NC0003573_Application_20191105

CChemours
November 5.2019
Julie Grzyb, Supervisor
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
The Chemours Company
FageReville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayeaeville, NC 28306
Subject: Chemours Fayetteville. Works NPDES NC0003573 Permit Application Update
Dear Ms. Grzyb:
The Chemours Company —Fayetteville Works is providing a revised NPDES permit application
to the application submitted to North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
on July 9, 2019 based on comments received from the Division of Water Resources.
Some key points in the revised NPDES permit application are the following:
• Chemours' Thermal Oxidizer wastewater option to discharge directly to outfall 002 has
been removed. Chemours will discharge the thermal oxidizer water to the site's
wastewater treatment plant.
• Chemours would like to add the option to reuse the treated water from old outfall 002
as process water or non -contact cooling water. Chemours is still evaluating treatment
and discharge options for the treated old outfall 002 wastewater and plans to make a
final decision in the upcoming months.
• DuPont and Kuraray Chemical Inventory Lists have been updated.
• Mixing Zone Analysis Addendum and Mass Loading Assessment reports have been
updated.
• Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Technology Review has been updated.
If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact Clustel
Compton at [phone].
S' erely,
Brian Long
Plant Manager

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
APPLICATION INTRODUCTION
November 2019

C--, Chemours-
Chemours Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit Application Update
November 2019

Chemours Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit Application Update
Table of Contents
Application Introduction
• General Discussion regarding NPDES Application
• Chemours Consent Order Action Items
• PFAS Analyte List and Associated Methods
Attachment A — Form 1
• Form 1
• Attachment A. 1:
o Topographic Map
o Locations of Intake and Discharge Structures Map
o Locations of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
o Water Wells Map (within 1 miles of site)
o Overall Site Sewer System and Monomers Polymers Outfall Maps
• Attachment A.2: Current Facility Operating Conditions
Attachment B — Existing Outfalls
• Form 2C for Outfall 001
• Form 2C for Outfall 002
• Attachment B.1: Water Balance Line Drawing
o Attachment B.1.1: Water Balance Line Drawing Option 1
• Attachment B.2: Outfall 001 Average Flows and Treatment
• Attachment B.3: Outfall 002 Average Flows and Treatment
o Attachment B.3.1 Outfall 002 Average Flows and Treatment Option 1
• Attachment B.4: Stormwater Runoff Estimates
• Attachment B.5: Current Facility Wastewater Management
• Attachment B.6: Sludge Management Plan, Wastewater Treatment Plant — Outfall 001
• Attachment B.7: Analytical Laboratories
• Attachment B.8: Analytical Results for PFOA for Outfall 002
• Attachment B.9: Fluoride and Sulfate Concentrations and Mass
• Attachment B.10: Biological Toxicity Testing Data
Attachment C — Thermal Oxidizer
• Form 2D for Thermal Oxidizer
• Attachment CA: Thermal Oxidizer Water Balance Table and Flow Diagram
• Attachment C.2: Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Treatment Engineering Report
• Attachment C.3: Thermal Oxidizer Engineering Alternatives Analysis Report
o C.3.1: Addendum to EAA TO Cost Estimate Description
2

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION UPDATE — NOVEMBER 2019
• Attachment C.4: Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Technology Review
Attachment D — Old Outfall 002
• Form 2D for Old Outfall 002
• Attachment D.1: Old Outfall 002 Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
• Attachment D.2: Old Outfall 002 Engineering Alternatives Analysis Report
o D.2.1: Addendum to EAA Old Outfall 002 Cost Estimate Description
o D.2.2: Fayetteville Public Works Commission PWC Denial Letter of 9/11/19
Attachment E—Outfall 002 Mixing Zone Analysis
• Attachment E.1: Mixing Zone Analysis (CORMIX) Report
o E.1.1 Mixing Zone Analysis Report Addendum
• Attachment E.2: Mass Loading Low Flow Assessment Summary Update
Attachment F — Compounds and Potential Compounds in Intake and Outfalls
• Attachment F.1: Cape Fear River Watershed Low Flow Discharges Assessment
• Attachment F.2: Future Analytical Capabilities
• Attachment F.3: List of PFAS Compounds Detected in Outfall 002
• Attachment F.4: List of PFAS Compounds
• Attachment F.5: List of Manufacturing Chemicals
• Attachment F.6: List of Wastewater Treatment Chemicals
• Attachment F7: List of Water Treatment Chemicals (Water Treatment and Cooling
Tower Chemicals)
• Attachment F8: List of Herbicide and Pesticide Compounds
• Attachment F.9: List of Compounds that may be in the Water Intake
o F9.1: List of PFAS Compounds Detected in the Intake
o F9.2: List of Upstream PFAS Compounds
o F9.3: List of Compounds that may be Present in Water Intake
o F9.4: List of Herbicides that may be Present in Water Intake
• Attachment F.10: Kuraray Chemical Inventory
o F.10.1 Kuraray Request to Add de minimis Amounts of Silane Letter of 6/28/19
• Attachment F.11: DuPont Chemical Inventory
Attachment G — 316(b) Water Intake Structure
• Attachment G.1: Alternative Application Schedule for 316 (b)
• Attachment G.2: NC Department of Environmental Quality 316(b) Letter of 2/26/16
Attachment H — Stormwater Only Assessment
• Attachment H.1: Stormwater Drainage Maps and Sampling Locations
o Blower Drainage Area
o Laydown Drainage Area
3

• Attachment H.2: Stormwater Sampling Data Submittal and Results
Attachment I — Consent Order
• Consent Order

Chemours Fayetteville November 2019 NPDES Permit Application Update
The Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works is providing this NPDES permit application as a
revision to the application submitted to North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) on July 9, 2019. The revision is based on comments received from the Division of Water
Resources. As noted in the previous application, since the issuance of the last permit, the
ownership of this facility has changed from the DuPont Company to the Chemours Company FC,
LLC.
In addition to Chemours operating at the Fayetteville Works site, Kuraray America Inc. (Kuraray)
and the DuPont Company (Dupont) are also operating manufacturing units at the site.
Wastewater from Kuraray and Dupont is treated and discharged under the Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit. Chemours process wastewater associated with manufacturing operations is
currently being shipped off -site for disposal. However, wastewater and caustic scrubber water
from the Thermal Oxidizer is being proposed to be discharged to the Cape Fear River as part of
this application.
The application consists of Form 1, Form 2C for Outfalls 001 & 002, and Form 2D for proposed
internal Outfall 102 and Old Outfall 002 (OOF2).
Some key points in the revised NPDES permit application are the following:
• The option to discharge wastewater from the Chemours Thermal Oxidizer directly to
Outfall 002 has been removed. Chemours will discharge the thermal oxidizer water to the
site's wastewater treatment plant.
• Chemours has added the option to reuse the treated water from Old Outfall 002 as
process water or non -contact cooling water. Chemours is still evaluating treatment and
discharge options for the treated Old Outfall 002 wastewater and plans to make a final
decision in the upcoming months.
• DuPont and Kuraray Chemical Inventory Lists have been included.
• Chemours Chemical Inventory Lists have been revised.
• A Mixing Zone Analysis Addendum is included.
• The Mass Loading Assessment was updated.
• Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Technology Review has been included.
• Kuraray requested to Chemours to discharge silane to the wastewater treatment system
and eventually to the Cape Fear River. Chemours agrees to receive this discharge from
Kuraray.
• Chemours site NE and SW stormwater drainage maps and PFAS stormwater data have
been included.
5

CHEMOURS CONSENT ORDER OUTFALL 002 ACTION ITEMS
Chemours is subject to a Consent Order (February 25, 2019) among Chemours, the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW). As part of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal application process,
NCDEQ has requested that Chemours provide reports developed under the Consent Order that
may be relevant to the NPDES permit.
To date, Chemours has already implemented a number of actions which have reduced per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) loading originating from the Chemours Fayetteville Works Site
(the Site). Further, pursuant to the Consent Order, Chemours has developed and submitted
reports to NCDEQ proposing further actions to reduce PFAS loading from the Site. Actions already
implemented by Chemours, in addition to potential future actions outlined in reports under the
Consent Order, are summarized herein.
All reports relevant to Consent Order compliance are publicly available and located here:
https://www.chemours.com/en/about-chemours/global-reach/fayetteville-works/compliance-
testing. Additional details of significant reduction actions completed to date and Consent Order
reports relevant to the NPDES permit are summarized in the following sections.
COMPLETED REDUCTION ACTIONS
Chemours has already implemented multiple actions to reduce loading of PFAS to the Cape Fear
River. As presented in the PFAS Loading Reduction Plan (Reduction Plan) (Geosyntec, 2019a),
actions already implemented by Chemours have reduced yearly HFPO-DA mass loadings from the
facility to the environment by (at minimum) 5,150 pounds per year (Ibs/yr) compared to pre -June
2017 emissions and discharges. Specifically, air emission reductions to date, on an annualized
basis for 2019, have resulted in an estimated yearly reduction of 2,150 pounds of HFPO-DA, a
greater than 93% reduction. Cessation of Chemours process water discharge to Outfall 002
resulted in (at minimum) an estimated yearly reduction of 3,000 Ibs/yr of HFPO-DA.
These actions have reduced HFPO-DA mass loadings, through Outfall 002, by over 99% from June
2017 levels to 2018 levels. This has resulted in a reduction of HFPO-DA loading in the Cape Fear
River. Present estimates of HFPO-DA mass loading to the Cape Fear River from all pathways are
between 64 and 129 Ibs/yr. This represents upwards of a 95% reduction in mass loading to the
Cape Fear River (Geosyntec, 2019a).
These reductions will be further enhanced by installation and operation of the Thermal Oxidizer,
scheduled to be working by the end of 2019, which will control over 99.99% of PFAS air -related
emissions routed to it.
0

SUMMARY OF CONSENT ORDER REPORTS
There are several major reports developed under the Consent Order that are relevant to the
NPDES permitting process; three main reports are (1) PFAS Mass Loading Model (Geosyntec
2019b), (2) the Outfall 002 Assessment (Geosyntec 2019c), and (3) the Reductions Plan (including
the Supplemental Information Report submitted on November 4, 2019). The PFAS Loading
Model and Outfall 002 Assessment were developed in support of the Paragraph 12 Consent Order
requirement of a Reductions Plan (Geosyntec 2019a). The reports are summarized in further
detail below.
Mass Loading Model
Chemours has and continues to assess PFAS transport pathways to the Cape Fear River. The PFAS
Mass Loading Model (Geosyntec, 2019b) assessed the contribution of different transport
pathways to overall mass loading of PFAS originating from the facility to the Cape Fear River. The
pathways contributing to loading include the following and are explained in more detail in the
Mass Loading Model Assessment (Geosyntec, 2019b) and Reduction Plan (Geosyntec, 2019a):
• Upstream Cape Fear River and Groundwater
• Willis Creek
• Direct aerial deposition
• Outfall 002
• Onsite groundwater
• Seeps
• Old Outfall 002
• Adjacent and downstream groundwater
• Georgia Branch Creek
The mass loading model estimated PFAS loading to the Cape Fear River using a combination of
measured and estimated data to develop mass loading estimates by pathway. The mass loading
model estimated that the Old Outfall 002 and Seeps have the highest contribution of Table 3+
PFAS mass loading to the Cape Fear River, with an estimated combined contribution of
approximately 53% to 55% (of Table 3+ PFAS compounds to the river). Onsite groundwater is the
next highest mass loading pathway to the river (17 — 22% of loading to the river). Outfall 002 is
at present a minor loading pathway, which estimated contributions to the river loading between
4% and 7%.
Outfall 002 Assessment
The Outfall 002 Assessment (Geosyntec, 2019c) includes additional data and a technical analysis
related to Outfall 002 to support actions proposed in the Reduction Plan. The Outfall 002
Assessment includes an evaluation of potential reductions of HFPO-DA and perfluoro-1-
methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) at Outfall 002 from potential control approaches including
7

possible timelines to implement these approaches and estimates of their potential load reduction
benefits. Five of these actions were proposed in the Reductions Plan (Geosyntec, 2019a).
The loading estimates for HFPO-DA and PFMOAA to Outfall 002 for the 2018 calendar year show
that stormwater and non -contact cooling water (NCCW) in the Site Conveyance Network are the
primary contributors to the Outfall 002 loading, estimated to comprise 45% and 53% of the 2018
calendar year loading, respectively. The river intake is estimated to have contributed
approximately 11% of the Outfall 002 loading in 2018. Therefore, approximately 42% of the total
Outfall 002 loading is added from NCCW in the Site Conveyance Network. The WWTP effluent (at
2%) does not contribute significant loading to Outfall 002, due to the relatively small effluent
flows. The sampling results from within the Site Conveyance Network during dry weather show
that the majority of the dry weather load to Outfall 002 appears to be added in the Cooling Water
Channel and the Open Channel to Outfall 002.
Stormwater sampling results show that stormwater concentrations are higher than typical
concentrations measured at Outfall 002, confirming that stormwater contributes loading to
Outfall 002, even though it contributes a small volume compared to dry weather flow sources.
Additionally, there were several areas throughout the Site with elevated concentrations in
stormwater.
Reduction Plan
The results of the modeling analysis from the mass loading model (Geosyntec, 2019b) and the
evaluations in the Outfall 002 Assessment (Geosyntec, 2019c) were used in the Reduction Plan
(Geosyntec, 2019a) and the Supplemental Information Report to the Reduction Plan (Geosyntec
and Parsons, 2019). The Reduction Plan, developed pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Consent
Order, proposes Chemours implement multiple actions within 2 and 5 year timeframes to
address PFAS coming from multiple different pathways. These proposed actions, the estimated
schedules by which they may be implemented, and their expected reductions are shown in the
table on the following page from the Supplemental Report.
Under the Consent Order, NCDEQ and Cape Fear River Watch are to review the plan developed
by Chemours and the Consent Order may be amended to incorporate agreed upon reductions as
enforceable requirements. Accordingly, Chemours recommends that the NPDES permit refer to
the Consent Order for the proposed actions and not include specific provisions with respect to
them, as the parties continue to discuss these items.
M

Proposed and Provisional Remedial Alternatives
Loading
Reduction
Duration
ears
Year
1
2
3
4
5
Air Abatement Controls and Thermal Oxidizer
c2%
1
Conveyance Network Sediment Removal - Outfall 002'
NQ3
1
Capture and Treat Old Outfall 002
26%
1
Terracotta Pipe Replacement - Outfall 002
0.1%
2
Starrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan - Outfall 002
NQ'
2
Graruidivater Intrusion Mitigation - Outfall 002
0.7%
2
Interun Action - CFR Seeps
NQ'
Interun Action - Onsite Groruid`r•ater
NQ'
1
Targeted Stanirwater Control - Outfall 002
1.3%
4
Ex Sihu Capture and Treatment - CFR Seeps
27%
4
Onsite Grotuidrvater Treatment
23%
1 5
Crumulative Estunated Total Table 3+PFAS River Reductions to River'
78%
1 --
1 26%
27%
40%
53°ro
78°ro
Notes Legend
Schedule for multiple alternatives are dependent upon permitting requimnents. Action Complete
Loading reductions are to the Cape Fear River Planned Action Implementation Period
Duration listed for unplementatian Tune Period for Contingent Actions
1 - Scheduled unplermentation is December 31. 2019.
2 - Completed Octotber 2019.
3 - Anticipated reduction from action can not be quantified at present.
4 - Remedial alternatives and schedules are provisional at present m alternative selection is presently being perfanned.
5 - Cumulative estunated reductions assrunes:
a) that reductions are achieved at the end of the unplernentation period:
bj that the tome period for contingent actions k not needed: and
cj seeps capture reduction is 14% and 27% in Year 3 and 4 respectively.
THERMAL OXIDIZER INTERNAL OUTFALL 102
Chemours intends to hold, test, and assess the Thermal Oxidizer Water Scrubber, Caustic
Scrubber and other miscellaneous wastewater for the first two months after start-up. During this
time the site's wastewater will be sent off -site for disposal so that the site can fully characterize
the wastewater and confirm its ability to meet the outfall limitations placed in the NPDES permit.
In addition, Chemours will assess after the initial startup the thermal oxidizer CaF2 and Caustic
Scrubber effluent to confirm that no PFAS compounds will be present in these wastewaters
beyond PFAS compounds detected in the site's water intake. If PFAS compounds are present
beyond what is detected in the intake, Chemours will evaluate treatment of the CaF2 and Caustic
Scrubber wastewater with granular activated carbon to assess the removal of PFAS compounds
that are not associated with the intake water.
0

OLD OUTFALL 002 (OOF2)
Pursuant to Paragraph 12(e)(i) of the Consent Order, Chemours will capture the dry weather flow
at the lower reaches of the former Outfall 002 channel and treat such water prior to discharge
(see Attachment 1). Chemours is required to provide a treatment system to remove per- and PFAS
constituents from this flow to meet the requirements and criteria stipulated in the Consent
Order. Old Outfall 002 (OOF2) Form 2D, Engineering Report, and supporting Engineering
Alternatives Analysis is included in the permit application in attachment D. The treatment system
is required to be constructed and operational by September 30, 2020, assuming permits are
issued in a timely manner.
Chemours has added the option in the NPDES permit application to reuse the treated water from
Old Outfall 002 as process water or non -contact cooling water. Chemours is still evaluating
treatment and discharge options for the treated Old Outfall 002 wastewater and plans to make
a final decision in the upcoming months.
C�I;L�►�i[�1�1:�i��iU:IV[��]�1Jel�I_1�'E9��eli;l�].1�Z�3J_\�� lel,���l_V Ii•L�l_>,���j�� l�i;y\Y�]:�
C�1�1<lyeli��I��
Chemours has developed a CORMIX model to determine acute and chronic mixing zones for
Outfall 002 and preliminarily performed high level reasonable potential analysis of the 2c
compounds listed in the NPDES permit application. In addition, a preliminary assessment of the
total HFPO-DA mass loading to the Cape Fear River was completed.
Chemours had identified other compounds and potential compounds, for NCDEQ evaluation,
that may be found in Outfall 002 beyond those compounds identified in outfall 001 and outfall
002 Form 2C and Outfalls 102 and 002F Form 2D. These compounds have been identified in
Attachment F.
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(b) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
Final regulations implementing 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, which established requirements
for cooling water intake structures (CWIS) at existing facilities, were published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2014 with an effective date of October 14, 2014. The Chemours Company
— Fayetteville Works operates a cooling water intake structure on the Cape Fear River that is
subject to this new Federal Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule.
On February 26, 2016, a letter was sent from S. Jay Zimmerman, Director, NCDEQ Division of
Water Resources, to Michael E. Johnson, Environmental Manager, Chemours Company —
Fayetteville Works, wherein the requested alternative schedule for submission of required CWIS
information with the next permit renewal in 2021 was approved. Chemours intends to submit a
permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(r) by January 2021 or earlier (see
attachment G).
10

References
Geosyntec, 2019a. Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan. Chemours Fayetteville Works.
26 August 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019b. Cape Rear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and Paragraph 11.1
Characterization of PFAS at Intakes. Chemours Fayetteville Works. 26 August 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019c. Assessment of HFPO-DA and PFMOAA in Outfall 002 Discharge and Evaluation
of Potential Control Options. August 2019.
Geosyntec and Parsons, 2019. Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan — Supplemental
Information Report. Chemours Fayetteville Works. November 2019.
11

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Application Introduction
PFAS ANALYTES LIST (TABLE 3+ AND EPA METHOLD 537
MOD)
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
PFAS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Analytical Method
Common Name
Chemical Name
CASN
Chemical Formula
HFPO-DA*
Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
13252-13-6
C6HF1103
PEPA
Perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
267239-61-2
C5HF903
PFECA-G
Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid
801212-59-9
C12H9F903S
PFMOAA
Perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid
674-13-5
C3HF5O3
PF02HxA
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
39492-88-1
C4HF704
PF030A
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
39492-89-2
C5HF905
PF04DA
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid
39492-90-5
C6HF1106
PMPA
Perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
13140-29-9
C4HF703
Hydro -EVE Acid
Perfluoroethoxsypropanoic acid
773804-62-9
C8112F1404
Table Lab SOP
EVE Acid
Perfluoroethoxypropionic acid
69087-46-3
C8HF1304
3+
PFECA B
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid
151772-58-6
C5HF9O4
R-EVE
R-EVE
N/A
C8112F1205
PF05DA
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid
39492-91-6
C7HF13O7
Byproduct
Byproduct
N/A
C7112F1206S
Byproducts
Byproduct
N/A
C7113F1107S
Byproduct 6
Byproduct 6
N/A
C6112F1204S
NVHOS
Perfluoroethoxysulfonic acid
1132933-86-8
C4112F804S
PES
Perfluoroethoxyethanesulfonic acid
113507-82-7
C4HF904S
PFESA-BP1
Byproduct 1
29311-67-9
C7HF1305S
PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 2
749836-20-2
C7112F1405S
PFBA
Perfluorobutanoic acid
375-22-4
C4HF702
PFDA
Perfluorodecanoic acid
335-76-2
C10HF1902
PFDoA
Perfluorododecanoic acid
307-55-1
C12BF2302
PFHpA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
375-85-9
C7HF1302
PENA
Perfluor000nanoic acid
375-95-1
C9HF1702
PFOA
Perfluorooctanoic acid
335-67-1
C8HF150
PFHxA
Perfluorohexanoic acid
307-24-4
C6HF1102
PFPeA
Perfluoropentanoic acid
2706-90-3
C5HF902
PFTeA
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
376-06-7
C14BF2702
PFTriA
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
72629-94-8
C13BF2502
PFUnA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid
2058-94-8
C11HF2102
PFBS
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
375-73-5
C4HF9SO
PFDS
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
335-77-3
C10HF2103S
PFHpS
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
375-92-8
C7HF1503S
PFHxS
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
355-46-4
C6HF13SO3
PENS
Perfluor000nanesulfonic acid
68259-12-1
C9HF1903S
PFOS
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
1763-23-1
C8HF17SO3
EPA Method 537
PFPeS
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
2706-91-4
C5HF1103S
Mod
10:2 FTS
10:2-fluorotelomersulfonic acid
120226-60-0
C 12H5F2103
4:2 FTS
4:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
757124-72-4
C6115F903S
6:2 FTS
6:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
27619-97-2
C8H5F13SO3
8:2 FTS
8:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
39108-34-4
C10H5F17O3S
NEtFOSAA
NEtFOSAA
2991-50-6
C12H8F17NO4S
NEtPFOSA
NEtPFOSA
4151-50-2
C10H6F17NO2S
NEtPFOSAE
NEtPFOSAE
1691-99-2
C12H10F17NO3S
NMeFOSAA
NMeFOSAA
2355-31-9
C11H6F17NO4S
NMePFOSA
NMePFOSA
31506-32-8
C9H4F17NO2S
NMePFOSAE
NMePFOSAE
24448-09-7
C11HSE17NO3S
PFDOS
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid
79780-39-5
C12HF2503S
PFHxDA
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid
67905-19-5
C16HF3102
PFODA
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
16517-11-6
C18HF3502
PFESA
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
754-91-6
C8H2F17NO2S
F-53B Major
F-53B Major
73606-19-6
C8HC1F1604S
F-53B Minor
F-53B Minor
83329-89-9
C10HCIF2004S
ADONA
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoate
958445-44-8
C7H2F12O4
NaDONA
JNaDONA
EVS1361
DONA
IDONA
919005-14-4
Notes:
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
ng/L - nanograms per liter
PEAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PQL - practical quantitation limit
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
*Depending on the laboratory, HFPO-DA may also appear on the EPA Method 537 Mod analyte list
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT A
FORM 1
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
FORM 1
November 2019

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
Form
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1
\""7►EPA
Application for NPDES Permit to Discharge Wastewater
NPDES
GENERAL INFORMATION
SECTION•
••
1.1
Applicants Not Required to Submit Form 1
1.1.1
Is the facility a new or existing publicly owned
1.1.2
Is the facility a new or existing treatment works
treatment works?
treating domestic sewage?
If yes, STOP. Do NOT complete ❑✓ No
If yes, STOP. Do NOT ✓❑ No
Form 1. Complete Form 2A.
complete Form 1. Complete
Form 2S.
1.2
Applicants Required to Submit Form 1
1.2.1
Is the facility a concentrated animal feeding
1.2.2
Is the facility an existing manufacturing,
operation or a concentrated aquatic animal
commercial, mining, or silvicultural facility that is
a
production facility?
currently discharging process wastewater?
oYes
4 Complete Form 1 ❑✓ No
✓❑ Yes -* Complete Form ❑ No
a
and Form 2B.
1 and Form 2C.
z
r—
1.2.3
Is the facility a new manufacturing, commercial,
1.2.4
Is the facility a new or existing manufacturing,
=
mining, or silvicultural facility that has not yet
commercial, mining, or silvicultural facility that
commenced to discharge?
discharges only nonprocess wastewater?
Yes 4 Complete Form 1 ❑✓ No
❑ Yes 4 Complete Form No
and Form 2D.
1 and Form 2E.
Vl
1.2.5
Is the facility a new or existing facility whose
'—
discharge is composed entirely of stormwater
a
associated with industrial activity or whose
discharge is composed of both stormwater and
non-stormwater?
Yes -+ Complete Form 1 ❑✓ No
and Form 2F
unless exempted by
40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(x) or
b (15).
SECTIOND••
AND LOCATION
Facility Name
7Ch
emours Fayetteville Works
0
PA Identification Number
C
J
NCD 047 368 642
2.3
Facility Contact
L
Name (first and last)
Title
Phone number
Q
Christel Compton
Environmental Manager
[phone]
Email address
[e-mail]
2.4
Facility Mailing Address
ZStreet
or P.O. box
22828 NC Highway 87 W
City or town
State
ZIP code
Fayetteville
NC
28306-7332
EPA Form 3510-1 (revised 3-19) Page 1

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
y
2.5
Facility Location
Street, route number, or other specific identifier
Q U
22828 NC Highway 87 W
rn
0
County name
County code (if known)
Bladen
37017
E
City or town
State ZIP code
z @
Fayetteville
INC 28306-7332
SECTIONCODES
3.1
SIC Code(s)
Description (optional)
9
[3083
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC CHEMICALS
LAMINATED PLASTICS PLATE, SHEET, AND PROFILE SHAPES
w
3081
UNSUPPORTED PLASTICS FILM & SHEET (NOTE: Kuraray'" Trosifol° & SentryGlas®
o
sheeting process units)
U
V
2821
PLASTIC MATERIALS AND RESINS (NOTE: DuPont PVF resin process units)
z
3.2
NAICS Code(s)
Description (optional)
R
U
N
4.1
Name of Operator
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
0
4.2
Is the name you listed in Item 4.1 also the owner?
r
cc
✓❑ Yes El No
0
a
7
4.3
Operator Status
S
❑ Public —federal ❑ Public —state ❑ Other public (specify)
o
❑✓ Private ❑ Other (specify)
4.4
Phone Number of Operator
[phone]
4.5
Operator Address
°
Y
Street or P.O. Box
E
1007 Market Street
City or town
State
ZIP code
o V
Wilmington
DE
19899
m
Q
Email address of operator
O
[e-mail]
SECTIONI
R
5.1
Is the facility located on Indian Land?
J
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
EPA Form 3510-1 (revised 3-19) Page 2

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works OMB No. 2040-0004
6.1 Existing Environmental Permits (check all that apply and print or type the corresponding permit number for each)
❑ NPDES (discharges to surface ❑ RCRA (hazardous wastes) ❑ UIC (underground injection of
r_ water) fluids)
o NC0003573 NCD047368642-R2-M3
•> E
w a ❑✓ PSD (air emissions) ❑ Nonattainment program (CAA) ❑ NESHAPs (CAA)
NC Title V Permit 03735
w ❑ Ocean dumping (MPRSA) El Dredge or fill (CWA Section 404) ❑ Other (specify)
WQ0035431 Land Application
7.1 Have you attached a topographic map containing all required information to this application? (See instructions for
C specific requirements.)
2
✓❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ CAFO—Not Applicable (See requirements in Form 213.)
'CTION 8. NATURE OF BUSINESS i
8.1 Describe the nature of your business.
The Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works is a fluorinated chemicals manufacturer situated on a 2,200-acre
rn property in northwestern Bladen County, NC. The Chemours' products produced at the facility include fluorinated
c I monomers and fluorinated vinyl ethers, Nafion " membranes and dispersion, and fluoropolymer processing aids
Chemours operates two natural gas / fuel oil -fired boilers, which provides steam for the entire facility.
m
o m Also located at this facility are two tenant companies: Kuraray America Inc. and the DuPont Company. Kuraray
L
2 operates the Trosifol® polyvinyl butyral (PVB) thermoplastic sheet and resin manufacturing unit and the SentryGlas®
z ionoplast interlayer manufacturing unit. DuPont operates two polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) resin manufacturing units.
Chemours receives and treats all of the Kuraray and DuPont process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, and contact
stormwater in the Chemours' owned and operated wastewater treatment plant. See attachment A.2
9.1 Does your facility use cooling water?
L ❑✓ Yes ❑ No-* SKIP to Item 10.1.
L
9.2 Identify the source of cooling water. (Note that facilities that use a cooling water intake structure as described at
a, 40 CFR 125, Subparts I and J may have additional application requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(r). Consult with your
oNPDES permitting authority to determine what specific information needs to be submitted and when.)
0 Cape Fear River ... See attachment G
c
10.1 Do you intend to request or renew one or more of the variances authorized at 40 CFR 122.21(m)? (Check all that
apply. Consult with your NPDES permitting authority to determine what information needs to be submitted and
(n when.)
❑ Fundamentally different factors (CWA ❑ Water quality related effluent limitations (CWA Section
Section 301(n)) 302(b)(2))
❑ Non -conventional pollutants (CWA ❑ Thermal discharges (CWA Section 316(a))
cc Section 301(c) and (g))
❑✓ Not applicable
EPA Form 3510-1 (revised 3-19) Page 3

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number Faality Name Form Approved 03105/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION1
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT (40
11.1
In Column 1 below, mark the sections of Form 1 that you have completed and are submitting with your application.
For each section, specify in Column 2 any attachments that you are enclosing to alert the permitting authority. Note
that not all applicants are required to provide attachments.
Column 1
Column 2
❑✓ Section 1: Activities Requiring an NPDES Permit
❑ w/ attachments
❑✓ Section 2: Name, Mailing Address, and Location
❑ wl attachments
❑✓ Section 3: SIC Codes
❑ w/ attachments
❑✓ Section 4: Operator Information
❑ wl attachments
❑✓ Section 5: Indian Land
❑ w/ attachments
❑✓ Section 6: Existing Environmental Permits
❑ wl attachments
m
v
❑✓ Section 7: Map
0 wl additional attachments
14
matopographic
g
❑� Section 8: Nature of Business
❑✓ wlattachments
.q
See attachment A2
r
❑✓ Section 9: Cooling Water Intake Structures
❑ w/ attachments See attachment G
w
a
Section 10: Variance Requests
❑ w/ attachments
H
❑✓ Section 11: Checklist and Certification Statement
❑ w/ attachments
Y
z
11.2
Certification Statement
U
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction orsupervision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel property gather and evaluate the
information submitted. Based on my inquiryof the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible forgathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best ofmyknowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name (print or type first and last name)
Official fitle
Brian D. Long
Plant Manager
Sign
Date signed
�e� ,p
p�
II
EPA Form 3510-1 (revised 349) Pzge 4

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT A-1
1. TOPOGRPHIC MAP
2. LOCATIONS OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES
3. LOCATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WATE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
4. WATER WELLS WITHIN I -MILE OF THE SITE
5. OVERALL SITE SEWER AND MONOMERS POLYMERS OUTFALL
MAPS
November 2019

u UART1 QUADRANGLE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 7.5 S SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) RALEIGH, N. C.
� 5E14 ALNT PAULS 15' QUAD[LWGLE
78o' 30" 9MI. TOWTERSTATE96 57MIV NE
52' 30- 69S0cm E GRAYS CREEK 6 Afl. 697 5 6�9 (CEOAR CREEK)
"5
i 164 r� a
r9T-
_ �I
- — °� . n _ 'ems - , • � ) 5
131
,Cem
IN
� � `� � •fy°la?slhecood ;�
. Laid
I'"" r 11 arzs
71
(-�-
i s. _ P.n `L WATER INTAKE �—
„�i
Willis (`ir�ek
is
,
TanksidW Y
5 I
�t II �� v� A _ ■ w'. andsaste -
3857 O 1! bsata \ WATER DISCHARGE
FACILITY LEGAL agi
1 rn, Huske --
'� BOUNDARY \ _ B . Lock -an Dam No 3
� o i.. � / Tom` �--~�-/- �"5�l /✓/�I - - I .ca _-.'�O
N\
HaV
Boa - J
Boat�.�
I - am
� PI
w
a
SCALE 1.24 000
0 •�
MILES } .I, �.-_. � +y •' �,�.; 1
1000 P idOQ 2000 3000 4000 SOQO fi000 7000 - '
�• - � FEET 8000 90W 1Qfl00 �•� '��� �:�� • �'�
< - 5 u rc LOMErSRs
� l000 i z
0 METERS 1000 } - '
I NTOUR 2000
CO
BVIFRVAL 5 FEET
rvanoNAL ceoDEnc VERTICAL nATLmI of 2929
'�:Hoone r Duart -��
,Cem- P Roads de {
1152-
1 THIS MAP COMPLLES WFTH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS ..
BM 13fi
FOR SALE BY U- S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DENVER, COLOliADO 84225. OR
47' 30" 1r RESTON, VTRGIIVTA 22092
�p L A FOLDER DFSCRQg11+JG TOP0GRgpH1C F77Ap$ AND SYM@Qy9 [5 AVAQABLE ON REQUEST
NOT CERTIFIED MAP. ALL LOCATIONS AND BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATIONS.

CHEMOURS COMPANY - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS
LOCATIONS OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES

CHEMOURS COMPANY - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS
LOCATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Process Sump & Tanks
(GPD is annualized estimated approximations)
Flows to CWT
Re -work toCWT
This map shows the
m rks(10gpd)
It. Chemours- Fluoroproducts
ab (700 gpd)
ruck Spot Containment Basin (rainwater)
processing areas waste water flows
ruck Sp.tSump
(690gpd)d) g 5-Water flush (690
that are captured and sent off -site
6- Fluoro Sump (rainwater)
7- Waste Tank(storage)
8- Waste Tank(ski-O)
for disposal. It also shows
9- Scrubbing Tank (3600 gpd) i
secondary containment for the
gpd)
11- TowerSumpgpd)
12 - Sump (1600 gpd)
process areas that would capture
12-Scrubber(1500 gpd)
13 - Sump (80 gpd)
20 �e,
spills but are located outside and
14- Hydrolysis(3900gpd)
15-Sump(300 gpd)
would also capture Storm water.
16- Sump (9000 gpd)
17- Sump (4000 gpd)
18-Sump(rainwate r)
- --
19-Sump(300 gpd)
20- Storage Tank (100 gpd)
21- Sump (2300 gpd)
32 - Diversion Tank (storage)
Process Sump & Tanks
_
(GPD is annualized estimated approximations)
FIowS to HDT
• Re -work to HDT
r
Eliminated when
T.O. is in service
IPSump(lo gpd)
I
rn I North
Vacuum System (30 gpd)
23 - Waste Gas Scrubber (2000 gpd will be eliminated-T.0.)
I
I Facility
23 -Process Scrubber (2000 gpd)
I
24-VacuumJet(100 gpd)
J -J
25 - Treatment Tank (10 gpd)
26-Neutralizer Tank (700 gpd)
27-Transfer &Interface Tank (100gpd)
R
IResins 1
28- Waste Gas Scrubber (100 gpd will be eliminated-T.O.)
I—_
28- Vacuum System (30 gpd)
Facility �I
29- Waste Storage Tank
49
30- Hold Tanks (as needed for storage)
49
31- Product Tote (100 gpd)
31- Product Tote (5 gpd)
■1�1I ff; � ���ll_�1��■lul■lllllllllll�.�is��� s�i�-������;
i��9South r■ ■;iN��a;l■�IC
■ � lot
acillity
Scrubber
N®
Secondary Containment Secondary Containment These areas will vent to Thermal Oxidizer
(NON-PFAS) - (Potential PFAS contamination) (when T.O. is put into service)
Manually controlled -Contents are Manually controlled - Contents are NN
ISO LOADING EVALUATED BY PROCEDURE to determine if CAPTURED and TRANSPORTED for offsite
spill has occurred before release. disposal.
g*
C_
IIIII
To
2
y
K\

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT A-2
CURRENT FACILITY OPERATING CONDITIONS
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT A.2
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION — REVISED PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
— OCTOBER 30,2019
Current Facility Operating Conditions
Chemours Fluoromonomers/Nafion® Membrane Manufacturing Area:
The Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works' Fluoromonomers / Nafion® Membrane
manufacturing area produces several final products. ChemoursTM Nafion® Membrane is a plastic
film used in the chloroalkah industry and in electrochemical fuel cells. ChemoursTM Nafion®
Polymer Dispersions are used in the fabrication of thin films and coating formulations for fuel
cells membranes, catalyst coatings, sensors, and a variety of electrochemical applications. The
HFPO monomer and the Vinyl Ether monomers are used to manufacture various fluorochemical
products such as ChemoursTM Teflon®. Process wastewater generated from this manufacturing
facility is captured and transported to an out-of-state commercial disposal facility. The Chemours
non -process wastewaters may contain fluorinated organic compounds, including those listed in
Attachment FA. List of PFAS Compounds', at low concentrations.
Chemours Polymer Processing Aid ("PPA") Manufacturing Area:
The Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works' PPA manufacturing area produces a polymer
processing aid. The processing aid produced in this unit is used in the manufacturing of
fluoropolymers and fluorinated telomers, but none of the produced processing aid is used at the
Fayetteville Works site. All process wastewater generated from this manufacturing facility is
collected and shipped off -site for disposal. No process wastewater from this manufacturing facility
is discharged to the Chemours' wastewater treatment plant or to the Cape Fear River. The
Chemours non -process wastewaters may contain fluorinated organic compounds, including those
listed in Attachment FA. List of PFAS Compounds', at low concentrations.
Kuraray Trosifol® Manufacturing Area:
The Kuraray America Inc. Fayetteville Plant's Trosifol® manufacturing area produces two final
products. KurarayTM Trosifol® Interlayer plastic sheeting is the final product used in safety glass
such as automobile windshields. Polyvinyl butyral resin is shipped off -site as a transfer to other
Kuraray locations for final processing. Wastewater generated from this manufacturing facility is
discharged to the Chemours' wastewater treatment plant. The Kuraray Trosifol® process
wastewater contains low levels of unregulated compounds that includes methanol, ethylene glycol,
butyraldehyde, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl butyral, triethylene glycol bis(2-ethylhexanoate),
sodium hydroxide, phosphoric acid, and other low -concentration compounds that would be
reasonably contemplated to be present in these process wastewaters. Finally, the wastewater
effluent from the Kuraray Trosifol® manufacturing area may also contain constituents identified
' Attachment FA contains a list of the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours-Fayetteville
Works.
1 November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
in the intake water from the Cape Fear River. These may include various perfluorinated
constituents, among others.
Kuraray SentryGlas® Manufacturing Area:
The Kuraray America Inc. Fayetteville Plant's SentryGlas® manufacturing area produces
KurarayTM SentryGlas® ionoplast interlayer laminate. SentryGlas® interlayer is used in
architectural applications desiring safety glass. Wastewater generated from this manufacturing
facility is discharged to the Chemours' wastewater treatment plant. The Kuraray SentryGlas®
process wastewater contains low levels of unregulated compounds that includes a water -borne
silane binder and other low -concentration compounds that would be reasonably contemplated to
be present in these process wastewaters. Finally, the wastewater effluent from the Kuraray
SentryGlas® manufacturing area may also contain constituents identified in the intake water from
the Cape Fear River. These may include various perfluorinated constituents, among others.
DuPont Polyvinyl Fluoride ("PVF") Manufacturing Area:
DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC ("DuPont") — Fayetteville Works' PVF manufacturing area
produces polyvinyl fluoride resin that is used in the electronics industry as a backing for
photovoltaic cells, as well as many other uses. Process wastewater generated from this
manufacturing area is discharged to the Chemours' wastewater treatment plant. The DuPont
process wastewater may contain low concentrations of fluorinated organic compounds including
but not limited to vinyl fluoride monomer and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, non -fluorinated
inhibitor, non -fluorinated initiator and non -fluorinated monomer may also be detected. Finally,
the wastewater effluent from the PVF manufacturing area may also contain constituents identified
in the intake water from the Cape Fear River. These may include various perfluorinated
constituents, among others.
2 November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B
EXISTING OUTFALLS
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B
FORM 2C FOR OUTFALLS 001
November 2019

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works OMB No. 2040-0004
Form U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2CCPA �*Application for NPDES Permit to Discharge Wastewater
NPDES EPA EXISTING MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING, AND SILVICULTURE OPERATIONS
SECTIONOUTFALL LOCATIONI
1.1 Provide information on each of the facility's outfalls in the table below.
Outfa
Number Receiving Water Name Latitude Longitude
Q
001 Cape Fear River 34' 50' 22.91" N 78° 50' 11.47" W
i
S 002 Cape Fear River 34' 50' 18.00" N 78' 49' 43.07" W
O
o
„ o
SECTION
1- I
a, 2.1 Have you attached a line drawing to this application that shows the water flow through your facility with a water
0.9 balance? (See instructions for drawing requirements. See Exhibit 2C-1 at end of instructions for example.)
J R
o ❑✓ Yes ❑ No
See attachment B.1
SECTION• 1 I
3.1 For each outfall identified under Item 1.1, provide average flow and treatment information. Add additional sheets if
necessary,
**Outfall Number** 001
Operations
Operation Average Flow
SEE ATTACHMENT B.2, B.4, B.5 mgd
c
See Attachment C for Thermal Oxidizer mgd
iv
m
mgd
N mgd
3
0 Treatment Units
U-
a, Description Code from Final Disposal of Solid or
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit, Table 2C-1 Liquid Wastes Other Than
> retention time, etc.) by Discharge
SEE ATTACHMENT B.2, B.5, B.6
Description of Thermal oxidizer WWTP is also in Attch. C
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 1

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
3.1
**Outfall Number** 002
cont.
Operations
,
Operation
Average Flow
SEE ATTACHMENT B.3, B.4, B.5
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Table 2C-1
Liquid Wastes Other Than
retention time, etc.)
by Discharge
SEE ATTACHMENT B.3, B.5, B.6
c
0
U
c
a�
E
iv
a�
L
**Outfall Number**
0
Operations
o
Operation
Average Flow
U-
a,
mgd
L
Qi
<
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Table 2C-1
Liquid Wastes Other Than
retention time, etc.)
by Discharge
3.2
Are you applying for an NPDES permit to operate a privately owned treatment works?
12 Z5
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 4.
N3.3
Have you attached a list that identifies each user of the treatment works?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 2

