from the USGS Huske Lock and Dam.
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
1/1/221/3/221/5/221/7/221/9/221/11/221/13/221/15/221/17/221/19/221/21/221/23/221/25/221/27/221/29/221/31/222/2/222/4/222/6/222/8/222/10/222/12/222/14/222/16/222/18/222/20/222/22/222/24/222/26/222/28/22Elevation (ft msl)0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Precipitation (in)

TR0795A

APPENDIX B
Laboratory Analytical Data Review Narrative
(Full lab reports to be uploaded to OneDrive and EQuIS)

ADQM Data Review
Site: Chemours Fayetteville
Project: Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022 (select lots)
Project Reviewer: Michael Aucoin

Sample Summary

Field
Sample ID Lab
Sample ID Sample
Matrix Filtered Sample
Date Sample
Time Sample
Purpose
SEEP-A-
INFLUENT-
24-010822 320-83798-
1 Other liquid N 01/08/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-A-
EFFLUENT-
24-010822 320-83798-
2 Other liquid N 01/08/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-B-
INFLUENT-
24-010822 320-83798-
3 Other liquid N 01/08/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-B-
EFFLUENT-
24-010822 320-83798-
4 Other liquid N 01/08/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-C-
INFLUENT-
24-010822 320-83798-
5 Other liquid N 01/08/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-C-
EFFLUENT-
24-010822 320-83798-
6 Other liquid N 01/08/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-
FBLK-
011122 320-83798-
7 Blank Water N 01/11/2022 15:00 FB
SEEP-A-
Effluent-
RAIN-24-
011122 320-84168-
1 Other liquid N 01/11/2022 07:00 FS
SEEP-A-
Influent-
RAIN-23-
011122 320-84168-
2 Other liquid N 01/11/2022 07:04 FS
SEEP-B-
Influent-
RAIN-24-
011722 320-84168-
3 Other liquid N 01/17/2022 10:15 FS
SEEP-B-
Effluent-
RAIN-24-
011722 320-84168-
4 Other liquid N 01/17/2022 11:25 FS
SEEP-C-
Influent-
RAIN-22-
011122 320-84168-
5 Other liquid N 01/11/2022 06:55 FS
SEEP-C-
Effluent-
RAIN-24-
011122 320-84168-
6 Other liquid N 01/11/2022 06:57 FS
SEEP-D-
Effluent-
RAIN-24-
011722 320-84168-
7 Other liquid N 01/17/2022 14:56 FS
SEEP-D-
Influent-
RAIN-24-
011722 320-84168-
8 Other liquid N 01/17/2022 13:02 FS

Seep-EBLK-
012022 320-84168-
9 Blank Water N 01/20/2022 16:00 EB
SEEP-A-
Effluent-24-
011522 320-84172-
1 Other liquid N 01/15/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-A-
Influent-24-
011522 320-84172-
2 Other liquid N 01/15/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-B-
Influent-24-
011522
320-84172-
3 Other liquid N 01/15/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-B-
Effluent-24-
011522 320-84172-
4 Other liquid N 01/15/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-C-
Influent-24-
011522 320-84172-
5 Other liquid N 01/15/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-C-
Effluent-24-
011522 320-84172-
6 Other liquid N 01/15/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-D-
Effluent-24-
011222 320-84172-
7 Other liquid N 01/12/2022 23:01 FS
SEEP-D-
Influent-24-
011222 320-84172-
8 Other liquid N 01/12/2022 23:01 FS
Seep-FBLK-
012022 320-84172-
9 Blank Water N 01/20/2022 14:00 FB
SEEP-B-
INFLUENT-
264-013122 320-84467-
1 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS
SEEP-D-
EFFLUENT-
276-
013122-D 320-84467-
10 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 DUP
SEEP-B-
EFFLUENT-
276-013122
320-84467-
2 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS
SEEP-D-
INFLUENT-
264-013122
320-84467-
3 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS
SEEP-D-
EFFLUENT-
276-013122
320-84467-
4 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS
SEEP-C-
INFLUENT-
240-013122
320-84467-
5 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS
SEEP-C-
EFFLUENT-
156-013122
320-84467-
6 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS
SEEP-A-
INFLUENT-
270-013122
320-84467-
7 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS
SEEP-A-
EFFLUENT-
276-013122
320-84467-
8 Other liquid N 01/31/2022 20:00 FS