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION• I
4.1 Except for storm runoff, leaks, or spills, are any discharges described in Sections 1 and 3 intermittent or seasonal?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Section 5.
4.2
Provide information
on intermittent or seasonal flows for each applicable outfall. Attach additional pages, if necessar .
Outfall
Operation
Frequency
Flow
Rate
Average
Average
Long -Term
Maximum
Number
(list)
Duration
Da sMeek
MonthsNear
Average
Dail
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
a
U_
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
E
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
m
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week months/year mgd mgd days
SECTION•••1
• I
5.1
Do any effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) promulgated by EPA under Section 304 of the CWA apply to your facility?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 6.
5.2
Provide the following information on applicable ELGs.
i
ELG Category
ELG Subcategory
Regulatory Citation
w
m
OCPSF
Direct Discharge Point Sources Subpart D
40 CFR 414 Subpart D
ca
c?
Q
n
Q
5.3
Are any of the applicable ELGs expressed in terms of production (or other measure of operation)?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Section 6.
0
15
5.4
Provide an actual measure of daily production expressed in terms and units of applicable ELGs.
J
Outfall
Operation, Product, or Material
Quantity per Day
Unit of
Number
Measure
d
m
0
.0
0
L
d
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 3

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION • 1
6.1 Are you presently required by any federal, state, or local authority to meet an implementation schedule for constructing,
upgrading, or operating wastewater treatment equipment or practices or any other environmental programs that could
affect the discharges described in this application?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Item 6.3.
6.2
Briefly identify each applicable project in the table below.
Affected
Final Compliance Dates
E
Brief Identification and Description of
Outfalls
Source(s) of
oProject
(list outfall
Discharge
Required
Projected
CL
number
E
See Attachment D - Old Outfall 002
OOF2
OOF2 drainage area
09/30/2020
09/30/2020
R
4)
N
R
i
CL
Q
6.3
Have you attached sheets describing any additional water pollution control programs (or other environmental projects
that may affect your discharges) that you now have underway or planned? (optional item)
❑✓ Yes See Attachment I ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
SECTION
7. EFFLUENT AND INTAKE CHARACTERISTICS i
See the instructions to determine the pollutants and parameters you are required to monitor and, in turn, the tables you must
complete. Not all applicants need to complete each table.
Table A. Conventional and Non -Conventional Pollutants
7.1
Are you requesting a waiver from your NPDES permitting authority for one or more of the Table A pollutants for any of
your outfalls?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Item 7.3.
7.2
If yes, indicate the applicable outfalls below. Attach waiver request and other required information to the application.
Outfall Number Outfall Number Outfall Number
7.3
Have you completed monitoring for all Table A pollutants at each of your outfalls for which a waiver has not been
y
requested and attached the results to this application package?
L
No; a waiver has been requested from my NPDES
✓❑ Yes ❑
permitting authority for all pollutants at all outfalls.
Table B.
Toxic Metals, Cyanide, Total Phenols, and Organic Toxic Pollutants
7.4
Do any of the facility's processes that contribute wastewater fall into one or more of the primary industry categories
=
listed in Exhibit 2C-3? (See end of instructions for exhibit.)
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Item 7.8.
7.5
Have you checked "Testing Required" for all toxic metals, cyanide, and total phenols in Section 1 of Table B?
LU
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.6
List the applicable primary industry categories and check the boxes indicating the required GC/MS fraction(s) identified
in Exhibit 2C-3.
Primary Industry Category
Required GC/MS Fraction(s)
Check applicable boxes.
Organic chemicals manufacturing
❑� Volatile ❑� Acid 0 Base/Neutral 0 Pesticide
❑ Volatile ❑ Acid ❑ Base/Neutral ❑ Pesticide
❑ Volatile ❑ Acid ❑ Base/Neutral ❑ Pesticide
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 4

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NCO003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
7.7
Have you checked "Testing Required" for all required pollutants in Sections 2 through 5 of Table B for each of the
GC/MS fractions checked in Item 7.6?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.8
Have you checked "Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed in Sections 1 through 5 of Table B
where testing is not required?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
7.9
Have you provided (1) quantitative data for those Section 1, Table B, pollutants for which you have indicated testing is
required or (2) quantitative data or other required information for those Section 1, Table B, pollutants that you have
indicated are `Believed Present' in your discharge?
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
7.10
Does the applicant qualify for a small business exemption under the criteria specified in the instructions?
❑ Yes -* Note that you qualify at the top of Table B, ❑✓ No
then SKIP to Item 7.12.
=
7.11
Have you provided (1) quantitative data for those Sections 2 through 5, Table B, pollutants for which you have
c
determined testing is required or (2) quantitative data or an explanation for those Sections 2 through 5, Table B,
pollutants you have indicated are "Believed Present' in your discharge?
y
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
>
Table C. Certain Conventional and Non -Conventional Pollutants
7.12
Have you indicated whether pollutants are "Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed on Table C
for all outfalls?
U
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
Y
7.13
Have you completed Table C by providing (1) quantitative data for those pollutants that are limited either directly or
indirectly in an ELG and/or (2) quantitative data or an explanation for those pollutants for which you have indicated
"Believed Present'?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
LU
Table D. Certain Hazardous Substances and Asbestos
7.14
Have you indicated whether pollutants are "Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed in Table D for
all outfalls?
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
7.15
Have you completed Table D by (1) describing the reasons the applicable pollutants are expected to be discharged
and (2) by providing quantitative data, if available?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
Table E. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD
7.16
Does the facility use or manufacture one or more of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congeners listed in the instructions, or do you
know or have reason to believe that TCDD is or may be present in the effluent?
❑ Yes 4 Complete Table E. ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Section 8.
7.17
Have you completed Table E by reporting qualitative data for TCDD?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
SECTIONOR
MANUFACTURED TOXICSi
8.1
Is any pollutant listed in Table B a substance or a component of a substance used or manufactured at your facility as
an intermediate or final product or byproduct?
3
❑✓ Yes ❑ No HI► SKIP to Section 9.
3
8.2
List the pollutants below.
1. Antimony 4. Methylene chloride 7.
0
m
2. Benzene 5. Toluene 8.
fp
3. 1,2-dichloroethane 6. 9•
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 5

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NCO003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION' BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY1
9.1 Do you have any knowledge or reason to believe that any biological test for acute or chronic toxicity has been made
within the last three years on (1) any of your discharges or (2) on a receiving water in relation to your discharge?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 10.
U)
U.
W
9.2
Identify the tests and their
purposes below.
Submitted to NPDES
.5
Test(s)
Purpose of Test(s)
Permitting Authority?
Date Submitted
x
0
H
INC Chronic Effluent
Whole Effluent Toxicity
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
06/06/2019
.0
2
Bioassay Procedure
performed quarterly
0
o
m
Results of WET testing
submitted with DMRs
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
SECTIONi
CONTRACT
ANALYSES (40
10.1
Were any of the analyses reported in Section 7 performed by a contract laboratory or consulting firm?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 11.
10.2
Provide information for each contract laboratory or consulting firm below.
Laboratory Number 1
Laboratory Number 2
Laboratory Number 3
Name of laboratory/firm
See Attachment 6.7
Laboratory address
L
i5
0
Phone number
Pollutant(s) analyzed
SECTIONDD
• •- • i
11.1
Has the NPDES permitting authority requested additional
information?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 12.
0
L
11.2
List the information requested and attach it to this application.
?
c
1 See attachment F 4
c
0
2. 5.
3. 6.
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 6

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 0305/I9
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 0lAB No. 2040-0004
SECTION
12, CHECKLIST
1 1
In Column 1 below, mark the sections of Form 2C that you have completed and are submitting with your application.
12.1
For each section, specify in Column 2 any attachments that you are enclosing to alert the permitting authority. Note
that not all applicants are required to corr plete all sections or provide attachments.
Column 1
Column 2
❑✓ Section 1: Outfall Location
❑ wl attachments
❑✓ Section 2: Line Drawing
w/ line drawing ❑✓ w/ additional attachments
wl list of each user of
Section 3: Average Flows and
❑� w/attachments ❑✓ privately owned treatment
Treatment
works
❑ Section 4: Intermittent Flows
❑ wl attachments
❑ Section 5: Production
❑ w/ attachments
w/ optional additional
❑✓ Section 6: Improvements
❑✓ wl attachments ❑✓ sheets describing any
additional pollution control
plans
❑ wl request for a waiver and ❑ wl explanation for identical
supporting information outfalls
d
❑ w/ small business exemption ❑ v�(other althachmels
d
request ee attac ment
0 Section 7: Effluent and Intake
❑✓ w/Table A wlTable 8
Characteristics
❑✓ wl Table C ❑✓ wl Table D
m
❑✓ w/ Table E 0 wl analytical results as an
c�
attachment F
Section 8: Used or Manufactured
Elw/ attachments
N
Tox cs
Section 9: Biological Toxicity
❑
❑ wl attachments
r
Tests
U
❑✓ Section 10: Contract Analyses
❑✓ w/ attachments See attachment B. 7
❑✓ Section 11: Additional Information
❑✓ wl attachments See attachment C thru attachment I
❑✓ Section 12: Checklist and
❑ wl attachments
Certification Statement
12.2
Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction orsupervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person orpersons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible forgathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name (print or type first and last name)
Official title
BRIAN D. LONG
PLANT MANAGER
Signatu a
Date signed
Aoe
CI
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-091 Page 7

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
• •
• • • • • I
Effluent
Intake
Waiver
o tional
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Pollutant
Requested Units
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average Daily
Number of
Long -Term
Number of
(if applicable)
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Analyses
Average Value
Analyses
(required)
if available
if available
❑
Check here if you have applied to your NPDES permitting authority for a waiver for all of the pollutants listed on this table for the noted outfall.
Biochemical oxygen demand
Concentration
mg/L
40.3
15.1
4.2
229
See Outfall 002
1.
❑
Mass
lb/clay
129.5
49.0
16.9
229
(BOD5)
2.
Chemical oxygen demand
❑
Concentration
mg/L
26.8
1
(COD)
Mass
b/day
115
1
Concentration
mg/L
6.1
1
3.
Total organic carbon (TOC)
❑
Mass
b/day
26
1
Concentration
mg/L
50.5
13.5
6.0
232
4.
Total suspended solids (TSS)
❑
Mass
lb/clay
218.6
56.1
25.9
232
Concentration
mg/L
0.54
1
5.
Ammonia (as N)
❑
Mass
b/day
2.3
1
6.
Flow
❑
Rate
MGD
1.425
0.688
0.534
537
Temperature (winter)
❑
°C
°C
23.0
21.2
19.3
78
7.
Temperature (summer)
❑
°C
°C
31.0
30.0
29.4
40
pH (minimum)
❑
Standard units
S.U.
6.68
n/a
n/a
232
8.
pH (maximum)
❑
Standard units
I SM.
8.42
n/a
n/a
232
1 Sampling shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 9

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
(if available)
Discharge
g
Analyses
Value
Analyses
f available
❑ Check here if you qualify as a small business per the instructions to Form 2C and, therefore, do not need to submit quantitative data for any of the organic toxic pollutants in Sections
2 through 5 of this table. Note, however, that you must still indicate in the appropriate column of this table if you believe any of the pollutants listed are present in your discharge.
Section 1. Toxic Metals, Cyanide, and Total Phenols
1.1
Antimony, total
Concentration
mg/L
<0.00041
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0018
1
(7440-36-0)
1.2
Arsenic, total
Concentration
mg/L
<0.00068
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0029
1
(7440-38-2)
1.3
Beryllium, total
Concentration
mg/L
<0.000091
1
Mass
lb/clay
<0.00039
1
(7440-41-7)
1.4
Cadmium, total
Concentration
mg/L
<0.00015
1
Mass
lb/clay
<0.00064
1
(7440-43-9)
1.5
Chromium, total
El
0
Concentration
mg/L
<0.01
<0.01
<0.006
2
Mass
lb/clay
<0.04
<0.04
<0.026
2
(7440-47-3)
1.6
Copper, total
Concentration
mg/L
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
Mass
lb/clay
<0.042
<0.042
<0.041
2
(7440-50-8)
1.7
Lead total
Concentration
mg/L
<0.0011
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0047
1
(7439-92-1)
1.8
Mercury, total
Concentration
mg/L
<0.000050
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00021
1
(7439-97-6)
1.9
Nickel, total
❑
❑
El
Concentration
mg/L
<0.01
<0.01
<0.007
2
Mass
lb/clay
<0.04
<0.04
<0.029
2
(7440-02-0)
1.10
Selenium, total
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L
<0.00065
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0028
1
(7782-49-2)
1.11
Silver, total
❑✓
ElElConcentration
mg/L
<0.00017
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00073
1
(7440-22-4)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 11

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
check one
Effluent
Intake
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Daily
Monthly
Daily
of
of
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Analyses
Average
Analyses
(required)
(if available)
Value
if available
1.12
Thallium, total
❑✓
❑
El
Concentration
mg/L
<0.00011
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00047
1
(7440-28-0)
1.13
Zinc total
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L
0.0541
0.0541
0.043
2
Mass
lb/day
0.231
0.231
0.18
2
(7440-66-6)
1.14
Cyanide, total
❑✓
❑
El
Concentration
mg/L
<0.0050
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.021
1
(57-12-5)
1.15
Phenols, total
❑✓
Concentration
mg/L
<0.010
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.043
1
Section 2. Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction
-Volatile Compounds)
21
Acrolein
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<1.00
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00428
1
(107-02-8)
2 2
Acrylonitrile
Concentration
ug/L
<0.20
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00086
1
(107-13-1)
2.3
Benzene
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.050
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00021
1
(71-43-2)
2.4
Bromoform
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(75-25-2)
2.5
Carbon tetrachloride
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(56-23-5)
2.6
Chlorobenzene
❑✓
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(108-90-7)
2.7
Chlorodibromomethane
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(124-48-1)
2.8
Chloroethane
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(75-00-3)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 12

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
(if available)
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
2.9
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.050
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00021
1
(110-75-8)
2.10
Chloroform (67-66-3)
❑✓
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
2.11
Dichlorobromomethane
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.20
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00086
1
(75-27-4)
212
1,1-dichloroethane
❑✓
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.1
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(75-34-3)
2.13
12-dichloroethane
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.20
1
1 1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00086
1
(107-06-2)
2.14
11-dichloroethylene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(75-354)
2.15
1,2-dichloropropane
❑✓
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.20
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00086
1
(78-87-5)
2.16
1,3-dichloropropylene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.080
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00034
1
(542-75-6)
2.17
Ethylbenzene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(100-41-4)
2.18
Methyl bromide
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(74-83-9)
2.19
Methyl chloride
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.30
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0013
1
(74-87-3)
2.20
Methylene chloride
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.30
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0013
1
(75-09-2)
[2.21
1 1,2 2 tetrachloroethane
IZI
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.050
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00021
1
(79-34-5)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 13

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
(if available)
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
2.22
Tetrachloroethylene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.20
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00086
1
(127-18-4)
2.23
Toluene
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.050
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00021
1
(108-88-3)
2.24
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
❑✓
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.10
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00043
1
(156-60-5)
2.25
1,1,1-trichloroethane
❑✓
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(71-55-6)
2.26
1,1,2-trichloroethane
❑✓
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(79-00-5)
2.27
Trichloroethylene
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.20
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00086
1
(79-01-6)
2.28
Vinyl chloride
Concentration
ug/L
<0.30
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0013
1
(75-01-4)
Section 3.Organic Toxic Pollutants (GCIMS Fraction
-Acid Compounds)
3.1
2-chlorophenol
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(95 57 8)
3.2
2 4-dichlorophenol
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(120-83-2)
3.3
2 4-dimethyl phenol
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(105-67-9)
3.4
4 6-dinitro-o-cresol
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.9
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.004
1
(534-52-1)
3.5
2 4-dinitrophenol
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.9
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.004
1
(51-28-5)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 14

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
(if available)
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
3.6
2-nitrophenol
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.3
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.001
1
(88-75-5)
3.7
4-nitrophenol
❑
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.8
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.003
1
(100-02-7)
3.8
p-chloro-m-cresol
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.3
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.001
1
(59-50-7)
3 9
Pentachlorophenol
Concentration
ug/L
<0.7
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.003
<0.003
1
(87-86-5)
3.10
Phenol
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.4
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.002
1
(108-95-2)
3.11
2 4,6-trichlorophenol
❑
El
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(88 05 2)
Section 4.Organic Toxic Pollutants (GCIMS Fraction
—Base /Neutral
Compounds)
4.1
Acenaphthene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.08
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0003
1
(83-32-9)
4.2
Acenaphthylene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.07
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0003
1
(208-96-8)
4.3
Anthracene
Concentration
ug/L
<0.07
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0003
1
(120-12-7)
4.4
Benzidine
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<6
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.03
1
(92-87-5)
4.5
Benzo (a) anthracene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(56-55-3)
4.6
Benzo (a) pyrene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(50-32-8)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 15

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •'
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
(if available)
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
4.7
3 4-benzofluoranthene
IZI
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.07
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0003
1
(205-99-2)
4.8
Benzo (ghi) perylene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(191-24-2)
4'9
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
❑
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(207-08-9)
4.10
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
El
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(111-91-1)
4.11
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
El
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(111-44-4)
4.12
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(102-80-1)
4.13
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
8
1
Mass
lb/day
0.03
1
(117-81-7)
4.14
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(101-55-3)
4.15
Butyl benzyl phthalate
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(85-68-7)
4.16
2-chloronaphthalene
✓❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.6
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.003
1
(91-58-7)
4.17
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.8
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.003
1
(7005-72-3)
4.18
Chrysene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(218-01-9)
4.19
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
❑
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(53-70-3)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 16

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •'
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
(if available)
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
4.20
12-dichlorobenzene
IZI
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(95-50-1)
4.21
1,3-dichlorobenzene
❑
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(541-73-1)
4.22
1,4-dichlorobenzene
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(106-46-7)
4.23
3 3-dichlorobenzidine
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(91-94-1)
4.24
Diethyl phthalate
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.3
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.001
1
(84-66-2)
4.25
Dimethyl phthalate
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.5
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.002
1
(131-11-3)
4.26
Di-n-butyl phthalate
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.9
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.004
1
(84-74-2)
4.27
2,4-dinitrotoluene
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(121-14-2)
4.28
2,6-dinitrotoluene
❑✓
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(606-20-2)
4.29
Di-n-octyl phthalate
❑✓
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.5
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.002
1
(117-84-0)
4.30
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
❑✓
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(as azobenzene) (122-66-7)
4.31
Fluoranthene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(206-44-0)
4.32
Fluorene
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.08
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0003
1
(86-73-7)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 17

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Avaluee
of
(required)
( available)
Discharge
Analyses
Analyses
if available
4.33
Hexachlorobenzene
Concentration
ug/L
<1
<1
<0.8
2
Mass
lb/day
<0.006
<0.006
<0.004
2
(118-74-1)
4.34
Hexachlorobutadiene
❑
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(87 68 3)
4.35
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
❑
❑
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(77-47-4)
4.36
Hexachloroethane
❑
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(67-72-1)
4.37
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
R1
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.07
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0003
1
(193-39-5)
4.38
Isophorone
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(78-59-1)
4.39
Naphthalene
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(91-20-3)
4.40
Nitrobenzene
❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(98-95-3)
4.41
N-nitrosodimethylamine
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.4
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.002
1
(62-75-9)
4.42
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(621-64-7)
4.43
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(86-30-6)
4.44
Phenanthrene
✓❑
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.09
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0004
1
(85-01-8)
4.45
Pyrene
IZI
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(129-00-0)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 18

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •'
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
14.46
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
( available)
Discharge
Analyses
Analyses
if available
1 2 4-trichIorobenzene
❑
ElConcentration
ug/L
<0.2
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0009
1
(120-82-1)
Section 5.Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction
-Pesticides)
5.1
Aldrin
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00468
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000200
1
(309-00-2)
5.2
a-BHC
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0112
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000479
1
(319-84-6)
5.3
R-BHC
IZIConcentration
ug/L
<0.0431
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000184
1
(319-85-7)
5.4
y-BHC
IZIEl
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00487
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000208
1
(58-89-9)
5.5
b-BHC
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0103
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000441
1
(319-86-8)
5.6
Chlordane
0
El
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.217
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000928
1
(57-74-9)
5.7
4 4'-DDT
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000400
1
(50-29-3)
5.8
4 4'-DDE
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0187
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000800
1
(72-55-9)
5.9
4 4'-DDD
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00843
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000361
1
(72-54-8)
5.10
Dieldrin
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00749
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000320
1
(60-57-1)
5.11
a-endosulfan
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00281
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000120
1
(115-29-7)
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 19

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
Pollutant/Parameter
(and CAS Number, if available)
•
Testing
Required
• 1 •'
Presence or Absence
check one
• '• 1
Units
(specify)
Effluent
Intake
(optional)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
(required)
Maximum
Monthly
Discharge
(if available)
Long -Term
Average
Daily
Discharge
if available
Number
of
Analyses
Long -
Term
Average
Value
Number
of
Analyses
5.12
R-endosulfan
(115-29-7)
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00918
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000393
1
5.13
Endosulfan sulfate
(1031-07-8)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000400
1
5.14
Endrin
(72-20-8)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00843
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000361
1
5.15
Endrin aldehyde
(7421-93-4)
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00852
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000365
1
5.16
Heptachlor
(76-44-8)
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00749
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000320
1
5.17
Heptachlor epoxide
(1024-57-3)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.00468
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0000200
1
5.18
PCB-1242
(53469-21-9)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000400
1
5.19
PCB-1254
(11097-69-1)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000400
1
5.20
PCB-1221
(11104-28-2)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000400
1
5.21
PCB-1232
(11141-16-5)
0
El
El
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000400
1
5.22
PCB-1248
(12672-29-6)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000400
1
5.23
PCB-1260
(11096-82-5)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000400
1
5.24
PCB-1016
(12674-11-2)
0
Concentration
ug/L
<0.0936
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.000400
1
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 20

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NCO003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
• 1
•
• 1 •
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Intake
check one
Effluent
(optional)
Pollutant/Parameter
Testing
Units
Maximum
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -
(and CAS Number, if available)
Required
Believed
Believed
(specify)
Daily
Monthly
Average
Number
Term
Number
Present
Absent
Discharge
Discharge
Daily
of
Average
of
(required)
(if available)
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
Toxaphene
5.25
❑✓
❑
❑
Concentration
ug/L
<0.332
1
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.00142
1
(8001-35-2)
1 Sampling shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 21

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NCO003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
Intake
Presence or Absence
check one
Effluent
(Optional)
Pollutant
Believed
Believed
Units
(specify)
Maximum Daily
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -Term
Present
Absent
Discharge
Monthly
Average Daily
Number of
Average
Number of
(required)
Discharge
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
if available
❑ Check here if you believe all pollutants on Table C to be present in your discharge from the noted outfall. You need not complete the "Presence or Absence" column of Table C for
each pollutant.
❑ Check here if you believe all pollutants on Table C to be absent in your discharge from the noted outfall. You need not complete the 'Presence or Absence" column of Table C for
each pollutant.
1
Bromide
❑
Concentration
mg/L
<1.3
1
Mass
lb/day
<5.6
1
(24959-67-9)
2.
Chlorine, total
❑
Concentration
mg/L
0.24
1
Mass
lb/clay
1.0
1
residual
3.
Color
❑
Concentration
CP
5
1
Mass
n/a
4.
Fecal coliform
❑�
El
Concentration
col/dL
14
1
Mass
n/a
5
Fluoride
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L
1.1
1
Mass
lb/day
4.7
1
(16984-48-8)
6
Nitrate -nitrite
❑✓
El
Concentration
mg/L
7.0
1
Mass
lb/day
30
1
7.
Nitrogen, total
❑
Concentration
mg/L
0.78
1
Mass
lb/day
3.34
1
organic (as N)
8.
Oil and grease
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
19
Mass
lb/clay
<26.4
<26.4
<20.7
19
9.
Phosphorus (as
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L
12.4
1
Mass
lb/clay
53.1
1
P), total (7723-14-0)
10.
Sulfate (as SO4)
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L
825
1
Mass
lb/clay
3530
1
(14808-79-8)
11.
Sulfide (as S)
❑✓
El
Concentration
mg/L
<0.70
1
Mass
lb/day
<3.0
1
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 23

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
)ES Permit Number Facility Name
NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works
ill Number
001
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE
C. CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL
AND NON•
• •• i
■
ant
V
Presence or Absence
check one
Units
(specify)
Effluent
Intake
(Optional)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Maximum Daily
Discharge
(required)
Maximum
Monthly
Discharge
if available
Long -Term
Average Daily
Discharge
if available
Number of
Analyses
Long -Term
Average
Value
Number of
Analyses
12
Sulfite (as S03)
(14265-45-3)
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L
<2
1
Mass
lb/day
<8
1
13.
Surfactants
❑�
Concentration
mg/L
<0.040
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.17
1
14.
Aluminum, total
(7429-90-5)
❑✓
Concentration
mg/L
<0.153
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.655
1
15.
Barium, total
(7440-39-3)
Concentration
mg/L
0.0107
1
Mass
lb/day
0.0458
1
16.
Boron, total
(7440-42-8)
✓❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L
0.0239
1
Mass
lb/day
0.102
1
17.
Cobalt, total
(7440-48-4)
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L
0.00063
1
Mass
lb/day
0.0027
1
18
Iron total
(7439-89-6)
❑✓
Concentration
mg/L
0.128
1
Mass
lb/day
0.548
1
19
Magnesium, total
(7439-95-4)
Concentration
mg/L
3.32
1
Mass
lb/day
14.2
1
20
Molybdenum,
total
7439-98-7
El
Concentration
mg/L
0.00067
1
Mass
lb/day
0.0029
1
21
Manganese, total
(7439-96-5)
El
Concentration
mg/L
0.0415
1
Mass
lb/day
0.178
1
22
Tin, total
(7440-31-5)
0
Concentration
mg/L
<0.00060
1
Mass
lb/day
<0.0026
1
23
Titanium, total
(7440-32-6)
0
El
Concentration
mg/L
0.0078
1
Mass
lb/day
0.034
1
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 24

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
)ES Permit Number Facility Name
NCO003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
001
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
Intake
Presence or Absence
check one
Effluent
(Optional)
Pollutant
Believed
Believed
Units
(specify)
Maximum Daily
Maximum
Long -Term
Long -Term
Present
Absent
Discharge
Monthly
Average Daily
Number of
Average
Number of
(required)
Discharge
Discharge
Analyses
Value
Analyses
if available
if available
24.
Radioactivity Error
Alpha, total
El
❑✓
Concentration
pCi/L
<-0.21
1
1
Mass
uCi/day
<0.412
1
Beta, total
❑✓
ElConcentration
pCi/L
5.16
1
Mass
uCi/day
10.1
1
Radium, total
❑
Concentration
pCi/L
<0.936
1
Mass
uCi/day
<1.84
1
Radium 226, total
❑✓
❑
Concentration
pCi/L
<0.694
1
Mass
uCi/day
<1.36
1
1 Sampling shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 25

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
1 'I• 1 • I
Presence or Absence
Pollutant check one Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge (specify units)
Present Absent
1.
Asbestos
❑
❑✓
2.
Acetaldehyde
❑
❑✓
3.
Allyl alcohol
❑
❑✓
4.
Allyl chloride
❑
❑✓
5.
Amyl acetate
❑
❑✓
6.
Aniline
❑
❑✓
7.
Benzonitrile
❑
❑✓
8.
Benzyl chloride
❑
❑✓
9.
Butyl acetate
❑
❑✓
10.
Butylamine
❑
❑✓
11.
Captan
❑
❑✓
12.
Carbaryl
❑✓
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
13.
Carbofuran
❑
❑✓
14.
Carbon disulfide
❑
❑✓
15.
Chlorpyrifos
❑
❑✓
16.
Coumaphos
❑
❑✓
17.
Cresol
❑
❑✓
18.
Crotonaldehyde
❑
❑✓
19.
Cyclohexane
❑
❑✓
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 27

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
1 '1• 1 • I
Presence or Absence
Pollutant check one Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed (specify units)
Present Absent
20.
2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
❑✓
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
21.
Dlazlnon
❑✓
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
22.
Dicamba
❑✓
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
23.
Dichlobenil
❑
24.
Dichlone
❑
25.
2,2-dichloropropionic acid
❑
26.
Dichlorvos
❑
❑✓
27.
Diethyl amine
❑
❑✓
28.
Dimethyl amine
❑
❑✓
29.
Dintrobenzene
❑
❑✓
30.
Diquat
❑
❑✓
31.
Disulfoton
❑
❑✓
32.
Dluron
✓❑
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
33.
Epichlorohydrin
❑
❑✓
34.
Ethion
❑
❑✓
35.
Ethylene diamine
❑
❑✓
36.
Ethylene dibromide
❑
❑✓
37.
Formaldehyde
❑✓
❑
Used at Site, may potentially be present. See attachment F5 & F8
38.
Furfural
❑
❑✓
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 28

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
1 'I• 1 • I
Presence or Absence
Pollutant check one Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge (specify units)
Present Absent
39.
Guthion
❑
❑✓
40.
Isoprene
❑
❑✓
41.
Isopropanolamine
❑
❑✓
42.
Kelthane
❑
❑✓
43.
Kepone
❑
❑✓
44.
Malathion
❑✓
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
45.
Mercaptodimethur
❑
❑✓
46.
Methoxychlor
❑
❑✓
47.
Methyl mercaptan
❑
❑✓
48.
Methyl methacrylate
❑✓
❑
Used at Site, may potentially be present. See attachment F5
49.
Methyl parathion
❑
❑✓
50.
Mevinphos
❑
❑✓
51.
Mexacarbate
❑
❑✓
52.
Monoethyl amine
❑
❑✓
53.
Monomethyl amine
❑
❑✓
54.
Naled
❑
❑✓
55.
Naphthenic acid
❑
❑✓
56.
Nitrotoluene
❑
❑✓
57.
Parathion
❑
✓❑
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 29

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
1 'I• 1 • I
Presence or Absence
Pollutant check one Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge (specify units)
Present Absent
58.
Phenolsulfonate
❑
❑✓
59.
Phosgene
❑
❑✓
60.
Propargite
❑
❑✓
61.
Propylene oxide
❑
✓❑
62.
Pyrethrins
❑✓
❑
Used at Site, may potentially be present. See attachment F8
63.
Quinoline
❑
❑✓
64.
Resorcinol
❑
❑✓
65.
Strontium
❑✓
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
66.
Strychnine
❑
❑✓
67.
Styrene
❑✓
❑
May potentially be present in water intake. See attachment F9.3
68
2,4 5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
❑
69.
TDE (tetrachlorodiphenyl ethane)
❑
❑✓
70.
2,4,5-TP [2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)
ro anoic acid]
El
❑✓
71.
Trichlorofon
❑
❑✓
72.
Triethanolamine
❑
❑✓
73.
Triethylamine
❑✓
❑
Used at Site, may potentially be present. See attachment F5
74.
Trimethylamine
❑
❑✓
75.
Uranium
❑
❑✓
76.
Vanadium
❑
❑✓
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 30

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name Outfall Number
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NCO003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works 001
OMB No. 2040-0004
1 'I•
1 •
lP
Presence or Absence
Pollutant
check one
Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge
Available Quantitative Data
Believed
Believed
(specify units)
Present
Absent
77.
Vinyl acetate
❑
✓❑
78.
Xylene
❑
✓❑
79.
Xylenol
❑
✓❑
80.
Zirconium
❑✓
❑
Used at Site, may potentially be present. See attachment F5
1 Sampling shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 31

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works 001 OMB No. 2040-0004
TCDD
Presence or
Congeners
Absence
Pollutant
check one
Results of Screening Procedure
Used or
Believed Believed
Manufactured
Present Absent
Outfall sample was analyzed via Method 1613B "Dioxins and Furans (HRGC/HRMS)" with a result of no
2,3,7,8-TCDD
❑
❑
Q
detectable 2,3,7,8-TCDD at an analytical reporting level of 9.5 pg/L.
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 33

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B
FORM 2C FOR OUTFALLS 002
November 2019

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
Form U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2C NeW EPA Application for NPDES Permit to Discharge Wastewater
NPDES I`''! EXISTING MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING, AND SILVICULTURE OPERATIONS
SECTIONOUTFALL LOCATIONI
1.1 Provide information on each of the facility's outfalls in the table below.
Outfa
Nu ber Receiving Water Name Latitude Longitude
p
J
7
O
SECTION
1- I
a, 2.1 Have you attached a line drawing to this application that shows the water flow through your facility with a water
balance? (See instructions for drawing requirements. See Exhibit 2C-1 at end of instructions for example.)
J L
o ❑ Yes ❑ No
SECTION• 1 I
3.1 For each outfall identified under Item 1.1, provide average flow and treatment information. Add additional sheets if
necessary.
**Outfall Number** 002
Operations Contributing to Flow
Operation Average Flow
mgd
mgd
d
mgd
N mgd
3
0 Treatment Units
a, Description Code from Final Disposal of Solid or
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit, Table 2C-1 Liquid Wastes Other Than
> retention time, etc.) by Discharge
Content not filled in here is provided in the 2C form filled in for Outfall 001
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 1

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
3.1
**Outfall Number** 002
cont.
F Operations,
Operation Average Flow
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Table 2C-1
Liquid Wastes Other Than
retention time, etc.)
by Discharge
0
U
c
m
E
iv
m
L
**Outfall Number**
Operations Contributing
to Flow
o
Operation
Average Flow
LL-
a,
mgd
L
Qi
<
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Table 2C-1
Liquid Wastes Other Than
retention time, etc.)
by Discharge
3.2
Are you applying for an NPDES permit to operate a privately owned treatment works?
12
❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 4.
N3.3
Have you attached a list that identifies each user of the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Content not filled in here is provided in the 2C form filled in for Outfall 001
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 2

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION• I
4.1 Except for storm runoff, leaks, or spills, are any discharges described in Sections 1 and 3 intermittent or seasonal?
❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 5.
4.2
Provide information
on intermittent or seasonal flows for each applicable outfall. Attach additional pages, if n cessary.
Outfall
Operation
Frequency
Flow
Rate
Average
Average
Long -Term
Maximum
Number
(list)
Duration
Da sMeek
MonthsNear
Average
Dail
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
o
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
U_
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
E
a�
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
c
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week
months/year
mgd
mgd
days
days/week months/year mgd mgd days
SECTION•••1
• I
5.1
Do any effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) promulgated by EPA under Section 304 of the CWA apply to your facility?
❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 6.
5.2
Provide the following information on applicable ELGs.
ELG Category
ELG Subcategory
Regulatory Citation
w
d
cc
0
Q
o-
a
5.3
Are any of the applicable ELGs expressed in terms of production (or other measure of operation)?
❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 6.
0
w
5.4
Provide an actual measure of daily production expressed in terms and units of applicable ELGs.
J
Outfall
Operation, Product or Material
Quantity per Day
Unit of
-0
Number
Measure
ca
ca
m
0
0
L
d
Content not filled in here is provided in the 2C form filled in for Outfall 001
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 3

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION 6. ' • I
6.1 Are you presently required by any federal, state, or local authority to meet an implementation schedule for constructing,
upgrading, or operating wastewater treatment equipment or practices or any other environmental programs that could
affect the discharges described in this application?
❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Item 6.3.
6.2
Briefly identify each applicable project in the table below.
Affected
Final Compliance Dates
E
Brief Identification and Description of
Outfalls
Source(s) of
oProject
(list outfall
Discharge
Required
Projected
CL
number
E
c
4)
N
R
i
CL
Q
6.3
Have you attached sheets describing any additional water pollution control programs (or other environmental projects
that may affect your discharges) that you now have underway or planned? (optional item)
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
SECTION
7. EFFLUENT AND INTAKE CHARACTERISTICS i
See the instructions to determine the pollutants and parameters you are required to monitor and, in turn, the tables you must
complete. Not all applicants need to complete each table.
Table A. Conventional and Non -Conventional Pollutants
7.1
Are you requesting a waiver from your NPDES permitting authority for one or more of the Table A pollutants for any of
your outfalls?
❑ Yes ❑ No -* SKIP to Item 7.3.
7.2
If yes, indicate the applicable outfalls below. Attach waiver request and other required information to the application.
Outfall Number Outfall Number Outfall Number
7.3
Have you completed monitoring for all Table A pollutants at each of your outfalls for which a waiver has not been
y
requested and attached the results to this application package?
L
2
No; a waiver has been requested from my NPDES
❑ Yes ❑
permitting authority for all pollutants at all outfalls.
Table B.
Toxic Metals, Cyanide, Total Phenols, and Organic Toxic Pollutants
7.4
Do any of the facility's processes that contribute wastewater fall into one or more of the primary industry categories
=
listed in Exhibit 2C-3? (See end of instructions for exhibit.)
❑ Yes ❑ No -* SKIP to Item 7.8.
7.5
Have you checked "Testing Required" for all toxic metals, cyanide, and total phenols in Section 1 of Table B?
LU
❑ Yes ❑ No
7.6
List the applicable primary industry categories and check the boxes indicating the required GC/MS fraction(s) identified
in Exhibit 2C-3.
Primary Industry Category
Required GC/MS Fraction(s)
Check applicable boxes.)
❑ Volatile ❑ Acid ❑ Base/Neutral ❑ Pesticide
❑ Volatile ❑ Acid ❑ Base/Neutral ❑ Pesticide
❑ Volatile ❑ Acid ❑ Base/Neutral ❑ Pesticide
Content not filled in here is provided in the 2C form filled in for Clutfall 001
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 4

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
7.7
Have you checked "Testing Required" for all required pollutants in Sections 2 through 5 of Table B for each of the
GC/MS fractions checked in Item 7.6?
❑ Yes ❑ No
7.8
Have you checked "Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed in Sections 1 through 5 of Table B
where testing is not required?
❑ Yes ❑ No
7.9
Have you provided (1) quantitative data for those Section 1, Table B, pollutants for which you have indicated testing is
required or (2) quantitative data or other required information for those Section 1, Table B, pollutants that you have
indicated are `Believed Present' in your discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
7.10
Does the applicant qualify for a small business exemption under the criteria specified in the instructions?
❑ Yes -* Note that you qualify at the top of Table B, ❑ No
then SKIP to Item 7.12.
7.11
Have you provided (1) quantitative data for those Sections 2 through 5, Table B, pollutants for which you have
c
determined testing is required or (2) quantitative data or an explanation for those Sections 2 through 5, Table B,
pollutants you have indicated are "Believed Present' in your discharge?
y
Aj
❑ Yes ❑ No
d
Table C. Certain Conventional and Non -Conventional Pollutants
7.12
Have you indicated whether pollutants are "Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed on Table C
for all outfalls?
U
❑ Yes ❑ No
Y
7.13
Have you completed Table C by providing (1) quantitative data for those pollutants that are limited either directly or
indirectly in an ELG and/or (2) quantitative data or an explanation for those pollutants for which you have indicated
"Believed Present'?
❑ Yes ❑ No
LU
Table D. Certain Hazardous Substances and Asbestos
7.14
Have you indicated whether pollutants are "Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed in Table D for
all outfalls?
❑ Yes ❑ No
7.15
Have you completed Table D by (1) describing the reasons the applicable pollutants are expected to be discharged
and (2) by providing quantitative data, if available?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Table E. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD
7.16
Does the facility use or manufacture one or more of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congeners listed in the instructions, or do you
know or have reason to believe that TCDD is or may be present in the effluent?
❑ Yes 4 Complete Table E. ❑ No -* SKIP to Section 8.
7.17
Have you completed Table E by reporting qualitative data for TCDD?
❑ Yes ❑ No
SECTIONOR
MANUFACTURED TOXICSi
8.1
Is any pollutant listed in Table B a substance or a component of a substance used or manufactured at your facility as
an intermediate or final product or byproduct?
3
❑ Yes ❑ No HI► SKIP to Section 9.
3
8.2
List the pollutants below.
1. 4. 7.
0
2. 5. 8.
fp
3. 6. 9.
Content not filled in here is provided in the 2C form filled in for Outfall 001
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 5

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION' BIOLOGICAL TOXICITYI
9.1 Do you have any knowledge or reason to believe that any biological test for acute or chronic toxicity has been made
within the last three years on (1) any of your discharges or (2) on a receiving water in relation to your discharge?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 10.
U)
U.
W
9.2
Identify the tests and their
purposes below.
.5
Test(s)
Purpose of Test(s)
Submitted to NPDES
Date Submitted
x
Permitting Authority?
0
H
INC Chronic Effluent
Whole Effluent Toxicity
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
06/06/2019
.0
2
Bioassay Procedure
performed quarterly
0
0
m
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
SECTIONi
CONTRACT
ANALYSES (40
10.1
Were any of the analyses reported in Section 7 performed by a contract laboratory or consulting firm?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 11.
10.2
Provide information for each contract laboratory or consulting firm below.
Laboratory Number 1
Laboratory Number 2
Laboratory Number 3
Name of laboratory/firm
Laboratory address
L
i5
0
Phone number
Pollutant(s) analyzed
SECTIONDD
• •- • i
11.1
Has the NPDES permitting authority requested additional
information?
❑ Yes
❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 12.
0
L
11.2
List the information requested and attach it to this application.
?
1. 4.
0
2. 5.
3. 6.
Content not filled in here is provided in the 2C form filled in for Outfall 001
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 6

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05119
NC0003573 OMB No. 2040-0004
SECTION 12. CHECKLIST AND CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I
12.1
In Column 1 below, mark the sections of Form 2C that you have completed and are submitting with your application.
For each section, specify in Column 2 any attachments that you are enclosing to alert the permitting authority. Note
that not all applicants are required to complete all sections or provide attachments.
Column 1
Column 2
❑ Section 1: Outfall Location
❑ w/ attachments
❑ Section 2: Line Drawing
❑ w/ line drawing ❑ w/ additional attachments
Section 3: Average Flows and
❑
w/ list of each user of
❑ w/ attachments ❑ privately owned treatment
Treatment
works
❑ Section 4: Intermittent Flows
❑ wl attachments
❑ Section 5: Production
❑ wl attachments
w/ optional additional
❑ Section 6: Improvements
❑ wl attachments ❑ sheets describing any
additional pollution control
plans
❑ w/ request for a waiver and ❑ w/ explanation for identical
supporting information outfalls
wl small business exemption
El El w/ other attachments
d
request
is
`"
Section 7: Effluent and Intake
❑
Elwl Table A El w/ Table B
Characteristics
0
❑ wl Table C ❑ w/ Table D
d
wl Table E w/ analytical results as an
❑ ❑
L)
attachment
❑ Section 8: Used or Manufactured
❑ w/ attachments
y
Toxics
❑ Section 9: Biological Toxicity
❑ w/ attachments
0
Tests
U
❑ Section 10: Contract Analyses
❑ w/ attachments
❑ Section 11: Additional Information
❑ w/ attachments
❑ Section 12: Checklist and
❑ w/ attachments
Certification Statement
12.2
Certification Statement
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name (print or type first and last name)
Official title
Signature
Date signed
Content not filled in here is provided in the 2C form filled in for Clutfall 001
EPA Form 3510-2C (Revised 3-19) Page 7

This page intentionally left blank.