SEEP-
FBLK-
020122
320-84467-
9 Blank Water N 02/01/2022 12:00 FB
SEEP-C-
INFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
020822
320-84762-
1 Other liquid N 02/08/2022 14:10 FS
SEEP-C-
EFFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
020822
320-84762-
2 Other liquid N 02/08/2022 14:58 FS
SEEP-B-
INFLUENT-
336-021522
320-84905-
1 Other liquid N 02/15/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-B-
EFFLUENT-
336-021522
320-84905-
2 Other liquid N 02/15/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-D-
INFLUENT-
336-021522
320-84905-
3 Other liquid N 02/15/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-D-
EFFLUENT-
336-021522
320-84905-
4 Other liquid N 02/15/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-C-
INFLUENT-
192-021522
320-84905-
5 Other liquid N 02/15/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-C-
EFFLUENT-
336-021522
320-84905-
6 Other liquid N 02/15/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-
FBLK-
021622
320-84905-
7 Blank Water N 02/16/2022 14:00 FB
SEEP-A-
INFLUENT-
24-022022
320-85203-
1 Other liquid N 02/20/2022 15:00 FS
SEEP-A-
EFFLUENT-
24-022022
320-85203-
2 Other liquid N 02/20/2022 15:00 FS
SEEP-A-
INFLUENT-
24-022322
320-85203-
3 Other liquid N 02/23/2022 17:00 FS
SEEP-A-
EFFLUENT-
23-022322
320-85203-
4 Other liquid N 02/23/2022 17:00 FS
SEEP-
FBLK-
022222
320-85203-
5 Blank Water N 02/22/2022 13:00 FB
SEEP-B-
INFLUENT-
312-030122
320-85362-
1 Other liquid N 03/01/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-A-
EFFLUENT-
24-022522
320-85362-
10 Other liquid N 02/25/2022 17:00 FS
SEEP-
FBLK-
030122
320-85362-
11 Blank Water N 03/01/2022 15:00 FB

SEEP-B-
EFFLUENT-
312-030122
320-85362-
2 Other liquid N 03/01/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-D-
INFLUENT-
312-030122
320-85362-
3 Other liquid N 03/01/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-D-
EFFLUENT-
312-030122
320-85362-
4 Other liquid N 03/01/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-C-
INFLUENT-
312-030122
320-85362-
5 Other liquid N 03/01/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-C-
EFFLUENT-
282-030122
320-85362-
6 Other liquid N 03/01/2022 08:00 FS
SEEP-A-
INFLUENT-
24-022422
320-85362-
7 Other liquid N 02/24/2022 17:00 FS
SEEP-A-
EFFLUENT-
24-022422
320-85362-
8 Other liquid N 02/24/2022 17:00 FS
SEEP-A-
INFLUENT-
24-022522
320-85362-
9 Other liquid N 02/25/2022 17:00 FS
SEEP-B-
INFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
022822
320-85364-
1 Other liquid N 02/28/2022 18:00 FS
SEEP-B-
EFFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
022822
320-85364-
2 Other liquid N 02/28/2022 18:00 FS
SEEP-D-
INFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
022822
320-85364-
3 Other liquid N 02/28/2022 18:00 FS
SEEP-D-
EFFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
022822
320-85364-
4 Other liquid N 02/28/2022 18:00 FS
SEEP-A-
INFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
022822
320-85364-
5 Other liquid N 02/28/2022 18:00 FS
SEEP-A-
EFFLUENT-
RAIN-24-
022822
320-85364-
6 Other liquid N 02/28/2022 18:00 FS
SEEP-
EQBLK-
030122
320-85364-
7 Blank Water N 03/01/2022 15:00 EB

* FS=Field Sample
DUP=Field Duplicate
FB=Field Blank
EB=Equipment Blank
TB=Trip Blank

Analytical Protocol

Lab Name1 Lab Method Parameter Category Sampling Program
Eurofins Environ
Testing Northern Cali Cl. Spec. Table 3
Compound SOP
Per- and
Polyfluorinated Alkyl
Substances (PFAS) Seep Flow Through
Cell Sampling 2022

1 This laboratory name changed to Eurofins Environmental Testing Northern California
(former TestAmerica Sacramento), effective January 1, 2022.