�CD
25 CD
0 0
M CT
o v
CD
'O N
> O
z
C- m
CL
¢O
E
Li
CD
E
Z
Li
O N
L a)
CB N
E O
Z Q
CD m
Y o
IC ._
O
O
3
ELn
MNCY)
rlc-I
^
LLq
LD
O
O
Lq
Ln
LnU1
O-1
N
L17
00
Ln
0)O
i--I
p
N
lfl
t0
C
Ly
m
O
J >
Q
O N
L a)
CD
T
_
^
m
N
u'f
0')(71
c
Z Q
o
m
0
m a>
m
a,M Co
N
lD
�
O1
\
\
M L
aJ
N
N
m
O
N
-4
N
C
C
O N '-
p
_
a)
J >
Q
U)
w
C
W
o
E >+ w (
m
N
V
E CC
-m
U7
N
Ln
O
N
to
Ln
lO
m
m
_ i
!C O V >
—
V)
00
LD
n
lJ7
-4
01
N
\
C
\
C
IC rZ V1 m
N
7
O
Q
a)
E N
a1
�
d
O
N
Ln
CD
Ln
O
un
00
N
O
O
Ln
00
.X N
p00
�jLri
c-I
O
Nv
V
o6
N
m
l0
r,
rL B
O
N
co
m
ra
cu
o
E
E
E
E
E
o
ui
ui
>,
H
O
O aU
O
� w
co
O
O
-
7E
7E
C
U
C
U
C
U
C
U
C
U
CB
CC
C
N
N
C
N
N
C
N
N
C
V)
U)
C
U)
U)
N
•
Q
o
U
ca
O
U
ca
O
U
ca
O
0
m
O
U
m
c6
U
o
U
o
CA
CA
C/)
W
p
'a ^
L � 4
Z
•' U
• 7 C1
7
El
E-1
El
C6
a a
O
•
O
a)
a)
m
cc
7D
H
>
cu
O
'O
4
E
~
U)
C
• ca
_
�
O
Cl),
O
O
U>
O
c
E
E:
>
x
Q
0
'O
a)
7
cn_
_3
O
O
X
-c
U)
N
N
E:
E
_
co
•
LE
co
U)
U
CB
N
' X
� p
E: p
O-
CL
E
E
U
o
m m
a)cu
O
H
H
H
n
n
U
Q
N
M
N
a)
a)
O
0-
0-
co
� M
O �
N N
E N
N
a) �
U) L -
2 U
U
O O
N
O_ V)
a) O
O .O
> i
cn C
N CD
T Cn
c p
D L
U O
cn
Z
V1 �
Q d
CM CU
72 -a
O O
U U)
U
CCS
� a)
� fl_
U CB
-p U
C
U LL
U
o
N
L N
N �
CT
c �
CL
E:
CO =3
Cn ZS
rn

W O
O
O O
M Cl
O 'IT
N
OO
Z
CL m
CL
E O
Li
y H
cn
C
E O
Y �
C
Z Q
N
cn a)
w
o
N
n
m
"I
L!
�
1
On
C
E
en
�O
"1
0)
06)
Nn
O
Nl0 O
C6
O
O
-1OI�
O
OO
O
V
O0O
O
O
O
O
V
OO
,
V
O
O
V
O
V
p
O
vO
Q-
C.) '-
d
N
O
cn
E O -�'
U N
Z a
2'2
O R
O)Q)
N tm A- Z
O
co
V =
�
ci
a --I
rl
a --I
a --I
rl
rl
rl
rl
c-I
.-I
ci
rl
rl
a --I
rl
rl
c-I
c-I
ci
c-I
rl
_ > G y a)
c6 c6
O Q 0
O
J
N Q
7
c6
E R a)
O
p N
_ m
0 v
cu CD
>
O' N
N
km
T v
cc
^
O
l
Ln
O
l0
lOO
l0
' tt
c^O-I
mE
nV
'
O
-O
CD
O
O
O z
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
VN�
O
OO
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
Cv
CD
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VCD
C W
cn
O E
J
>'
J
?
J
?
J
T
J
?
J
?
J
?
J
>'
J
T
J
T
J
>'
i .�-.
O
\
00
@
\
00
@
\
00
N
-0
\
00
N
-0
\
w
N
-0
\
00
N
-0
\
00
N
-0
\
00
N
-0
\
00
10
-0
\
OA
0
\
00
m
-0
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
to
a_ U
N O
= a)
U
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c6
cc
(`
(`
cL
76
Z5
(`
(`
(`
16
c6
•
� Q
O
C
0)
C
O
C
O
C
N
C
d
C
N
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
N
C
0)
R
Q
U
y
U
to
U
to
U
to
U
�
U
u)
U
to
U
to
U
to
U
<n
U
cn
U Q
N
O
O
y
R
O
O
y
c6
O
O
y
c6
O
O
U
N
O
O
U
R
O
O
U
N
O
O
y
(6
O
O
y
(6
O
O
y
(6
O
O
O
N
O
O
U
c6
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
•
E N
O
a)-0
U
L.L O
N
> O
> fn
_
O d
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q c
0) Q
O "O
C
> _
n
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
y
N
E
•n
ma
a�a
in 7
• a
CD
>
Ny�
• If.
W
cu Q
E
•
C6 N
R
m
d co
(n O
� Z
�_
0) a)
2 O
E as
Co
>%
O m
U
d a
0-=
H
E
R Z
;� O
R
a)
R
Q
f6
7¢
O
p N
f�
M
00
O (p
C6 O
N
U
p)
U
Cil
OD
E M
O f�
O
(6
O N
O N
O
p N
• d-
Y O
O
O M
O
U M
O O
7
— 0
7
O
E O
lI)
Q O
CA
m
�' O)
O m
_ O
CD
O V
N
O
U
0)
�
E
.-
6)
�^
E
'p
Q
a Cl)
i M
a)
1
CV
d 00
N
U N
C ti
` ti
N
R ti
ti
O ti
0) ti
O ti
cG
U ti
N ti
>
Co
Q
Q
m
U
U
U
J
Z
U)
O
�
CD
�
�
O
❑
V
CD
r-
r-
r-
r-
r-
r

T O
o
o9
M O
O 'IT
O
N
0 0
Z
3
Z
c
0
U
w
a
d
W
L
d
d H
� T
E o
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
Y�
z a
R o
n
C) 0)
dl
n
V01
l0
O
O
Ln
O
e-i
Ln
M
O
O
O
O
lD
O
lD
O
O
a1 R
C L L
O
O
.--�
O
lD
O
a --I
O
00
O
n
O
00
O
1�
e--i
N
V
O
00
00
Ln
00
O
Ln
00
O
Ln
00
O
ul
00
O
O
J~
O
OV
V
rj
V
u1
V
p
i--I
V
O
O
V
O
O
V
O
O
V
O
O
V
O
O
V
O
O
V
O
Q
O
V
O
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
N N -0T
E o
� R
Z C
Q
d
d a>
L
H 0
MOM
N m
C
O Q
�
Q7
J
w
W
E T
3 s t`a m
E c s
R 0 0 m
0
0)7
V
Ln
O
O
O
O
V
O
C:)
O
N
C:)
O
N
O
N
O1
O
N
R
t '�
O
O
N
O
O
0
�
O
a-i
a --I
O
N
O
N
N
N
�
O
V1
O
r-I
O
N
O
O
O
00
t0
O
�
N
O
X Q U
O
O
O
N
O
V
O
nj
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r4
M
O
O
R N °�
v
O
V
O
OV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
O
V
V
C
V
J
T
J
T
J
T
J
T
T
0
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
—
\
toLo
\
\
uo
f6
-
\
00
f0
_
\
00
f0
00
\
0
\
�
00
0
\
�
0A
\
\
\
\
\
3
-2
-2
-2
3
2
3
Y
U
= N
h
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
v
CB
(6
(6
(D
@
N
CO
(E
(E
(6
CO
C6
•
C
0)
C
0)
C
0)
C
0)
C
N
C
0)
C
0)
C
0)
C
0)
C
0)
C
0)
C
0)
U
C
O
fo
U
C
co
co
U
C
co
co
U
C
co
U
co
co
C
co
N
U
C
co
U
C
co
U
C
co
U
C
co
U
C
co
N
U
C
w
to
O
N
O
03
O
03
O
M
0
N
O
03
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
03
O
03
O
03
•
U�
U�
U�
U�
y
U�
U�
U�
U�
U�
U�
U�
U�
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
s
E
c)
0 U
Q7
d =
N
U U
R
• C
•
•� d
a
a
m
c
o
w
C
CD
V
•
Y
0
L 9
d co
R
0 ca
E m
o
C
R
d
0)
cc
)
R N
U
N
d a
E
X
Occ
O
�
a
m
U
c
}' c')
�¢
O o
co
p
p
V
=
oo
0)
��
a>
N
�ti
O
��co
C
• d o
7 N
0
"�
O
�
•N O
•C M
C N
M
�O N
O 6
C
O
W
0) M
0
-
10
CV
p �
N
V
E N
p Ch
N
O G)
O
0 O
U
cu
CD
N
O I�
U O
�ti
p 0
N
a)O
lf')
03 O
O O
:E O
O
:E cV
O
:E U-j
O
N
M
V
N
Cl?
LO
CO
f�
00
a)CV
N
CV
CV
cV
N
N
N
N
ON
m
d
c,
M
CD
N
y
a)
U
N
0
M
E
`0
LL
d
W

T O
O
o9
M O
O 'IT
O
N
oO
z
Q
E
Z
O
U
w
a
d
W
L
0) �
fA
� T
E o
ci
cI
cI
cI
cI
c
cI
Y�
z a
R o
61
O
O
O
O
O
O00
w
O
w
N
LA
rO,
R0
Lf
N
Lf
O
^
OO
O~
L)C
N
d R
N
O00
O
O
O
O
O
ci
c'I
c'I
O
O
O
O
OL!
O
O
ONL)ri
c'I
c'I
O
O
J
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VV
VV
V
V
V
V
QL0)
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VL)
LH
N CD
N
E O
R
7 �
Z Q
d
d a>
L
O N m
C
O Q
�
0)
7
J
w
W
E � �
0
0)
7
T 2) o
R
O
Li)
-1 ri
M
M
ci
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
00
00
ri
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
tD
WO
tD
Wu1
O
ci
ci
t '�
O
O
ci
c I
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
c I
O
c I
O
M
O
tvI
O
O
O
X Q U)
O
O
r4
0
r-I
c-I
v
c-I
M
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
R U)V
V
y
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
� v
C
J
m
J
m
J
m
J
m
J
m
J
J
m
J
m
J
J
IQ
J
J
�p
J
�p
W
a
W
v
cn
v
cn
v
on
v
on
v
ou
tin
-a
--
en
v
up
o
--
on
�
on
a
on
a
Y Z-
U
= d
C
C
C
C
c
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
c
h
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
v
C
15
15
15
CO
N
(O
(E
(E
(E
(6
(
f0
•
C
C
C
C
W
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
O
O
O
0)
0)
0)
O
O
0)
()
()
0)
U
O
U)
U)
U
C
U)
U)
U
C
U)
U)
U
C
U)
U)
U
C
U)
N
U
c
N
U)
U
c
U)
U)
U
C
U)
V)
U
C
U)
V)
U
C
U)
U)
U
C
O
U)
U
C
U)
U)
U
C
N
N
O
N
O
Co
O
(B
O
Co
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
N
O
N
O
N
•
U
�
U
�
N
V
�
0) C
Q c
�
m Q
• L
O �
N �
V U
�
w
U)_
> m
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
N
• a
m a
a) �
d w a
CD
•
m
L 9
d m
0)
CD N
E m
N
c
s
R
0)
6
a)
CD
4)
C
CD
c
CD
a)
0)
O
O
CL
p
L
L
L
O
O
O)
0)
O
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
a)E
p
U
0
OO
p d'
M
L
d'
L L6
O�
� O
U
O
• a
O
O
c)�
CJo
Dui
:ELA?
Uri
Ur--
�v
�
Nv
Or`
L O
O
O�
L N
"O M
'O ti
M
"0 W
"O CV
�+ O
>ch
OD
fir`
00
L O
nj M
U
-
Lo
Lf')
N O
Lo
0V CO
M �
L_ O
N �
N
N Lf)
�
;
N�
U
_U
(5 ti
�~
—
�t
-ti
—LO
W
�ti
2
2tl
ti
CV
M_
�
L,2
f`
O
N
N
(V
N
N
N
N
N
_O
N
N
_M
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
0
E
`o
LL
a
W

T O
O
o9
M O
00
N
0 0
z
CL m
CL
E O
E
LL
E
Z
c
0
U
w
a
d
W
L
�
0) H
Y�
z a
R o
_ o
tm
61 w
1
m
Pn
O
m
N
mf
OO
NO
N
L
O
Ln
O
O.
OO
.
N
O
O
O
O
0
JC d 0
V
OO
V
OOO
V
c-Oc-
V
V
Oc-O
IC4
V
VO
V
V
V
V
VV
V
V
V
VOO
QRL
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
CD
N N
� T
E o
� R
C
Z Q
d
d a>
L
co
O N m
C
O Q
�
J
7
w
W
E T
E o
R O y m
0
0)
3 T R
O
VO
cl�
ME
t
O
O
O
N
OO
N
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
V
O
O
O
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
X
V
v
VO
VO
VO
� C v
J
m
J
m
J
�p
J
�p
J
J
(6
J
cc
J
M
J
m
J
mp
J
(6
J
m
UA
\
w
\
w
\
w
\
OO
\
OO
\
\
Op
a
\
\
OD
a
\
\
hp
-a
--
\
hp
-a
\
\
hp
a
\
\
OD
a
\
7
:
7
2
7
7
7
:
7
:
7
�
7
77
.
7
.
7
2
Y
U
= N
h
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
v
CB
(6
(6
(6
CO
N
(E
C6
(E
(E
(E
CE
•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
U
N
O
!A
a)a)4)
U
!A
U
!A
0
N
C.)In
0
N
0
U
!A
a)a)O
U
!A
U
co
U
fn
N
U
N
C
O
N
C6
C
O
O
ca
C
O
N
M
C
O
y
co
C
O
N
C
O
N
C
O
N
C
O
y
O7
C
O
y
O7
C
O
y
M
C
O
N
C
O
M
•
C
N
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
El
El
❑
a>
s
01 Q
m
O
Q
• L -
O Q
E
O
(D
U
d
El
❑
❑
El
El
Ela
El
El
❑
El
•
a
a
m
c
O
c •�
N
d a
L
c..i
O
•
w
m
�
L 9
d
R
d N
E>
>
Q)
a
a -a
m
o
cu
a>
x
c
vOi
E
C
>
O:IF
:IF
O
O
H
O
N
L
O
Q
N
U
Z
L
O
O
O
0)
3¢
U
p
M
a
y
U
U
a�
O
O
R
Q W
O M
s
0)
o
o
• a�
�°r
o°Oo
CO
.—L6
15C5
Cfl
o
a�
o�
moo
E�
•--• N
�Ln
•--• Lo
moo
C[6
ccLa�
L
N O
O
O
O
L?
a
N
r
00
�"' Co
7 0'
a L6
4
7
N
O O
CV LO
M
.V Ci)
C L6
C j
U Ui)
a
� N
� O
CO M
a
O
CV
N
N
�a
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
V
N
C'M
V
Lq
N
N
CV
N
N
N
N
CD
Cl)
Cl)
M
Cl)
M
V
m
a
CD
N
0
E
`o
a
W

T o
o
o9
M O
O V
N
0 0
z
CL M
CL
E
Li
E
Z
c
0
U
w
c
Q
d
w
L
�
E 0 O T
Y�
R
z a
R o
_ v
61 C9 R
M
�
O
M
Lo
I�
I`
N
M
oO
h
t`
N
coN
co
L i=
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(p
O
O
y R
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
V
CD
O
O
CD
Jy
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Q�
L
CD
cn
E o -�-
3 R
O
Z
Q
d
t a
L
H t
CD
m N m
C
C Q
N
J
7
E >,
w
W
E cLC m
C
N
X O V
O
R N coV
0
E
3 >, R Iv
M
I�
O
00
N
M
ti
O
-
N
O
O
N
O
M
O
N
O
I�
O
N
O
I-
O
N
O
N
�
CDCD•X
N
't
E�
ccV
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�p
V
�
V
OV
O
OV
O
R Ncr
a
� C v
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
J
T
f0
T
N
T
N
T
N
T
N
T
N
>
T
T
N
T
N
T
N
T
N
T
16
Y
U
= N
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
h
v
CB
(6
(6
(6
CO
N
(a
CO
(E
(E
(E
(O
•
C
N
C
O
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
U
A
!A
U)
nUO
na
UO
OUN
NU)
cn
UO
U)
UO
U)
UO
U,
UdC
Ucn
O
N
ca
O
m
O
O
N
O
M
O
N
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
NO
O
a
•
UU
UU
UUO
UUO
UUN
U
o
C
U
U
1 2
1U
U
1 2
1U
2
1
U
d
E
to
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q
�
S
m
• L
O—
�
Z
U U
d
C
dU)
El
El
❑
El
Elm
cn
❑
❑
❑
El
El
❑
2
• n
N
m a
c
o
R
•i
CD
(i
•
w
m
�
L 9
d �
R
CD N
E >
O
` w
o
li
CD
c
R
d�
O
p
C
U
•K
U
C
0
O
O
c
L
r
5
C
U
O
O
O
•�
N
N
a
,2 ¢
O
O ti
E
O
N
L
.�-.
COO
ti
N
CM
66
C
O
•
p Lf�)
OO
p 0
U O
O 6
m
Uc
LO
(ONd
p
RO
O
o
c
N OO
N LO
N Cl)O
co
'E
O00
M
OC
N
N
Nm
O
NO
N
4
0.IL —
IL
O
Q
Q
om
m
m!'
Cfl
I�
co
6)
O
f�.,t
NC?
LC)
CO
M
M
M
coC�
M
m
d
M
m
N
0
M
E
`o
LL
d
W

T O
O
o9
M C)Oo
N
0 0
z
CL M
CL
E O
E
LL
E
co
co
LL
m M
z r,
Ln
o
d O
O
O U
W Z
LU
z
Z
N
E
Z
c
m
U
w
d
d
W
L
�
d H
� T
E o
ti
N
N
N
Y�
z a
R o
vJ
R
n
ci
Ol
M
N
N
M
M
Ol
NOV
C i pR
O
O
O
O
OO
OOOO
pd
C)
C:)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
VO
V
V
V
V
v
O
V
O
O
O
Qd
H
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
CD
N N
� T
E o
ti
p R
�
Z
Q
d
d a>
L
H 0
MOM
N m
C
O Q
0 a
N
7
w
W
E T
3s
E t`am
0
d
3 T m
R
I,
O
N
O
0)
O
N
O
01
O
N
O
N
V
O
a)
O
N
O
0)
O
N
O
N
V
O
O
O
N
`.
N
V
O
N
V
O
0)
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
^
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
OV
O
O
O
R
� C v
T
T
>
T
T
T
?
?
?
T
>
a
J
OA
\
J
OA
\
J
OA
\
J
OA
m
\
J
\
110
ry
-a
\
J
\
110
-a
\
J
\
110
-a
\
J
\
OA
m
-Q
\
J
\
OA
m
-Q
\
J
\
OA
m
-6
\
J
\
110
m
-a
\
J
\
110
\
110
\
7
.
7
�
7
7
.
2
7
2
3
2
7
2
7
2
7
7
Y
U
= d
h
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
v
C6
(6
(6
(6
CO
N
CO
(E
(E
(E
(6
(6
f0
•
C
C
C
C
c
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
c
N
U
N
O
U
N
O
U
N
O
U
co
N
U
O
U
N
N
U
O
U
y
O
U
y
O
U
N
O
U
N
d
U
N
N
U
fn
C
O
O
N
C
O
O
ca
C
O
N
(B
C
O
N
m
c
O
w
N
c
O
O
N
c
O
0
N
C
O
N
m
C
O
N
m
C
O
co
m
O
O
N
c
O
N
c
O
cn
N
•
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C-)
C-)
C-)U
C-)
C-)
N
V
� _
d c
�
• L
O �
N �
C
U)
N
• n
N
m a
d a
•
cJ
m
CD
C
CD caN
E >
�
E
O
co
a)N
>,
am
O
w
a)
)
�
^
a
Q
�
5,
N
L)
d a
c
O
C
O
>,
O
L
Q"
N
L
d
s
� E
CQ
C6
L
p
X
L
Q
L
(c6
r Z
O
OL
a)
a)U
L
N66))
�OO_
NN
v�
O
LO
ti
M
OLO
CC
R
• d -o
CN
c0
c0
E Lo
-0 O
co
I
� O
C?OO
O6v
L6
O
N O
m�
O O
mN
N
m�
N
m�
N O
m�
to
m�
O
��
O Lf7
mt
U
NO
U CD�_
V ti
UN
Cl)
��
O
O
O
_
N
M
Ln
(p
1`
c0
O
m
a
a
N
U
N
E
O
LL
d
W

T O
O
o9
M O
O 'IT
O
N
oO
z
CL M
CL
E O
E
LL
E
co
_a
Z
m
LL
Q
Z n
E m
O
d O
M O
W U
p Z
a
z
E
3
Z
c
0
U
w
c
d
W
L
�
d H
�
T
E o
Y�
z a
R o
vJ
M
Ol
N
Ol
M
LO
Q
r1i
0)
cli
M
a)
a
M
00
rl
C i
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
v
O
v
O
vv
vvvvv
O
O
O
vv
O
O0)
vv
O
O
O
O
v
O
O
O
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
L cn
N N
� T
E o
� R
�
Z
Q
d
d a>
L
O N m
C
O Q
0
0)
7
w
W
E T
3 s
E
m
0
E
T R
ERA
N
V
O
O1
O
N
O
N
O
N
M
n
Ln
ci
m
N
C)
O
N
O
N
V
O
Ln
r-I
N
O
N
O
N
V
O
00
O
N
O
O
v
O
O
v
O
v
O
O
O
O
v
Ov
O
v
O
v
O
v
O
v
O
O
O
v
O
O
v
O
v
O
O
O
v
O
O
O
� C v
J
m
J
IQ
J
m
J
J
m
J
J
mp
J
IQ
J
IQ
J
IQ
J
m
J
m
J
m
\
0A
-a
\
\
G0
-a
\
\
h0
-a
\
\
G0
-a
\
\
U0
-a
\
\
U0
-a
\
\
0A
-0
\
\
00
-a
\
\
h0
-a
\
\
h0
-a
\
\
U0
-a
\
U0
\
U0
\
7
:
7
.2
7
7
7
7
7
�
7
�
7
�
7
�
7
�
7
.2
7
Y
CJ
= d
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
h
v
C
15
15
15
CO
N
(O
(E
(E
(E
i6
(
f0
•
C
C
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0)
U
N
O
U
N
O
0
N
O
U
U)
0)
U
N
0)
U
In
0)
U
(n
O
U
U)
O
U
U)
0)
U
N
0)
U
N
0)
U
N
0)
U
N
C
O
(nc
03
O
O
ca
c
O
N
(B
c
O
M m
I-
O
'nC
03
O
N
03
C
O
O
03
c
O
m m
c
O
m m
c
O
N
m
C
O
O
03
C
O
CU
03
C
O
N
03
•
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
L)
L)
U
U
0
0�
N
U
� _
d c
�
• L
O �
N �
t) U
� _
C
y
(n0)
• n
m a
d LT
•
m
L 9
d
CD ca
E >
CO
CO
a) N
w
d a
N
N
0)
a
0)
O
_
Ca
0)
0)
76 O
co
E
C
C
C
N
Lp
c
c
m
� N
R Z
-0
-0
�
(II
0)
0)
7
0—
O-
O L—
O
M
O N
O CV
O
0) O
L O
U 75
.--�
T �--�
T
O'N
• do
UO
L?
U�
U�
U V
7 CT
5,C6
15
��
a)
��
�
c�
ON
0C?
m V
a) Cl)
P�-
7
7
7 Cfl
9
.6
O CO
O
CV U-)
M '[F
� O
M
0
E
O
CO
O
M O
M
M
N
N O
R
LL N
LL M
.�
O
CV
co
't
Li)
CO
ti
00
O
O
N
N
N
CV
CV
N
N
N
CV
CV
N
M
M
M
m
a

T O
O
o9
M O
O 'IT
O
N
oO
z
CL M
CL
Q O
E
6
LL
N
Z
O
U
w
c
Q
a
w
L
�
d U
� T
Y�
z a
R o
v
R
Ln
Ol
N
M
N
M
Ol
N
I�
ci
N
M
mN
N
M
I"
N
M
Cl)
INOl
N
N
M
C i p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p d d R
O
OV
O
OV
O
O
O
O
O
OV
O
O
O
OV
O
OV
O
OV
O
O
O
O
O
OV
O
J H
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Q
L cn
N U
E O
R
7 C
Z Q
d
d a>
L
C t
O N m
C
0 Q
N
7
w
W
E T
3�
E t`am
m
0
E 0)
ERA
In
i--I
N
V
O
N
V
O
0)
O
N
O
I�
O
N
O
N
V
O
01
O
N
O
N
V
O
0)
O
N
�
O
01
O
N
O
01
O
N
O
N
'T
O
y
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
CDO
V
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
CDO
V
O
V
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
(L)
� C v
J
m
J
IQ
J
m
J
fa
J
m
J
J
mJ
IQ
J
IQ
J
IQ
J
m
J
m
J
m
\
UA
-a
\
\
Gp
-a
\
\
Gp
-a
\
\
Gp
-a
\
\
OD
-a
\
\
OD
-a
\
\
OA
-d
\
\
Gp
-a
\
\
hp
-a
\
\
hp
-a
\
\
Op
-a
\
\
to
-Q
\
\
OD
-a
\
7
:
7
.2
7
7
7
7
7
:
7
-.27
-.27
-.27
-.27
.2
7
Y
U
= N
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
h
v
C
15
15
15
CO
N
(O
(E
(E
(E
(6
(
f0
•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
U
U
O
U
U
O
U
U
O
U
U
N
U
U
O
U
U
d
U
U
O
U
U
O
U
U
O
U
U
O
U
U
d
U
U
N
U
U
C
O
U
N
C
O
U
ca
C
O
U
(B
C
O
U
m
I-U
O
N
C
O
U
N
C
O
U
co
C
O
U
m
C
O
U
m
C
O
U
m
C
O
U
N
C
O
U
N
C
O
U
N
•
N
U
�
d �
Q c
�
m Q
• L
O �
N �
> m
N
❑
❑
❑
El
El
El
❑
❑
❑
El
El
El
El
• a
m a
a) �
CD
•
d m
mca
N
d
N
C
C
E m
N
C06
_C
(p
d
C
N
O
Q
d
Q
C6
d
O
C6
E
E
O
co
aR+ Z
U
O
O
U
N
M
N
N
4)
C
C
'
Q
C
N
7
O
M
O
O
��
C
O
M
O
N
Cl)
O
O~
O O
O
O _o
• d
L
L
L
O
LO
U
U
OL
U
C
0 0
o
M
U f�
m cb
U DD
Ca CO
U
C6
U N
N ti
CM
M
O
Q LC)
O
L N
L6
O O
O lf)
r-
CD
.-+
O O
.••' M
N
C O
C O
6)
N ti
N ti
N ti
O
O M
.L-� 00
_.•..
C N
_
C N
C (O
L Li)
T CV
2
2°
2~
2�
�
~
Z
Z
Z s
Z s
Z °�
°�
.�
M
LO
to
I—
M
O
O
(V
M
LO
M
Cl?
M
M
Cl?
Cl?
Cl?
NT
00
N
U
N
O
M
E
`o
LL
d
W

O O
O
o 9
M Cl
O o
N
o
Z
Q m
O
E
Li
N
z r,
LO
E m
O
d O
M O
U
rwi Z
E
Z
0
U
w
c
d
W
L
�
41 H
T
E o
E
Y c
Z Q
R o
= p
O
M0)
Mn
(D
OV
N
(D
M
N
M
N
0(y
E
N
M
I,
O
co
1-1
mO
M
n
00
V
00
O
e
00
nlD
0)
W
N
00
"1
M
I,
N
ci
W
N
�Oa)
OO
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OO
N
MO
OO
CD
O
CD
00
O
O
O
O
O
O d cc
J~>>
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Od
Q
O
O
V
V
V
O
V
V
O
O
V
0
0
O
O
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
CD
N N
� T
EO
c-I
c-I
rl
c-I
c-i
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
a-i
c-I
a --I
a-i
rl
ri
r-I
a --I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
� R
Z O
Q
d
d a>
O7 L
HM .rutco
O N m
C
O Q
0
7
E T a�
w
W
E t Fu
O
R m
y
0
E
(D
N
0IN
M
00 l
I
O
(D
100
O
^
-
Ln
D
h
ci0)
EtNO
.0
`�
Ot
K*
"
O
N
"i
N
N
00
n�N
c-I
<D
0
'Ej
Q
O
O
0LD
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
0at
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0XOV
R o °)
V
V
O
V
O
O
OO
O
O
O
0,
O
OOV
V
VV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
J
(p
J
(p
J
(0
J
J
(0
J
J
M
J
M
J
m
J
J
(p
J
00
\
00
\
UO
\
\
-0
\
\
-6
\
\
-a
0
\
\
00
-a
\
\
00
-a
\
\
UO
-a
\
00
-a
\
\
w
-6
\
\
Lo
-6
\
7
�
7
:
7
.
7
.
7
�
7
:
7
:
7
�
7
7
7
7
Y
U
= N
h
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
v
(B
(E
(a
(6
(E
(E
(6
N
f0
N
(6
(E
•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
U
O
N
(n
U
I_-
(n
(n
U
C
(n
(n
U
C
(n
(n
U
C
(n
(n
U
C
(n
N
U
C
(4
N
U
C
(n
w
U
C
(n
N
U
C
(n
w
U
C
u)
N
U
C
(n
(n
O
(a
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
M
O
M
O
w
O
M
O
N
O
M
O
N
•
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
V
�
0) C
m
• L �
�
a) (D
c)
C
a)
y
T (n
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
• n
0)
m a
a
c
O
V
•
W
N
�
L 9
d co
R
CD ca
>
E
a
w
a�
E
a)
O
R Z
2
~
C
7
c�
•'
75 U
U
N
CO
f�
00
H
W
• d
M
_ M
2�
2 ao
r-
O N
M
'_O
'O N
0
0
LLO
U)
Lf)
N N
�j
"� O
m
m
M 00
m
L ti
-t O
N
N
_O O
0)
Q M
a M
CLC
j�
LO M
U!
VS
V t
~
O
a
O
N
Cl)
l!0
CO
00
O)
CD
f.t
d%
L.6
Ln
Ln
L6
L6
L6
ui
Li)
Li)ui
O
m
d

T O
O
o9
M O
00
N
0 0
Z
CL m
CL
Q O
LL
E
co
_a
Z
as
LL
4
Z n
E m
O
d O
O
w U
Q Z
CL
Z
N
Z
O
U
w
d
Q
a
w
L
�
Q1 H
� T
E o
Y�
z a
R
_o
C �-
O
N
c-I
w
O
ci
LO
m
m
w
N
m
O
�
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
"a-i1
OCOfl
cic0i-I
O
c--I
a) Cw
Nl
Ln
Vl0
Ln
V
Ln
N
�
OO
fl
1.0
LO
R
C L L
O
i-I0
OOOOOOOOOOO
cI0-W-in
O
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
OI
d R
J ~ > >
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
CD
N N
� T
E0
c-I
ci
ci
ci
ci
ci
ci
ci
c-I
ci
ci
ri
ci
ci
r-I
ci
ci
ci
ci
rl
ci
c-I
c-I
rl
ci
c-I
� R
O
Z Q
d
d a>
L
co
O N m
C
O Q
B
N
7
J
w
W
E T a> !E�
zi
E
R O y m
0
rn
Ln
O
O
Ln
rn
r,
Lo
I;TkD
'1'
Lo
N
O
Ln
m
Ln
cn
Ln
m
Ln
m
n
m
Ln
m
Ln
3'
M
00
-1
M
O
m
O
m
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O>NOlm
m
m
m
N
mO
N
R
K
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
OV
R N
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
T
?
?
T
?
?
?
?
?
?
T
T
J
J
m
J
fO
J
fd
J
m
J
J
m
J
J
J
J
fd
J
m
J
\
1
UO
\
\
UO
\
\
UO
\
\
UO
O
\
\
UD
t
-0
\
\
UO
\
\
UO
\
\
O.0
\
\
O.0
\
\
M
\
\
UO
\
\
UO
\
\
UO
\
ta
7
7
7
7
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
2
7
7
Y
U
= m
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
h
v
C6
(6
(6
(6
CO
N
CO
(E
(E
(E
(6
(6
5
•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
U
(n
O
U
N
O
U
N
O
U
y
N
U
N
O
U
(n
N
U
(n
O
U
y
O
U
y
O
U
N
U
0
N
0
U
fn
N
U
fn
C
O
N
C
O
O
ca
C
O
N
m
C
O
N
C
O
cu
R
C
O
co
co
C
O
co
co
C
O
N
C
O
N
C
O
N
m
C
O
O
C
O
CU
C
O
CU
•
ccN
cmm
L)
ccm
G
L)
ccm
G
U
U
ccR
G
o
ccR
G
o
ccR
G
N
V
a _
O) C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•� S
4)
�
• L
O �
N �
_
N
> m
�
❑
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• n
.N
m a
�a
y
d a
CD
•
m
L 9
d m
CD ca
>
L
a
a
,Z E
w
O
X
O
C
RZ
a+ U
=
N
T
L
fl
N
N
lfi
(O
L(i
N
3¢
75 U
O ti
R
— ti
aOP �
M
O
O M
I—
N
V N
V 61
L!i CO
M
N N
N 6
CO r
o0 67
� N
O N
CO co
CO
cu
N
N ti
N
N
N
N
O
• d
O N
C O
C 6"
U
U�
47
Cl)
�'
N
O
V
C Lf)
_0 Cl)
-0 N
-� N
d ui
0-
m
m
m
m
m to
m 0
m co
N�
OO
ON
~
C�
a)O
a) CD
UM
U�
U�
U�
UN
U�
UN
c2�
W
W
W
Ir—
2�
IL
a--
d--
d�
d—
IL—
I�
��
N
M
LL7
C6
ti
M
6)
O
CV
Cl)
LV
N
N
N
N
LC)
LLj
L()
L()
LC)
6
6
L6
L6
L()
Lo
LC)
LC)
N
m
a
M
ate)
U
0
M
E
`O
LL
n
W

o
_
_
2®
2 m
e
«
k>
m/
f
/k
_«
&a)
$R
0
®
§
2
��k®
vv
k
E °
z J
§_ &&
w § - s
6)
2
c»��!
o B-
q
E� &J
LLI
E
ft2J
;
o
\kco
/
§
ECc
2
CD
§a
23 �
v
ca
-y
\
\ a)
E
476
co
\
LL
«
/
\
,
�
� �
❑
-o±
)
[�
>
)§
§
(1)(nEl
7 \
® n
m
LU
/
. �$
5�
El
CD co
(\
\
\k
k)
- cc
2@
:
0
/ \
E»
-0�/
§
/
LU
/

O
0 N
O_ 9'
MoCl
L N
A
o
cli
E '�
o
U
ti
o z
—
Z Q
a>
Q m
co
Y
cu
co
Q �
16 0
O
Q
— o
E
O o
�i
L d
� i 3
C
� E
Ln
O
00
l0
Lfl
O^
rn
N
V
NO
O
N
m
Ln
V
Ol
O
p
Lo
00
O
ti
O
W
V
�--i
00
m
oV0
v
C>>
0
V
,`_'i
O
O Q
_ U
J
U U
C
C
O a)
N
O
N
Q
N
Q
,
O
E R
(D O
N
N
N
cI
N
N
C
C C
Z Q
CO N
d �
= d
9,
a>
.r
H
N
n
m
n
rn
-a.=
m
N +0-'
Q
O
c-j
a
O
00
O
O
r4
y
N
Z O
J a) 0
O E
O
Q
U OU
z
O
_
a
aCD
lJJ
7 tm -
C C
E i -w
O �
�
n
N
co
O
Ql
oy m
i
O
ci
a --I
�"�
M
N
m
O 0
O
O
m
a'
0 a�
�
0 o
E ca
m c
a)
m
m
M
u1
u1
ci
�/1
l0
^
N
�
M
v,
00
O
M
r
un
u1
O
^
v
i!1
N
v
V
M
O
^
m
rM
O
c-I
ti
M
lD
v
V
N
M
m rj
O^
OV
Zc
E
V
:1
E v
o O
C
LL
O)
L
L
J
T
J
T
J
J
T
J
T
J
T
J
T
J
T
J
T
J
T
N co
bO
-
\00
�
d
W
-0
0\.0
-0
0\.0
-
\00
-0
bD
-0
W
-0
bO
-0
a a
O
_
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
v! y
cL
N
to
N
N
cL
cL
cL
(B
t�
(i
•
i 'Q
cx m
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
a�
E
a) a)
U
O
N
U
U
U
U
U
O
O
U
N
N
U
N
N
U
N
N
U
U
U
U
O
O
U
O
O
w
U
cq
N
Z ^
Q
O O
C
O
C
O
O
C
O
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
E m
U U
a5 o
CD m
o Z
•
c
a> c
y
H H
E]
El
E]
❑
❑
❑
E]
E]
E]
El
ElLL
Z
a <
Q
0 0
�
Q
00
L O
C C
O v
(6 Ca
L
— —
d
m ca
El
a
m a
> >
a� m
Z
O O
fn -
v
E
C�6
O
U
lQ
O
O
O
O Z
co
co
W
Cn
w
3
N N
Q) O=
_
Qo
_
cz
r
ti
v
In ao
N
o
w 1�
co
a) m
O
U
N a0
E
c
m
0)
a
O
s
m
m
a
Q M-
a
E�
o a
`
Fao�
o?
a
o
c
o79
a)
79
a) CD
L N
O
a)
co
•--•
•--•
00
W
2
U
LL.
��
Z
Z O
O
as
cn
cn
N
M
V
1 6
co
r-�
00
6)
❑ ❑
Cl)
04
0)
a
,

�CD
CD
o
o O
ClC:,
0 0
N
O
Z
Q O]
Q 0 O
LL
N
Q
N
Z
c
0
U
w
d
d
W
o m
L d
N
� T
c-I
ri
ri
ri
r-I
ri
ri
ri
ri
r-I
ri
r-I
r-I
ri
ri
ri
ci
ri
ci
r-I
ri
ri
ri
ci
E R
Z Q
d m
y c
R o
Q
C O
RL
O
M
LrY
C"
^
VMcttOIl,
M
�°
O
O
O
r,
ci
O
N
Ln
O
0
M
O
ON
riI�
O
>V
VO
V
O
NO
LnO
O
OV
OOO
O
V
O
J
p 0
L �
0) N
_0 >+
E R
= C
Z Q
R a�
L co
y m
C
J > G
Q
C
N
W
�, m
E N m
C m
cc y m
Q
.R N
W
E R d
N
00
M
lD
w
l0
Ln
ry
M
M
00
N
�
O
3
N
V
r�-I
O
O
N
a
N
c-I
N
00
Il
Ln
O
O
ri
O
O
r-i
M
N
n
N
i--I
W
O
O
`�
O
r-I
l0
N
O
p0
O
O
00
fp a>
V
O
O
O
O
O
x 0
V
J
J
J
T
J
T
J
T
J
J
J
J
T
J
T
J
T
J
T
\
N
\
N
\
\
\
\
N
\
N
\
N
�
\
\
\
00
�
00
�
00
0
�
00
0
�
00
0
�
00
�
00
�
00
�
00
W
�
M
0
�
M
0
�
00
0
�
U
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0)
U
N
N
U
N
O
U
U
0)
U
U
0)
U
w
0)
U
M
0)
U
M
0)
U
M
0J
U
U
0)
U
N
0)
U
N
0)
U
EnC
O
N
R
C
O
N
R
C
O
N
R
C
O
N
R
C
O
N
(B
C
O
N
R
C
O
N
R
C
O
N
R
C
O
U
N
C
O
N
OS
C
O
N
OS
C
O
N
OS
•
0)
�
•
C
NN
❑
El
El
El
El
El
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
d
w
=
y Q
Q c
m
L Q
O c-
0) �
N N
>
0)
2
= N
L
�
m a
•
_
R
R
R
O
O
coO
CN�a�
N
m
�.o
N
oM
o0Q
N
o
�uc4
Nq
a�i
0)
cD
�u�
O
cQ
a
0)
UC
M
00
"
OD
C
C
m
c�
O M
co
O
R
C O
O
0 0
O
- 6l
C
GA
7+ — GA
C
_ O
O O
N
7 V
O
N
O v
V
N v
O�
V
O v
M
O V
M
co V
R M
O V
M
R v
V
C
2 V
V
Cn�
(n
Qr
mti
mti
Uti
—r
gt
g Or
2t
F-ti
F- ti
(V
00
O
O
CV
M
m
m
a

_
% $
~ Cl
~
E @
/}
�«
z
20
f§
e»
`0
��
§
2
(
{
q
m
2
§;/
j
a
g
v
f
c>
0
`
% 2
kCO
z
�
§cc ©o
�� ea
wIcca
ak2
/
= §
o-
>o
\
LU
E &2
E
X o ;
cc�22
�
99
-
E2 $
m7
\
%
k.0
e
\
?»
_%
_$
v
E/k
e
-
J
co
LL
m
u
c
c
u
ro
k
u
k
k
k
2/
-
k
k
k
\
0
/
/
/
-
-
)
®
o
n
S
m
c
o
m
c
o
m
/
k
/
k
/
k
/
k
\ §
b G
-
\
®(
\\
❑
❑
z
.
(D «
/ /
0-
CD a
(
/ (
❑
❑
D
�
5
k
co
:
u
#
2
\
7
E
E
L
a
/
/
<
%
2
/
CL
co
g�
2a)
E04
Z2
� ±
2LL
CD
CD cu
&U)
k0
k\
//
\0
kz
/ �
22
/CO
q
2 �
\2
_�
\h
k/
/7
5g
§
m�
Lo
/

T V
o
O
O O
M O
O 'IT
O
C N
OO
Z
CL M
CL
E
0
LL
Q
E
z
c
0
U
w
Q
d
W
f6
f�
0
d
(O �
c
CY
C'1 0_
a>
M
R
Q
M
Ql
LL
N
Y
�
E
(C
s
t
�
c>
N
C
o
N
C
Qj
V1
co
Y
d
�
ai
3
m
�
(a
v
a
o
a
°J
�
T
O
(/)
(6
Y
C
N
LL
Y
Q
Q
cu
d C
d
y
m Q
• Q o
L
O �
N �
L) U
a
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑l
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
ma
c
R
7
O
a
N
T
O
'a
mOO
Cco
O
U)
N
_0
p
U
O
N
"a
Q
aO
X
N
m
C
CD
N
U
>'
>'
'E
7
T
Q
Q
¢
Q
E
Q
¢
N
m
N
m
7
m
m
(a
c)
m
c.)
Ca
C)
(a
C)
L
C)
O
C)
N
M
V
LC)
CO
00
6)
C-�
C-;
4
L(i
CO
06
6i
rn
M
CD
U
N
O
M
E
0
LL
d
W