ADQM Data Review Checklist

Item Description Yes No*
DVM
Narrative
Report
Laboratory
Report
Exception
Report
(ER) #
A

Did samples meet laboratory acceptability requirements
upon receipt (i.e., intact, within temperature, properly
preserved, and no headspace where applicable)?
X
B Were samples received by the laboratory in agreement
with the associated chain of custody? X
C

Was the chain of custody properly completed by the
laboratory and/or field team?

X
D Were samples prepped/analyzed by the laboratory within
method holding times?

X
E
Were QA/QC criteria met by the laboratory (method
blanks, LCSs/LCSDs, MSs/MSDs, PDSs, SDs,
duplicates/replicates, surrogates, total/dissolved
differences/RPDs, sample results within calibration
range)?

X X
F Were field/equipment/trip blanks (if collected) detected at
levels not requiring sample data qualification?

X
G Were all data usable and not R qualified? X
ER# Description:

Other QA/QC Items to Note:

* See DVM Narrative Report, Lab Report, or ER # for further details as indicated.

The electronic data submitted for this project was reviewed via the Data Verification Module (DVM)
process. The data is acceptable for use without qualification, except as noted on the attached DVM
Narrative Report.

The lab reports due to a large page count are stored on a network shared drive and are available to be
posted on external shared drives, or on a flash drive.

Data Verification Module (DVM)

The DVM is an internal review process used by the ADQM group to assist with the determination of data
usability. The electronic data deliverables received from the laboratory are loaded into the Locus EIM™
database and processed through a series of data quality checks, which are a combination of software
(Locus EIM™ database Data Verification Module (DVM)) and manual reviewer evaluations. The data is
evaluated against the following data usability checks:
• Field and laboratory blank contamination
• US EPA hold time criteria
• Missing Quality Control (QC) samples
• Matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recoveries and the relative percent differences
(RPDs) between these spikes
• Laboratory control sample (LCS)/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and the
RPD between these spikes
• Surrogate spike recoveries for organic analyses
• Difference/RPD between field duplicate sample pairs
• RPD between laboratory replicates for inorganic analyses
• Difference/percent difference between total and dissolved sample pairs

There are two qualifier fields in EIM:
Lab Qualifier is the qualifier assigned by the lab and may not reflect the usability of the data. This
qualifier may have many different meanings and can vary between labs and over time within the
same lab. Please refer to the laboratory report for a description of the lab qualifiers. As they are lab
descriptors they are not to be used when evaluating the data.

Validation Qualifier is the 3rd party formal validation qualifier if this was performed. Otherwise this
field contains the qualifier resulting from the ADQM DVM review process. This qualifier assesses the
usability of the data and may not equal the lab qualifier. The DVM applies the following data
evaluation qualifiers to analysis results, as warranted:

Qualifier Definition
B Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field
blanks.
R Unusable result. Analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
J Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
UJ Not detected. Reporting limit may not be accurate or precise.

The Validation Status Code field is set to “DVM” if the ADQM DVM process has been performed. If the
DVM has not been run, the field will be blank.

If the DVM has been run (Validation Status Code equals “DVM”), use the Validation Qualifier.

If the data has been validated by a third party, the field “Validated By” will be set to the validator (e.g.,
ESI for Environmental Standards, Inc.).
DVM Narrative ReportAssociated 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:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6R-PSDA0.0062UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0044UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0042UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6R-EVE0.0053UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6R-EVE0.0047UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 1 of 14
High relative percent difference (RPD) observed between field duplicate and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-4PFO2HxA0.0023ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-4PFO2HxA0.0025ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-4PFMOAA0.0061ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-4PFMOAA0.0060ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-013122-D01/31/2022320-84467-10PFO2HxA0.0094ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-013122-D01/31/2022320-84467-10PFO3OA0.0044ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-013122-D01/31/2022320-84467-10PFMOAA0.018ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 2 of 14
High relative percent difference (RPD) observed between LCS and LCSD samples. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-A-Influent-RAIN-23-01112201/11/2022320-84168-2Hydrolyzed PSDA23UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-3Hydrolyzed PSDA15UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-Influent-RAIN-22-01112201/11/2022320-84168-5Hydrolyzed PSDA0.48UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8Hydrolyzed PSDA1.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8Hydrolyzed PSDA1.5UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-2Hydrolyzed PSDA25UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-3Hydrolyzed PSDA23UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-5Hydrolyzed PSDA0.63UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-5Hydrolyzed PSDA0.65UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-D-Influent-24-01122201/12/2022320-84172-8Hydrolyzed PSDA1.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-D-Influent-24-01122201/12/2022320-84172-8Hydrolyzed PSDA1.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLPage 3 of 14
Quality review criteria exceeded between the REP (laboratory replicate) and parent sample. The reported result may be imprecise.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8Hydro-PS Acid0.23ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0061PQLSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8Hydro-PS Acid0.26ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0061PQLSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6R-PSDA0.0051UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02252202/25/2022320-85362-10Hydrolyzed PSDA0.011UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 4 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0049UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-1R-PSDA1.7UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-1Hydrolyzed PSDA19UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-1R-EVE0.75UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-3R-PSDA2.8UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-3Hydrolyzed PSDA20UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-3R-EVE1.9UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-5R-PSDA0.66UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-5R-PSDA0.69UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-5Hydrolyzed PSDA0.62UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-5Hydrolyzed PSDA0.67UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-5R-EVE0.57UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-24-01082201/08/2022320-83798-5R-EVE0.58UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-Effluent-RAIN-24-01112201/11/2022320-84168-1Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0028UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-Influent-RAIN-23-01112201/11/2022320-84168-2R-PSDA2.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-Influent-RAIN-23-01112201/11/2022320-84168-2R-EVE0.96UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLPage 5 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-B-Effluent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-4Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0050UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-B-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-3R-PSDA2.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-3R-EVE1.7UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-Influent-RAIN-22-01112201/11/2022320-84168-5R-PSDA0.46UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-Influent-RAIN-22-01112201/11/2022320-84168-5R-EVE0.42UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-Effluent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-7Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0022UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8R-PSDA0.66UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8R-PSDA0.70UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8R-EVE0.56UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-Influent-RAIN-24-01172201/17/2022320-84168-8R-EVE0.59UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-1Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0042UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-2R-PSDA2.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-2R-EVE0.92UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-3R-PSDA3.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-3R-EVE1.9UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-5R-PSDA0.55UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-5R-PSDA0.52UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLPage 6 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPSEEP-C-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-5R-EVE0.55UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-Influent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-5R-EVE0.55UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-Influent-24-01122201/12/2022320-84172-8R-PSDA0.69UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-Influent-24-01122201/12/2022320-84172-8R-PSDA0.67UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-Influent-24-01122201/12/2022320-84172-8R-EVE0.61UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-Influent-24-01122201/12/2022320-84172-8R-EVE0.58UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-8R-PSDA0.34UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0071PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-8Hydrolyzed PSDA3.6UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0038PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-8R-EVE0.15UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0072PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-270-01312201/31/2022320-84467-7R-PSDA0.39UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-270-01312201/31/2022320-84467-7Hydrolyzed PSDA8.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-270-01312201/31/2022320-84467-7R-EVE0.21UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-2R-PSDA0.015UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-B-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.030UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-B-EFFLUENT-276-01312201/31/2022320-84467-2R-EVE0.0052UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-23-02232202/23/2022320-85203-4R-PSDA0.26UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0071PQLPage 7 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-23-02232202/23/2022320-85203-4Hydrolyzed PSDA2.8UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0038PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-23-02232202/23/2022320-85203-4R-EVE0.13UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0072PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-2R-PSDA0.063UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-2R-PSDA0.063UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.65UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.64UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-2R-EVE0.029UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-2R-EVE0.030UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02242202/24/2022320-85362-8R-PSDA0.027UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02242202/24/2022320-85362-8Hydrolyzed PSDA0.30UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02242202/24/2022320-85362-8R-EVE0.011UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02252202/25/2022320-85362-10Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0096UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-6Hydrolyzed PSDA0.056UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-1R-PSDA2.