T V
o
O
O CD
M O
00
a N
0 0
z
CL M
CL
¢O
E
0
LL
E
Z
_a
Z
m
LL
Q
E M
Z LO
E 0
0 0
CL o
" U
W Z
0
CL
z
z
c
0
U
c
a
CL
W
f6
f�
0
d
�a
c
IC �`
CY
C'1 Q
a>
M
R
Q
M
M
M
M
W
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
66
0)
C
a)
a)
c
a)
c
N
c
a)LL
LL
cm
E
E
E
c
N
L
L
L
L
i
U
U
U
U
cu
16
f6
�
mto
v
v
m
v
to
v
M
Y+
n
N
N
N
r
N
N
Y
Y
M
Y
N
N
V1
(6
!d
(6
(6
�;
ii
C
C
C
C
N
v
v
v
v
a)
ai
y
y
y
y
CL
m
c
C
c
c
f6
:.
Y
10
w
v
a)VI
v
w
�
_
L2
Li
a
Ll
Y
O
C
d
N
Q
N
L
v
L
N
Q
Cl
T
O
ca
ca
to
ca
U)
(a
y
c
y
c
y
y
c
y
Y
lu
N
y
O
O
y
O
y
O
CL
0-
0-
CL
cC6
(CC0
(CC6
(CC6
N
G
G
G
G
D
m C
d
t�q
m Q
• Q o
L
O —
N
0 U
U)
>„
0
0
0
El
El
El
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
_
CL
da
00
a
cu
.DU
U
•
m
X
C
R
O
C
CD
U
m
7
L
U
O
a
p
C
O
.Q
O
a
O
O
c
C
O
N
Ls
N
0
a
ca
-
04
CD
D
CDO
C
U
(B
�,
O
-0
O
O
N
N
70
N
C
O
O
O
>,
CD
fE
C
C
O
N
N
2
mL
_U
U_
L
U_
LV
L
U_
UJ
E
C
_�
7
_N
2
U
>+
>+
O
`C
7
N
N
0
0
W
W
W
W
LL_
LL.
O
N
M
LL)
CO
I-�
c6
O
O
(V
M
1.6
CO
c6
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
co
N
cn
a
rn

�o
O
O 9
M Cl
C� 0
a N
o
z
¢O
E
0
LL
N
Q
z LO
€ o
o
O
CO U
w z
Q
3
Z
c
0
U
w
C
Q
LL
w
fa
f�
0
d
La
c
LC �`
C Q
CU
M
lC
Q
m
of
U-
N
LL
y
c
a)
C
Qi
tm
L
E
CC
w
L
LJ
L
U
(6
N
ate+
Y
�
C
ca
N
N
N
r
N
CU
Y
c
N
f6
N
N
�
�
L
L
L2
co
m
�
cu
Y
LO
a)
O
T
(6
E
d
T
�
O
—
c6
N
+_+
ca
N
Y
Nd
LL
Y
Q
(c6
�
G
z
y
m Q
• Q o
L
0-
4)
V U
a
❑
❑
❑
❑
El
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
d m
ma
•
c
R
7
a
CD
(a
E
o
E
_
O
Q
U
L
cu
0
V
a)
CD
fa
co
(�O
�,
�.N...
O
a)
I_-
ccc
T
O
i
CD
=
Q
Ca
X
O
N
E
a
O
L
�
_
a.
C
C
N
Q
o
cO
i
O
O
O
O
C6
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
ca
co
'�""'
ca
U
N
N
Y
Y
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
Z
z
IL
6i
O
CV
cM
4
L6
CO
1`
OO
O
O
N
CM
4
L6
CO
1�
Cl)
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
V)
N
0)
a
rn
M
a
CD
j
Of
N
O
M
E
`O
LL
d
w

T V
o
O
O O
M O
O 'IT
O
O N
OO
Z
CL M
CL
E
0
LL
Q
E
Z
c
O
U
w
c
a
d
W
f6
f�
0
d
LO �
c
LC �`
CY
C'1 Q
a)
M
R
Q
m
m
00
LL
m
U-
m
U-
Ln
LL
d
L
C:
E
CC
E
�
E
�
E
LC
t
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Q
I
I
Y
Y
C
(A
V)
N
IG
(6
U1
d
CL
L
L
Y
Q
(UY
(U
Y
N
N
Y
LO
O
U1
4)
O
n
a
a
CL
CL
E
a)
T
v
T
E
c
—
—
O
Y
Y
U)
ca
to
Y
Y
to
N
Y
Y
LL
-6
p
p
-6
C.
0-
a)
G
L
y
m
• Q o
L
O �
N
(i U
a
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑�
❑
❑
❑l
❑
❑l
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
D
❑
❑
❑
ma
U
N
U
X
co
=
O
X
(6
C
O
O
r_
C-
W
O
O
c
7
O
�
U
O
:E
o
CLO
o
O
LO
a)U
.2
.
O
6
O
C
N
O
C
O
.X
O
LQ
.�
U
U
N (6
C
.E
O
d
(6
U
O
co
(O
CD
0)L
O
C
L
C
H
H
0
C6
>,
5
j
'a
O
N
O
Q
O_
a
C
0
O
U
Lfj
LU
Lf")
d
d
d
CL
d
U)
U)
Ui
N N
F-
N
H
H
H
OO
oi
O
(V
CM
4
1.6
CO
f�
00
Oi
O
(V
M
LO
(.0
LO
LO
(O
CO
(O
(.0
CO
CO
CO
(O
(O
CO
1`
ti
ti
ti
ti
a
Of
N
Oo
M
E
O
LL
d
W

T v
O
O
O O
M C)00
a N
0 0
z
CL M
CL
¢O
E
0
LL
Q
m
z LO
. _ Ln
E o
d O
O
w U
0 z
a
z
f6
f�
0
d
�a
c
CY
C'1 Q
a)
M
R
Q
d
Ln
i+
C:
R
-C
�i
m
_N
y
C3
to
C
_
CU
r
N
y
(A
N
d
�
d
Q
�
o
v
N
�
?
.c
m
.r
v
R
o
CL
_
T
a
m
E
c
O
ai
.�
rn
ca
N
w
_0
a)
tV C
0
.o �
❑
y
m Q
�
• L O
O —
N
0 U
a
w
❑
❑
❑
❑�
d
ma
•
C
M
7
O
a
a)
is
c
E:
U
7
c
o
0
0
0
i
X
X
N
„
f--
00
CJ)
O
ti
ti
ti
00
0
ti
CD
m
CC
iz
c
m
c
0
sz
0
c
m
c
0
0-
O
T
N
C
C6
O
i
O
co
r'
LL
U
C)
v
Cu
c
a)
0
n
n
y M
O N
O N
E N
N
O �
Cn LL
� U
a T
U
O c
N
iZ cn
CA
a) .0
toi CD
T N
O
U_ 0
� Z
U)
o a
rn CU
= U
O En
U En
cu L
a O
a) Q
U CU
7 C--
0
c re
0
LL-
, U
�m o
� N
rn �
ZT �
C �
Q-0
E:
CU
C CS
rn

O O
C5 O
O O
M o
O
0 o
c
N N
pO
Z
O
_Y
CL
O
Q
E O
m
t
LL
Y
.3
x
v
m
L
�
x
N
V
C J
m �
0
7 Q
LL Ln
-0 Ql
ca O
C
N
�
O N
N
V
X >
N
s
(n
_O
CA
E N
Z O
m i
CL
O
y
'O —
� U
�'
CN
G c
_m ca
> c
O Co
N Co
? p
is p
m v
F7
m a0
3 �
a'
E
v m
m
Q N
Z
N
a
Z
m �
—
co LL
@ U
Y �
� Y
O a
_
❑
O
CD
d Q
r_ m
U
O
a
a)
d Y
N U
a
d d
❑
Z
ma
LO
E M
0
a oo
•
wU
p Z
•
p
m L
O
z
p
CD -a
❑
• U
~
M m w
o p c
U
c
�
•
p
3
U
z
�
o
3
—
°O
v
d
M
w
c
CV
_a
Q
LL
W
M
M
O
a
rn
U
N
O
M
O
LL
d
W

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT 13-1
WATER BALANCE LINE DRAWING
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
FORM 2C SECTION 2 : LINE DRAWING
ATTACHMENT 6.1
WATER BALANCE (Revised 07-02-2019) NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Flow Units: Gallons per Day NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Basis: (1) Outfall 001 long-term average flow rate data (December 2017 - May 2019) excludes 10 days of no flow.
(2) Outfall 002 long-term average flow rate data (December 2017 - May 2019) excludes 9 days of no flow.
(3) River water withdrawal long-term average flow rate was adjusted to balance the overall site -wide water flows.
(4) Filtered Water, Demineralized Water, and Non -Contact River Water Cooling Water flows, waters associated with solids handling, and evaporation rates are estimated approximations.
I -� Cape Fear River
NaOCI
Excess River Sediment
Water Bypass Removal Filtered Water
FILTERED 1,193,435
WATER SYSTEM
NON -CONTACT
RIVER WATER Atmosphere 50,000 (FUTURE)
COOLING WATER 5,000 f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
to / from
each Process I C
I 355,832 Demineralized 25,000
I
SEDIMENT I Water
BASINS i 305,832
I
PURCHASED
POTABLE
WATER
404,898
STORM -
WATER
DEMINERALIZED
�I
WATER SYSTEM
� I
F I
� I
....I Neutralized
� j Regenerate
I
I
Stormwater from
Process Areas
Non -process
Stormwater
SANITARY
POWER
AREA
BOILERS
(FUTURE)
It— — — — —
I
I Steam
I Condensate
and
Blowdown
I
2,875 111
I
I
I
I
AIR
COMPRESSORS
COOLING
WATER
(FUTURE)
I
I
I
I
I
Atmosphere
36,000
I I
ml I
r I I
I
�I
I COOLING
L WATER
TOWERS
al C
— — (FUTURE) _ — —► Potable Safety
Shower Water
I
too
I
I —
I
I
I
WI
36,400 I E
�I
LLI
1
I
KURARAY AMERICA
CHEMOURS
FLUOROPRODUCT
I
TROSIFOL(R) POLYVINYL
MANUFACTURING
I
BUTYRAL
PROCESSES
I
MANUFACTURING
PROCESS
T
(FUTURE)I
00
11
THERMAL
OXIDIZER
Off -Site
SYSTEM 28(
Disposal
LLI
(FUTURE) 542,440
I (FUTURE)
7,2UU
--*I
I
39,560 r.
I
I
i
I (FUTURE):
I
I (FUTURE)
.
Alternate
Future
1
� Discharge
Non -Contact Cooling Water
KURARAY AMERICA
SENTRYGLAS(R)
LAMINATE
MANUFACTURING
PROCESS
loration ACTIVATED CLARIFI- OUTFALL NOTE: The Outfall 001 long-term average
SLUDGE flow rate from December 2017 to May
839 WWTP CATION 001 2019 was 533,728 gallday. The
approximate 39,560 gal/day effluent from
the future thermal oxidizer system will be
routed to the wastewater treatment plant.
Evaporation 6,000 BIOSOLIDS 573,288 This should increase the Outfall 001 flow
DRYING to approximately 573,288 gal/day.
Biosolids Moisture 4— 750
(Offsite Disposal)
DUPONT POLYVINYL
FLUORIDE RESIN
PROCESSES
118.173
`m d
m m
�
m m
c
�
0 o
m
U U
o
c
U U
U
O
c
�
o a
Z Z
NOTE: The Outfall 002
long-term average flow
rate from December 2017
to May 2019 was
20,961,089 gal/day. Three
new flows are being
added to Outfall 002,
specifically the flows
from a future Cooling
Water Tower, from a
future Thermal Oxidizer
System, and from the
steam condensate for the
extra steam demand of
the future Thermal
Oxidizer System. The
combined flow from
these future units is
approximately 49,635
gal/day. This should
increase the Outfall 002
flow to approximately
21,010,724 gallday.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-1-1
WATER BALANCE LINE DRAWING OPTION 1
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
FORM 2C SECTION 2 : LINE DRAWING - OPTION 1
ATTACHMENT B.1.1
WATER BALANCE (Revised 11-01-2019) NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Flow Units: Gallons per Day NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Basis: (1) Outfall 001 long-term average flow rate data (December 2017 - May 2019) excludes 10 days of no flow.
(2) Outfall 002 long-term average flow rate data (December 2017 - May 2019) excludes 9 days of no flow.
(3) River water withdrawal long-term average flow rate was adjusted to balance the overall site -wide water flows.
(4) Filtered Water, Demineralized Water, and Non -Contact River Water Cooling Water flows, waters associated with solids handling, and evaporation rates are estimated approximations.
I -� Cape Fear River
NON -CONTACT
RIVER WATER
COOLING WATER
to / from
each Process
NaOCI
Old Outfall 002
1,440,0 00
Excess River Sediment
Water Bypass Removal Filtered Water
FILTERED 1,193,435
WATER SYSTEM
I
I 35!
I
SEDIMENT
BASINS I
PURCHASED
POTABLE
WATER
404,898
STORM -
WATER
(FUTURE) I r
---------
------------------------------►I
C
332 Demineralized 25,000
Water
rDEMINERALIZED
I
WATER SYSTEM
� I
F I
� I
....I Neutralized
� j Regenerate
I
I
Stormwater from
Process Areas
Non -process
Stormwater
SANITARY
POWER
AREA
BOILERS
(FUTURE)
It— — — — —
I
I Steam
I Condensate
and
Blowdown
I
2,875 111
I
I
I
I
AIR
COMPRESSORS
COOLING
WATER
(FUTURE)
I
I
I
I
I
Atmosphere
36,000
I I
ml I
r I I
I
�I
I COOLING
I- WATER
TOWERS
al C
(FUTURE) Potable Safety
Shower Water
I
L00
I
I —
I
I
I
I
36,400 I [
�I
LLI
1
I
KURARAY AMERICA
CHEMOURS
FLUOROPRODUCT
I
TROSIFOL(R) POLYVINYL
MANUFACTURING
I
BUTYRAL
PROCESSES
I
MANUFACTURING
PROCESS
T
(FUTURE)I
00 11
THERMAL
OXIDIZER
Off -Site
SYSTEM 281
Disposal
LLI
(FUTURE) 542,440
I (FUTURE)
7,2UU
--*I
I
39,560 r.
I
I
i
I (FUTURE):
I
I (FUTURE)
.
Alternate
Future
1
� Discharge
Non -Contact Cooling Water
KURARAY AMERICA
SENTRYGLAS(R)
LAMINATE
MANUFACTURING
PROCESS
)oration ACTIVATED CLARIFI- OUTFALL NOTE: The Outfall 001 long-term average
SLUDGE flow rate from December 2017 to May
839 WWTP CATION 001 2019 was 533,728 gallday. The
approximate 39,560 gal/day effluent from
the future thermal oxidizer system will be
routed to the wastewater treatment plant.
Evaporation 6,000 BIOSOLIDS 573,288 This should increase the Outfall 001 flow
DRYING to approximately 573,288 gal/day.
Biosolids Moisture 4— 750
(Offsite Disposal)
DUPONT POLYVINYL
FLUORIDE RESIN
PROCESSES
118.173
`m d
m m
�
m m
c
�
0 o
m
U U
o
c
U U
U
O
c
�
o a
Z Z
NOTE: The Outfall 002
long-term average flow
rate from December 2017
to May 2019 was
20,961,089 gal/day. Three
new flows are being
added to Outfall 002,
specifically the flows
from a future Cooling
Water Tower, from a
future Thermal Oxidizer
System, and from the
steam condensate for the
extra steam demand of
the future Thermal
Oxidizer System. The
combined flow from
these future units is
approximately 49,635
gal/day. This should
increase the Outfall 002
flow to approximately
21,010,724 gallday.
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-2
OUTFALL 001 AVERAGE FLOWS AND TREATMENT
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.2
SECTION 3. AVERAGE FLOWS AND TREATMENT (40 CFR 122.21(G)(3))
OUTFALL NUMBER 001
Operations Contributing to Flow
Operation
Average
Flow
Kuraray Americas Inc. — Trosifol® Manufacturing Process
0.2809
MGD
Kuraray Americas Inc. — SentryGlasg Manufacturing Process
0.0024
MGD
DuPont Company — Polyvinyl Fluoride Manufacturing Processes
0.1182
MGD
Stormwater from Process Areas
0.0496
MGD
Santa Domestic Wastewater
0.0232
MGD
Demineralized Water Regenerate Flow
0.0500
MGD
Air Compressors Cooling Water
0.0250
MGD
Surface Evaporation from WWTP Operations
— 0.0088
MGD
Evaporation from Biosludge Drying Operation
— 0.0060
MGD
Water Entrained in Off -site Disposal of Biosludge
— 0.0008
MGD
OUTFALL 001 Longterm Average Flow (Dec 2017 — May 2019)
0.5337
MGD
Thermal Oxidizer System effluents discharge FUTURE
0.0396
MGD
OUTFALL 001 Estimated Flow (with future Thermal Oxidizer System)
0.5733
MGD
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Treatment Units
Final Disposal of Solid
Description (include size, flow rate through each
Code from
or Liquid Wastes
treatment unit, retention time, etc.)
Table 2C-2
Other Than by
Discharge
Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Treatment: 28800 gpd
Water Scrubber Treatment lime neutralization,
2-C, 2-K,
crystallization, pressure filtration: 2880 gpd Caustic
5-R
Off -site Landfill
Scrubber pH neutralization
Equalization Basin: 850,000 gal. surface impoundment
for mixing and aeration. Approx. 0.589 MGD flow,
1-0, 3-E
approx. 34-hour retention time
Emergency Retention Tank: 175,000 gallon tank for
1-O
controlled mixingof untreated wastewater
Pre -Digester Tank: 250,000 gallon tank for aeration
and initial biological treatment. Approx. 0.589 MGD
3-E
flow, approx. 10-hour retention time
Aeration Tank: 1,700,000 gal. tank used for activated
sludge biological treatment. Approx. 1.597 MGD flow,
3-A
approx. 25-hour retention time
Clarification: 119,000-gal, 168,000-gal, and 679,000-
gal. clarifiers, operated in parallel. Approx. 1.597
1-U
MGD flow, approx. 10-hour retention time for the
679,000- al clarifier
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES
Dissolved Air Flotation: Approx. 25,000 lb/day wet
54
sludge
Rotary Filter: Approx. 25,000 lb/day wet sludge
5-C
Screw Filter Press: Approx. 25,000 lb/day wet sludge
5-R
Steam -Heated Dryers: Approx. 1,500 lb/day dry sludge
5-M
Disposal: Approx. 1,500 lb/day dry sludge
5-Q
Off -site Landfill
Approx. Flow Rate: 0.589 MGD influent + 1.008 MGD RAS = 1.597 MGD (approx.)
2 July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-3
OUTFALL 002 AVERAGE FLOWS AND TREATMENT
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.3
SECTION 3. AVERAGE FLOWS AND TREATMENT (40 CFR 122.21(G)(3))
OUTFALL NUMBER 002
Operations Contributing to Flow
Operation
Average Flow
River Sediment Basin water overflow
0.0450
MGD
Stormwater from Non -Process Areas
0.3553
MGD
Boiler blowdown and condensate
0.1162
MGD
Chemours Fluoro roducts Mfg. Processes non -contact cooling water
0.5424
MGD
Kuraray Trosifol R Manufacturing Process non -contact cooling water
0.1176
MGD
Kuraray Sen Glas R Manufacturing Process non -contact cooling water
0.0606
MGD
DuPont Polyvinyl Fluoride Resin Processes non -contact cooling water
0.0555
MGD
DuPont Polyvinyl Fluoride Resin Processes RO/CDI reject water
0.0443
MGD
Outfall 001 Effluent Long-term Average Flow Dec 2017 — May 2019
0.5337
MGD
Non -contact River Water Once -through Cooling Water
19.0905
MGD
OUTFALL 002 LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOW(Dec 2017 — May 2019
20.9611
MGD
Chemours Cooling Water Tower blowdown FUTURE
0.0072
MGD
Chemours Thermal Oxidizer System effluents FUTURE
0.0396
MGD
Steam condensate from additional steam demand FUTURE
0.0029
MGD
OUTFALL 002 FUTURE ESTIMATED AVERAGE FLOW
21.0107
MGD
Treatment Units
Description (include size, flow rate through each
treatment unit, retention time, etc.)
Code from
Table 2C-2
Final Disposal of Solid
or Liquid Wastes Other
Than by Discharge
Outfall 002: Final effluent discharge to Cape Fear River.
Approx. 21 MGD average flow
4-A
Chemours process wastewater disposed off -site as a non-
hazardous solid waste. A rox. 0.050 MGD.
4-D
Off -site disposal at non-
North Carolina facility
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-3 -1
OUTFALL 002 AVERAGE FLOW AND TREATMENT OPTION 1
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.3.1 _OPTION 1
SECTION 3. AVERAGE FLOWS AND TREATMENT (40 CFR 122.21(G)(3))
OUTFALL NUMBER 002
Operations Contributing to Flow
Operation
Average
Flow
River Sediment Basin water overflow
0.0450
MGD
Stormwater from Non -Process Areas
0.3553
MGD
Boiler blowdown and condensate
0.1162
MGD
Chemours Fluoro roducts Mfg. Processes non -contact cooling water
0.5424
MGD
Kuraray Trosifol(R) Manufacturing Process non -contact cooling water
0.1176
MGD
Kuraray Sent Glas R Manufacturing Process non -contact cooling water
0.0606
MGD
DuPont Polyvinyl Fluoride Resin Processes non -contact cooling water
0.0555
MGD
DuPont Polyvinyl Fluoride Resin Processes RO/CDI reject water
0.0443
MGD
Outfall 001 Effluent Long-term Average Flow Dec 2017 — May 2019
0.5337
MGD
Non -contact River Water Once -through Cooling Water
19.0905
MGD
OUTFALL 002 LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOW Dec 2017 — May 2019
20.9611
MGD
Chemours Cooling Water Tower blowdown FUTURE
0.0072
MGD
Chemours Thermal Oxidizer System effluents FUTURE
0.0396
MGD
Old Outfall 002
1.4400
MDG
Steam condensate from additional steam demand (FUTURE)
0.0029
MGD
OUTFALL 002 FUTURE ESTIMATED AVERAGE FLOW
22.4500
MGD
Treatment Units
Description (include size, flow rate through each
treatment unit, retention time, etc.)
Code from
Table 2C-2
Final Disposal of Solid
or Liquid Wastes Other
Than by Discharge
Outfall 002: Final effluent discharge to Cape Fear River.
Approx. 21 MGD average flow
4-A
Chemours process wastewater disposed off -site as a non-
hazardous solid waste. A rox. 0.050 MGD.
4-D
Off -site disposal at non-
North Carolina facility
Nafion Oil Water Separator (to Outfall 002) for the frick
brine chillers
1-H
Off -site disposal
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-4
STORMWATER RUNOFF ESTIMATES
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT BA
STORMWATER RUNOFF ESTIMATION FOR THE PERIOD DEC-2017 THROUGH MAY-2019
Precipitation at Fayetteville Regional Airport (FAY)
Precipitation (Sources: National Weather Service and US Climate Data)
Dec 2017
3.69 inches
31 days
Jan -Dec 2018
58.66 inches
365 days
Jan -May 2019
13.69 inches
151 days
TOTALS
76.04 total inches
547 total days
AVERAGE
0. 13 90 inches / day
Source: U.S. climate data [ www.usclirnatedata.com/climate/north-carolina/united-states/3
Source: National Weather Service [ www.weather.gov/rah/2018kfay ]
Source: National Weather Service [ https://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=rah ]
STORMWATER RUNOFF ESTIMATION
Process Area Stormwater Runoff to Chemours WWTP and Outfall 001 (estimated)
Process Areas which drain to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant
(estimated approximate acreages)
Process Areas Acres
FPS/IXM 6.50
PPA/SentryGlas 0.00
PVF 1.45
Trosifol 3.11
WWTP 2.17
Power 0.60
TOTAL 13.83 acres
(Source: Bladen County (NC) Connect GIS mapping)
NOTE: All areas are estimated approximations
https://bladen2.comectgis.com/Mai).asi)x
13.83 acres of drainage to Chemours WWTP and Outfall 001 (estimated approximation)
43,560 sq.ft / acre
602,364 sq.ft of drainage to Chemours WWTP and Outfall 001 (estimated approximation)
0.1390 inches rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
0.0116 feet rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
6,978 cubic feet rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
7.4805 gallons / cubic foot
52,199 gallons rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
0.95 Run-off coefficient for asphalt and concrete surfaces
(Source: NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual, Table 1: Rational Runoff Coefficients by Land Use)
49,589 gallons rainfall per day to Chemours WWTP and Outfall 001 (estimated)
Non -Process Area Stormwater Runoff directly to Outfall 002 (estimated)
0.1390 inches rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
0.0116 feet rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
283.00 total acres of drainage to Outfall 002 (estimated approximation) (Source: Bladen County (NC) Connect GIs mapping)
13.83 process acres of drainage to Outfall 001 (estimated approximation) https://bladen2.connect0s.com/Mai).asi)x
269.17 acres of drainage directly to Outfall 002 (estimated approximation)
43,560 sq.ft. / acre
11,725,116 sq.ft. of drainage to Outfall 002 including future Thermal Oxidizer/Cooling Water Towers areas (estimated approximation)
10,396 sq.ft. of future Thermal Oxidizer/Cooling Water Towers reported separately (estimated approximation)
11,714,720 sq.ft. of drainage to Outfall 002 excluding future Thermal Oxidizer/Cooling Water Towers areas (estimated approximation)
135,708 cubic feet rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
7.4805 gallons / cubic foot
1,015,166 gallons rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
0.35 Run-off coefficient for unimproved areas
(Source: NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual, Table 1: Rational Runoff Coefficients by Land Use)
355,308 gallons rainfall per day (non -process areas ) runoff directly to Outfall 002 (estimated approximation)
Stormwater Runoff from the Thermal Oxidizer and Cooling Water Tower areas directly to Outfall 002 (Future stormwater runoff)
10,396 sq.ft. of Thermal Oxidizer and Cooling Water Towers impervious surface
0.1390 inches rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
0.0116 feet rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
120 cubic feet rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
7.4805 gallons / cubic foot
901 gallons rainfall per day longterm average (Dec 2016 - May 2019)
0.95 Run-off coefficient for asphalt and concrete surfaces
(Source: NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual, Table 1: Rational Runoff Coefficients by Land Use)
856 gallons rainfall per day runoff directly to Outfall 002 (estimated approximation)
144 gallons wash -down per day directly to Outfall 002 (estimated)
1,000 gallons per day of stormwater runoff and wash -down directly to Outfall 002 (estimated)
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-5
CURRENT FACILITY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.5
CURRENT FACILITY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Process wastewater and stormwater from the various manufacturing areas are collected in the
respective area sumps and ultimately conveyed via a gravity flow underground process sewer pipe
to the facility's central wastewater treatment plant ("WWTP"). Sanitary sewage is conveyed via
a separate underground sewer system to the WWTP. The permitted maximum flowrate of the
WWTP effluent at Outfall 001 is 2.0 MGD, while the actual average flowrate of Outfall 001 was
approximately 0.534 MGD during the period from December 1, 2017, through May 31, 2019.
During this period of time, approximately 0.050 MGD of Chemours' process wastewater was
captured and disposed of at off -site commercial disposal facilities.
The untreated process and sanitary wastewaters are commingled in the WWTP Influent Sump
where it is pumped to an 850,000-gallon Equalization Basin. The Equalization Basin is mixed
with two floating submerged mixers. Three floating surface aerators in the basin cool and aerate
the incoming wastewater.
A 175,000-gallon Emergency Retention Tank is available for temporary storage of untreated
wastewater which may need additional treatment or acclimation in the WWTP activated sludge
process at a controlled rate that allows for proper biological treatment.
Untreated wastewater from the Equalization Basin is normally pumped to a 250,000-gallon
Predigester Tank in which initial biological activity with the WWTP activated sludge begins. The
Predigester Tank is aerated. The partially treated wastewater from the Predigester Tank is pumped
to a 1,700,000-gallon Aeration Tank.
The Aeration Tank is the unit where the majority of the biological activity occurs. The Aeration
Tank is aerated primarily by a diffused air system located in the bottom of the tank. The tank can
have supplemental aeration via one or two floating Biomixers® that injects air through submerged
rotors.
The biologically treated wastewater is then sent to one of two in -ground clarifiers (119,000 gallons
and 168,000 gallons respectively) or an above -ground 679,000-gallon clarifier; with all clarifiers
being operated in parallel. The clarified treated effluent is discharged to and through Outfall 001.
The wasted activated sludge is sent to a Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) unit, then to a 47,000
gallon Sludge Storage Tank, and finally to a Rotary Filter for thickening. The thickened sludge is
dewatered in a Sludge Press, and can be dried in a steam -heated dryer for additional moisture
removal. The dewatered sludge or dewatered/dried sludge is transported off -site to a commercial
Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill.
Non -contact process cooling water and non -process stormwater are conveyed via surface ditches
that flow to Outfall 002, which is the facility's final permitted discharge outfall. In addition, excess
riverwater flow and the treated Outfall 001 effluent are discharged directly to a surface ditch. The
combined, total flow of water from the site is discharged through and monitored at Outfall 002.
The discharged treated wastewater is conveyed via an underground pipe to the Cape Fear River,
where it enters the river at a point approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the William O. Huske
Lock & Dam, also known as Lock & Dam No. 3.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-6
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT- OUTFALL 001
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.6
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT —
OUTFALL 001
The Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works operates a Class 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant
which is comprised of a single -stage activated sludge biological system.
Excess sludge is removed from the system by diverting part of the Recycled Activated Sludge (at
approximately 0.6% solids) from the clarifiers to a Dissolved Air Floatation ("DAF") unit for
initial thickening.
The sludge from the DAF (at approximately 3% solids) is transferred to a Mix Tank where polymer
agents are added to enhance the dewatering process.
The semi -thickened sludge is transferred from the Mix Tank to a Rotary Filter for final thickening,
whereby the sludge is thickened to 6% solids.
The thickened sludge is then transferred to a Screw Press where it is dewatered to a concentration
of 9-20% solids.
Following the Screw Press, the sludge is typically dried in steam heated dryers to a concentration
of 40-55% solids.
The dried sludge, or on occasion the dewatered sludge, is transported off -site to a commercial
Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill for disposal.
In calendar year 2018, the quantity of wasted sludge that was sent for off -site disposal was
approximately 548,540 lb.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-7
ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.7
ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES USED FOR ONE TIME ANALYSIS FOR NPDES 2C
APPLICATION
Pace Analytical Services
1638 Roseytown Road, Suites 2, 3 & 4,
Greensburg, PA 15601
724-850-5600
• Gross Alpha
• Gross Beta
• Radium-226
• Radium-228
Microbac
Fayetteville Division
2592 Hope Mills Road
Fayetteville NC 28306
[phone]
• Coliform, Fecal
• Chlorine Residual, Total
• Temperature
• pH
• Sulfite (analysis subbed to Pace Analytical (Huntersville))
Eurofins Test America -Knoxville
5815 Middlebrook Pike
Knoxville, TN 37921
[phone]
• 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Eurofins Lancaster
2425 New Holland Pike
Lancaster, PA
[phone]
• BOD5, COD, TOC, TSS Ammonia,
• Metals, Cyanide and Total Phenols (Table B-1)
• Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction -Volatile Organic Table B-2)
• Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction -Acid Compounds B-3)
• Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction-Base/Neutral Compounds Table B-4)
1 July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
• Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/ 4S Fraction -Pesticides Table B-5)
• Certain Conventional and Non=Conventional Pollutants (Table C) except sulfite
2 July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.7
ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES USED FOR ROUTINE NPDES PERMIT ANALYSIS
TBL
2401 West 5' Street
Lumberton, NC 28358
[phone]
• BOD. TOC, COD TSS,
• Fluoride
• Nitrate -Nitrogen
• Total Nitrogen
• Total Phosphorus
• Oil and Grease
MERITECH, INC. (LAB #027)
642 Tamco Rd.
Reidsville, NC 27320
[phone]
• Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing
TEST AMERICA — DENVER
4955 Yarrow St.
Arvada, CO 80002
[phone]
• PFOA
• HFPO-DA
3 July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.7
ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES USED TO ANALYZE PFAS COMPOUNDS TABLE
3+ AND EPA METHOD 537 MODIFIED FOR DATA SUPPLIED IN THE NPDES
PERMIT APPLICATION
Kerri Sachtleben
Senior Project Manager
Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental LLC
2425 New Holland Pike
Lancaster, PA 17601
[phone]
• PFAS EPA Method 537 Modified (See attachment B.9)
• PFAS Table 3+ (See attachment B.9)
Michelle Johnston
Project Manager
Eurofins Test America
4955 Yarrow Street
Arvada, CO 80002
303-736-0110
• HFPO-DA
• Shorter PFAS list by 537 Mod. but not Table 3+.
Perfluorobutane Sulfonate PFBS
Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA
Perfluorodecane Sulfonate PFDS
Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA
Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA
Perfluorohe tanoic acid PFH A
Perfluorohexane Sulfonate PFHxS
Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA
Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate PFOS
Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA
Perfluoro entanoic acid PFPA
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTeA
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid PFTriA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide FOSA
4 July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Eurofins TestAmerica
880 Riverside Parkway
West Sacramento, CA 95605
[phone]
• PFAS EPA Method 537 Modified (See attachment B.9)
• PFAS Table 3+ (See attachment B.9)
See Attachment B.10 for specific PFAS compounds listed for Table 3+ and EPA Method 537
modified.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-8
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PFOA FOR OUTFALL 002
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.8
CHEMOUR FAYETTEVILLE WORKS OUTFALL 002
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DECEMBER 2017 TO MAY 2019
PFOA lPerfluorooctanoic acid 1 335-67-1
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
River Intake
(ug/L)
Outfall
002
(ug/L)
December 2017
0.033
0.018
January 2018
0.015
0.013
February 2018
0.005
0.005
March 2018
0.0075
0.0079
April 2018
0.0093
0.01
May 2018
0.011
0.0098
June 2018
0.01
0.02
July 2018
0.014
0.012
August 2018
0.0057
0.0063
September 2018
0.009
0.005
October 2018
0.0098
0.013
November 2018
0.006
ND @ MDL
<MDL
<0.005
December 2018
0.0073
0.013
January 2019
0.0052
0.0052
February 2019
0.0078
0.009
March 2019
0.0077
0.0071
April 2019
0
0
<MDL
<0.005
Mav 2019
0
0
<MDL
<0.005
Minimum
<0.005
<0.005
Average
0.009
0.009
Maximum
0.033
0.020
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-9
FLUORIDE AND SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.9
FLUORIDE AND SULFATE CONCENTRATION AND MASS
TO Outfall
001
002
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthly Avg
Daily Max
Sulfate
mg/L
0
0
825
32.1
lbs/day
0
0
3,530
7,055
Fluoride
mg/L
0
0
1.1
0.5
lbs/day
0
0
4.7
114
Magnesium
mg/L
0
0
3.32
2.79
lbs/day
0
0
14
613
Future Outfall Fluoride and Sulfate Outfall Concentration and Mass
TO Outfall
001
002
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthly Avg
Daily Max
Sulfate
mg/L
327.94
861.66
32.73
lbs/day
135
3,665
7,190
Fluoride
mg/L
62.89
7.19
0.64
lbs/day
25.89
30.59
139.89
Magnesium
mg/L
5
3.57
2.83
lbs/day
1.2
15.2
614.20
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B-10
BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY TESTING DATA
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT B.10
FORM 2C: SECTION 9. BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY TESTING DATA
Do you have any knowledge or reason to believe that any biological test for acute or chronic
toxicity has been made on any of your discharges or on a receiving water in relation to your
discharge within the last 3 years? (If yes, identify the test(s) and describe their purposes below)
The currently effective NPDES permit, NC0003573, contains a quarterly chronic toxicity limit for
Outfall 002. The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction
or significant mortality to Ceriodaphina dubia at an effluent concentration of 3.3%. These aquatic
toxicity tests were performed as specified in February, May, August, and November of each year
and reported on the facility discharge monitoring report (DMR). The 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019
(February) aquatic toxicity test results showed no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT C
THERMAL OXIDIZER
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT C
FORM 2D FOR THERMAL OXIDIZER
November 2019

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 7642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No.2040-0004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Form
Application for NPDES Permit to Discharge Wastewater
NPDES
..EPA
NEW MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING, AND SILVICULTURAL OPERATIONS
THAT HAVE NOT YET COMMENCED DISCHARGE OF PROCESS WASTEWATER
SECTION1
OUTFALL LOCATION
1.1 Provide information on each of the facilit 's outfalls in the table below.
Outfall
Receiving Water
Latitude
Longitude
c
—
Number
Name
J
102
Cape Fear River
78' so' 03" N
34' so' 37" W
O
SECTION1
DISCHARGE 1 I
d a,
I 2.1 Month Day
Year
� � d
X N
February
28
2020
w o
FSECTION
3. AVERAGE
FLOWSI I
3.1
For each outfall identified under Item 1.1, provide average flow and treatment information. Add additional sheets as
necessary.
**Outfall Number** 102
Operations
Operation
Average Flow
CaF2 Unit
0.0288 mgd
Aqueous Collection Tank
0.011 mgd
See Engineering Report for More Details, Tables and Flow Diagrams
mgd
E
M
a)
mgd
mgd
3
Treatment
Units
0
Description
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or Liquid
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Exhibit 2D-1
Wastes Other Than by Discharge
>
retention time, etc.)
pH neutralization( Aqueous Collection Tank)
2-K
N/A
CaF2 pH neutralization/Crystalizer
2-K 2-C
N/A
CaF2 Filter Press
5-R
Certified Landfill
See Engineering Report for More Details
EPA Form 3510-2D (Revised 3-19) Page 1

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 7642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
3.1
**Outfall Number** 002
Cont.
Operations Contributing to Flow
Operation
Average Flow
Cooling Tower Blowdown and Condensate
0.0101 mgd
See Engineering Report for more details. New Flow to outfall 002.
mgd
Included in outfall 002 2C form and flow balance
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or Liquid
retention time, etc.)
Exhibit 2D-1
Wastes Other Than by Discharge
Recirculating Cooling Tower
outfall 002
m
c
r
c
0
U
c
m
E
cc
N
L
cc
y
**outfall Number**
c
Operations Contributing to Flow
Operation Average Flow
a�
mgd
a
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or Liquid
retention time, etc.)
Exhibit 2D-1
Wastes Other Than by Discharge
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 2

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 7642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works OMB No.2040-0004
SECTI• I
4.1 Have you attached a line drawing to this application that shows the water flow through your facility with a water
.3 balance? (See instructions for drawing requirements. See Exhibit 2D-2 at end of instructions for example.)
J �
o ❑✓ Yes ❑ No
[SECTIONOR
SEASONAL FLOWS
5.1
Except for stormwater runoff, leaks, or spills, are any expected discharges described in Sections 1 and 3 intermittent
or seasonal?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Section 6.
5.2
Provide information on intermittent or seasonal flows for each applicable outfall. Attach additional pages, if
necessar .
Outfall
Operations
Frequency
Rate and Volume
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Maximum Total
Number
(list)
Duration
Days/Week
Months/Year
Discharge
Volume
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
o
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
LL
dayslweek
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
0
Outfall
Operations
Fre
uenc
Rate and Volume
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Maximum Total
Cn
o
Number
(list)
Duration
—
Days/Week
Months/Year
Discharge
Volume
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
E
dayslweek
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
a`>
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
Outfall
Operations
Frequency
Rate and Volume
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Maximum Total
Number
(list)
Duration
Days/Week
Months/Year
Discharge
Volume
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
dayslweek
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
days/week months/year mgd gallons days
SECTION•'•I
• I
6.1
Do any effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) promulgated by EPA under CWA Section 304 apply to your facility?
✓❑ Yes ❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 7.
6.2
Provide the following information on applicable ELGs.
•0
ELG Category
ELG Subcategory
Regulatory Citation
z
a
0
OCPSF
Subpart D
40CFR 414.4
CL
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 3

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 7642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
6.3
Are the limitations in the applicable ELGs expressed in terms of production (or other measure of operation)?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No + SKIP to Section 7.
6.4
Provide an expected measure of average daily production expressed in terms and units of applicable ELGs.
Expected Actual Average Daily Production for First Three Years
Outfall
Year
Operation, Product, or Material
Quantity per Day
Unit of Measure
Number
(note basis if applicable)
102
Year 1
HFPO/Vinyl Ethers North and South
49,560
gpd
Year 2
m
c
c
0
Year 3
U
c
O
Year 1
0
a
Year 2
Year 3
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
SECTION
7. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS i
See the instructions to determine the parameters and pollutants you are required to monitor and, in turn, the tables you must
complete. Note that not all applicants need to complete each table.
Table A. Conventional and Non -Conventional Parameters
7.1
Are you requesting a waiver from your NPDES permitting authority for one or more of the Table A parameters for any
of your outfalls?
❑ Yes ❑ No + SKIP to Item 7.3.
7.2
If yes, indicate the applicable outfalls below. Attach waiver request and other required information to the application.
Outfall number Outfall number Outfall number
Mn
7.3
Have you have provided estimates or actual data for all Table A parameters for each of your outfalls for which a
waiver has not been requested and attached the results to this application package?
cc
No; a waiver has been requested from my
cc
✓❑ Yes ❑ NPDES permitting authority for all parameters at
all outfalls.
Table B. Certain Conventional and Non -Conventional Pollutants
w
7.4
Have you checked "Believed Present" for all pollutants listed in Table B that are limited directly or indirectly by an
applicable ELG? Chemours believes not all these
❑ Yes ❑✓ No compounds are present
7.5
Have you checked `Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all remaining pollutants listed in Table B?
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
7.6
Have you provided estimated data for those Table B pollutants for which you have indicated are "Believed Present'
in your discharge?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 4

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 7642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
Table C. Toxic Metals, Total Cyanide, and Total Phenols
7.7
Have you indicated whether pollutants are "Believed Present" or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed on Table C
for all outfalls?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.8
Have you completed Table C by providing estimated data for pollutants you indicated are `Believed Present,"
including the source of the information, for each applicable outfall?
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
Table D. Organic Toxic Pollutants(GC/MS Fractions
7.9
Do you qualify for a small business exemption under the criteria specified in the Instructions?
❑ Yes 4 Note that you qualify at the top of ❑✓ No
Table D, then SKIP to Item 7.12.
-0
7.10
Have you indicated whether pollutants are 'Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed on Table D
=
for all outfalls?
0
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.11
Have you completed Table D by providing estimated data for pollutants you indicated are 'Believed Present,"
including the source of the information, for each applicable outfall?
w
Yes ❑ No
4)✓❑
w
M
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin TCDD
cc
7.12
Does the facility use or manufacture one or more of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congeners listed in the Instructions, or do you
15
know or have reason to believe that TCDD is or may be present in effluent from any of your outfalls?
d
'
E_
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
w
Table E. Certain Hazardous Substances and Asbestos
7.13
Have you indicated whether pollutants are 'Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed in Table E
for all outfalls?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.14
Have you completed Table E by reporting the reason the pollutants are expected to be present and available
quantitative data for pollutants you indicated are 'Believed Present' for each applicable outfall?
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
Intake Credits, Tables A through E
7.15 Are you applying for net credits for the presence of any of the pollutants on Tables A through E for any of your
outfalls?
❑ Yes 4 Consult with your NPDES permitting ❑✓ No
authority.
SECTION••-
i
8.1 Do you have any technical evaluations of your wastewater treatment, including engineering reports or pilot plant
studies?
Q
❑✓ Yes ❑ No —> SKIP to Item 8.3.
a
a,
8.2
Have you provided the technical evaluation and all related documents to this application package?
c
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
.5
8.3
Are you aware of any existing plant(s) that resemble production processes, wastewater constituents, or wastewater
w
treatment at your facility?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Section 9.
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 5

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 7642
NC0003573
Chemours Fayetteville Works
OMB No. 2040-0004
8.4
Provide the name and location of the similar plants.
Name of Similar Plants
Location of Similar Plants
d
c
c U
c
W
SECTION'
OTHER
INFORMATIONI
9.1
Have you attached any optional information that you would like considered as part of the application review process
(i.e., material beyond that which you have already noted in the application as being attached)?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No-* SKIP to Section 10.
c
9.2
List the additional items and briefly note why you have included them.
R
E
1 Engineering Alternative Analysis
0
c
i
2. Engineering Report
N
3. NPDES Application Attachment F. Compounds & Potential Compounds in Intake and Outfalls
O
4.
5.
SECTIONI
CHECKLIST
AND CERTIFICATION1
10.1
In Column 1 below, mark the sections of Form 2D that you have completed and are submitting with your application.
For each section, specify in Column 2 any attachments that you are enclosing to alert the permitting authority. Note
that not all applicants are required to com lete all sections or tables, or provide attachments.
Column 1
Column 2
Section 1: Expected Outfall
✓❑
❑✓ wl attachments (e.g., responses for additional outfalls)
Location
Section 2: Expected
❑✓
❑ wl attachments
Discharge Date
❑ Section 3: Average Flows
❑ w/ attachments
and Treatment
E
❑✓ Section 4: Line Drawing
✓❑ wl line drawing ❑ w/ additional attachments
`o
Section 5: Intermittent or
❑
❑ w/ attachments
w.
Seasonal Flows
❑ Section 6: Production
❑ wl attachments
i�
w/ Table A waiver
❑ request or ❑✓ Table A
N
approval
U
CD
❑ Section 7: Effluent
✓❑ Table B ❑✓ Table C
Characteristics
U
✓❑ Table D ✓❑ Table E
w/ other See attachment F
attachments
Section 8: Engineering
✓❑
✓❑ wl technical evaluations and related attachments
Report
✓❑ Section 9: Other Information
wl optional information
✓❑ Section 10: Checklist and
❑ w/ attachments
Certification Statement
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 6

�r��va�u�a-soul nurnoer Nrueb vennn numner Faaily Name Fonn Approved 03N5119
NCD 047 368 7642 NC0003573 Chemours Fayetteville Works Oh18 No. 2040-0004
10.2 Certification Statement
c
d lcertify underpenallyoflawthatthis document and allattachmentswereprepamdundermydirection orsupervi.Sion
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel propedy gather and evaluate the
`o information submitted. Based on my inquiryof the person orpersons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
8 belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
d W including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
i� Name (print or type first and last name) Offidal fille
Brian Long Plant Manager
rSignature nn Date signed
mv/k t/l
EPA Fonn 3510-2D (Redsed 3-19) Page 7

This page intentionally left blank.

rn v
Cl
o
0 4
M O
0 0
� N
Oo
Z
cn- m
O
E
LL
N
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
cl,
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
h �
a
CD
Y
N p
D o m
CD
d o
77D —o
m L
El
0
N
fV
0
0
0
Q
YC
YC
an
an
YC_
YC_
E
E
E
E
C
O o
Q
7
_
0
J
V1
J
Ln
0
0
Ln
Ln
3
cr
N
c
N
._
2
._
2
Ln
Ln
o
tow
a
a
Y_
m
Q
m
m
m
Q
m
Q
Q
Q
•� c
Q
0
a
a
m w
> m
bo
m
m
`0 Ln
CD
Q
a
m
m
a
a
-0
-0
Q E
a)
N
a)
N
7
7
C
m
�
=
Ln
u)
N II
aj
ai
LL
LL
N
(n
Ln
LnN
Ln
LL
LL
co
~
!n
!n
0
Nv
O
Ln
U
Ln
LL
a
LL
a
In
Ln
0-EL
W
W
U
O
U
O
fa
U
U
U
U
U
O
O
L
L!1
L!1
@
c
Ln
O
O
Ln
Ln
ti
v
a
G
Ln
Ln
Lj)
Ln
7 d
o)
W
G
o
m m
t =
O
-ct
N
0
-1
oo
�
0
N
n
rl
n
V
o
^
c-I
Lo
Lfl
0
Lh
0
Ln
LD
01
V
V
V
V
V
y
V
i fA m
v
00
M
>
Q
�
C
E to
i
j
Lo
N
N
O
Lr1
Ln
oo
�" I
O
M
N
O
`i0
O
O
to
0)
E
W
"
v
v
4
�
v
Q)
l0
lD
Ln
v
ov
x 0
CD
O
m
T
T
T
T
T
J
ono
m
J
oao
m
J
oao
m
J
tw
m
J
tw
m
a
o
U
E
E
E
E
N
N
>
V1
>
p
-a
L
o
N
o
U
C
U
N
C
o
U
C
o
O
m
m
C
O
(n
m
C
O
(n
m
C
O
(n
m
C
O
U)
m
C
O
to
m to—
LU
U
U
•
W
U
U
U
cG
C..)
cG
U
Q'
o
o
Cn
Cn
M
i D
Z
• ca U
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
•
0
o)
'Q
LZ
m
7D
m
O
E
N
•
O
C
O
O
U
o)
T
t3)
X ;n
C
N
m
N
Z�
C
_
cc
"-
O
O
x
N
CO
N
N
o m
O
cu
CD-7
7
E
cu
a
Y
(D
ai c
�'
a)O
0
u)i
o
�
3
Q
Q
E
0 E
mU
��
Q
�
E
E
U
oo -
U V
H~
H~
H
H
n
n
❑
4
N
C7
Lfi
(o
I-:
00
O
i
O
N
E
cv
m
11
C
m
7
O
O_
O
O
Q
O
_T
m
m
CD
co
Molf
LL
U
0
v
CD
C
7
O
O
a
L1
m ,
O v
L
of N
E N
N
O
U LL-
2 U
C
CD
�
O C
m
O_ N
N C
� O
• cn
cn C
CU N
fn N
T U)
aai O
U_ LO
cn
� Z
O
O Q
rn m
c �
72 -a
O O
U cn
U
m
70 N
of Q
U m
7 L
-O U
C
0 LL-
Lv U
O
V
cu
0
rn �
c �
E E
m =3
Cn 07
m
a
N
Q
N
E
o
a
W

o
O
O O?
M CD
O V
'O N
oo
Z
a m
O
E
LL
U
E '>
E v
m
z
a a,
L
ca LL
L.L N
fv
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
o
O
cl:
N
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
N
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
d
d O Z
a
Y
c
9 a
N
N
fn
(0)
N
N
N
Cl)
In
cn
cn
O
y v N
O
fU
UJ
O
fU
(U
O
N
O
N
(L)
0
0
0
w
>
f.
L
Y
c
Y
c a)
c
Y •—
c >,
—
N
a 3
i O
Y
c
c0
Y •— 1
c T
—
c0
Y — 1
c T
—
c0
Y •— 1
T
—
c0
Y — 1
c T 1
—
Y
c
Y
c
>
>'
C
O N
(U
(U Y
al
m
(U
fU
is i
(U
is i
(U
is i
(U
is i
al
Q)
-0
-a
o
A
E t
cu f
E 2
cu c
E
a) �''
c
Y i
O m V
a
E
a)
E
cu �'' -
c :
E
a) Y -
E
a) �'' -
:
E
a) '"' -
c
E
a)
E
Q)
d
fQ -
l]O f
a
to .—
a
OO
a
+' a
aO
a
OO
a i
a i
a i
a i
C)O
a
CIO
a
a-
O
+O+
O
a) CD j
O
y0-,
O
y0-,
O
y0-,
O
y0-,
O
•�
O y
��
-,
-� c
Q
v i
a CD
Q i
;
Q i
CL ;
c
O
O
z
O
aO m
aO O
OO
a
1
N
M
aO
a
a.0
a
CIA
a
a.0
a
aA
a
UO
J p
c c
c a+
c
c
1
N
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
— c
c
O s
_
O a�
a)_
a) c
a) m
X a
a)
m i
cuU
m
i
N m i
N m i
N m
N
U
.Eco
-O
0)O
L
7
O
a) O
c
CD
c _O
a) a)
c Y
a) to 1
U +
a)
c
a) a) 1
c Y 1
a) W I
c Y 1
a) a) 1
c Y 1
a) a) 1
c Y 1
W a) I
c Y 1
a)
c
4)
O
-a
l]O
O
UO t
OA
W
fIO
bA am+
CIO +m+
bA am+
Ci0 Y
W+m+
CIO
y ,�0
7 1n
c
c U
c c
-
f
c
c C
-
c c
-
c C
-
c c
-
c C
-
c
N N
a w
O
N
N
O
W coW
Ln Y
O
Lf) -
W
Ln
v a) ••
W
Lfl
W
Ln
W
Ln C
W
Ln i
W
Ln C
W
Ln
W
Ln
d E
1
.E
co .o
CL !
co
.S�
a2f .� 1
O6 L-1
.S�
o� .L 1
O6 L-1
.E
co .L 1
o6
y
� U_
V a
� d
c
Ln O
V
� d
V d
� CL
V d
V tl
V
W
"' mi
p
T
a
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
.�
d E
�
m
O
Y
O
Y
O
Y
O
Y
O
Y
J
O
Y
O
Y
4)N
p i
y M co
N
—
w
m
a
—
-Fa
m
0
—
w
m
-O
—
m
ca
am
—
m
a
110
—
w
m
a
—
w
m
a
0.
a% .= m
Y
cu
Y
a)
Y
a1
Y
00
cu
Y
a)
E
Y
cu
Y
a)
Wcn
m
H
O
m
p
m
p
m
Y
m
O
m
Ln
p
m
O
m
y
C
� Q
(?
a)
Y
C
—
CU
Y
C
—
a)
c
'—
a)
Y
c
—
a)
Y
c
—
V
a)
Y
c
a)
Y
c
C U
¢
2
cn
cn
In
In
fn
n-
CD
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
3s,_,
O o
w
.� y
a -ap
a� o
o
�
O v
E R
fn
N
u-)
Ln
O
N
fD
lD
N
L!1
O
O
M
w
t�
a
c-I
V
O
V
00
N
c-I
N
W
lD
l6
V
N
E
fV
fV
OO
N
M
M
RN
a7
V
V
O
V
V
V
O
p
x p
y
�
�
R
aJ
E
i
J
N
J
J
J
N
J
N
J
J
N
J
N
w
\
bD�
a
\
cTa
a
a
\
\
a
\
a
\
a
\
(T6
a
\
a
\
c6
a
cn
u
O
E
N
E
E
E
N
E
E
N
.Q
v
•
cn
E
c
O
O
o
0
0
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
u)
N
(i
fL
C6
(6
fL
fi
fL
fi
(O
N
fL
•
o
O
c
c
C
c
c
C
c
_
c
C
C
c
N
U
cn
0
N
a)
L)
fn
a)a)L)
L)L)
cn
cn
U
cn
U
N
4)0
U
cn
0
cn
cn
L)
cn
c
cn
c
N
c
cnc
cnc
c
cnc
cn
c
cn
c
cnc
c
cn
c
cn
c
N
O
O
co
O
O
cu
O
m
O
m
O
co
O
co
O
co
O
cu
O
m
a
•
O
.O
to
)
•
O
0 cn
C
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
M
a) a
fa
¢ c
m
7
0
O
Q
m
_
U
f6
fn
d C
N
m a
a`
T
OL
a)
EZ
Ncn
_
cn
fn
C
r�
O
O
—0
00
ao
O
v
C6
2
N—
M
00
N
cn
fC
O CO
&
O V
_
-C
_
c
i�
O �
f6
Y
U
o
c s
o�
-C
o
a v
o
Iv
f3)
O�
O a
O
(B
O 0-)
N
O
N
(Occ)
.6
�..)
m N
L cn
U
O
C..i
N
L.L
O QD
L.L
.-.
Z
.-. 2)
Z O
O
L 46
C
7
U)
�
Cl)
❑
N
M
-4
Ll>
CO
r-�
00
fT
O�
m
a
<M
N
N
O
M
E
o
LL
d
W

o
o
O O?
M CD
o-;t
'O N
OO
Z
O' m
Q O
LL
a) >
E
(6
Z u
_a ?
U (O
ca W
L.L i
3
O
E
a)
U
cl;
O
Z
O
Z
o
Z
o
Z
O
Z
O
Z
o
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
d
N O
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
El
-�
ac
a
O
�
a Y y
cc
Ly U N
_ �N
a)
()
()
aJ
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
d
J
LLI
c
c
C�
C
_A
_A
E
C
c
ca
c T i
c T
c
c T
c T
c T
c T
c
c T
c T
>+
O h
E io i
E
E
E
E
E @
E
E—
E
E
E
O
NC
a) a''
OD c
a) �''
to c
a)
aO
a) *''
to c
a) �''
to c
a) �''
aO c
cu �''
aO c
N -0
aO c
a) *''
to c
a) �''
OD c
a)
to
C
G
-6 +cu 1
-O acu
-6
-6 ++
a �•+
-6 y
•O a0+
'6
a +a)
a +0)
a
•g co
O
O
O
O
O
O
a)
O
O
�
'�
O
aO fl_
-!
aO
aA
aO
a0
llO
aA
to N
aO o
to Q
aO
J p
c
c
c
c-
c
c
c-o
c
c-
C
c-
C
c-o
C
r-
c
c
c
c-o
c
C
O
O N
a1 N i
w to
v
w to
a) La
a) N
a) m
cu c
a1 m
a1 to
a)
C co
a)m o
v a)
C Y L
v a)
C Y
a)
C
a) v
c Y
a) a)
C Y
a) a)
c Y
a) a)
c Y
a) •—
•C -O
a) v
c Y
v a)
_c Y
a)
c
a)
aA r+
aO Y
Ga a+
to c
aO
tL) m
aA
fA �O
a) N
7 N
O
c C
W —
c c
W —
c
W
c c
W —
u c
W —
u c
W —
c c
W —
C 7
W O
u c
W —
u c
W —
u
W
d w
N
Ln .�
Ln
u)
Ln
Ln .5
Ln .5
Ln .5
u) o-
Ln
Ln
Ln
d E
.6 ._^ (
o6 !_^
o6
o6 _^
o6 .'_^
o6 . Ln
o6 .'_^
o6 p
0 _^
0 !_^
o6
m N
d
t a.
V
� C
� cL
V d
cL
�U
a
K* a
V
�m
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
c
a
a
a
a
0
C)
0
0
d E
LC O
O
CD
a@+
O
+@+
O
+�
O
+�
O
a@+
y ca
R m
f6
a
a
N
a
N
a
a
N
x
(•� >
Y
Y
=
Y
D
Y
=
Y
�
Y
�
Y
LLJ -�
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
y
> Q w
al
c
a)
c
a)
C
a1
C
al
C
a)
C
al
C
Cac
N_
N_
v_
N_
N_
Ln_
v_
U
Ly
3 U
O o
W
LC Ly
a a
i m
C a)
i
on
O
N
r-jLn
rn
aO
rIj
w
-1
M
co
oo
M
3
O
N
O
O
O
m O
L„)
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
i--I
R
cy
V
O
c:;O
O
O
O
0
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
W
La
J
to
Ia
J
(p
J
to
Ia
J
(a
J
ma
La
J
to
(a
J
w
(a
J
to
Ia
J
11
Lp
C
E
C
E
C
E
to
•
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
a)
U
V)
a)
U
u)
a)
U
N
a)
U
u)
(3)
U
u)
()
U
u)
a)
U
u)
a)
U
u)
a)
U
u)
(3)
U
u)
a)
U
u)
s=
O
U)
co
c
O
u)
cu
c
O
cn
m
c
O
u)
cu
c
O
u)
co
c
O
u)
co
c
O
u)
N
c
O
cn
m
c
O
u)
co
c
O
cn
co
c
O
u)
cu
•
a)
a
C
> y
to
-0
ma
Y
O U
m
L% U
C
0
d
❑
•
N
Lv
•
cu
o
p
`°
o
6
o
LO
N
L,()
6 M
L6 OO
V
c0
E�
7 ti
N U?
L9
i
R
cn
7
M
V
V
"O"
•�
a)cb
(
3
�co
cu
cm
_
co
a00
�LT
cM
a
am
�d�
M
ao
p
- N
�o
OL
�o
M
ET M
>+ M
C M
O
O
Ost
cu
O
cud'
C�
c��
cn
Qti
m�
mti
U
—
2ti
2
2t
�7-�
cV
cli
Ln
co
ti
o6
O
O
cV
CV
N
cV
IL
a
M
N
N
0
M
E
O
a
W

\
\
\
z
z
z
z
z
Dw
❑
❑
a
�
� \-
(L 0
cc
/
�
k �
\
\
\
\
\
❑
❑
El
❑
E
0
Lcc
■
0 y
{
{
{
{
_
%/
&
0
2
E\
g/-
g
%
[
OD
. k)
o«
\±
/
g
g
%s
M0
3CL
2
_,
to
to
o =
% \
=
§ %
\
�k
s2
a)\
ƒg
a)
a)k§
ƒ
to
D
Cw
w
§k
§
LU
%/
\/
/
k§
k
/
--
-
-u
-
-
2a
2/
goo
4)2
\ /)
Lu\
EL)2
CD
a)§
§
5§/�
■
�)ui
k
& _
_
»
§�{
\
\
k
Ln
dot
6
/
2ƒ
2 I
E
3ra
On
0
-
=
_
\
-
S(n
S
n
2
n
2
n
2
n
/
k
I_-
k/
k/
k/
k
'�
❑
❑
❑
k
c
.
R
4)
_
k
k k
❑
El
❑
[9
'2
mCL
k
\ia=
0
k
5
ƒ
k
Ef
/
a
\
cu
..
<
9
6
#
\
%
\
R
%
3
\
\
/
0
E
§\
CD
-a
\�
&C)
kk
\\
//
CD 0
/z
�+
\ U)
@
co
g �
\2
\/
20
g/
/7
ag
/
e

N >
E v
m
z v
>
U
ca LL
LL i
7
O
E
D)
L
U
cl• '-`
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
c
(iS
A d
(D
rl C
�
y
a
(6
> a)R > � �
c
C
D U o
R
m �
�
a)
CD
>
U
N
U)
N
U)
N
O
a)
O
O
(n
(D
(n
a)
O
O
N
O
U)
O
U)
a)
U)O
O
(D
N
0)
U
a)
a
❑
0❑❑
0
0
0
El
0
0❑❑
00❑
�,
C O
w e
Z
N
R "o
—
N m
U
2
OD
OD -'
bD
W
OD =
bD
bD
OD
OD =
OD
OD
OD
W -'
OD
W
CL L N
C y
7
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
.�
N
(1)
v.0
v •'
D)
v
D)
v
(I)
v
D)
v
D)
v
D)
v
D)
a�
D)
v
D)
v
D)
v
Cl)
v
N
v
D)
v
D)
O
C N
CD
C 4
C J
C J
C
C 4
C
C
C a
C 4
C
i J
C 4
C
C J
C a
E
R O
CDWC�
Ln
WC
lf)
WC
Lo
WC
u1
WC
L()
U-)
Ln
Lr)
Lr)
LflL.)lfl
Lu
WC
W
0C1
a)
C=
Oj'
OZ
OZ
Oj
0�
Oi
02
OZ
o2
D6'06
DEai
o2S '
otS
6
�
U
LL
a)
H co
c
N a)
u
R m
3
L Cc-
a)
> U) Co
0 o
o
L (
yr
E
E to
3 T L -o
`1
V
n
a --I
Ln
n
-4
co
0l
O
M
O
`�
lD
O
l0
Ql
M'\
ri
J
N
Ln
O
N
O
O
n
�
�n
l0
t\
N
n
�--I
0
^
O
�--�
�--I
0
OIt
o
9
• R
Gi
3
O
C
">
G o
W
cc
'� �
-O
a)
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
`�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OD
O
CD
O
0
O
0
rl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
0
0)
0
a
x p N
CD
O
o
O
0
o
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
Ln
o
v
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
6
O
6
O
o
0
O
o
0
O
0
O
0
o
0
0
6
0
0
0
v
v
v
0
0
v
0
E
O
(n
W
a)
0')
[6
J
\
>?
(O
-6
J
\
�,
1
J
\
>
(O
-0
J
\
>?
(p
-O
J
\
>T
(O
-a
J
\
>.
(O
-6
J
--
>.
(O
J
>T
(O
J
>T
(O
J
>T
(O
J
>.
(O
J
>.
(O
J
>T
(O
U
W
C
E
t\/f
C�
E
\
Cw
E
t\/1
mo
E
V\f
Cw
E
V\1
to
E
t\/1
�
t\/f
to
E
1\/1
Cw
E
1\/1
Cw
E
1\/1
to
E
t\/f
to
E
t\/1
C�
E
N
N
—
U)
�_
c
E
O
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
-Q
cD
a)
U
nU
U
)
cn
U
U
U
U
U
NU
M
U
M
U
U
U
U
cn
a)
U
N
CDC
C)
)
RV
c
O
co
CCC
O
N
a
O
O
m
O
co
B
c
O
co
B
c
O
d)
R
C
O
cN
B
C
O
B
C
O
U)U)
R
C
O
R
C
O
co
O
RO
U
(B
C
O
C-
O
U
UN
Ua)
ia))
Ua)
UN
UN
Ua)
Ua)
Ua)
UN
UN
Ua)
Ua)
U
•
0)
_0
2
C
> NLn
cz
o
C U
a) a)
O
U
Qi c
'
❑
(D
L
• a
= a)
Q) L
m a
O
0
T
c5
m
N
O
m
O
yR-'
O
yR-
yR+
O
yR+
E
E>
w
~ O
O N~
~ d7
E M
M
yR+
a0
O
�p
O
Cfl
ti
O O
N
H N
E m
-Fu
O
H O
Cfl
0
-
Y
O cM
00
U M
E
2
2'T
� r-
'T
CV
~ �
�"
O�
2 �
CV
~ N
oo
� N
CO
O �
�
N
•
7
a
U co
E O
c 0—
C2
0
Lv
E O
O
2v
6
C O
O
CD
O
v
O
�v
C N
mares°
O
t
•= O~
O
cv
C �
0
a
z
U cB
�v
Q�Q�oOCUCU�U�JC�CZ�Cn�in�PCN�U��
�v
ov
�v
cn
Q
U
❑
cV
M
4
L6
.6
ti
CD
6D
O
N
M
ui
O
a)
CN
C
2
R
C
ca
O
Q
O
N
C
O
Q
O
N
T
Co
C
R
N
yam...
O
O
LL
U
0
"'I -
CD
c
a)
O
n
co
N M
O a)
O N
E CV
N LL
L) U
O
CD v
U C
0 C
co
C- N
N C
U
>
•--• to N C
a)
U a)
T Un
N cj
_U O
O
Z
co
O Q
O Cu
C -I--
0
O
U N
m—
-0 a�
aD n
U co
7 -I--
-0 U
C of
U LL
� U
O
R
L a)
c �
Q-0
E
R �
a)
rn
M
CD
N
N
r]
N
0
M
E
li
a
W

N
E
E v
m
Z cu
_ >
U
LL L
LL to
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
Cl'
c
N Q
O
cc
❑�
❑�
❑�
❑�
❑
❑2
❑l
❑
❑
cv
a)
Q `gym
�
c
y
Y
2
o
O
O-
co
ca
—m
�! 0-
E
U)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
y o
0
N
O
O
a)O
0)0
O
a)
a)
a)
Y
m
U
tm
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑❑
❑
❑❑❑
Q
E
0
c
LL
X
bbD
bb D
bbD
_ co
in
O
7
7
O
a
C
O C '
U
ao -0
aD
ao
Ncco
�
00
L
i� c
� .0_
�''
O
CD
dzo
L N
�
U
N
N f6
N
C) .0
cn a
0
O
i
b0—a
LO
'wD C
A C
mm
O
'`
C
O r
�_
LU L
Ln U
"' o
Ln s
w o
:ELn
cu
dCD
m
O
x -o
lJJ ma)
W
.�•. O
L
a)C6
vi
c.)
¢
-s
ocu
Lm
+O+
L
O
O c
E N
m
>
— 0
L
7+ L
E m
>i
O
N
L
�--I
M
Ln
N
s
O-0
X G O
O
0
N
O
r-I
V
O
O
O
N CD
R N
}
—
T
•
R
co
G o
CO
• � Q
d
�
ca
�
c
-�
J
_0
y
cn
cn
O
O
LV
U
-p
_T
N
W
U
0
•C
w
y
N
0
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
>,
E
0
-�
0
C
aD
C
O
C
N
C
O
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
O
O
U
N
U
N
U
0
U
N
U
O
U
O
U
N
U
N
U
U
U
O
U
w
-0
c6
C
O
(n
m
C
O
(n
cB
C
O
(n
M
C
O
COC
M
O
N
M
C
O
N
f6
C
O
fn
M
C
O
w
m
C
O
N
m
C
O
N
m
C
O
N
CO
O
H
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
�
U
O
(a
O
H
CD =
-0
m
C
O N
U
O❑❑❑❑
❑�
0
❑❑❑
❑
❑
N
y
a
O
p
Q
QCDm
a
0
O
axi
E
m
a,
0
C
_
O
d
m a
m
aa> C
�
cm
u
O
CO
N
> O
LL
fA
M
p
p
Vcc%
L
_
-0 Cu
fE
T p
N
O
O
d
M
p
—
CU O
w
`�
CD
C
m
L
4J
M
C
�_
0-
aD E
0
C
O
'a
aD
CD
• y >
R
C
o
L
OCo
CD
0
�_
,,
0
O
IL
U
C
N
N
>
O
O E
O
N-CO
U
0
co
L�
�
�ti
2—
��
co
�..
NO
�
�
d Z
Y
Y +0-•
L
.x
O
C N
O
C M
C N
CM
O N
O Lh
O LID
Cl)
-0 O
O
_0 a0
N M
O
O Lf>
I—
O
O?
f1-
•
(6
U
~
N
O
p
p
N-T
E N
p
N
O
O'T
O O
p
O
p
N
Q
U
O
O E
O
p
f..1
f--
j O
f�
O
O L(D
c0
L O
L N
� LO
U O�
�
LO
U
U O
>,
'�
Q
Q
m
m
Ci S
U
U .�
U
N
U
_U
C)
O
❑
❑
p
O
N
M
U.
CO
I�
Cl?
O
O
Z
�
co
d

0
0
o
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl.
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
❑
0
❑S
0
0
0
❑S
0
0
❑
0
w
N Q❑
Q2
;a
y
c 2
N O o
>
N
a>
cn
a>
N
a>
N
a>
cn
a>
cn
a>
cn
a>
cn
a>
cn
a>
<n
a>
cn
CD
to
a>
cn
a>
d o
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
00
❑
❑
❑
❑
c.>
o
o
c c
—
C Q
0.2
C
C
CD s
a> R C
a,
a
N c.
iE c
E
L CD
U
U
d N
N C O
N
m m
�
f9
ra
yam-
E
ar
v
d N
i
N
�
t> cc
7
a)
tm
o
XLU
L t
>
N
N
w m
7 �
O c
N
tm
d U
= T L
L L
0
K G C>
N m
R _N
•
R
>
G >o
d
m
E
0
W
N
0
0
I—..
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
oc
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c0
0
N
a>
0
cn
a>
0
N
N
a>
0
cn
a>
0
cn
a>
0
N
a>
0
N
a>
0
N
a>
0
N
a>
0
cn
a>
0
N0
a>
cn
c
O
N
cu
c
0
cn
a>
c
0
N
cu
O
N
cu
c
0
cn
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
N
cu
c
0
N
0
c
0
N
0
c
0
N
0
c
0
cn
0
C
0
N
M
c
0
w
0
C>
0 N
>
>
11
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
11
>
d
mQ
:a(
c
O
m
4)
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
L
a
4 L
ma
m
m
c
_
c
m
co
o.Fo
a)
•�
O
O
L
OCD
C as
L
L
L
O
O
a)
a)
O
O
0
_3
O
O
O
O
O
LO
c>
cL
O
0
O E
O
O N
O
O
O CO
N
00
LO
M
L9
d Z
:E c?
0 V
:E M
U CD0
:E
cf>
:EL-9
0 I�
:ELO
0�
N
O
>, M
0 M
I--
O cV
m
r�O..
N v
L M
0
a) M
C a0
C O
as f0
• Q
a M
7 ti
a M
'O 00
'O cV
>+ O
00
>,
00
j,
L O
c',[M
c` ti
j 00
U
Lo
N c:,—
LO
(V 000
M�
O
Q
N�
CDN
L
M
O
N
w
2
H
H
N
M
c.f>
cD
I`
ao
O
O
N
Cl)
N
N
N
N
N
0
rn
a
rn
M
-0
m
CD
0
M
O
LL
n
W

v
E '>
E v
z u
T cu
T
U
O LL
LL N
a
E
Z
0
.o
U
C
W
o
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl'
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Q2
;a
m
) o
O
M
> T Q
(n
(n
Cl)
n
do
0)
m
❑
❑
❑
t
Ci
0 C
_ co
O
_
•� �
C Q
� U
o 0 i
LL
C
LL
C
d s
d R C
N
v
N C.
i c
E
E
L CD
7
v
v
a o
N
l)
N O
Y
Y
0
cli
a)
d N
N
to
N
U N
7
Q E
W
t
O
XLU
L t
>
N
N
w �
7 a)
O c
N
d U
T L
L L
K G U
N
R _N
•
R v
C3
G 'O
d
m
E
0
W
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
w
w
c
c
c
a)
c
0
c
c
c
c
U
cn
U
w
U
wU
N
U
N
U
N
U
cn
U
N
U
N
U
N
U
N
U
N
U
wc
w
0
c
0
w
0
c
0
w
0
c
0
N
ca
c
o
N
c
o
N
c
o
N
c
o
w
c
o
N
c
o
N
c
o
co
c
o
N
cu
c
0
0
0
U
C
CD c
:ate
mQ
0
0.
o
E
O "
0
m
y
d H
ID
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
a
a
00
o
r
<v
�i
co
U
•
C9
Z
Q
a>
(D
N
to
•
c
c
O
O
0
R -co
O
O
p
L
L
U
c
L
3 _
— Q
O
O
O
O
L
0
-O
O
d
c
CD
Q
2-
6Q
0
O
O
U
O E
L
L
p
0
C
2>,
O�N
c
c
O
d
CO
U LCJ
O
O OC
'K
�
N
7D
G
Cl
0
CCpL
-E
UCO
+V
U)
L�>
N O
O
U
I
0
�)Z
r-
roi
• ¢
L
O
-
.-.:E c:,
:E
U
U
a
(V
CO M
-
00
S
C CD
U M
O_�
—
C
O
N
oi
CV
4
d
L
N
N
N
N
N
M
V
CC)
CO
I.-
00
O
N
CV
CV
N
N
N
N
CV
CV
CV
rn

Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IL -2
Y
c 0
y O o
M
C Cl
(n
N
Cn
CA
CA
CA
O
(n
CA
CA
CA
N
O
y o
N
(U
a)
N
N
Na)
0
O
N
N
N
(U
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
t
ci
C
_ co_
O
r_ U
i
LL
N
T
V
cco
L c
E
E
L N
� L
i
ao
O�
m
d N
N C O
a-'
M N
U
m
3
O N
N
N
CD N
7
Q E
W
t
o
xLU
L
>
Cl)
N
w �
7 �
O c
E a
d U
T L
L L
C
G
N m
R _N
•
R
>
G 'o
d
m
E
z
W
rn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
c�
n
0
n_
0
cn
o
o
o
cn
0
0
o
cn
0
cn
a>
o
o
w
o
w
o
wc(z
o
m
'�
o
CU
o
o
o
co
o
o
o
M
o
M
o
M
o
M
o
M
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2
U
U
Jr
Q
d
El
El
El
0
El
S
El
El
El
y
m Q
i
¢0
O
Z
m
d t
m
fOA
d N
0
❑
m
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
a
a
00
o
.0
ii
c
U
cu
�
C7
m
CD
EiR
s
0
rn
o
m
c
CD
CD
co
O
C6
U
O
m
•�-.•
x
_
o
c
c
0
o
O
o
a>
a>
_
_3 N
O E
N
U N
CL
C.)
a0
L
CD ��
O ti
N
N
cu
f� M
M-
(� cc
r
O N
N
_
6�
v
0
O-
L
0
O'
L
d Z
�n
L
x
0
n cfl
c�
c cf')
a
N
c
v
w
U
U v
C O
�
04
C
C O
27
O Lo
O N
w 6)
O N
09
T
<
O
Cl)
N co
N LO
N co
N
N
�N...
U
L O
C70
t)
U (•'J
U O
N
CV
CO
O
O
6)
CD O
N
y
CL
N�
C
Q�
Q�
Q�
m-
m�
m�
M�
mZ::�
m
mZ::�
mZ::�
C6
L
O
0
O
_
_
N
M
LO
CO
I—
00
(3)
_
CN
N
M
Ch
Cl)
M
f7
C`7
Ch
CM
Ch
CM
f7
f7
ON
rn

v
E >
E v
ns
z
T �
T
U (6
ca LL
LL N
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl.
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Q2
;a
Y
y0 0
0
T Q
!
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
N
N
En
(A
N
(A
En
En+O
+
c
o
O
O
(D
(1)
Q)
dJ
N
a)
N
N
O
N
N
N
m
❑
E
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
S
❑
U
t
N
off
o
C co
-
o
C
i
O+
LL
C
a
m
N U
i c
C
E
CD
(L
O i
O O
m (a
T
L
y
Cl) C p
E
m mco
-0
0 as
3
0 C
L
a1
y
a °
(n
a`)
i c
m
s E
W
o
XLU
L t
ca
>
N
N
w m
7 �
O c
E N
d U
= >,L
L L
o
K G V
N m
R _N
•
R
>
G 'o
' d
E
z
W
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
a>
a>
(n
a>
n
N
U
N
0
N0
N
a>
U
n
o
(no
n
a)
U
N0
a
NU
a
n
0
n
o
o
o
o
o
OU
o
o
N
o
o
m
o
o
o
M
C
•_
d
mQ
:ateo
o
O
m
a`
m a
m
c
a)
c
c
c
c
co co
p
aci
aci
-mac—
•N
a�
• �"'
CL
O-
L
Q
C
N
N
N
N
co
L
Q_
O E
O
L ti
Q M
C
C
Q M
d 6>
O
0—
O
O-
O
P-
O
d
Z
U O
co
N
co
O L6
E Lo
O
c0
OL
p c0
OL �
p
N O
O M
N O
L—
V O
L M
U�
_O
L M
V V
_O
L
U
>. CO
:
• Q
`� N
ti
O
O
L Lo
L O
�+OO
o�
a L?
'O
'O M
"O 0)
L f0
N'
U
O
N
O
Lo
0—
U O
L
�_ M
N U-J
M�
� O
M
_�
E co
_N
m
m
V
m
N 6�
4
U
0
c
N_
M_
LC)
O
00
O
O
N
CM
L()
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
CM
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
rn
a
a)
m
y
CD
0
M
E
O
LL
n
W

v
E >
E v
m
z u
T cu
T
U (6
f6 LL
LL N
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl.
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
w --
Q2
;a
Y
0
0
y o
R
T O_
>
(n
w
(n
w
w
(n
(n
w
w
(A
0
(A
w
w
y o
a)
4)
aJ
aJ
aJ
aJ
N
a)
CD
a)
O
a)
a)
a)
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
t
ci
off
_ co
O
_
o
O i
LL
c
O
CD
- .
(6 c
0
L E
E-
0)
L N
7 L
a o
o
U
0 N
N C O
3
c
h
am CD
N
tCDtm
7
a)
Q E
W
O
XLU
R .T
L t
>
w
w
w m
7 �
O c
E N
d U
= T L
L L
� �
•K G V
N m
R _N
•
R
>
G 'o
a �-
d
m
E
0
W
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
o
w
w
n
N
w
0
w0
w
0
wo
w
a>
(n
a)
0
w
a
U
wU
a
wU
a
w
0
w
=(z=cz==cucu
o
m
o
o
cumocu=o
o
m
mo
mo
mo
CUoMU
C
•_
a
a)
mQ
:te
o
o
m
•4) w
El
a`
m a
ti
0
c
•
c.6
a)
w
a>
a) N
a)
ccz
N
m
a)
4)
N
N
C
a)
c
a)
4)
>
• .. >
C
is
a�
a�
is
a)
c
a
co
0
O
c
cu
V
2
�
m
a>
M
O
o
a>
��
c
a)
a)
a
7
•W V
•LO
O
U
a)�
C VOC
~LOV
—�..
M
mCSQ
Z
p
V
a) M
U f—
U Oo
U
U
0 M
O
•
aO
ti
a m
O CO
O
ac�
C6 Coca
(a I.A
-I-- L?
-I-- N
U
N
Co O
N w
O O
_O CO
W>< ti
>w< ti
O
0 a0
in
Nz::,
N�
f0
I--
co
O
O
N
M
LO
CO
I�
co
O
N
N
N
N
C?
M
cM
M
M
M
M
CM
CM
M
Cl)
M
M
co
Cl)
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
co
Cl)
rn
a

v
E '>
E v
z u
T cu
T
U
ca LL
LL N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl.Q
w,
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
;a
Y
c 0
y0 o
w
C Q
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
y O
a)4)
O
4J
4J
4J
N
O
(2)
N
N
N
a)
�
m
t
c.�
�
o
c t°
-
C o
0.2
a
N
m
V cc
L E E-a)
L N
L
a o
O
U
u
O N
N C Ocu
E
3
N
y a
_
c
N
N
tD N
7
aE
W
tm
o
XLU
R.TR
L t
f/J
> N
w m
7 �
O c
E am)
d U
T L
L L
R CD
•
R
R V!
>
G 'o
' d
E
0
W
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
a)
a)
c
c
c
c
a)
a)
c
c
c
c
=
u)
N
=
N
u)
-
N
w
c
=
W
cu
0
C
w
0
C
w
0
C
w
N
c�
C
w
O
c�
C
cn w
0
C
w
0
C
w
0
C
0
C
cn
N
o
ca
o
O
ca
0
O
cB
O
c4
0
M
0
M
0
R
O
R
0
R
O
cB
O
cB
O
cB
O
R
U�
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
El
El
El
El
El
El
M
d
m Q
'a
y
o
O Y
.a
N
U
4);
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
i
o
R
Ui
0
U
�
�
c
C
Ur
co
cu
O
N
N
co
7
R
N
L
O
0
O
a
0
aZ
_
mM
_
cn
cn t
cn
co?
mac\
%
N
o
cfl
U000
ti
o0
-2�
a�
ocn
oco
0o
co
oo
co
--w
O
.Soy
=d�
U000
=d�
Um
_°O
Uaoo
U
C3)
o0
.--. I�
N
_
N
...� M
co
C O
oo
T N
c',N
Q C
M
on
co
m!
M
_�
z a'
z
z
z
a °O
a
2
i
a M
cL �
�6 �
U
R
O
N
M
l[>
O
C
V
V
NJ:
I:
co
V
-�r
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
_r
N
CD
0
N
O
M
E
li
d
W

Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl'
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
c C
m
y
Y
00
y O o
w
> Q
N
N
N
u)
u)
u)N
N
0
C
O
m U
t
Ci
C
co
O
C a
0.2
CDs
CD R c
N c.
m
i c
y CD
.
'o c
(L o
d N
N C O
m N
yam+ co
�
d
�
3
C
y CD
G� N
7
N
tm
O
XLU
L t
N
> N
m m
7 �
O c
E N
a U
= T L
L L
o
K G V
N m
•
R v
R _N
G '
2
d
m
E
0
W
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
�
U
w
w
U
=
w
w
U
=
N
u)
0
O
u)U
N
C
u)
u)
U
=
N
N
U
C
N
N
U
C
u)
u)
U
C
N
N
o
(CCa
p
(ccz
0
p
cu
0
Ccca
0
cu
O
cu
0
O
cu
U
G
U
G
U
cM
G
U
G
U
G
U
cG
U
G
U
c(II
G
U
G
++
d
ii
d
:atemQ
• o
L o
O
m
•�
a`
m aZI
•
z
m
N
• m
i R
T
3
Q
W
O ~
N
� ~
N
M
a Z
w
0
v
� f�
O N
O N
N
C O
C
• Q
CD04
CV
N_ CD
N �
N �
C O
N-co
V
U
��
��
��
(5S
0-
co—
W
W
W
M
O
V
V
V
V
co
rn
a
rn

1 .>
E v
m
z u
T cu
T
U (6
f6 LL
LL o
7
O
L
U
Q
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
o m
y
Y
c 2
y O 0
T Q
>
u)
N
N
(n
(n
(n
u)
N
En
u)+R+
c
o
O
O
O
O
r
a)
r
O
i
N
a)
CD
N
i
m U
t
Ci
N
�
o
co
c a
0.2
CD s
CD R c
N o
m
U c
i
y CD
.
'o c
(L o
d N
N C O
m N
yam+ co
�
dCD
Ntm
7
N
aE
W
o
XLU
R.TR
>
N
N
m m
7 �
__ o
O c
E (D
_ d o
= >,R
X
o
G O
R a)
R N
•
R v
G 'O
2
d
m
E
0
W
N
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
0
0
O
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
U
(n
U
(n
U
(n
U
u)U
u)U
u)
U
u)U
Cn
U
(n
U
N
O
u)
O
C
O
u)
O
C
O
u)
O
c
O
N
R
c
O
u)c
R
O
u)c
R
O
N
R
c
O
N
R
C
O
N
R
c
O
u)U
co
d
d
ma
:ate
c
o
m
a`
m a`
•
d
z
O
m
• m
X
R
O
Q
•-
7
Q
_
a)
_
M
�
N
:-�
6
N
00
LC)
N (D
CO
00 67
Lf)
O
N
co
C N
O E
O
L M
O
:E f`
V N
LO CD
N CV
M r
"-t N
N
(.O M
O L6
d
U
U
N
N�
N 4
N
N N
N�
_O �'
M
cu
�i
N
t
0
0
R E;
_ U)
Q
Q
M
M
CO
m
CO C~O
M
m (D
L-
L-4-1
LC4-
L-4
LC--
Lcc-7-
N
N
0
i
O
CN
C
fB
c
R
7
0
0
c
R
0
Q
O
cn
.L,
(v
CB
O
O
O
co
LL
U
0
,'I-
(1)
70
c
a)
O
0_
O_
R
u) M
o a)
O CV
E CV
CV
O �
.O
cn LL
U
o
CD -0
U cu
-
0 cu
Q co
N 0
N .N c
c --
(n (D
T U)
N cj
_U O
� Z
O
N �
O Q
0.) Cu
O U
O O
U N
R
� CU
O Q
U R
7 L
-O U
U0
LL
� U
O
L N
N 'O
c O
E
C6 C7
(n C7-
m
a
rn