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-1R-PSDA2.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-1Hydrolyzed PSDA25UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-1Hydrolyzed PSDA24UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLPage 8 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-1R-EVE1.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02202202/20/2022320-85203-1R-EVE0.99UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02232202/23/2022320-85203-3R-PSDA2.5UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02232202/23/2022320-85203-3Hydrolyzed PSDA28UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02232202/23/2022320-85203-3R-EVE1.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02242202/24/2022320-85362-7R-PSDA3.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02242202/24/2022320-85362-7Hydrolyzed PSDA36UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02242202/24/2022320-85362-7R-EVE1.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02252202/25/2022320-85362-9R-PSDA2.6UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02252202/25/2022320-85362-9Hydrolyzed PSDA31UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-24-02252202/25/2022320-85362-9R-EVE1.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-5R-PSDA3.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-5Hydrolyzed PSDA34UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-A-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-5R-EVE1.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-EFFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.026UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-B-EFFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0062UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 9 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-B-EFFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-2Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0039UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-264-01312201/31/2022320-84467-1R-PSDA0.71UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-264-01312201/31/2022320-84467-1Hydrolyzed PSDA7.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-264-01312201/31/2022320-84467-1R-EVE0.55UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-1R-PSDA4.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-1R-PSDA4.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-1Hydrolyzed PSDA38UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-1Hydrolyzed PSDA36UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-1R-EVE2.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-1R-EVE2.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-1R-PSDA3.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-1Hydrolyzed PSDA31UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-1R-EVE2.0UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-1R-PSDA5.3UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-1Hydrolyzed PSDA41UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-B-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-1R-EVE2.9UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-EFFLUENT-156-01312201/31/2022320-84467-6R-PSDA0.022UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 10 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPSEEP-C-EFFLUENT-156-01312201/31/2022320-84467-6Hydrolyzed PSDA0.020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-EFFLUENT-156-01312201/31/2022320-84467-6R-EVE0.021UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-EFFLUENT-282-03012203/01/2022320-85362-6Hydrolyzed PSDA0.021UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-EFFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-6R-PSDA0.030UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-EFFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-6Hydrolyzed PSDA0.020UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-EFFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-6R-EVE0.014UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-192-02152202/15/2022320-84905-5R-PSDA0.53UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-192-02152202/15/2022320-84905-5R-PSDA0.53UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-192-02152202/15/2022320-84905-5Hydrolyzed PSDA0.72UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-192-02152202/15/2022320-84905-5Hydrolyzed PSDA0.68UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-192-02152202/15/2022320-84905-5R-EVE0.54UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-192-02152202/15/2022320-84905-5R-EVE0.54UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-5R-PSDA1.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-5Hydrolyzed PSDA1.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-5R-EVE0.85UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02082202/08/2022320-84762-1R-PSDA0.49UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLPage 11 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02082202/08/2022320-84762-1R-PSDA0.48UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02082202/08/2022320-84762-1Hydrolyzed PSDA0.49UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02082202/08/2022320-84762-1Hydrolyzed PSDA0.50UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02082202/08/2022320-84762-1R-EVE0.40UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-C-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02082202/08/2022320-84762-1R-EVE0.41UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-EFFLUENT-276-013122-D01/31/2022320-84467-10Hydrolyzed PSDA0.0030UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-264-01312201/31/2022320-84467-3R-PSDA0.46UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-264-01312201/31/2022320-84467-3Hydrolyzed PSDA1.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-264-01312201/31/2022320-84467-3R-EVE0.40UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-3R-PSDA0.97UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-3Hydrolyzed PSDA2.2UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-312-03012203/01/2022320-85362-3R-EVE0.79UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-3R-PSDA0.63UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-3Hydrolyzed PSDA1.6UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-336-02152202/15/2022320-84905-3R-EVE0.65UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-3R-PSDA1.1UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.071PQLSEEP-D-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-3Hydrolyzed PSDA2.4UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3CompoundJPFAS_DI_Prep0.038PQLPage 12 of 14
Uncertainty around the analysis of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA and R-EVE; J-qualifier added to all detects in the data set, even if there was no matrixspike analyzed for that particular sample.LABSTATSValidation Options:Validation ReasonFayettevilleSite:Sampling Program:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSOPSEEP-D-INFLUENT-RAIN-24-02282202/28/2022320-85364-3R-EVE0.97UG/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.072PQLPage 13 of 14
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:Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling 2022AnalyticalMethodAnalyteDateSampledPQLValidationQualifierLab Sample IDPre-prepMDLResultTypeField Sample IDPrepUnitsSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6PFMOAA0.060ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-C-Effluent-24-01152201/15/2022320-84172-6PFMOAA0.065ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02252202/25/2022320-85362-10PFMOAA0.059ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLSEEP-A-EFFLUENT-24-02252202/25/2022320-85362-10PFMOAA0.062ug/LCl. Spec. Table 3Compound SOPJPFAS_DI_Prep0.0020PQLPage 14 of 14