�g
O
�c>
0 0
M O
Cl
O V
N
O O
Z
Q N
E
Z
i
E
z
0
co
U
w
C
a
n.
W
c
o
Cl)
(6
� �
O
U
�y N
V
_
d
�
B
C
L6
�
�f0
>
ZS
Q
L
0
m
a
L7
ai
LL
Cl)
o
E-
�..�
C
C
�
::3
C
�
—
t
V
N
D)
y
O
rp
v
N
C
N
C
a)
N
Y
N
L
IL
o
C
W
a>i
�
3
4)
ca
c
m
H
o
a>
cu
�
ar
E
a
o
v
r_
0
o
cn
w
(D
.2
C
O
O
O
}
T
l6
CE
y+
L
N
0
d C
en
t�ii
m Q
E
O
.
ao
C v
C
CD
L
(D
N
-
a
o
❑
❑
❑
❑
El
El
El
El
El
El
El
90
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
mIL
a�
c
0
n
0
a)
Cl)
C
0
Lv
o
S
0
a
CD
03
a
T
o
o
a
iu
o
o
a)
io
a>
�
a
a>
c
c�
_00
cv
Y
LC
o
m
CD
N
N
03
OS
m
O
O
O-
E
_
O
O
N
U
�'
�'
>+
E
__
a)
(D
>+
7
>,
7
N
�
�
O
L
O
cq
N
O
<)
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
C
Q
m
m
m
m
U
m
0
m
0
m
0
0
0
U
U
EN
(M
-4
L6
CO
I--�
06
C)
OC
cl�
CIS
6
(O
r-�
06
a

6) V
O
O
O O
M O
O Cl
N
O O
Z
O
V
N ,
cc
Z +Y
co
V
LL
LL N
7
C0
C
CU
u
0
•(Q
N
Y C
J
_C3
V p
_d
B
N
Q
M
M
M
M
Ln
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
co
d
C
C
C
C
00
LL
CN
C
CN
C
CN
C
CNC
C
fCi
L
L
L
L
i
U
U
V
U
C
V%
Y
a)
0)
a)
w
f�
—
N
N
N
Ln
N
CD
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
i
C
C
C
C
r_
Qj
IL
-
-
-
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
CD
a�i
3
3
3
3
�
c
c
c
T
75
Y
VI
VI
VI
(u
VI
lu
a
a
a
a
O
a)
w
(V
a
T
.
-
?
T
O
N
co
co
ra
to
N
Y
Y
Y
Ul)
IL
i(v+
0-
a
a
a
m
[c6
CU
G
cm
G
cm
G
cm
L
D
(V �
d
U)
m Q
.
ao
L
O 0
d m
� L
ma
�U
co
U
U
(6
•
a
x
a
O
U
CCS
O
C
CU
O
a
O
U
o
(U
c
C
-
O
E
o
a�
Cc
a)
E
O
T
c6
X
-�
O
NO
CC
a
O
-0
-0
C
U
2.
O
L
D
O
O
O
0
C
O
O
-a
O
>+
(D
O
CCS
O
2
O
O
O
fE
4
N
CCS
co
_U
_I_-
_U
_I_
_U
CV
L
_U
N
E_
C_
7
CT
7
Cn
7
'Q
L
L
0
U
N
0
cl
cl
cl
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
W
W
WL
LL
d7
CD
N
M
Liz
O
tiF,6
6
O
NO
tiN
CV
CV
CV
CV
CV
CV
NN
04
Cl)
M
M
M
M
co
co
co
a

�g
O
�c>
o O
M O
O Cl
N
O O
Z
O
y
N ,
Z --�
j
V m
LL
LL N
7
CO
C
v
u
E
z
O
W
a
n.
W
0
•(Q
N
Y C
J
V d
_d
B
L6
Q
m
0)
LL
Ln
LL
N
�
L
Cv
E
C
N
E
fQ
�
L
U
u
L)
Y
M
:n
}J
Y
m
a
L
Ln
a
+
N
Y
C
N
N
i
C
�
IL
Q
d
-0
3
a>i
T
5
m
C
c
N
Y
<C
N
O
Q
Q
N
m
E
T
O
ro
a
d
W
m
N
1 6
Q
-6
Q
D
c�
G
W C
d
CD
U)
m Q
m
.
ao
L
O 0
d m
� L
-
a
ID
m
❑
❑
El
El
El
El0
El
El
El
0
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
m
mIL
Q)
i
76
CD
o
a
E
cy
a�"i
E
`o
m
m
m
O
C
0
O
s
w
m
co
�,
.�
C
C
C
co
C
O
O
Q
T
X
E
E
n
L
a
O
N
L
2
O
m
C
.�..,
co
O
>,
>,
>,
C
CO
O
O
CD
Z
Z
Z
00
6
6
N
M
4
ui
CO
I�
a0
6)
O
N
M
�
ui
C6
M
M
Lf)
Lf)
LO
LO
LO
LO
U')
POW

/co
k
\
\
\
2
�
7
ty
\ƒ
k/
k
\
3
E
ƒ
{
{
{
E
2
/
/
)
ƒ
ƒ
}
S
{
;
2
{
$
IL
\
f
t
[
)
)
7
2
2
2
m
)
$
E
2
\
\
\
»
E
ƒ
ƒ
\
7
CD
\
\
L
\
3
t
t
3
u
_\
f
&
❑
&
❑
w
❑
w
❑
w
❑
❑
w
❑
«
❑
❑
w
❑
❑
&
❑
w
❑
w
❑
w
❑
w
❑
❑
&
❑
&
❑
.
c
=
-
)
2 «
®
f E
Cp
CDU)
.
-
k k
$
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
E
❑
❑
El
❑
E]
❑
❑
❑
DDEEE
.
2
$ IL
\
ƒ
0
/
CD
0
>1
%
\
CD
:E
k
�
2
Lq �_
°rz
°
\
\
_/
�
�\
E
r
f
m
$
E
\
E
m
§
L
/
/
t
\
\
&
/
/
2
g
\
±
%
� k
/
t
§
\
G
G
0
=
§
\
/
OL
f
\
o
o
7 f
b
k e
CD
a)E
E
I
±
a_
a_
a
J
af
«
$
m
a m
e
#
6
6
&
_
'
w
a
a
6
'
w
w
%
a
e
w
»
66
'
w
coa
a
�
m
r
co»
to
to
to
co
co
co
co
co
w
&
w
w
w
w

6) V
O
O
0 0
M O
O Cl
N
O O
Z
O
Q�
(D
E
Z --�
j
V
LL
co
LL N
7
CO
C
v
U
Q
E
Z
U
C
a
LU
W
0
•(Q
N
Y �=
Y C
J
V d
_d
B
L6
Q
Ln
LL
N
01
a+
�
E
fQ
u
U
Y
_N
C
N
N
Ln
CD
cn
aj
aj
N
N
L
IL
�
a
d
N
a,
_T
(D
�a
c
v
o
a
—
T
d
r6
E
C
cn
N
Y
R
N
N
N
N C
❑'
❑,
❑,
❑,
❑
y
m Q
.
ao
L
O CD
d CD
L
IL
m a`
•
Y
7
O
a
N
E
N
O
U
N
O
N
O
>
C
C
O
N
=
_N
>
_N
>
i
X
X
N
c0
ti
a0
O
O
ti
ti
ti
ti
O
m
c
N
O
Q
c
ca
to M
_0 —
O �
L _:-
a) CV
E N
N
O
co L.L
U
C v
U �
O O
C6
Q C)
CD N C
_O
> i
a !n
U _�
Q%
� (D
T U)
CD0
_U O
� Z
O
O �
O Q
O Cu
O -I--
0 C,
U N
U
(6 i
O N
Q
U C6
7 L
-O U
C
0 LL
� U
O
L N
C �
-Q -o
E �
(E �
M
N
N
LT
a
a
M
N
0
M
E
li
a
W

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT C-1
THERMAL OXIDIZER WATER BALANCE TABLE AND FLOW
DIAGRAM
November 2019

Table 1 Thermal Oxidizer Water Flows
Flow
Flow
1) Aqueous Waste Collection Tank:
gpm
gpd
Caustic Scrubber Stage 4:
2.0
2,880
ID fan flush (induced draft)
1.5
2,160
Pump seal flushes
3.0
4,320
Safety shower testing/rinsing estimate an average of 400 gallons per day.
0.3
400
TC and CaF2 area sumps - rain water,spills, labs and wash down water (qty will vary).
0.7
1,000
Total Wastewater
7.5
10,760
2) Batch flows from CaF2* to Filtrate Tank:
Physical/Chemical Treatment followed by filter press filtrate flow rate + flush cycle
20.0
28,800
Total Wastewater
28,800
3) Other Wastewater associated with Thermal Converter (Oxidizer)
Non -contact cooling tower blowdown is 5 gpm or 7200 gallons per day.
5.0
7,200
Steam consumption is estimated at 1000 pph = 2875 gallons of condensate/day
2.0
2,875
Total Wastewater
1
1 10,075
Total Wastewater Flow Associated with TO Area
34.5
49,635
Total Process Water (Internal Outfall)
27.5
39,560
Total Non -Process Water (Cooling Water and Steam Condensate) Outfall 002
7.0
10,075
Cooling Tower Water Evaporated (yearly average) 1 25.0 1 36,000

Demin Water-
2-3 gpm
Steam Condensate
2875 gpd
return
Simplified Flow Diagram Fayetteville Thermal Oxidization Unit
Caustic Scrubber
Scrubber
Thermal Oxidizer
a
Demin Water �/ NaOH Caustic Scrubber (pH 8.0)
1 gpm 4 — — — -Golfe — — — — — ,
� Blowdownl.l-2.8gpm l
Demin Water TC Area Stormwater, Pump seal flushes
---♦ 3 I Washdown Water,
5- 10gpm
I witin diked area and sump
S
2
t
I 1 0.7 gpm
a
I I
1
c
1
k
pH neutralization as needed
Aqueous
Collection
Potassium Bicarbonate
_ _
ID fan Flush WW ♦
Tank
Circulation Pump
-1.5 gpm
1
1
I
1
1
1 I
Water Scrubber
1
1 1 Flow from Other Operations
1
1
1
1 Safety Shower
3.0 gpm
0.3gpm
1
1
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — - 4
1 1 Pump Seal Water
I
T Blowdown 1
7200gpd Cooling Water
Acid Storage Tank
CaF2Unit -8gpm
I
Lime Internal Outfall 102 �+
12gpm �\ O
27.7 gpm / d
120gpm 8
Filtrate Tank --�
Cape Fear River
Filter Cake Off -Site Disposal

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT C-2
THERMAL OXIDIZER WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ENGINEERING REPORT
November 2019

The Chemours Company
Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Treatment Engineering Report
tChemours-
Chemours Fayetteville Thermal Oxidizer
Wastewater Treatment Engineering Report
July 2019

Chemours Fayetteville Thermal Oxidizer
Wastewater Treatment Engineering Report
Introduction/Background
Chemours is installing a control system that will be used to reduce per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) vapor emissions, including GenX Compounds, from several existing sources at
the facility. The Thermal Oxidizer/Scrubber System will reduce emissions of PFAS, including GenX
Compounds, as well as reducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Fluorinated compounds
destroyed in the Thermal Oxidizer will generate hydrogen fluoride (HF) emissions that will be
removed in the scrubber system. Similarly, sulfur -containing compounds fed to the Thermal
Oxidizer will generate sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions which will also be removed in the caustic
scrubber. This system will replace the currently permitted scrubbers installed on the HFPO/Vinyl
Ethers— North and Vinyl Ethers South processes. These scrubbers are identified as control devices
NCD-Hdr1 and NCD-Hdr2 and will be shut down. Process streams previously controlled by these
devices will be instead controlled by the new Thermal Oxidizer and scrubber systems (identified
as ID NCD-Q1 and NCD-Q2, respectively).
The North Carolina Department of Air Quality (NCDAQ) issued a Title V Air Quality Permit
authorizing construction and operation of the Thermal Oxidizer emissions control unit on March
14, 2019. The wastewater streams associated with this process are assessed in this document, to
supplement an application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
to discharge aqueous waste associated with the Thermal Oxidizer/Scrubber system.
The Thermal Oxidizer will be treating vapor emissions from the HFPO/Vinyl Ethers — North and
Vinyl Ethers South manufacturing processes and falls under the SIC Code 2869. Thus, the process
wastewater generated from the Thermal Oxidizer fall under the EPA Organic Chemicals, Plastics,
Synthetic and Fibers Effluent Guidelines.
II. Thermal Oxidizer/Scrubber System
The waste gasses from multiple operating units are combined and fed as two separate waste gas
feed streams. These compounds originate from the manufacturing areas from process emissions
and maintenance emissions of vapors. The sources of waste gas are Monomers/Precursors areas
[HFPO, Vinyl Ethers North, Vinyl Ethers South, MMF, RSU], and the Polymer/TFE areas [IXM
Resins and TFE/CO2 processes].
2
July 2019

The Chemours Company
Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Treatment Engineering Report
It is expected that PFAS compounds will be destroyed by the Thermal Oxidizer to be below the
current analytical detection levels for approved analytical methods. This is based on performance
testing done on a similar unit at the Chemours Washington Works plant, which has demonstrated
>99.99% destruction efficiency. Also, Linde Engineering of North America, the design engineer
and vendor, provided a 99.99% Destruction and Removal Emissions guarantee for VOCs.
There may be some fragmented fluorinated compounds from partial reaction or degradation in
the Thermal Oxidizer. Also, there may be some detectable PFAS compounds in the Thermal
Oxidizer wastewater since these compounds are in the site's water intake (see Attachment F9 of
the NPDES permit application).
The Thermal Oxidizer/Scrubber System includes the following equipment:
• Thermal Oxidizer: The natural gas -fired Thermal Oxidizer will be installed to destroy
GenX, PFAS, and VOC emissions. The Thermal Oxidizer will operate as a high -temperature
(1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, OF) thermal conversion unit for fluorinated hydrocarbon
waste. The Thermal Oxidizer vendor, Linde Engineering of North America, guaranteed a
99.99 percent overall reduction efficiency.
• Gas Accumulation Tanks: The two gas accumulation tanks are hold-up tanks allowing for
pressure swings for feed into the Thermal Oxidizer. One tank contains waste gas fed from
the monomers and precursors areas and the other contains waste gas from the IXM resins
and TFE/CO2 processes. The tanks will be sized to hold waste gas feed to the Thermal
Oxidizer for one (1) hour in the case of a flame -out or other control device malfunction to
allow for the process to safely shut down and come to a steady state condition.
• Liquid Mist Separator: The liquid mist separator separates rapid quench spray from
gaseous combustion products (carbon dioxide and water). The combustion flue gas from
the Thermal Oxidizer is rapidly quenched using an open pipe spray quencher and low
concentration HF acid to rapidly drop the temperature of the combustion gases from
1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (OF) to 150°F. The quenched flue gas is introduced into the
bottom of a Liquid Mist Separator which consists of a packed bed scrubber containing 10
feet of packing height with primary purpose to remove liquid mist from the open pipe
spray quencher discharge. The vapors from the liquid mist separator are fed to the Caustic
Scrubber described below.
• Catch Tank: This tank collects dilute (18 weight percent) aqueous HF acid generated
during the thermal conversion of fluorinated hydrocarbons that is separated from the
vapors in the liquid mist separator. This tank will operate at a slightly negative pressure
and does not have an emission point.
• Acid Recirculation Cooler: This non -contact heat exchanger is used to cool the
recirculation acid used in the Thermal Oxidizer spray quench via cooling tower water.
Cooling tower water is the cooling fluid.

• Acid Storage Tank: The storage tank collects 18 weight percent aqueous HF acid prior to
being pumped to the lime neutralization/calcium fluoride (CaF2) recovery system. HF acid
is also pumped from this tank to the Liquid Mist Separator and to the quench spray on
the Thermal Oxidizer. The tank is sized to maintain thermal conversion operation during
any minor upsets in the lime recovery system.
• Water and Caustic Scrubber: The Thermal Oxidizer waste gases are fed to a four -stage
packed column to neutralize any residual HF vapor carried over from the Liquid Mist
Separator. The lower three stages use countercurrent scrubbing with demineralized
water. Demineralized water is added to Stage 3. The HF is efficiently recovered from the
flue gas. The bottom of Stage 1 contains 10 percent aqueous HF acid, Stage 2 reduces the
concentration to 1 percent, and Stage 3 reduces the concentration to 0.1 percent. Stage 4
uses recirculated scrubbing with a pH basic solution. The pH is controlled by the addition
of sodium hydroxide (caustic). Stage 4 removes residual HF not recovered by the
countercurrent water scrubbing in the first three stages and effectively captures (S02), a
combustion by-product. The scrubber vendor guaranteed that S02 and HF emissions
generated in the Thermal Oxidizer will be reduced by 99.95 percent.
III. Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Treatment System
There are three main waste streams from the Thermal Oxidizer: a) water scrubber (an 18 percent
by weight HF acid); b) the caustic scrubber (sodium hydroxide); and c) cooling tower blowdown
and condensate. See Table 1 for wastewater sources and flow rates.
a. Thermal Oxidizer Water Scrubber Treatment System
Chemours is installing a lime processing system to process weak HF acid generated in the
thermal oxidation process into CaF2. Aqueous 18 percent, by weight, HF acid from the
Thermal Oxidizer/Water Scrubber system is introduced to a Crystallizer with a lime slurry,
where CaF2 crystals are formed. The CaF2 is dried in the filter press and the solids are loaded
into trucks for offsite disposal. The facility receives pebble or hydrated calcium oxide (CaO),
or lime, which is stored in a lime silo prior to being mixed into a wet, calcium hydroxide lime
slurry in the Lime Slaker which is then fed to the Crystallizer. The Lime Processing System
equipment includes:
• Lime Silo with Bin Vent: The Lime Silo is a storage silo for pebble or hydrated lime. The
Lime Silo will be equipped with a jet pulse bagfilter.
• Lime Slaker with Scrubber: The Lime Slaker is a mixing vessel for pebble lime and water
to form a lime slurry of calcium hydroxide and water. Fugitive dust from mixing the pebble
lime and water will be controlled by a wet scrubber that drains back into the slaker.
• Crystallizer: The lime slurry from the slaker is mixed with 18 percent by weight
hydrofluoric acid in an agitated vessel, the Crystallizer, to neutralize the HF and form CaF2
4
July 2019

crystals. The Crystallizer is a partially closed vessel, with an open overflow and does not
generate air emissions.
• Filter Feed Tank: This tank is a batch hold-up tank for the CaF2 slurry to be transferred to
the filter press. Tank separates system from continuous operation to batch operation.
This equipment does not generate air emissions.
• Filter Press and Truck Loading: The Filter Press separates CaF2 solids from filtrate (water).
Dried CaF2 is then loaded as a solid into trucks for disposal offsite.
• Filtrate Tank: Water removed from the CaF2 slurry in the filter press collects in the filtrate
tank. A turbidity meter in the filtrate piping provides indication and switches the filtrate
back to the filter press feed tank to prevent excess solids from getting into the filtrate
tank.
In the CaF2 process a reaction between lime slurry Ca(OH)2 and 18% HF acid results in a slurry
of CaF2 crystals in water.
2HF + Ca(OH)2 4 CaF2+2H2O
The slurry is then pumped into a filter press to remove the water and create CaF2 cake, which
is dropped into a truck directly beneath the filter press. The CaF2 is taken off -site for disposal
in a landfill. The filtrate water is verified clear of solids with a turbidity meter and discharged
into the Filtrate Tank.
At typical operating rates, the rate of acid generation from the Thermal Oxidizer will be
approximately 4 gpm on average, up to a maximum design rate of 8 gpm. Based on the
material balance, the water generated by the reaction with 8 gpm acid, plus the excess water
in lime slurry required for neutralization, and in the aqueous 18% acid generates
approximately 28,000 gallons per day (gpd) of filtrate (water) on average. In addition, each
filter press batch requires a flush cycle, which is expected to add approximately 800 gpd
additional filtered waste water into the filtrate tank.
The filtrate water will contain some residual CaF2, MgF2, CaSO3, CSO4, and/or CaOH2 lime
solids (fines). The expected water quality specifications are as follows:
• Solids: A turbidity instrument on the filtrate monitors the clarity of the filtrate water
stream exit the filter press. High turbidity indicates leak in the filter cloth or finer particles
than normal. The water must be less than 700 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) for
transfer to the filtrate tank. At >700 NTUs, the filtrate is automatically diverted to the
filter press feed tank. In addition, the operator must confirm by visual sample that water
is visually clear on startup and that the turbidity instrument is getting adequate sample
flow prior to sending filtrate to the Filtrate Tank.
• pH: Neutralization in the Crystallizer with Ca(OH)2 is controlled by a pH control loop which
adjusts the lime to acid ratio. This control system ensures the pH in the crystallizer is
5
July 2019

maintained at an aim of 6.5 pH units. This will ensure the filtrate is within a neutral pH
range.
• Total Dissolved solids: consisting mainly of CaF2, MgF2, CaS03, and CaSO4, etc.
• Fluorinated components: It is expected that PFAS compounds will be destroyed by the
Thermal Oxidizer and will not be present in the water above current analytical methods
and detection levels. However, there may be some fragmented fluorinated compounds
from partial reaction or degradation in the Thermal Oxidizer. Note, there will be some
detectable PFAS compounds in the Thermal Oxidizer wastewater since these compounds
are in the site's water intake (see attachment F9 of the NPDES permit application).
b. Thermal Oxidizer Caustic Scrubber Wastewater and Miscellaneous Wastewater
The Aqueous Waste Collection tank collects the wastewater discharged from the Caustic
Scrubber Stage 4, as well as water collected in drainage trenches and sumps providing
secondary containment for process equipment. Continuous flows include a water flush for
the induced draft (ID) fan exit the scrubber, pump seal flushes, safety shower testing/rinsing,
wash downs, etc. Rain water that collects in these containment dikes/sumps will also be
transferred into the aqueous waste collection tank. Sumps are equipped with conductivity
measurement to detect any HF acid spills, the aqueous waste tank is equipped with pH
measurement and a potassium bicarbonate neutralization system to treat the water if
necessary. As a final check of pH, the aqueous waste tank has instrumentation on the
circulating loop to measure pH. Manual treatment with sodium bicarbonate solution to
correct pH excursions is available as needed.
Sources of wastewater to the Aqueous Collection Tank includes the following:
• Caustic Scrubber Stage 4: Stage 4 (uppermost stage) of the scrubber uses recirculated
scrubbing with a pH basic solution. The pH is controlled by the addition of sodium
hydroxide (caustic). Stage 4 removes residual HF not recovered by the countercurrent
water scrubbing in the first three stages and effectively captures S02, a combustion by-
product. Continuous monitoring of pH is required by the air permit. A minimum pH of 7.1
must be maintained on a 3-hour rolling average basis. In addition, demineralized water is
sprayed onto the demister pad in the top of the scrubber. This is to keep the demister
clean of sublimed refractory. A level control loop in Stage 4 takes off excess wastewater
to the Aqueous Waste Tank.
• Secondary containment (sump) liquid: The Thermal Oxidizer system is designed with
secondary containment dikes and sumps to protect groundwater from any leaks from the
process. All liquid collected in the drainage sumps is pumped to the aqueous waste tank.
This includes the Acid Tank sump, the Thermal Oxidizer sump, the Aqueous tanks sump,
and the decontamination building sump.
• Pump seal flushes directed to secondary containment: Demineralized water is used for
flushing all pump double mechanical seals in the process. In the event of a seal failure,
6
July 2019

this water may become in contact with process. As a precaution against this, all seal flush
fluid is continuously routed to the containment sump system described above and sent
to aqueous waste tank.
• Safety shower testing/rinsing: The safety showers are located within the contained area.
All water resulting from daily testing to ensure safety shower operation as well as use of
the showers for rinsing personal protective equipment (PPE) or in emergency will drain
to the sump system described above. Safety showers are supplied with domestic (Bladen
County) water.
• Housekeeping wash downs: Filtered river water hose stations are available within the
containment area for housekeeping purposes. Drainage is collected in the sump system.
• ID fan water flush: The ID fan on the Thermal Oxidizer system is continuously pulling
gasses from the scrubber to the stack. Based on experience from the Washington Works
plant, sublimed refractory from the Thermal Oxidizer itself can deposit on the fan blades
over time. A demin water flush on the fan eliminates this problem, improving the life of
the fan. Water from the low point drain of the fan is routed to the trench/sump system
and will be pumped to the aqueous waste tank with the other sources listed above.
• Rain water: Because the Thermal Oxidizer containment is in a diked area and open to the
weather, any rainfall within that contained area will be collected and pumped to aqueous
waste.
• Lab waste: A sink in the lab within the multipurpose building will be used for disposal of
sample liquid collected for pH measurement, water testing, etc. A lift station pumps this
waste to the aqueous waste tank.
The aqueous waste collected in the tank will contain the wastewaters noted below. The
expected water quality specifications are as follows:
• Sodium fluoride: HF in the caustic scrubber reacts with 20% NaOH to form Sodium
Fluoride (NaF). (Stage 4 wastewater flow of approximately 2,880 gpd based on flow sheet
requirements). This equates approximately 0.1% (1,000 ppm) NaF in the effluent of the
caustic scrubber.
• Other fluorinated compounds: There may be some fragments of fluorinated compounds
in the Thermal Oxidizer caustic scrubber. Also, some PFAS compounds may be present
that are reflective of the PFAS and other compounds in Chemours intake water.
• Aluminum hydroxide: Sublimed refractory residue (aluminum hydroxide) is rinsed from
the Stage 4 demister pad and from the ID fan to prevent accumulation of gel/solids over
time. Refractory brick is constructed of 95% aluminum oxide which reacts with HF in the
flue gas and sublimes from solid to vapor as AIFs. As the flue gasses are cooled, small (less
than 10 micron) particles are formed. The AIFs hydrolyzes in the presence of water vapor
in the flue gas quench and scrubbing train to form aluminum hydroxide which can cause
fouling in the ID fan, demister pad, and other surfaces. The residue that is rinsed from the
system will be present in the aqueous waste. The solubility of aluminum hydroxide in
7
July 2019

water is about 0.55 wt%. The flow rate to the Stage 4 scrubber demister sprays is
approximately one (1) gallon per minute (gpm). The ID fan flush is approximately 1.5 gpm.
• Demineralized water from pump seal flushes (approx. 3,600 gpd): The Demin water will
be reflective of the PFAS and other compounds in Chemours intake water.
• Filtered (river) water from hose stations (flow rate varies with usage): will be reflective
of the PFAS and other compounds in Chemours intake water plus it may include process
residues or liquid from spills that is washed to sump in Thermal Oxidizer area.
• Domestic water from safety showers (approximately 400 gpd estimated due to daily
testing) will be reflective of the PFAS and other compounds in Chemours intake water.
• Rain water and wash downs: Any residue from leakage or deposition from air present
within the contained area is subject to wash down from hose stations or from rainfall. The
wash down water will be reflective of the PFAS and other compounds in Chemours intake
water.
• Lab waste: Water from process samples, water testing, cleaning glassware, etc. from the
laboratory sink on an as needed basis. Flow rate will vary with usage but is not expected
to be significant relative to other waste streams.
• HF acid spills: Acid spills from the quench system could result in 18% HF draining to the
sump system. Instrumentation on the sumps (conductivity) will detect the leak and
interlock the sump pump off. Depending on the extent of the spill, the sump can either
be pumped to the HF Acid storage tank for processing through CaF2, or to the aqueous
waste system (if dilute) for treatment with sodium bicarbonate.
• Decontamination liquid: A decontamination facility consisting of a sink with a sodium
bicarbonate bath is available for non -routine neutralization of small components such as
piping, equipment, and valves containing residual acid. The sodium bicarbonate solution
along with any residue from the process fluid is captured and pumped to the aqueous
waste tank.
c. Cooling Tower Water
The cooling tower provides a recirculated cooling water stream for the quench cooler and
crystallizer cooler. The vendor cooling tower design on-line calculator for our process
conditions resulted in an estimated 36,000 gpd evaporation rate, requiring make up to the
system with filtered river water. Periodic blow down of the system discharged to the internal
outfall will be 10,075 gpd. The cooling tower blowdown water will be reflective of the PFAS
and other compounds in Chemours intake water with some elevation in concentration of
compounds due to the evaporation of water in the cooling tower. In additional cooling tower
maintenance chemicals will be used. A list of the expected Cooling Tower Water Treatment
Chemicals and the compound in the site's water intake are provided in the NPDES permit
application's Attachment F.
July 2019

• Non -Contact cooling water: Cooling tower blowdown is piped from the area to the outfall
002. Conductivity measurement on the return water to the cooling tower provides
indication in the event of heat exchanger tube failure that would introduce process acid
into the cooling tower system.
• Steam condensate (non -contact): Steam traps discharge condensate into trenches which
are then piped to the outfall.
IV. Additional Treatment of Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater.
Additional treatment of the Thermal Oxidizer wastewater may be necessary for sulfite reduction
and total suspended solids (TSS) to meet the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) biochemical oxygen demand (BODO and TSS effluent limitations. Chemours has
evaluated two options:
1) Aerate the aqueous tank to convert S03 to SO4. This will eliminate the oxygen demand in
the wastewater associated with S03. Install additional filtration to the CaF2 filter presses
to remove any excess solids to assure the meeting of the OCPSF TSS limitation.
2) Discharge the Thermal Oxidizer wastewater to the Chemours biological wastewater
treatment plant to convert S03 to SO4 and to reduce TSS as necessary.
Chemours is planning to select option #2 if necessary; however, Chemours prefers that option
#1 be included in the permit as an alternative.
V. Expected Thermal Oxidizer Effluent
Chemours expects the BODS and TSS to be below the OCPSF Subpart D Effluent Limitations based
on the treatment noted above. The 18% weight HF treated by the CaF2 unit has an estimated F
and Mg effluent concentration shown in Table 2. The sulfate associated with caustic scrubber
effluent concentrations are provided in Table 2.
As noted, it is expected that PFAS compounds will be destroyed by the Thermal Oxidizer to be
below the current analytical detection levels for approved analytical methods. This is based on
performance testing done on a similar unit at the Chemours Washington Works plant, which has
demonstrated >99.99% destruction efficiency. Also, Linde Engineering of North America provided
a 99.99% vendor guaranteed performance for the destruction of VOCs.
9
July 2019

VI. Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
Chemours intends to hold, test, and assess the Thermal Oxidizer Water Scrubber, Caustic
Scrubber, and other miscellaneous wastewater for the first two months after start-up. During
this time, the site's wastewater will be sent off -site for disposal so that the site can fully
characterize the wastewater and confirm its ability to meet the outfall limitations placed in the
NPDES permit.
In addition, Chemours will assess, after the initial startup, the Thermal Oxidizer CaF2 and Caustic
Scrubber effluent to confirm that no PFAS compounds will be present in the wastewater beyond
PFAS compounds detected in the site's water intake. If PFAS compounds are present beyond
what is detected in the intake, Chemours will evaluate the CaF2 and Caustic Scrubber wastewater
with treatment by granular activated carbon to assess the removal of HAS compounds that are
not associated with the intake water.
Table 1 Thermal Oxidizer Water Water Flows
Flow
Flow
1) Aqueous Waste Collection Tank:
gpm
gpd
Caustic Scrubber Stage 4:
2.0
2,880
ID fan flush (induced draft)
1.5
2,160
Pump seal flushes
3.0
4,320
Safety shower testing/rinsing estimate an average of 400 gallons per day.
0.3
400
TC and CaF2 area sumps - rain water,spills, labs and wash down water (qty will vary).
0.7
1,000
Total Wastewater
7.5
10,760
2) Batch flows from CaF2* to Filtrate Tank:
Physical/Chemical Treatment followed by filter press filtrate flow rate + flush cycle
20.0
28,800
Total Wastewater
28,800
3) Other Wastewater associated with Thermal Converter (Oxidizer)
Non -contact cooling tower blowdown is 5 gpm or 7200 gallons per day.
5.0
7,200
Steam consumption is estimated at 1000 pph = 2875 gallons of condensate/day
2.0
2,875
Total Wastewater
10,075
Total Wastewater Flow Associated with TO Area
34.5
49,635
Total Process Water (Internal Outfall)
27.5
39,560
Total Non -Process Water (Cooling Water and Steam Condensate) Outfall 002
7.0
10,075
Cooling Tower Water Evaporated (yearly average) 1 25.0 1 36,000
10
July 2019

Table 2
Current Outfall Fluoride and Sulfate Outfall Conc and Mass
TO Outfal1
001
002
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthly Avg
Daily Max
Sulfate
mg/L
0
0
825
32.10
Ibs/day
0
0
3530
7055
Fluoride
mg/L
0
0
1.1
0.20
0.50
Ibs/day
0
0
4.7
41.7
114
Magnesium
mg/L
0
0
3.32
2.79
Ibs/day
0
0
14
613
Future Outfall Fluoride and Sulfate Outfall Conc and Mass
TO Outfal1
001
002
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthy Avg
Daily Max
Monthly Avg
Daily Max
Sulfate
mg/L
327.94
861.66
32.73
Ibs/day
135
3665
7190
Fluoride
mg/L
62.9
7.19
0.64
Ibs/day
25.89
30.59
139.89
Magnesium
mg/L
5
3.57
2.83
Ibs/day
1.2
15.2
614.2
July 2019

Simplified Flow Diagram Fayetteville Thermal Oxidization Unit
Scrubber
Scrubber
Demin Water NaOH Caustic Scrubber (pH 8.0)
lgpm 4 ---folk — — — — —
,
De m i n Water _ Bl owdown 1.1- 2.8 gpm l
2-3 gpm Demin Water TC Area Stormwater, Pump seal flushes
---i 3 ( Washdown Water,
5- 10 gpm witin diked area and sump
S I I
I
Thermal Oxidizer 2 t 0.7 gpma I
I
c +
1 k pH neutralization as needed
Aqueous Collection Potassium Bicarbonate
Tank
IDfan Flush WW Circulation Pump
-1.5gpm I I I
1
Steam Condensate 1
2875gpd Water Scrubber 1 1 Flow fromOther Operations
f------- j Safety Shower
return 3_�gPm___� 0.3F;pm
1 L
Pump Seal Water Lime IInternal Outfall102 O
12gpm OR m
TBlowdown 1 ' 27.7gpm g
7200gpd Cooling Water 20gpm
Acid Storage Tank Filtrate Tank -_j g
CaF2Unit -8gpm Cape Fear River
Filter Cake Off -Site Disposal
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT C-3
THERMAL OXIDIZER ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS REPORT
November 2019

Chemours Fayetteville Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) for NPDES Permit
Application -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
Discharge
Prepared for:
The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Fayetteville)
Prepared by:
PARSONS
July 2019
■
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 2
Applicant's Information:
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.6246 i F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Applicant Name: Chemours Company (The Chemours Company FC, LLC)
Facility Name: Fayetteville Works
Facility Mailing Address: 22828 NC Highway 87 W, Fayetteville, NC 28306
County: Bladen
Phone Number: [phone]
Contact Person: Christel Compton
Preparer's Information:
EAA Preparer: Parsons Corporation
Mailing Address: 4701 Hedgemore Drive, Charlotte, NC 28209
Phone Number: [phone]
Contact Person: Michael Robinson, P.E.
Parsons PLUS envision more
SM

4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
The Chemours Company P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater www.parsons.com
July 2019
Page 3
Table of Contents
Page
SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND............................................................................................................4
STEP1........................................................................................................................................................ 5
ALLOWABILITY OF PROPOSED DISCHARGE........................................................................................... 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................ 10
SCHEDULE............................................................................................................................................11
STEP2...................................................................................................................................................... 11
FLOW PROJECTION AND FLOW BASIS JUSTIFICATION........................................................................ 11
STEP3...................................................................................................................................................... 12
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ........................................... 12
Alternative A: Connection to Existing Municipal Treatment Plant.................................................12
Alternative B: Land Application Alternative Evaluation..................................................................13
Alternative C: Wastewater Reuse in Facility................................................................................... 16
Alternative D: Direct Discharge.......................................................................................................16
Alternative E: Combination of Alternatives.................................................................................... 20
STEP4...................................................................................................................................................... 22
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................ 22
CONCLUSION AND PATH FORWARD....................................................................................................... 24
List of Tables
Table 1— Preliminary Schedule
Table 2 —Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Flow Rates
Table 3 — Present Value of Costs Analysis Summary Table
List of Figures
Figure 1— Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Site Plan and Proposed Treatment Plant Location
Figure 3 — Receiving Stream Classification
Figure 4 — Sub -Basin Water Quality Plan
Figure 5 — Impaired Waters Map
Figure 6 — Hydrogeological Units at the Site
Figure 7—Thermal Oxidizer Flow Diagram
Figure 8 — Lime Processing System and Solids Handling and Dewatering
Parsons PLUS envision more9 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 4
SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
In accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0105(c)(2), Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) has prepared this
draft Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for review by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). The EAA supports the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit application for the Thermal Oxidizer (TO) wastewater streams at the Fayetteville Works
Facility (the Site), Bladen County, North Carolina. Pursuant to the signed Consent Order filed February 25,
2019, Chemours plans on installing a TO to control per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) vapor
emissions from process streams along with a physical chemical treatment system to remove fluoride. An
NPDES permit application and supporting EAA is a pre -requirement for the construction and operation of
this treatment system. The TO is required to be installed and operational by December 31, 2019, assuming
permits are issued in a timely manner. The North Carolina Division of Air Quality issued a Title V Air Quality
Permit authorizing construction and operation of the TO emissions control unit on March 14, 2019.
The Site is located on NC Highway 87, 15 miles southeast of the City of Fayetteville, and south of the
Bladen-Cumberland county line. The Site encompasses 2,177 acres of relatively flat undeveloped open
land and woodland bounded on the east by the Cape Fear River, on the west by NC Highway 87, and on
the north and south by farmland. The Site's location is shown in Figure 1.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) purchased the property in parcels from several families
in 1970. The Site's first manufacturing area was constructed in the early 1970s. Currently, the Site
manufactures plastic sheeting, fluorochemicals, and intermediates for plastics manufacturing. A former
manufacturing area, which was sold in 1992, produced nylon strapping and elastomeric tape.
DuPont sold its Butacite° and SentryGlas° manufacturing units to Kuraray America, Inc. in June 2014.
DuPont separated its specialty chemicals business into a new publicly -traded company named The
Chemours Company FC, LLC as of July 1, 2015. With this separation, Chemours became the owner of the
entire 2,177 acres of the Fayetteville Works along with the Fluoromonomers, Nafion° membranes, and
Polymer Processing Aid (PPA) manufacturing units. The polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) resin manufacturing unit
remained with DuPont.
In addition to the manufacturing operations, Chemours operates two natural gas -fired boilers and a
biological wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for the treatment of DuPont and Kuraray process
wastewater and sanitary wastewaters from DuPont, Kuraray, and Chemours.
Parsons PLUS envision more9 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 5
PrePP�aa' eo,..0.
u5G5 iopo ouatl pro�ttletl Gy NG DOi - - � `^=7 -•
PA SOrg5 Site Location Map
NPDES Permit Appll awion -Oltl Outfall 002
�01 Plei�l eW Rued. 3rKe 350 Chemours Fayettevllle works
s �.r•. ivr ,a�,z Fayetteville. North Carolina
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
STEP 1
ALLOWABILITY OF PROPOSED DISCHARGE
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Chemours plans on treating the TO process wastewater streams and discharging it to the on -site WWTP,
which discharges to Outfall 001/002. Chemours is also exploring the option to alternatively discharge to
an internal outfall on the Site, which drains to the permitted Outfall 002 which discharges to the Cape
Fear River. An aerial site plan showing the location of the Site in relation to the Cape Fear River, the TO
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 6
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
construction area, storage tank's location, Outfall 002, and the internal discharge location is shown in
Figure 2.
rS
�.
❑U T FALL 002
r
yq� r -
� -
IJelim arch
Pxvpm�rrlfC,yrp
Plant Bordor
DMmao Cnnnnel
�\/ Firrrr
OSI[e 51111lAura
0 swMu
ou ouunu DaE
r�ww'e� rwum
N
0 &W 1.700
Feet
Figure 2 - Site Plan and Proposed Treatment Plant Location
Applicability of the Local Government Review form (Attachment A per the EAA guidance document) and
a stepwise assessment for each potential restriction of the receiving body discussion per the EAA guidance
document is discussed below. The NCDEQ EAA guidance is in italics, and a discussion follows:
Applicability of the Local Government Review
Per the EAA guidance document, the North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input
from local governments in the issuance of NPDES Permits for new non -municipal domestic
wastewater treatment facilities. As this facility is an existing non -municipal domestic wastewater
treatment facility, it has been determined that the local government review form does not need
to be completed.
EAA Guidance on Potential Restrictions
1) EAA Guidance: Zero flow stream restrictions (15A NCAC 28.0206(d)(2)] apply to oxygen -consuming
waste in zero flow streams. In order to determine streamflow at the proposed discharge location,
contact the U.S. Geological Survey at 919-571-4000.
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 7
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
EAA Guidance on Streamflow: Streamflow data, specially the low flow data of the receiving body
is required to support the EAA (7Q10, 30Q2, annual average streamflow).
The Cape Fear River will be the ultimate receiving body. Based on available data from the U.S.
Geological Survey at the William O. Huske Lock, the annual average streamflow at the location
has been determined to be 4,945 cubic feet per sec, and it has been confirmed that the Cape Fear
River is not an intermittent body of water.
As the ultimate receiving body for the TO process wastewater is the Cape Fear River, which is a
perennial river, a zero -flow discharge restriction is not applicable to the Cape Fear River at this
location. For reference, the hydrologic unit code has been determined to be 03030005.
2] EAA Guidance: Receiving stream classification restrictions [e.g., ORW, WS, SA, NSW, and HQ class
waters have various discharge restrictions or require stricter treatment standards]. Stream
classifications are available on the DWR Classification and Standards/Rule Review Branch website:
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu), while wastewater discharge restrictions for various
stream classifications are presented in state regulations [15A NCAC 2B.0200].
On reviewing publicly available resources such as the NCDEQ Surface Water Classifications maps,
it was determined that the classification of the Cape Fear River is WS-IV.
WS-IV are classified as waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also
protected for Class C uses (fishable/swimmable).
The TO process wastewater is anticipated to be of at least the same quality, in terms of
concentration of PFAS indicator compounds, of the Cape Fear River water intake which is primarily
used as cooling water at the facility. Therefore, we anticipate that this discharge will not degrade
the existing classification of the receiving body whether it is treated at the WWTP or discharged
to an internal outfall to Outfall 002.
The classification map showing the Cape Fear River, Georgia Branch, and Willis Creek in/around
the Site follows.
Parsons PLUS envision more9 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 8
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
e
11NUNN"
Surface Water Classifications:
Stream Index:
18{2&25)
Stream
CAPE FEAR RIVER
Name.
Description:
From a point approximately1
mile upstream of Grays
Creekta a point
approximately 0.5 mile
upstream of Smithfield
Packing Company's intake
m Classification:
WSIV
y Date of
December 31, 2008
Class,
v River Rash:
Cape Fear
What does
More info
this Class.
eon?
Zoom to
•••
�a
North Carolina DOT, Uri, HERE, Garmin,
INCREMENT P, USGS, METVNASA, EPA,
Figure 3 - Receiving Stream Classification
3) EAA Guidance: Basinwide Water Quality Plans. These basin -specific plans list NPDES permitting
strategies that may limit wastewater discharges to particular streams within the basin due to lack
of stream assimilative capacity, etc. Basin plans are available on the DWR website, or you may
contact the DWR Basinwide Planning Branch (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/ps/bpu).
The latest version of the Cape Fear River basinwide water quality plan is from 2005 and has been
reviewed for references to stream assimilative capacity for the Cape Fear River section pertinent
to the discharge location of Clutfall 002. The sub -basin is the Lower Cape Fear River.
As such, we anticipate that the process wastewater discharge will be a very low flow, anticipated
to be —35 gallons per minute (gpm), and should not lead to a significant dissolved oxygen sag or
impact the river's assimilative capacity due to its expected characteristics.
The available sub -basin map is shown below.
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 9
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
o x
Subbasin Information:
6-Digit HUC
03030005
(Subbasin):
Subbasin Name:
Lower Cape Fear
Sq. Miles:
1,D62
Acres:
717,748
River Basin:
Cape Fear
N
Figure 4 - Sub -Basin Water Quality Plan
4) Impaired waters and [total maximum daily loads or] TMDLs. Certain waterbodies listed as
impaired on the 303(d) list and/or subject to impending TMDLs may have wastewater discharge
restrictions. The list of 303(d) impaired waters is located on the DWR website, or you may contact
the DWR Modeling and Assessment Branch (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu).
Based on the latest available 303(d) list (Draft 2018, NC Category 5 Assessments), the Lower Cape
Fear River, Georgia Branch, Willis Creek, and the pertinent section of the Cape Fear River receiving
the discharge, are not on the impaired list. This was additionally confirmed against the latest
available "Impaired Waters Map" from the NCDEQ.
There are portions of the Cape Fear River and contributing tributaries that are impaired but do
not appear to be within the vicinity of the proposed discharge location. Per publicly available
information, the nearest upstream impaired tributary to the Cape Fear River is shown to be in
Cross Creek (in Fayetteville, NC, —20 miles upstream), while the nearest downstream impaired
section of the Cape Fear River is shown to be in Riegelwood, NC (-50 miles downstream).
The referenced impaired waters map showing the un-impaired Cape Fear River section where
Outfall 002 discharges, is shown below.
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 10
�.. E
Figure 5 — Impaired Waters Map
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
2012_NQ1L4$­LW00R
— 5e�enngS�e�Yi
t: Wed(3)
km Dtl 130
a
y — k"-dAC1,30xdf LiaM
A
a
2012.]IL0uaea1lJRatln9s [no deu}
�{I:2 IR.pNrHl.i4d�_j�pnly
5) Presence of Endangered Species. If endangered species are present in the proposed discharge
location, there may be wastewater discharge restrictions. Endangered species information may
be included in the Basinwide Water Quality Plan, or you may contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (919-856-4520), N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (919-733-3633), or the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (919-733-7701).
The basinwide water quality plan, maps provided by the Environmental Conservation Online
System (ECOS) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) resource list from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not indicate the
presence of any aquatic endangered species in the pertinent area of the Cape Fear River, the
Georgia Branch, and Willis Creek.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chemours is installing a control system that will be used to reduce PFAS vapor emissions, including GenX
compounds, from several existing sources at the facility. The TO system will reduce emissions of PFAS,
including GenX compounds, as well as reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present. Fluorinated
compounds destroyed in the TO will generate hydrogen fluoride (HF) emissions that will be removed in
the scrubber system. Similarly, sulfur -containing compounds fed to the TO will generate sulfur dioxide
(S02) emissions which will also be removed in the scrubber. Chemours will also install a lime processing
system to process the weak HF acid generated in the TO process into Calcium Fluoride (CaF2). Once
compliance is demonstrated, Chemours plans on discharging the TO effluent to the on -site WWTP, which
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 11
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
discharges to Outfall 001. Chemours is also exploring the option to alternatively discharge to an internal
outfall on the Site, which drains to Outfall 002.
SCHEDULE
Per the Consent Order, provided the NCDEQ and any additional permitting authorities issue the necessary
permits in a timely fashion, the TO is to be installed and operational by December 31, 2019.
To meet the requirements stated in the EAA guidance document, a schedule for the project is provided in
Table 1. This assumes that permits will be authorized in a timely manner by the NCDEQ and relevant
authorities.
Planning Level Preliminary Estimated Schedule for TO Process Wastewater Treatment System
2019
2020
Project Milestone
April
May
June
July August September October November
December
January
February
March
NPDES Permit
County Permits (As Needed)
Detailed Design
Completed
Procurement
On -Going
Construction
Start -Up and Commissioning
Off -Site Discharge (Trucking) to Exhibit
Compliance Requirements
Plant Discharge to Internal Outfall(Following
exhibition of compliance)
Notes:
1) Schedule assumes timely authorization of NPDES permits and assumes that issued permit will be similar to the assumed
requirements used to develop the design
Table 1 - Preliminary Schedule
STEP 2
FLOW PROJECTION AND FLOW BASIS JUSTIFICATION
Flow projections have been based on material balance and estimated flows based on the design. A total
discharge of approximately 35 gpm is anticipated from this process. A preliminary breakdown of the
wastewater flows associated with the TO is provided in Table 2.
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 12
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Flow
Flow
1) Aqueous Waste Collection Tank:
Sprn
gpd
Caustic Scrubber Stage 4:
2.0
2,880
IQ fan flush {induced drafty
1.5
2,160
Pump seal flushes
3.0
4,320
Safety shower testing/rinsingtesting/rinsing estimate an average of 400 gallons per day.
0.3
400
TC and CaF2 area sumps - rain %.vater,spi I I s, labs and %vash dovm %.eater (qty will vary).
0.7
1,000
Total Wastewater
7.5
10,760
2) hatch flows from CaF2* to Filtrate Tank:
Physical/Chemical Treatment followed by filter press filtrate flovi rate + flush c cle
20.0
28,800
Total Wastewater
28,800
a) other Wastewater associated with Thermal Converter (oxiefzer)
Non -contact cooling tower blowdown is 5 gpm or 7200 galIons per day.
5.0
7.200
Steam consumption is estimated at 1000 pph = 2875 gallons of condensate/day
2.0
2,875
Total Wastewater
1
10,075
Total Wastewater Flow Associated with TO Arco
34.5
1 49,635
Total Process Water (internal Outfall)
27.5
39,560
Total Non -Process Water (Cooling Water and Steam Condensate) Outfall 002
7.0
10,075
Cooling Tower Water Evaporated (yearly average) 1 25.0 1 36,000
Table 2-Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater Flow Rates
STEP 3
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Alternative A: Connection to Existing Municipal Treatment Plant
Conveying the effluent from the new treatment system for the TO to a local Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) was evaluated in lieu of discharging the treated effluent from the TO treatment system to
the Site WWTP (discharging to Outfall 001) or the internal outfall (draining to Outfall 002). The nearest
POTW to the Site is Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC) Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation
Facility (WRF) located approximately nine miles north of the Site. The nearest public sewer connection to
this facility is approximately six miles north of the Site. The Fayetteville PWC has indicated that they will
not accept water from the Site associated with PFAS treatment. The Rockfish Creek WRF uses biological
treatment technology and does not provide treatment for PFAS compounds. Thus, the Rockfish Creek
WRF cannot provide any additional treatment of this wastewater. Additionally, given the distances
involved, it may not be rational to convey a very low flow to the facility.
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 13
Alternative B: Land Application Alternative Evaluation
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
As part of the EAA, the efficacy of land application alternatives (e.g., infiltration galleries, spray irrigation,
injection wells, etc.) of the treated TO process wastewater was evaluated in lieu of discharging the treated
effluent to the Site WWTP (discharging to Outfall 001) or the internal outfall (draining to Outfall 002).
Based on historical investigation by Parsons at the facility, Site features relevant to land application are
summarized below.
0 Site Topography and Drainage
The facility topography is relatively flat within the developed portion of the Site; surface
topography then decreases towards the Cape Fear River to the east and Willis Creek to the
north of the facility. Topographic relief from the main manufacturing area down to the top of
the riverbank is approximately 100 feet and approximately 40 feet from the main
manufacturing area to Willis Creek. Surface topography generally remains flat to the west;
however, there is a gentle increase of about 5 feet to a topographic divide near Highway 87.
In the far southwestern portion of the property, surface topography again decreases by 15 to
25 feet where the Georgia Branch channel runs along the property line. The Georgia Branch
confluence with the Cape Fear River is approximately 1.3 miles south of the William O. Huske
Lock and Dam (0.75 miles southeast of the property).
The Cape Fear River is located along the eastern property boundary of the plant, approximately
1,850 feet from the eastern portion of the manufacturing area. Willis Creek, a tributary of the
Cape Fear River is in the northern portion of the Site, approximately 3,000 feet from the
manufacturing area. Portions of the Georgia Branch, another tributary to the Cape Fear River,
flow along part of the southern boundary of the Site. The plant facilities are located on a
plateau at an approximate elevation of 145 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The plant is
situated approximately 70 feet above the 100- and 500-year Cape Fear River floodplains and
at least 1,000 feet from the 100-year floodplain's nearest approach.
0 Site Geology
The soil on the Site falls within the Norfolk -Goldsboro -Raines general classification.' These soils
are located on old, high stream terraces in the northern part of Bladen County and are
generally poorly drained soils that have a sandy or loamy surface layer and loamy subsoil.
Based on the lithology logged during historical on -site investigations, the Site is underlain by a
fine- to medium -grained sand unit with thin discontinuous interbedded silt/clay lenses. The
sand extends to a depth of approximately 65 feet below ground surface (bgs) (elevation of
+80 feet MSL). The saturated portion of this unit has been identified as the Surficial Aquifer.
Beneath this unit is a 7- to 15-foot thick, laterally -continuous dense clay that has been
identified as the Black Creek Confining Unit. The elevation of this unit (approximately +65 to
1 Leab, R.J. (1990). Soil Survey of Bladen County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North Carolina
Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, and Bladen County Board of Commissioners.
■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 14
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
+77 feet MSL) indicates that it outcrops along the bluff face adjacent to the Cape Fear River,
and potentially along the embankment near Willis Creek. Beneath this confining unit is the
Black Creek Aquifer, which is approximately 8 to 20 feet thick and is encountered at depth
between 80 and 100 feet bgs (elevation of approximately +45 to +65 feet MSL). Beneath this
aquifer is a massive dense clay (with minor sand stringers) that has been identified as the
Upper Cape Fear Confining Unit.
o Site Hydrogeology
Hydrogeologic units relevant to the Site include a Perched Zone, the Surficial Aquifer, and the
Black Creek Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer and Black Creek Aquifer are regionally extensive
features while the Perched Zone is limited in extent to the top of the clay lens that underlies
most of the manufacturing area. A schematic showing the units with surface water features in
reference to the manufacturing facility is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 - Hydrogeological Units at the Site
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
The Chemours Company P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater www.parsons.com
July 2019
Page 15
0 Perched Zone
An aerially limited perched water zone exists on top of the clay lens that underlies most of the
manufacturing area. This Perched Zone appears mainly to result from seepage of surface water
through the bottom of the Sediment Basins that are used to settle out solids from Cape Fear
River water (which is used on -site as non -contact cooling water) and infiltration of non -contact
cooling water from a cooling water channel. The sediment basins and the cooling water
channel were lined in November 2018 as part of the ongoing Site remedial actions to reduce
infiltration to the Perched Zone. The Perched Zone may also be recharged to a lesser extent by
direct infiltration of rainfall. Where perched water is present, it is encountered from
approximately 6 feet bgs at the basins to a depth of approximately 20 feet bgs along the edges
of the Perched Zone west of the sedimentation basins.
0 Surficial Aquifer
A shallow unconfined aquifer (Surficial Aquifer) is encountered at approximately 40 to 50 feet
bgs and extends to a depth of approximately 65 feet bgs. Groundwater elevations range from
approximately 100 to 107 feet above MSL in the western areas of the Site to approximately 93
feet MSL in the eastern areas of the Site, indicating that groundwater flow is generally toward
the Cape Fear River.
Black Creek Aquifer
The Black Creek Aquifer is potentially under semi -confined to confined conditions at portions
of the Site where it is separated from the overlying Surficial Aquifer by the clay Black Creek
Confining unit. The lateral extent of the clay confining unit has not been verified towards the
eastern portion of the Site. Groundwater flow in the Black Creek Aquifer is toward the Cape
Fear River. At the Site, only the Black Creek Aquifer is in direct connection to the Cape Fear
River with the potential exception of the Surficial Aquifer during extreme flood events.
Based on the flow rate of "35 gpm, soil type at the Site, and assuming application using spray irrigation,
approximately 6 to 10 acres of land may be required for land application of the TO process wastewater.
To meet land application standards, the TO effluent would likely need to be treated such that tested
parameters would be at low levels. A possible combination of process units to treat the effluent to low
levels from the lime precipitation system and the aqueous tanks are softening, reverse osmosis (RO), and
dry run evaporation. Additional treatment beyond water softening is needed because it will only reduce
the hardness but not the fluorides. Also, water softening will remove the hardness compounds from the
water for reuse, but it will not eliminate these compounds from being discharged to surface waters. To
stop hardness and fluorides from being discharged to surface water, additional treatment of the
wastewater by RO and dry run evaporation will be needed.
In the event that the effluent is required to be treated to low levels, no added benefit would be provided
by land application compared to direct discharge or wastewater reuse.
Parsons PLUS envision more V 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 16
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Additionally, as dry run evaporation requires a constant steam flow, this option will be more energy
intensive, and have a greater carbon footprint, in comparison to directly discharging using the current
process.
Alternative C: Wastewater Reuse in Facility
Reusing the treated TO process wastewater within the process was evaluated in lieu of discharging the
treated effluent from the TO treatment system to the Site's WWTP (discharging to Outfall 001) or internal
outfall (which drains to Outfall 002).
The treated waste stream is not expected to be useable as cooling tower make-up or once -through cooling
tower water since it will likely have an elevated Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) content and be scale forming.
However, further treatment technologies may be used to make the effluent usable. A possible
combination of process units to treat the effluent from the lime precipitation system and the aqueous
tanks are softening, RO, and dry run evaporation. Additional treatment beyond water softening is needed
because it will only reduce the hardness but not the fluorides. Also, water softening will remove the
hardness compounds from the water for reuse, but it will not eliminate these compounds from being
discharged to surface waters. To stop hardness and fluorides from being discharged to surface water,
additional treatment of the wastewater by RO and dry run evaporation will be needed.
In the event that the effluent is required to be treated to low levels, no added benefit would be provided
by wastewater reuse compared to direct discharge or land application.
Additionally, as dry run evaporation requires a constant steam flow, this option will be more energy
intensive, and have a greater carbon footprint, in comparison to directly discharging using the current
process.
Alternative D: Direct Discharge
This section discusses the direct discharge of the treated effluent from the TO treatment system to the
Site's WWTP (discharging to Outfall 001) or internal outfall (draining to Outfall 002). The treatment
process of the proposed treatment system supported by Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) follows. The
treatment plant location has been discussed previously in the EAA under the "Proposed Project
Description and Schedule" section and is shown on Figure 2.
Process Overview
A summary of the anticipated treatment system that will be designed and constructed is discussed here.
Based on preliminary estimates the flow rate is expected to be approximately 35 gpm.
The TO destroys compounds that are either gas phase or suspended in the gas phase fed into the TO. No
water is fed through the TO. Water is used in TO operations to support various functions and systems (e.g.
cooling, scrubbers, etc.,). It is expected that Table 3+ PFAS compounds present in the stream of air fed
into the TO will be destroyed by the TO to below current analytical detection levels for approved analytical
methods. This is based on performance testing done on a similar unit at the Chemours Washington Works
00
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 17
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
plant, which has demonstrated >99.99% destruction efficiency for a more recalcitrant fluorinated
compound. Also, Linde Engineering of North America provided a 99.99% Destruction and Removal
Emissions guarantee for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). While the TO is expected to destroy PFAS it
is treating in the gas phase to below detectable levels, some PFAS and other compounds may be present
in the discharged TO water. These PFAS and other compounds come from Chemours river intake water,
which enters the Site already containing PFAS.
Quantification and sizing of all equipment and ancillaries may be optimized during the process. The
following unit processes and associated equipment are anticipated to be implemented in the treatment
system. The flow diagram is shown on Figure 7.
1) Lime Processing System
o Lime Silo
o Lime Slaker
o Crystallizer
2) Solids Handling and Dewatering
o Filter Feed Tank
o Filter Press
o Filtrate Tank
3) Aqueous Waste Collection Tank
Parsons PLUS envision more9 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 18
Simplified Flow Diagram Fayetteville Thermal Oxidization Unit
caustic Scrubber
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Scrubber
Demin water NaOH Causti( Scrubber IPH 8.0)
1 gpm y 4 i — y01Le — — —
Demin Water_ Bluwdevrn 1.1 - 2.8gp
2-3gpm Demin Water 7C Area 5tormwater, Pump seal hushes
Washdown Water,
5- 10 gpm witin diked area and sump
S € 1
2 t I 1 0.7 gpm
Thermal Oxidizer I 1
Stearn Cvnd en sate
J875 gpd
: Rlowdown 1
7200 gpd coolingwate
a 1
L
k Aqueous Collection pH neutralization as needed
_ Potassium Bicarbonate
ID Fan Flush WL_ Tank Circulation Pump
-1.5 gpm I I 1
i j 1
1 1 1
Water Scrubber 1 1 Flow from other 0 perations
jSafety Shower L
3�0F1�i_i___} I 0-3gpm E ..
Pump seal water Lime �IntemalOutfall102
I — 1 12 gpM OR
27.7 gpm
r YYJ20gpm
Acid Storage Tank - - Filtrate Tank'
CO2 Unit -8 gpm Cape Fear River
Filter Cake Off -Site Disposal
Figure 7 - Thermal Oxidizer Flow Diagram
The treatment streams and processes are summarized below.
Lime Processing System
A lime processing system is expected to be installed to process weak HF acid generated in the thermal
oxidation process into CaF2. The facility receives pebble or hydrated calcium oxide (CaO), or lime, which
will be stored in a lime silo prior to being mixed into a wet, calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) lime slurry in
the lime slaker which will then be fed to the crystallizer. Aqueous 18 percent, by weight, HF acid from
the TO system will be introduced to a crystallizer with a lime slurry, where CaF2 crystals will be formed.
The Lime Processing System equipment includes:
Lime Silo with Bin Vent: The Lime Silo is a storage silo for pebble or hydrated lime. The Lime Silo
will be equipped with a jet pulse bag filter.
Lime Slaker with Scrubber: The Lime Slaker is a mixing vessel for pebble lime and water to form a
lime slurry of calcium hydroxide and water. Fugitive dust from mixing the pebble lime and water
will be controlled by a wet scrubber that drains back into the slaker.
Parsons PLUS envision more1 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 19
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Crystallizer: The lime slurry from the slaker is mixed with 18 percent by weight HF acid in an
agitated vessel, the Crystallizer, to neutralize the HF and form CaF2 crystals. The Crystallizer is a
closed vessel and does not generate air emissions.
Solids Handling and Dewatering
The CaF2 sludge will be dried in the filter press and the solids are expected to be loaded into trucks for
offsite disposal. The solids handling and dewatering equipment consists of the following:
Filter Feed Tank: This tank is expected to act as a batch hold-up tank for the CaF2 slurry to be
transferred to the filter press. Tank separates system from continuous operation to batch
operation. This equipment does not generate air emissions.
Filter Press and Truck Loading: The Filter Press separates CaF2 solids from filtrate (water). Dried
CaF2 is then loaded as a solid into trucks for disposal offsite.
Filtrate Tank: Water removed from the CaF2 slurry in the filter press collects in the filtrate tank. A
turbidity meter in the filtrate piping provides indication and switches the filtrate back to the filter
press feed tank to prevent excess solids from getting into the filtrate tank.
A process flow diagram showing the lime processing system and solids handling and dewatering is
shown on Figure 8.
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 20
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Figure 8 - Lime Processing System and Solids Handling and Dewatering
Aqueous Waste Collection Tank
This tank is expected to receive the wastewater discharged from the caustic scrubber stage 4, as well as
water collected in drainage trenches and sumps providing secondary containment for process equipment.
Continuous flows include a water flush for the induced draft (ID) fan that exit the scrubber, pump seal
flushes, safety shower testing/rinsing, wash downs, etc. Rain water that collects in these containment
dikes/sumps will also be transferred into the aqueous waste collection tank. Sumps are equipped with
conductivity measurement to detect any HF acid spills. The aqueous waste tank will be equipped with pH
measurement and a potassium bicarbonate neutralization system to treat the water if necessary.
Please refer to the Chemours Thermal Oxidation Engineering Report for additional information on the
wastewater treatment system.
Additional streams associated with the TO process that will be discharged to the Site WWTP (discharging
to Outfall 001) or internal outfall (draining to Outfall 002), but are not part of this treatment system
include:
Non -Contact cooling water: Cooling tower blowdown is piped from the area to the outfall.
Conductivity measurement on the return water to the cooling tower provides indication in the
event of heat exchanger tube failure that would introduce process acid into the cooling tower
system.
Steam condensate (non -contact): Steam traps discharge condensate into trenches which are then
piped to the outfall.
Alternative E: Combination of Alternatives
A combination of alternatives does not appear to provide any added benefits. A summary of the
combinations is listed below:
1) Direct Discharge and Land Application
A combination of direct discharge and land application, either partial or whole, although
theoretically possible, does not provide any added environmental or economic benefits.
Further treatment technologies, such as softening, RO, and dry run evaporation to treat the
effluent from the lime precipitation system and the aqueous tanks will be required for the effluent
to be suitable for land application.
A combination of these two options would require the installation and maintenance/operation of
a separate land application system which will likely be off -site and as such does not provide a
benefit to the environment.
Parsons PLUS envision more V 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 21
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Additionally, as dry run evaporation requires a constant steam flow, this option will be more
energy intensive, and have a greater carbon footprint, in comparison to directly discharging using
the current process.
2) Direct Discharge and Wastewater Reuse
A combination of direct discharge and wastewater reuse, either partial or whole, is theoretically
possible after treating the effluent to low levels. If the effluent is required to be treated to low
levels, a combination doesn't provide any added benefit, and as such appears to be an
unbeneficial combination.
Further treatment technologies, such as softening, RO, and dry run evaporation to treat the
effluent from the lime precipitation system and the aqueous tanks will be required for the effluent
to be suitable for wastewater reuse.
A combination of these two options would require the installation and maintenance/operation of
a separate wastewater reuse system which as such does not provide a benefit to the environment.
Additionally, as dry run evaporation requires a constant steam flow, this option will be more
energy intensive, and have a greater carbon footprint, in comparison to directly discharging using
the current process.
Parsons PLUS envision more9 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 22
3) Land Application and Wastewater Reuse
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
A combination of land application and wastewater reuse, partial or whole, is theoretically
possible after treating the effluent to very low levels. If the effluent is required to be treated to
very low levels, a combination doesn't provide any added benefit, and as such appears to be an
unbeneficial combination.
Further treatment technologies, such as softening, RO, and dry run evaporation to treat the
effluent from the lime precipitation system and the aqueous tanks will be required for the effluent
to be suitable for wastewater reuse and land application.
A combination of these two options would require the installation and maintenance/operation of
two discharge/treatment systems which as such does not provide a benefit to the environment.
Additionally, as dry run evaporation requires a constant steam flow, this option will be more
energy intensive, and have a greater carbon footprint, in comparison to directly discharging using
the current process.
STEP 4
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
A 20-year Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) has been performed for the technically feasible
options:
a) Direct Discharge
b) Land Application
c) Wastewater Reuse
A preliminary design level effort has been made for the feasible options and their associated costs and
uses standard factors for cost estimation, and as such is a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate for
inter -alternative comparison. For the PVCA cost comparison, future expenditures have been converted to
a present value cost at the beginning of the 20-year planning period. Based on EPA guidance, a discount
rate of 3.5% for a 20-year period has been used in the analysis.
The PVCA includes all costs associated with construction, startup and annual operation and maintenance
costs. Costs also include, but are not limited to, the following:
Capital costs
Land acquisition costs
Equipment costs
Labor costs
Installation costs
Design costs
Parsons PLUS envision more9 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 23
Operations & maintenance costs
Laboratory costs
Waste disposal costs
Labor costs
Utility costs
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Cost information is preliminary and has been generated from the following sources:
Non -binding vendor quotes
Publicly available land costs
• Previous project experience and bids
• Cost estimation manuals (e.g. Means Construction Index) and standard factors
PVCA Calculation Method
The following standard formula per the guidance document for computing the present value has been
utilized:
C
PV = C° + J `
t=1 (1 + r)r
Where:
PV = Present value of costs
Co = Costs incurred in the present year
Ct = Costs incurred in time t
t = Time period after the present year (The present year is t = 0)
n = Ending year of the life of the facility
r = Current EPA discount rate
As the recurring costs are the same in years 1 through 20, Ct=C and the formula has been reduced to:
PV= C +
° r(1+ r)"
PVCA Summary Table
A summary cost table, which summarizes present worth costs developed for technologically feasible
wastewater alternatives, is provided in Table 3.
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 24
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
Sr. No.
Treatment Option
Total Capital Cost
Total Annual
Total Cost
Present Value
(Co)
0&M Cost (C)
(PV)
1
Land Application of Treated Effluent
$24,300,000
$2,500,000
$26,800,000
$59,900,000
Direct Discharge Only Treatment
2
System
$17,100,000
$1,500,000
$18,600,000
$38,500,000
3
1 Wastewater Reuse
$24,100,000
$2,500,000
$26,600,000
$59,700,000
Table 3 - Present Value of Costs Analysis Summary Table
CONCLUSION AND PATH FORWARD
In summary, a lime processing system will be installed to process the weak HF acid generated in the
thermal oxidation process into CaF2. An aqueous collection system will receive water from the caustic
scrubber blowdown, associated stormwater during rain events, and pump seal flushes.
Chemours intends to hold, test, and assess the TO Water Scrubber, Caustic Scrubber, and other
miscellaneous TO related wastewater for the first two months after start-up. During this time the Site's
wastewater will be sent off -site for disposal so that the Site can fully characterize the wastewater and
assess its ability of the meeting the outfall 001 or internal outfall 102 limitations placed in the NPDES
permit.
As noted, it is expected that PFAS compounds in the gas stream which are passed through the TO will be
destroyed by the TO below the current analytical detection levels for approved analytical methods. This
is based on performance testing done on a similar unit at the Chemours Washington Works plant, which
has demonstrated >99.99% destruction efficiency. Also, Linde Engineering of North America, the company
that completed the design, provides a 99.99% vendor guaranteed performance for the destruction of
VOCs.
A study is planned after initial startup to sample the TO effluent to assess whether PFAS compounds will
be present in the wastewater beyond PFAS compounds detected in the Site's water intake. In addition,
Chemours will also evaluate the treatment of this wastewater with granular activated carbon (GAC) to
assess removal of PFAS compounds potentially added from the TO, i.e. compounds that are not associated
with the intake water (if present), during this two -month study period.
At the end of the two -month study period, if Chemours can meet the NCDEQ NPDES permit limitations
without GAC or with GAC treatment, Chemours would initiate discharging the TO effluent at the Site.
This will be accomplished by discharging to the Site's biological WWTP (which discharges to Outfall
001/002) or through an internal outfall 102 (which drains to the permitted Outfall 002 which discharges
to the Cape Fear River). Currently Chemours is planning to go with discharge to the biological treatment
system (001/002), however, Chemours would also like the internal outfall 102 permitted as an
alternative.
Land Application, Wastewater Reuse, and a combination of options were evaluated and may be feasible
after implementing additional treatment steps such as softening, RO, and dry evaporation. However, once
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Wastewater
July 2019
Page 25
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.62461 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
the effluent is treated to low levels, these options do not appear to provide any tangible environmental
or economic benefits over a direct discharge. Additionally, as dry run evaporation requires a constant
steam flow, these options will be more energy intensive, and have a greater carbon footprint, in
comparison to directly discharging using the current process.
Based on these factors, Chemours considers the direct discharge option to be the most feasible and
environmentally beneficial to address the requirements outlined in the Consent Order. This evaluation is
further supported by the discussion presented earlier in this EAA.
Parsons PLUS envision more9 5M

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT C-3-1
ADDENDUM TO EAA TO COST ESTIMATES
November 2019

f
( ! 0
k ! [ 0
!�49 � Cl
E !®
;k8 E !
§fle2 / k
!§BE
/\\)i to
) \
!=`ae
]\f/\
0\�jk
\//4)
\0
E;®(§
t�\«k
kk/oA
@f0
{\\\\
{[7f2
«E\§;
\tw
//��
//\2\
(tf§f
]//> to
CLw
S *'m E
/0
?®±:Fa
$E
yD E
tIt
-0 ))
E>mE0
\T
\))Z
/y{(£
2E
k-{\!
\ u 0 to
OC
kowEE
ea=,
/zE
\k)
/
/
�)a
/
\0
w
�10
$0
)30

#
] k kk
2m£2] ..\8
f\/�§0
�
�
\
�
�
)
\
\
«
#
&
\
\
/
)
»

gill
Nip
11
y
�}
�.
.:
Mill
oil
\mi
)l
mill
-
loll

I.
;,
§
§
)
i
|
!!
,
f!!
/||i
!``�
!it§

Sensitive,
Cost Estimate for Land Application -TO
Chcutouts Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Basis of Cost Estimate IEcooe and Assumationsl:
LanU Application
Sea EAA for treatment scenario m more assumptions
Package, Cryslalizer Package and Solids Handling)
Multi Media FlltraUon
GrenularAalvated Carbon
Solids Handling end Chemical Precipltatlon
Softener, RO &Dry Run Evapomlor Package
Lend Costs
Raw Cap/tal Costs
Installaflon Cosf (Consfructlory Site Preparation, Clvll, Structural)
Ancllfary Cost (1&C, Plping�Mechonlcol & Electdmp
Total Caplml & Consfructlon Cos[
Pro7essional Services Cos fs
Engineering and ProJec[ Management
Constructlan Management, Protect Management, General Conditions
ProJesslonal Services Subtotal
Unit
Process Packa e
$ 8,120,000
$
6,120,000
Process Package
$ 1,800,000
$
t,000,000
Package
$ 70,000
$
70,000
$
7,780,000
50% of
Raw Capital Casts
$
3,900,OOD
30% of
Sum of Raw
$
3,800,000
Capllal Costs antl
Inalallallon Cosl
Sum of
Raw Capllal Costs,
$
25,300,000
Inslalla0on Cosl
anA Ancillary Cost
Total Capllal &
12% of ConsWcllon Cos! E 1,90D,000
Sum of Total
Capllal8
Conslacllon Cosl,
Englneadng/PM g
B% of Contingency Costs E L,000,OOo
S 3,700,OOD
Sum of Total
Capital 8
ConsWcllon Cosl
end
Englneadng/PM
Contingency
30% of
cost
E
5,200,000
[a,Capital Cost
$
24,200,000
+50%
$
36,300,000
-30%
$
16,990,000
Electrlclly
$ 70,OOD
E
70,000
GAC Usage&Replacement
a -
E
-
Chemi<als fortreatment (Acid, Caustic, Ferric,
Polymer)
S 300,000
$
300,000
Solids Disposal
E 240,000
$
240,000
Sampling&Analytical
$ 84,000
E
04,000
Operatlenal Labor
E 800,000
$
800,000
Equipment Maintenance
E 300,000
E
300,000
Annual0&M Subtotal
S
1,000,000
C,Annual Cost
$
1,600,000
+50%
$
2,400,000
-30%
S
2,120,000
n,Years
20
r,Dis<ount Rate
3.5%
Present Worth Formula
r� ,..�>�?�,1I
+50% $ 70,600,000
esflmgleshove lx<n WeParedjorguldance InproJe<tevpluallpn antlimplemenfallanJrom the /n/ormaaon available of the Umeojlheenfmofe. TheJrnol corlr oJiheprole<t
w➢IdepeMan pnplapproved deslp2 aluallahor ondmolerlolrods(Including butnot amlted to availabilltyoJlandJ, andcomperlgve variable fetters. General rondllrons
re sub/ecl fochonge which mvylead foe than➢e/n Iheesllmare. Costs haw been rounded up. Cori In/annallw bprellminoryandhvs been ➢enerofed/om the followin➢
NorvbindM➢vendorquoles (Sales faxmay wryl;Publhypwilp6lecoslr: previousprokcf expedence andbldr Corl ertlmollan manuals (e.g. Means Cansfm[Ibn fndexf and
sfgndpNJo<lars.
Page 2 of 4 November 2019

Senslllve
Cost Cslimate fm• Uirect Dlschm•gNl'O
Chmnaurs h'ayetteville Worlrs, NorlO Cnroltnn
Basis of Cost Estimate 15cooe end ASsumotionsl:
Dlrecl Discharge
See EAA for Irealmeni scenario &more assumpllons
Package, Cryslelizar Package and Solltls Nandling)
Mulll Media FIIlration
Granular Activated far6an
Solids Randling end Chemical Predpita0on
Sollaner, RO d Dry Run Evapomlor Package
Land Costs
gow Capitol Costs
Insfallaflon Cost (Construcflon, Slte Preporotiory Cfvil Stmcturol/
Anclgary Cost (1&C, Plping�Mechonical $ ElectrlcaQ
Total Capital &Construction Cos[
Prolessianol Services Costs
Process Packa e
$ 6,b00,000
S
5,600,000
s -
a
-
8 -
$
-
a -
a
-
PracessPackage
S -
S
-
Package
$ -
$
a
S,60D,000
50% of
Raw Capllal Casts
S
2,000,000
30% of
Sum of Raw
E
2,500,000
Capllal Costs and
Inslallalion Cosl
Sum of
Raw Capllal Costs,
S
10,800,000
Inslallelion Cosl
and Ancillary Cosl
Total Capllal &
Engineering and Protect Management
12%
of Conslmclion Cosl
S
1,300,000
Sum of Total
Capllal 8
Conslmclion Coel,
Engineedng/PM &
Construction Management, Project Management,
General [onditlons g%
of Contingency Costs
$
1,30D,000
ProJesslonel5ervices Submtol
S
2,800,000
Sum of Tolel
Caplml &
Consimcllon COST
end
EngineednglPM
Contingency 30%
of cost
$
3,700,000
Cs,Capltal Cast
S
17,30D,000
+50%
$
25,650,OD0
-30%
$
11,970,000
Electricity
$ 70,OD0
$
70,000
GAC Usage&Replacement
5 -
a
-
Chemicalsfartreatment (Acid, Caustic, Ferric, Polymer(
a 300,000
$
30D,000
Solids Disposal
$ 240,000
a
240,000
Sampling&Analytical
5 70,000
S
70,000
Operatlanal labor
$ 80D,000
S
800,000
Equipment Maintenance
$ 180,000
S
180,000
Annual O&M Subtotal
a
1,fi00,000
C,Annual Cost $ 1,500,000
+50% $ 2,2fi0,000
-30% $ 1,050,000
n,Years 20
r,Dismunt Rate 3.5%
Present Worth Formula it ,,rhLl
gM Costs over 20 Veers 39,Oo0p00
+50% $ fig,500,000
es(rmates M1ovebeen Wepared/arguldanre lnp le<f evglvvllon analmplemenlallan/romthe lnlmmvl/on vvollable alfhe llmeo/the esnmvte. ThePsml<als v/IhaproJe
wal depend on pnolvpproved der/ary p<tvallabmondmvledolrasls(Mdutlbpbutnot Ilmitedro avol/ablllty o//antll, andrgmpenfh'e variable faAors. Generoirondlflons
esubject tq rhvnae whhh mvylead too rhvnpe fn the est/mnle. (usnhgve been rounded np. CostlnJosmvtlon lsprellminarynndhas beenaeneroledpom Ihe/ollowlna
es: Mwr-bindlna vendwquotes(Svles toxmoyvory);Pub4rtyavallable <ma; Prevbuspm/eR expeden<e and b/ds; Cost esllmonon manuals (e.q. Means Consfrv<tlon
maexlnnasmwnM/gnors.
Page 3 of 4 November 2019

8ensi0ve
Cost Cstimnte for Wnstmvntor Iicuso-TO
Chemours Pnyeltevlllc Wm•hs, North Carolina
Dasis of Cast Estimate 16cooe and Assnmationsl;
Wastewater Reuse
Sae EA4 for Irealmenl scenario 8 more assumpllons
Package, Cryslalizer Package antl Sollds Ha;
MUItI Media Filtration
GranularActivated Carbon
5olitls Handling and [hemlcal Precipltatlon
SoBener, RO 8 Dry Run Evapomlor Package
Land Costs
Raw Copltol Costs
Installallon Cost(ConstruRlary Slte Preparallory Civil, Structural)
Anclllary Cost (18f Piping-Mechanlral & ElectrfcaQ
Total Copltol &Constructlon Cos[
Pro7esslanaf5ervlces Costs
Engineering and Protect Management
Constructlon Management, Pro)ect Management, General Conditions
ProJesslonolSeMres Subtotol
Unit Unit Cost Totnl
Process Package
$ 0,120,000
$
8,120,000
$ -
$
-
S -
S
-
§ -
§
Process Package
$ 1,800,OD0
$
1,800,000
Package
$ -
S
$
7,720,000
50% of
Raw Capital Costs
$
3,900,000
30% of
Sum of Rew
$
3,500,OD0
Ceplfal Costs end
Installallon Cosl
Sum of
Raw Capilel Costs,
$
15,200,000
Installallon Cosl
and Anclllary Cosl
Total Cepilal 8
12% of
ConsWcllon Cost
§
1,900,000
Sum of Total
CaDllalB
ConslNcilan Cost,
En9lneednglPM 8
8% aF
Conlingency Costs
§
1,800,000
$
3,700,000
Notes
Sum of Total
Capllal8
Cons[mcllon Cost
antl
Englneadng/PM
Contlngen<y 30%
of cost
E
6,200,000
Ce,Cepi[al Cost
$
24,300,000
+50%
$
36,160,000
-30%
$
16,870,000
ElectricilY
E 70,000
§
70,000
GAC Usage&Replacement
S -
S
-
ChemicalsforireatmentiAcld, Caustic, Ferric, Polymer)
S 300,000
S
30D,000
Sollds Disposal
S 240,000
S
240,000
Sampling& Analytical
$ 84,000
E
84,000
Operational Labor
E BOO,OOD
E
600,000
Equipment Maintenance
S 300,000
S
300,000
Annua108M Subtotal
$
1,BOD,000
C,Annual Cast $ 1,600,000
+50% S 2,A00,000
-30% E 1,120,000
n,Years 20
r,Discount Rate 3.5%
Present Worth Formula ri ;, e�s„,-I
+50% E 70,600,000
esflmoles Apve heenpreporedjwWfdvnre Inprolttf evpluotlon ontllmplementollvn from thelnJormvnon avollob/e vt the Ilmeojthe esllmale. the final cosh ojMepmiect
will dependon pnvloppmveddexlpm acmvllaborandmvtedol coxh(Inrluding 6vtnatllmitad tovvdlablllry o/Ivndf, andxompeNsfve vorlabrejachrs. General mndllbm
arcsubJexttochonge wAl�h moYlevd tovchangeln IAe<xlimvle. Cosnhavebeen rounded up rostrnjosmoNvn aprelrminvry ondhvsbeen Oenemtedpam the jollowlnp
sources: Nombindlnpventlorquohs (Sales raxmayvpry);publlcy wnllable cwn; Yreviousprojectexperlem�e antl brds; Cgxt esrbnallon monuvh (e.9� Means Connructbn
Page 4 of 4 November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT C-4
THERMAL OXIDIZER WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
November 2019

Thermal Oxidizer Scrubber and Miscellaneous Wastewater Technology
to Remove PFAS, Fluoride and Sulfur
Chemours is installing a control system that will be used to reduce all PFAS vapor and water
emissions, such as HFPO-DA and associated compounds, from several existing sources at the
facility. The Thermal Oxidizer/Scrubber System will reduce emissions of all PFAS compounds in
the process streams from the source areas at an efficiency of greater than 99.99%, as well as
reducing any volatile organic compounds (VOC) present. Fluorinated compounds destroyed in
the Thermal Oxidizer will generate hydrogen fluoride (HF) emissions that will be removed in the
scrubber system. Similarly, any sulfur -containing compounds fed to the Thermal Oxidizer will
generate sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions which will also be removed in the final stage of the
scrubber that will be maintained at a slightly basic pH to scrub S02 as sodium sulfite. The CaF2
treatment system will remove fluoride and sulfur by precipitation and filtration of the scrubber
wastewater.
The performance and design specification for the Linde Thermal Oxidizer basis includes multiple
conservative measures to assure highly efficient destruction of fluorocarbon in the air and
water wastes. For example:
• The burner is sized to well exceed minimum design heat release and combustion
air flow requirements. For example:
o The LV10 burner purchased has a maximum burner design heat release
rating of 10 MM Btu/h, but we expect typical firing conditions to be well
below.
o Typical waste gas feed rate based on current production scenarios is
estimated to be less than 1000 Ib/hr including nitrogen inert purge gases
versus a capability to treat up to 2000 lb/h.
• The material and energy balance was calculated with 100% excess hydrogen
feed, and took no credit for hydrogen supplied by the cooling water.
Maintaining excess hydrogen is important to minimize the formation of
unwanted products of incomplete combustion such as CF4 with a goal to convert
HF.
• The intended combustion chamber exit temperature is to operate at 1100 C
(2012F), based on successful operating experience demonstrated at the
Washington Works plant with a low -temperature alarm at 1050 deg C and a low -
temperature interlock set at 1000 deg C which will shut-off all waste gas feeds.
This is higher than the minimum temperature of 1800 F required by the Title V
air permit.

The enhanced Thermal Oxidizer design capability of this unit is expected to destroy PFAS
compounds such that no PFAS compounds are expected in the thermal oxidizer scrubber
wastewater above the current analytical detection levels for approved analytical methods. This
is based on performance testing done on a similar unit at the Chemours Washington Works
plant, which has demonstrated >99.99% destruction efficiency. Also, Linde Engineering of North
America provided a 99.99% vendor guaranteed performance for the destruction of VOC.
Chemours is of the opinion, that this meets best available technology and that no additional
treatment of the wastewater treatment is necessary. However, there will be some detectable
PFAS compounds in the Thermal Oxidizer wastewater since these compounds are in the site's
water intake. Chemours has proposed and developed performance based effluent limitations
based on this data set for internal outfall 102.
Chemours intends to hold, test, and assess the Thermal Oxidizer Water Scrubber, Caustic
Scrubber and other miscellaneous wastewater for the first two months or until an NPDES permit
is issued. During this time the site's wastewater will be sent off -site for disposal so that the site
can fully characterize the wastewater and assess its ability of the meeting the internal outfall
limitations placed in the NPDES permit.
In addition, Chemours will assess after the initial startup the thermal CaF2 and Caustic scrubber
effluent to confirm that no PFAS compounds will be present in these wastewaters beyond what
is detected in the intake, Chemours will evaluate treating CaF2 and caustic scrubber
wastewater by granular activated carbon to assess the removal of PFAS compounds that are
not associated with the intake water.
PFAS Compounds = Table 3+ and EPA Method Mod 537

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT D
OLD OUTFALL 002
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT D
FORM 2D FOR OUTFALL 002
November 2019

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Company - Fayettev f
OMB No.2040-0004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Form
Application for NPDES Permit to Discharge Wastewater
NPDES
.d.EP
NEW MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING, AND SILVICULTURAL OPERATIONS
THAT HAVE NOT YET COMMENCED DISCHARGE OF PROCESS WASTEWATER
SECTION1
OUTFALL LOCATION
1.1
Provide information on each of the facilit 's outfalls in the table below.
Outfall
Receiving Water
Latitude
Longitude
c
-
Number
Name
o
J
OOF2
Old Outfall 002 Channel
34.00° 49.00' 58.00" N
-78.tf° 49.00' 33.00" W
0
103
Cape Fear River
34.00 49.00 58.00 " N
78.00° 49.00 33.00 W
° »
° »
FSECTION
2. EXPECTED
DISCHARGE 1 I
CD
2.1
Month Day
Year
X n
September
30
2020
w o
[SECTION•
I I
3.1
For each outfall identified under Item 1.1, provide average flow and treatment information. Add additional sheets as
necessary.
**Outfall Number** OOF2 / 103
Operations
Operation
Average Flow
Capture of dry -weather flow in Old Outfall 002 at proposed dam location.
0.72 - 1.44 mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
3
Treatment
Units
0
Description
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or Liquid
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Exhibit 2D-1
Wastes Other Than by Discharge
>
retention time, etc.)
Chemical Precipitation; 500-1000 gpm
2-C
N/A
Flocculation; 500 - 1000 gpm
2-D
N/A
Sedimentation; 500 - 1000 gpm
1-U
N/A
Multimedia Filtration; 500 - 1000 gpm
1-Q
N/A
Carbon Adsorption; 500 - 1000 gpm
2-A
N/A (See Page 2 for continuation)
EPA Form 3510-2D (Revised 3-19) Page 1

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Company - Fayettevi
OMB No. 2040-0004
3.1
**Outfall Number** CCF2
Cont.
Operations Contributing to Flow
Operation
Average Flow
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or Liquid
retention time, etc.)
Exhibit 2D-1
Wastes Other Than by Discharge
Discharge to Surface Water
4-A
N/A
Gravity Thickening (Sludge from Sedimentation)
5-L
N/A
Belt Filtration or Centrifugation (Sludge)
5-C or 5-D
Certified Landfill
r
c
0
U
c
m
E
is
m
L
C
N
**Outfall Number**
c
Operations
Operation Average Flow
mgd
a
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
Treatment
Description
(include size, flow rate through each treatment unit,
Units
Code from
Final Disposal of Solid or Liquid
retention time, etc.)
Exhibit 2D-1
Wastes Other Than by Discharge
EPA Form 3510-2D (Revised 3-19) Page 2

EPA Identification Number NPDES Permit Number Facility Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Company - Fayettevi OMB No.2040-0004
SECTI• I
4.1 Have you attached a line drawing to this application that shows the water flow through your facility with a water
.3 balance? (See instructions for drawing requirements. See Exhibit 2D-2 at end of instructions for example.)
J �
0 0 Yes ❑ No
[SECTIONOR
SEASONAL FLOWS
5.1
Except for stormwater runoff, leaks, or spills, are any expected discharges described in Sections 1 and 3 intermittent
or seasonal?
❑ Yes 0 No 4 SKIP to Section 6.
5.2
Provide information on intermittent or seasonal flows for each applicable outfall. Attach additional pages, if
necessar .
Outfall
Operations
Frequency
Rate and Volume
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Maximum Total
Number
(list)
Duration
Days/Week
Months/Year
Discharge
Volume
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
o
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
LL
dayslweek
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
0
Outfall
Operations
Fre
uenc
Rate and Volume
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Maximum Total
Cn
o
Number
(list)
Duration
—
Days/Week
Months/Year
Discharge
Volume
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
E
dayslweek
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
a`>
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
Outfall
Operations
Frequency
Rate and Volume
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Maximum Total
Number
(list)
Duration
Days/Week
Months/Year
Discharge
Volume
days/week
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
dayslweek
months/year
mgd
gallons
days
days/week months/year mgd gallons days
SECTION•'•I
• I
6.1
Do any effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) promulgated by EPA under CWA Section 304 apply to your facility?
❑ Yes ✓❑ No 4 SKIP to Section 7.
6.2
Provide the following information on applicable ELGs.
•0
ELG Category
ELG Subcategory
Regulatory Citation
z
0
L
a -
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 3

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Company - Fayettevi6
OMB No. 2040-0004
6.3
Are the limitations in the applicable ELGs expressed in terms of production (or other measure of operation)?
❑ Yes ❑ No + SKIP to Section 7.
6.4
Provide an expected measure of average daily production expressed in terms and units of applicable ELGs.
Expected Actual Average Daily Production for First Three Years
Outfall
Number
Year
Operation, Product, or Material
Quantity per Day
(note basis if applicable)
Unit of Measure
Year 1
Year 2
m
c
c
0
Year 3
U
c
O
Year 1
0
a
Year 2
Year 3
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
SECTION
7. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS i
See the instructions to determine the parameters and pollutants you are required to monitor and, in turn, the tables you must
complete. Note that not all applicants need to complete each table.
Table A. Conventional and Non -Conventional Parameters
7.1
Are you requesting a waiver from your NPDES permitting authority for one or more of the Table A parameters for any
of your outfalls?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No + SKIP to Item 7.3.
7.2
If yes, indicate the applicable outfalls below. Attach waiver request and other required information to the application.
Outfall number Outfall number Outfall number
Mn
7.3
Have you have provided estimates or actual data for all Table A parameters for each of your outfalls for which a
waiver has not been requested and attached the results to this application package?
4
No; a waiver has been requested from my
cc
✓❑ Yes ❑ NPDES permitting authority for all parameters at
all outfalls.
Table B. Certain Conventional and Non -Conventional Pollutants
w
7.4
Have you checked "Believed Present" for all pollutants listed in Table B that are limited directly or indirectly by an
applicable ELG?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.5
Have you checked `Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all remaining pollutants listed in Table B?
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
7.6
Have you provided estimated data for those Table B pollutants for which you have indicated are "Believed Present'
in your discharge?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 4

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Company - Fayettevi
OMB No. 2040-0004
Table C. Toxic Metals, Total Cyanide, and Total Phenols
7.7
Have you indicated whether pollutants are "Believed Present" or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed on Table C
for all outfalls?
0 Yes ❑ No
7.8
Have you completed Table C by providing estimated data for pollutants you indicated are `Believed Present,"
including the source of the information, for each applicable outfall?
0 Yes ❑ No
Table D. Organic Toxic Pollutants(GC/MS Fractions
7.9
Do you qualify for a small business exemption under the criteria specified in the Instructions?
❑ Yes 4 Note that you qualify at the top of 0 No
Table D, then SKIP to Item 7.12.
-0
7.10
Have you indicated whether pollutants are 'Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed on Table D
=
for all outfalls?
0
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.11
Have you completed Table D by providing estimated data for pollutants you indicated are 'Believed Present,"
including the source of the information, for each applicable outfall?
w
Yes ❑ No
4)✓❑
w
M
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin TCDD
cc
7.12
Does the facility use or manufacture one or more of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congeners listed in the Instructions, or do you
15
know or have reason to believe that TCDD is or may be present in effluent from any of your outfalls?
d
'
E_
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
w
Table E. Certain Hazardous Substances and Asbestos
7.13
Have you indicated whether pollutants are 'Believed Present' or "Believed Absent' for all pollutants listed in Table E
for all outfalls?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
7.14
Have you completed Table E by reporting the reason the pollutants are expected to be present and available
quantitative data for pollutants you indicated are 'Believed Present' for each applicable outfall?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Intake Credits, Tables A through E
7.15 Are you applying for net credits for the presence of any of the pollutants on Tables A through E for any of your
outfalls?
❑ Yes 4 Consult with your NPDES permitting ❑✓ No
authority.
SECTION••-
i
8.1 Do you have any technical evaluations of your wastewater treatment, including engineering reports or pilot plant
studies?
Q
❑✓ Yes ❑ No —> SKIP to Item 8.3.
a
a,
8.2
Have you provided the technical evaluation and all related documents to this application package?
c
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
.5
8.3
Are you aware of any existing plant(s) that resemble production processes, wastewater constituents, or wastewater
w
treatment at your facility?
❑ Yes ❑✓ No 4 SKIP to Section 9.
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 5

EPA Identification Number
NPDES Permit Number
Facility Name
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
NC0003573
Chemours Company - Fayettevi
OMB No. 2040-0004
8.4
Provide the name and location of the similar plants.
Name of Similar Plants
Location of Similar Plants
d
c
c U
c
W
SECTION'
OTHER
INFORMATIONI
9.1
Have you attached any optional information that you would like considered as part of the application review process
(i.e., material beyond that which you have already noted in the application as being attached)?
❑✓ Yes ❑ No-* SKIP to Section 10.
c
9.2
List the additional items and briefly note why you have included them.
R
E
1. Attachment D.1: Chemours Fayetteville Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
0
2. Attachment D.2: Chemours Fayetteville Engineering Alternatives Analysis for NPDES Permit Application
as
3.
O
4.
5.
SECTIONI
CHECKLIST
AND CERTIFICATION1
10.1
In Column 1 below, mark the sections of Form 2D that you have completed and are submitting with your application.
For each section, specify in Column 2 any attachments that you are enclosing to alert the permitting authority. Note
that not all applicants are required to com lete all sections or tables, or provide attachments.
Column 1
Column 2
Section 1: Expected Outfall
✓❑
❑ wl attachments (e.g., responses for additional outfalls)
Location
Section 2: Expected
❑✓
❑ wl attachments
Discharge Date
❑ Section 3: Average Flows
❑ w/ attachments
and Treatment
E
❑✓ Section 4: Line Drawing
✓❑ wl line drawing ❑ w/ additional attachments
`o
Section 5: Intermittent or
❑
❑ w/ attachments
w.
Seasonal Flows
❑ Section 6: Production
❑ wl attachments
i�
w/ Table A waiver
❑ request or ❑✓ Table A
N
approval
U
CD
❑ Section 7: Effluent
✓❑ Table B ❑✓ Table C
Characteristics
U
✓❑ Table D ✓❑ Table E
❑ w/ other
attachments
Section 8: Engineering
✓❑
✓❑ wl technical evaluations and related attachments
Report
❑ Section 9: Other Information
❑ wl optional information
✓❑ Section 10: Checklist and
❑ w/ attachments
Certification Statement
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 6

EPA Identification Number NPDESPermd Nunter Fa6Ry Name Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 NC0003573 Chemours Company- Fayette✓i OMB No. 2040 W4
10.2 Certification Statement
c
E
1 certify underpenalty o/law that this document and all attachments were prepared undermy direction or supervision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the
cinformation submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible forgathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
7 including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name (print or type first and last name) Official title
c
1O Brian Long Plant Manager
w
Signature q n Date si ned
g It
EPA Form 3570-20 (ReHsed 3-19) Page 7

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number
Facility Name
Outfall Number
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
0OF2
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE A. CONVENTIONAL AND
NON•
•
1
Effluent Data
Intake Water
Maximum Daily
Average Daily
Source of Information
Believed Present?
Pollutant
Waiver
Requested
Units
(if applicable)
Discharge
Discharge
(use codes in instructions)
(check only one response per
(required)
(if available)
parameter)
❑
Check here if you have applied to your NPDES authority for a waiver for all of the pollutants listed on this table for the noted outfall.
Concentration
mg/L
< 2
< 2
1
1'
Biochemical oxygen
❑ Yes
❑ No
Mass
Ib/d
< 12.0
< 12.0
1 (at Average Daily Flow
demand (BOD5)
Chemical oxygen demand
Concentration
mg/L
< 12.8
< 12.8
1
2•
(COD)
❑
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
Mass
Ib/d
< 308
< 154
1 (at Average Daily Flow)
Concentration
Concentration
mg/L
0.80
0.55
1
3.
Total organic carbon
El
Yes
❑ No
Mass
Ib/d
4.8
3.3
1 (at Average Daily Flow)
(TOC)
Total suspended solids
Concentration
mg/L
3.0
2.1
1
4.
(TSS)
El❑✓
Yes
❑ No
Mass
Ib/d
18.0
12.6
1 (at Average Daily Flow
Concentration
mg/L
< 0.05
< 0.05
1
5.
Ammonia (as N)
❑
❑ Yes
✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d
< 0.6
< 0.3
1 (at Average Daily Flow)
6.
Flow
❑
Rate
MG/D
1.44
0.72
1
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
Temperature (winter)
❑
°C
°C
10
8
5 (Engineering Judgment)
7.
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
Temperature (summer)
❑
°C
°C
27
25
5 (Engineering Judgment)
pH (minimum)
❑
Standard units
S.U.
6.5
7.5
5 (Treatment Condition)
8.
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
pH (maximum)
❑
Standard units
S.U.
8.5
7.5
5 (Treatment Condition)
SamDlina shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e.. methods) aDDroved under 40 CFR 136
for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant
Darameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-2D (Revised 3-19) Page 1

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works 001`2 OMB No.2040-0004
LTABLE B. CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL
AND NON•
• POLLUTANTS
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to be Present or Limited by an ELG
Provide both concentration and mass estimates for each ollutant.
Presence or Absence
check one
Pollutant
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Effluent
Intake Water
Units
Maximum Daily
Discharge
(required)
Average Daily
Discharge
if available
Source Information
(use codeess in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one
response per item)
❑
Check (✓) here if you believe all pollutants listed to be absent from the discharge. You need not complete Table B for the noted outfall unless you have quantitative data available.
1
Bromide
(24959-67-9)
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L 0
< 1.3 0
< 1.3 0
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
< 7.8 0
< 7.8 0
2'
Chlorine, total
residual
❑
IZI
Concentration
5 (Engineering Judgment)
El Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.
Color
❑
❑✓
Concentration
CP units 0
< 5 0
< 5 0
1
El Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
4.
Fecal coliform
❑
❑✓
Concentration
5 (Engineering Judgment:
Possible mammals in the area)
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
5'
Fluoride
(16984-48-8)
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L 0
< 0.25 0
< 0.25 0
5(Engineering Judgment): Note
Fluoride may be present at the
El Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
< 1.5 0
< 1.5 . �
6.
Nitrate -nitrite
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L as NM
0.29 �
0�29 �
1
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
1.7 0
1.7 0
7'
Nitrogen, total
organic (as N)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
5 (Engineering Judgment:
org anic nitrogen from natural
g 0
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
8.
Oil and grease
❑
❑✓
Concentration
mg/L 0
< 1.4 0
< 1.4 0
1
El Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
< 8.4 0
< 8.4 0
9
Phosphorus (as P),
total (7723-14-0)
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L 0
< 0.05 0
< 0.05 0
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
< 0.30 0
< 0.30 0
10.
Sulfate (as SO4)
(14808-79-8)
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L 0
71 0
71 0
1
✓❑ Yes El No
Mass
Ib/d 0
426 0
426 0
11.
Sulfide (as S)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
mg/L 0
< 0.70 0
< 0.70 0
1
El Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
< 4.2 0
< 4.2 0
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 3

EPA Identification Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works 001`2 OMB No.2040-0004
TABLE B. CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL
AND NON•
• POLLUTANTS
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to be Present or Limited by an ELG
Provide both concentration and mass estimates for each ollutant.
Presence or Absence
check one
Pollutant
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Effluent
Intake Water
Units
Maximum Daily
Discharge
re wired
Average Daily
Discharge
if available
Source Information
(use codeess in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one
response per item)
12.
Sulfite (as S03)
(14265-45-3)
❑
�
Concentration
mg/L p
< 2 p
< 2 p
1
El Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d p
< 12.0 p
< 12.0 p
13.
Surfactants
❑
✓❑
Concentration
mg/L 0
< 0.040 p
< 0.040 p
1
❑Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d p
< 0.24 p
< 0.24 p
14.
Aluminum, total
(7429-90-5)
�
❑
Concentration
mg/L p
1.2 p
0.81 p
1
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
Mass
Ib/d p
7.2 p
4.9 p
15.
Barium, total
(7440-39-3)
�
❑
Concentration
mg/L
0.068 p
0.047 p
1
❑✓ Yes El No
Mass
Ib/d 0
0.41 0
0.28 0
16.
Boron, total
(7440-42-8)
❑✓
❑
Concentration
mg/L 0
0.20 0
0.14 0
1
✓❑ Yes El No
Mass
Ib/d 0
1.2 p
0.84 p
17.
Cobalt, total
(7440-48-4)
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L p
0.20 p
0.14 0
1
✓❑ Yes ❑ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
1.2 0
0.84 0
18.
Iron total
(7439-89-6)
❑
Concentration
mg/L p
0.80 0
0.59 p
1
❑✓ Yes El No
Mass
Ib/d p
4.8 p
3.5 p
19'
Magnesium, total
(7439-95-4)
�
❑
Concentration
mg/L p
2.8 p
2.0 p
1
❑✓ Yes El No
Mass
Ib/d p
16.8 p
12.0 p
20.
Molybdenum, total
(7439-98-7)
❑
�
Concentration
mg/L p
<0.0020 p
< 0.0020 p
1
El Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
Ib/d p
< 0.012 p
< 0.012 p
21.
Manganese, total
(7439-96-5)
❑
Concentration
mg/L p
0.26 p
0.18 p
1
❑✓ Yes El No
Mass
Ib/d 0
1.6 p
1.1 p
22.
Tin, total
(7440-31-5)
❑
❑
Concentration
mg/L
< 0.0070
< 0.0070 p
1
❑Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
Ib/d 0
< 0.042
< 0.042 0
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 4

EPA Identification Number
Facility Name
Outfall Number
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
001`2
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE B. CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL
AND NON•
• '• 1
Presence or Absence
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to be Present or Limited by an ELG
check one
Provide both concentration and mass estimates for eachpollutant.)
Effluent
Intake Water
Pollutant
Believed
Believed
Maximum Daily
Average Daily
SourceInformation
Believed Present?
Present
Absent
Units
Discharge
Discharge
(use codeess in instructions)
(check only one
re uired
if available
response per item)
23.
Titanium, total
❑
�
Concentration
m /L
< 0.0020
< 0.0020
1
El 0
Mass
(7440-32-6)
Yes No
I b/d p
< 0 .012 p
< 0.012 p
24.
Radioactivity
24.1
Alpha, total
❑✓
❑
Concentration
PCi/L p
2.2 p
5
1.p
1
❑✓ Yes ❑ No
Mass
mCi/d p
6.0 p
4.1 p
24.2
Beta, total
❑✓
❑
Concentration
PCi/L
2.0
1.4
1
❑� Yes El No
Mass
mci/d
5.5
3.7
24.3.
Radium, total
❑�
❑
Concentration
PCi/L
1.0
0.69
1
❑� Yes El No
Mass
mCi/d
2.7
1.8
24.4
Radium 226, total
❑
�
Concentration
PCi/L
< 0.373
< 0.373
1
❑Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
mci/D
< 1.0
< 1.0
1 Sampling shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 5

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works 001`2 OMB No. 2040-0004
TOXICTABLE C. •TAL CYANIDE, AND TOTAL PHENOLS1
Presence or Absence Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to be Present in Discharge
check one) Provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant.
Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Effluent
Intake Water
Units
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
(required)
Average
Daily
Discharge
if available
Source of Information
(Use codes in Instructions.)
Believed Present.
(Check only one
response per pollutant.)
Check (✓) here if you believe all pollutants listed to be absent from the discharge. You need not complete Table C for the noted outfall unless you have quantitative data
available.
1.
Antimony, Total
(7440-36-0)
Concentration
< 0M00
< n ni nn
1
El Yes
❑✓ No
Mass
< 0.06
< 0.06
2.
Arsenic, Total
(7440-38-2)
Concentration
< 0,0160
< 0,0160
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
< 0,096
< 0,096
3.
Beryllium, Total
(7440-41-7)
Concentration
1
0 Yes
❑ No
Mass
4.
Cadmium, Total
(7440-43-9)
Concentration
m2h
< OM10
< n nol n
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
Ib/d
< 0.0060
< 0.0060
5.
Chromium, Total
(7440-47-3)
Concentration
1
Yes
❑ No
Mass❑
6.
Copper, Total
(7440-50-8)
Concentration
0.0051
1
❑Yes
El No
Mass
7.
Lead, Total
(7439-92-1)
Concentration
< 0.0060
< 0,0060
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
< 0,036
< 0,036
8.
Mercury, Total
(7439-97-6)
Concentration
< o.oso
< 0.050
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
b/d
< 0,0003
< 0,0003
9.
Nickel, Total
(7440-02-0)
Concentration
1
❑Yes
❑ No
Mass
b/d
0,016
0,011
10.
Selenium, Total
(7782-49-2)
Concentration
m2/L
< 0,0210
< 0,0210
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
< 0.13
< 0.13
11.
Silver, Total
(7440-22-4)
Concentration
< 0.0050
< 0,0050
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
< 0.030
< 0.030
12.
Thallium, Total
(7440-28-0)
Concentration
< 0,0140
< 0,0140
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
Ib/d
< 0.084
< 0.084
13.
Zinc, Total
(7440-66-6)
Concentration
m2h
0.027
0,018
1
❑Yes
El No
Mass
b/d
0.16
0.11
14.
Cyanide, Total
(57-12-5)
Concentration
m2h
< 0,0050
< 0,0050
1
El Yes
❑ No
Mass
< 0,030
<
15.
Phenols, Total
0
Concentration
<0 010
<
1
❑ Yes
0 No
Mass
< 0,060
<
1 Sampling shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See Instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 7

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number Facility Name
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
001`2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC •OLLUTANTS
Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
(Gas Chromatography/Mass
Presence or Absence
(check one)
S• • or • 1
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
Discharge
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
❑✓
Check here if all pollutants listed in Table Dare expected to be absent from your facility's discharge. (Note: Information in Engineering Report)
Check here if the facility believes it is exempt from Table D reporting requirements because it is a qualified small business. See the instructions for exemption criteria and for a list
of materials you must attach to the application.
Note: If you check either of the above boxes, you do not need to complete Table D for the noted outfall unless you have quantitative data available.
1.Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction —Volatile Compounds)
1.1
Acrolein
(107-02-8)
✓❑
Concentration
i
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.2
Acrylonitrile
(107-13-1)
❑
✓❑
Concentration
i
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.3
Benzene
(71-43-2)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.4
Bromoform
(75-25-2)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.5
Carbon tetrachloride
(56-23-5)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.6
Chlorobenzene
(108-90-7)
✓❑
Concentration
i
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.7
Chlorodibromomethane
(124-48-1)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.8
Chloroethane
(75-00-3)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
i
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.9
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
(110-75-8)
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.10
Chloroform (67-66-3)
❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.11
Dichlorobromomethane
(75-27-4)
❑
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 9

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
Facility Name
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
OOF2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC•Chromatography/Mass
I
I Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
Presence or Absence
(check one)
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
DISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
1.12
1,1-dichloroethane
(75-34-3)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
El Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.13
1,2-dichloroethane
(107-06-2)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
El Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.14
1,1-dichloroethylene
(75-35-4)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.15
1,2-dichloropropane
(78-87-5)
❑
❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.16
1,3-dichloropropylene
(542-75-6)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.17
Ethylbenzene
(100-41-4)
❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.18
Methyl bromide
(74-83-9)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.19
Methyl chloride
(74-87-3)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.20
Methylene chloride
(75-09-2)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.21
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
(79-34-5)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.22
Tetrachloroethylene
(127-18-4)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.23
Toluene
(108-88-3)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
1.24
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
(156-60-5)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 10

EPA Identification Number Facility Name
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
001`2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC •OLLUTANTS
Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
(Gas Chromatography/Mass
Presence or Absence
(check one)
S• • or • 1
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
DISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
1.25
1,1,1-trichloroethane
(71-55-6)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.26
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(79-00-5)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.27
Trichloroethylene
(79-01-6)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
1.28
Vinyl chloride
(75-01-4)
✓❑
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction —Acid Compounds)
2.1
2-chlorophenol
(95-57-8)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.2
2,4-dichlorophenol
(120-83-2)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.3
2,4-dimethyl phenol
(105-67-9)
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.4
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
(534-52-1)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.5
2,4-dinitrophenol
(51-28-5)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.6
2-nitrophenol
(88-75-5)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.7
4-nitrophenol
(100-02-7)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
El Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.8
p-chloro-m-cresol
(59-50-7)
✓❑
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.9
Pentachlorophenol
(87-86-5)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 11

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
Facility Name
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
OOF2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC•Chromatography/Mass
I
I Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
Presence or Absence
(check one)
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
DISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
2.10
Phenol
(108-95-2)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
2.11
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
(88-05-2)
❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction —Base /Neutral Compounds)
3.1
Acenaphthene
(83-32-9)
❑
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.2
Acenaphthylene
(208-96-8)
❑
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.3
Anthracene
(120-12-7)
❑
✓❑
Concentration
1
El Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.4
Benzidine
(92-87-5)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.5
Benzo (a) anthracene
(56-55-3)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.6
Benzo (a) pyrene
(50-32-8)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.7
3,4-benzofluoranthene
(205-99-2)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.8
Benzo (ghi) perylene
(191-24-2)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.9
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
(207-08-9)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.10
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
(111-91-1)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.11
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
(111-44-4)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 12

EPA Identification Number Facility Name
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
CCF2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC •OLLUTANTS
Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
(Gas Chromatography/Mass
Presence or Absence
(check one)
S• • or • 1
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
D'ISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
3.12
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
(102-80-1)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.13
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(117-81-7)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.14
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
(101-55-3)
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.15
Butyl benzyl phthalate
(85-68-7)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.16
2-chloronaphthalene
(91-58-7)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.17
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
(7005-72-3)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.18
Chrysene
(218-01-9)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.19
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
(53-70-3)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.20
1,2-dichlorobenzene
(95-50-1)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.21
1,3-dichlorobenzene
(541-73-1)
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.22
1,4-dichlorobenzene
(106-46-7)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.23
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
(91-94-1)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.24
Diethyl phthalate
(84-66-2)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.25
Dimethyl phthalate
(131-11-3)
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 13

EPA Identification Number Facility Name
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
001`2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC •OLLUTANTS
Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
(Gas Chromatography/Mass
Presence or Absence
(check one)
S• • or • 1
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
D'ISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
3.26
Di-n-butyl phthalate
(84-74-2)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.27
2,4-dinitrotoluene
(121-14-2)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.28
2,6-dinitrotoluene
(606-20-2)
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.29
Di-n-octyl phthalate
(117-84-0)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.30
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
(as azobenzene) (122-66 7)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.31
Fluoranthene
(206-44-0)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.32
Fluorene
(86-73-7)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.33
Hexachlorobenzene
(118-74-1)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.34
Hexachlorobutadiene
(87-68-3)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.35
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(77-47-4)
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.36
Hexachloroethane
(67-72-1)
✓❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.37.
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
(193-39-5)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.38
Isophorone
(78-59-1)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.39
Naphthalene
(91-20-3)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21) (Revised 3-19) Page 14

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
Facility Name
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
001`2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC•Chromatography/Mass
I
I Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
Presence or Absence
(check one)
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
DISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
3.40
Nitrobenzene
(98-95-3)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.41
N-nitrosodimethylamine
(62-75-9)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.42
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
(621-64-7)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
3.43
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
(86-30-6)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.44
Phenanthrene
(85-01-8)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.45
Pyrene
(129-00-0)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
i
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
3.46
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
(120-82-1)
✓❑
Concentration
a
❑ Yes ✓❑ No
Mass
4.Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction —Pesticides)
4.1.
Aldrin
(309-00-2)
❑✓
Concentration
a
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.2
a-BHC
(319-84-6)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.3
R-BHC
(319-85-7)
0
Concentration
1
❑ Yes 0 No
Mass
4.4
y-BHC
(58-89-9)
Concentration
1
❑ Yes 0 No
Mass
4.5
b-BHC
(319-86-8)
IZI
Concentration
1
❑ Yes 0 No
Mass
4.6
Chlordane
(57-74-9)
0
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 15

EPA Identification Number Facility Name
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
001`2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC •OLLUTANTS
Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
(Gas Chromatography/Mass
Presence or Absence
(check one)
S• • or • 1
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
D'ISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
4.7
4,4'-DDT
(50-29-3)
❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.8
4,4'-DDE
(72-55-9)
❑
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.9
4,4'-DDD
(72-54-8)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.10
Dieldrin
(60-57-1)
❑
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.11
a-endosulfan
(115-29-7)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.12
R-endosulfan
(115-29-7)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.13
Endosulfan sulfate
(1031-07-8)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
7
El Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.14
Endrin
(72-20-8)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.15
Endrin aldehyde
(7421-93-4)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
El Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 16

EPA Identification Number Facility Name
NCD 047 368 642 Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
Outfall Number
001`2
Form Approved 03/05/19
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE D. ORGANIC TOXIC •OLLUTANTS
Pollutant
(CAS Number, if available)
(Gas Chromatography/Mass
Presence or Absence
(check one)
S• • or • 1
Estimated Data for Pollutants Expected to Be Present in Discharge
(provide both concentration and mass estimates for each pollutant)
Believed
Present
Believed
Absent
Units
Effluent
Intake Water
Maximum
Daily
Discharge
Average
Daily
D'ISChar a
Source of
Information
(use codes in instructions)
Believed Present?
(check only one response per
pollutant)
4.16
Heptachlor
(76-44-8)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.17
Heptachlor epoxide
(1024-57-3)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.18
PCB-1242
(53469-21-9)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.19
PCB-1254
(11097-69-1)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.20
PCB-1221
(11104-28-2)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.21
PCB-1232
(11141-16-5)
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.22
PCB-1248
(12672-29-6)
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.23
PCB-1260
(11096-82-5)
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.24
PCB-1016
(12674-11-2)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
7
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
4.25
Toxaphene
(8001-35-2)
❑
❑✓
Concentration
1
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
Mass
Samolino shall he conducted according to sufficiently sensitive
test procedures (i.e.. methods) anoroved under 40 CFR 136
for the analvsis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 17

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
TABLE E. CERTAIN -D•
Pollutant
Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works 001`2 OMB No. 2040-0004
• I
Presence or Absence
check one Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed (specify units)
Present Absent
❑✓
Check (✓) here if you believe all pollutants listed to be absent from the discharge. You need not complete Table E for the noted outfall unless you have quantitative data available.
1.
Asbestos
❑
❑
2.
Acetaldehyde
❑
❑
3.
Allyl alcohol
❑
❑
4.
Allyl chloride
❑
❑
5.
Amyl acetate
❑
❑
6.
Aniline
❑
❑
7.
Benzonitrile
❑
❑
8.
Benzyl chloride
❑
❑
9.
Butyl acetate
❑
❑
10.
Butylamine
❑
❑
11.
Captan
❑
❑
12.
Carbaryl
❑
❑
13.
Carbofuran
❑
❑
14.
Carbon disulfide
❑
❑
15.
Chlorpyrifos
❑
❑
16.
Coumaphos
❑
❑
17.
Cresol
❑
❑
18.
Crotonaldehyde
❑
❑
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 19

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
TABLE E. CERTAIN -D•
Pollutant
Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works OOF2 OMB No. 2040-0004
• I
Presence or Absence
check one Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed (specify units)
Present Absent
19.
Cyclohexane
❑
❑
20.
2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
❑
❑
21.
Diazinon
❑
❑
22.
Dicamba
❑
❑
23.
Dichlobenil
❑
❑
24.
Dichlone
❑
❑
25.
2,2-dichloropropionic acid
❑
❑
26.
Dichlorvos
❑
❑
27.
Diethyl amine
❑
❑
28.
Dimethyl amine
❑
❑
29.
Dintrobenzene
❑
❑
30.
Diquat
❑
❑
31.
Disulfoton
❑
❑
32.
Diuron
❑
❑
33.
Epichlorohydrin
❑
❑
34.
Ethion
❑
❑
35.
Ethylene diamine
❑
❑
36.
Ethylene dibromide
❑
❑
37.
Formaldehyde
❑
❑
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 20

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
TABLE E. CERTAIN -D•
Pollutant
Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works 001`2 OMB No. 2040-0004
• I
Presence or Absence
check one Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed (specify units)
Present Absent
38.
Furfural
❑
❑
39.
Guthion
❑
❑
40.
Isoprene
❑
❑
41.
Isopropanolamine
❑
❑
42.
Kelthane
❑
❑
43.
Kepone
❑
❑
44.
Marathion
❑
❑
45.
Mercaptodimethur
❑
❑
46.
Methoxychlor
❑
❑
47.
Methyl mercaptan
❑
❑
48.
Methyl methacrylate
❑
❑
49.
Methyl parathion
❑
❑
50.
Mevinphos
❑
❑
51.
Mexacarbate
❑
❑
52.
Monoethyl amine
❑
❑
53.
Monomethyl amine
❑
❑
54.
Naled
❑
❑
55.
Naphthenic acid
❑
❑
56.
Nitrotoluene
❑
❑
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 21

EPA Identification Number
NCD 047 368 642
TABLE E. CERTAIN -D•
Pollutant
Facility Name Outfall Number Form Approved 03/05/19
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works OOF2 OMB No. 2040-0004
• I
Presence or Absence
check one Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed (specify units)
Present Absent
57.
Parathion
❑
❑
58.
Phenolsulfonate
❑
❑
59.
Phosgene
❑
❑
60.
Propargite
❑
❑
61.
Propylene oxide
❑
❑
62.
Pyrethrins
❑
❑
63.
Quinoline
❑
❑
64.
Resorcinol
❑
❑
65.
Strontium
❑
❑
66.
Strychnine
❑
❑
67.
Styrene
❑
❑
68
2,4 5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
❑
❑
69.
TDE (tetrachlorodiphenyl ethane)
❑
❑
70.
2,4,5-TP [2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)
propanoic acid]
❑
❑
71.
Trichlorofon
❑
❑
72.
Triethanolamine
❑
❑
73.
Triethylamine
❑
❑
74.
Trimethylamine
❑
❑
75.
Uranium
❑
❑
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 22

EPA Identification Number
Facility Name Outfall Number
Form Approved 03/05/19
NCD 047 368 642
Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works 001`2
OMB No. 2040-0004
TABLE
E. CERTAIN -D•
• I
Presence or Absence
Pollutant
check one Reason Pollutant Believed Present in Discharge
Available Quantitative Data
Believed Believed
(specify units)
Present Absent
76.
Vanadium
❑
❑
77.
Vinyl acetate
❑
❑
78.
Xylene
❑
❑
79.
Xylenol
❑
❑
80.
Zirconium
❑
❑
1 Sampling shall be conducted according to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or 0. See instructions and 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3).
EPA Form 3510-21D (Revised 3-19) Page 23

� .'�� _ "F t4 bpi• ;� 1 -- jy'y4y�- - - �-~ .j
� o J � � - z , 1 �, �9� {j � ' F _ ~� ---� T i`• `�_* it l •,� ,
n n ! A rP-l"
� I i� � ` �. I}j� ��. _ �s� i l �L 6 �4-' 4� Jjly� u _ +. �-h . �r�:•
=1. _

•� - l r
.'j_
-
e°1p.�
N1
�1
Miles
Pavement/Curb
Plant Border
- — - Proposed Treatment Plant
Location for Old Outfall 002
t Drainage Channel
Drainage Channel
River
0 Site Structure
'
SWMU
Old Outfall 002
Channel Mouth
N
Approximate Proposed
Dam/Capture Area Location
0 850 1,700
Feet
PARSONS
Site Plan and Proposed Treatment Plant Location
Drawn:
J. ft..SI1I2019
Date: Rt. P... ...—
"9639.62022
301 Plainfield Rd, Suite 350
NPDES Permit Application - Old Outfall 002
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Approximate
Fi
Figure:
9
Neme: sneyl°ny.p_I°c
Syracuse, NY 13212
Fayetteville, North Carolina Proposed Outfall
Location

A B
C
D
E
ly F G
H
1. FIR UMINANY CONCEPT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM IS BASED
ON INITML FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA AND MAY BE
MODIFlED BASED ON PENDING FIELD AND
TRGTABIUTY/PILOT RESULTS.
1
0.8B GPM
0.59 GPM —
2. SIZING AND DUAl16GTI0N MILL BE FINALIZED DURING
THE DETALED DESIGN STAGE. )
M-001
M-002
500 GPM
OXIUALUN AN
MIXER
UR
TANKMIXER
500 GPM
n,ltl501
501 GPM
0.29 GPM 0.94 GPM
C
GPM
_
0.06 GP
-o
0.65 GPM
500 GPM 8
v
UP STREAM �y Do
M M
000uTFAa GRURE P-001 B-001
T-001
T-002
CLR-001
T-006 P-007
FP-001 P-006 T-005 P-005
.2 STREAM DAM INFLUEM PUMP(S)
SL SLUDGE PUMPS)
BLPNER(S)
OXI.LON TANK(S)
TANK(5)
CURINEN(S)
PUMPS)
N K(')
FlLL1. PRE55(S) SLUDGE PUMPS) TANKS)
�
0.94 GPM
�o
500 GPM
3 0.1 GPM
M-004
3
NOT FOR
POLYME
MIXER R
CONSTRUCTION
M-00
0.1 GPM
IN -LINE scRLw ulxE
N. POLYMER
Q OTE
�o
T-003 P-002 T-004 P-003 T-008
P-004
LµCAUSTIC i ALID STORAGE
TANK(E) PaTANDU
PAPS
U()
K ) xG
JAUSS
PUMP(s)EN D
4
4
2.5 GPM
5 503 GPM PARSONS 5
0.1 GPM
301 IELD ROAD 449369
PN--t SYRACUSS,CUSE. NY 13212
[phone] X6 62022
P-010 T-007 P-008 GAC-01 MMF-01 CHEMOURS
J POLYMER DILUTION BACKWA'H WATEH GAC BACKWASH GAC ADSORBER(S) MOLT -MEDIA mM �O
WATER PUMP(') TANK PuMP(') FILTER(') NPOES PERMIT APPLICATION
2.5 GPM AVG FOR OLD 0 TFALL 002
2.5 GPM AVG 22828 NC-87
500 GPM FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306
III HARK *M
(DDWrv'TREAM of CAPTURE DAM) P-009
6 MMF BAOs)—H PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL 6
Pump(PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
NO SCALE
�449369-D-001 A
A o B o C o D o E o F G o H

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT D-1
OLD OUTFALL 002 ENGINEERING REPORT
November 2019

PARSONS301 Plainfield Road, Suite 350 1 Syracuse, New York 13212
P:315.451.9560 1 F:315.451.9570 1 www.parsons.com
CHEMOURS FAYETTEVILLE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON
WASTEWATER TREATABILITY
Prepared for:
The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Fayetteville)
Prepared by:
� zl.!.l : �=iwl 0 ��
July 2019
■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page i
Table of Contents
Page
BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ASSESSMENT - TESTING SUMMARY............................................................ 1
INFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING.............................................................................................. 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................... 2
TESTPROCEDURES....................................................................................................................................2
DATAEVALUATION................................................................................................................................... 3
GAC UTILIZATION AND ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE................................................................................4
IEX RESIN UTILIZATION AND ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE........................................................................ 5
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN GAC AND IEX........................................................................... 7
PROPOSED OLD OUTFALL 002 TREATMENT SYSTEM.................................................................................... 7
PROPOSED TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN................................................................................................. 7
ESTIMATED EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS.............................................................................................10
TREATMENT TESTING CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................14
List of Tables
Table 1— Freundlich Isotherm Parameters
Table 2 —Theoretical GAC Utilization Rates and Effluent Concentrations
Table 3 — Ion Exchange Utilization Estimates
Table 4 — Estimated Effluent Concentrations — PFAS Compounds
Table 5 — Estimated Effluent Concentrations - Conventional Parameters and Radiation
List of Figures
Figure 1— Old Outfall 002 Treatment System Process Flow Diagram
Figure 2 — Solubility of Metal Hydroxides/Oxides in Water as a Function of pH
List of Attachments
Attachment 1— 24-Hour Influent Characterization Results OOF2 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Parsons PLUS envision more 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 1
Engineering Report on Wastewater TreatabilitX
Parsons has prepared this treatment testing summary for inclusion in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit application for discharge of water captured at Old Outfall 002 (OOF2)
and treated in accordance with the signed Consent Order dated February 25, 2019.
BACKGROUND
The Consent Order specifies capture and treatment of water at the Option B location (proposed dam) of
Old Outfall 002 (OOF2) by September 30, 2020 or by some other appro. The Consent Order states: "The
treatment system shall meet such discharge standards as shall be set by DEQ, and shall, in addition and
at a minimum, be at least 99% effective in controlling indicator parameters, Gen X and PFMOAA". The
NPDES permit application for discharge of treated water requires estimated effluent characteristics for
parameters identified in the NPDES Form 2D (New Sources and New Dischargers: Application for Permit
to Discharge Process Wastewater).
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ASSESSMENT - TESTING SUMMARY
The following testing program was performed to support preparation of the EPA Form 1 and 2D as part of
the NPDES permit application for discharge of water captured at OOF2 and treated prior to discharge.
• Dry -weather 24-hour influent composite characterization at OOF2 Option B (proposed dam).
• Physical / chemical treatment testing to remove iron, background organic content, and metals.
• Treatment testing of water collected at Option B location, including Granular Activated Carbon
(GAC) adsorption testing and Ion Exchange (IEX) resin removal testing for per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) indicator compounds.
INFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING
A 24-hour composite sample was collected at the OOF2 Option B location (proposed dam) during dry -
weather flow conditions in accordance with 40 CFR 136. The sample was analyzed for a comprehensive
range of constituents including all site -tracked PFAS.
in Attachment 1.
Treatment Requirements
The influent characterization results are summarized
Based on the influent characterization results, the following treatment will be required:
• Removal of PFAS compounds
• Removal of iron and solids to prevent fouling of the treatment process used for removing PFAS
• Direct or incidental removal of metals present in OOF2 flow
• Management of solids generated during iron and solids removal
Parsons PLUS envision more W.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ASSESSMENT
It is anticipated that treatment for PFAS at OOF2 Option B location will rely on adsorption technologies
including GAC potentially substituted by or combined with IEX. Adsorption isotherm studies were
performed to assess the performance of GAC and IEX to remove PFAS in water from OOF2. Isotherms are
a reliable indicator of predicting the capacity of an adsorbent (e.g., GAC) to removal target constituents
to required treatment levels. The isotherms are generated by applying a range of adsorbent doses to a
series of identical wastewater samples and measuring the resulting equilibrium concentrations of the
target constituents in the aqueous phase following a period of mixing.
The isotherms generated by this process provide an initial basis for designing a system which will achieve
treatment objectives. The testing with actual samples of water to be treated ensures the results are
suitable directly to this application.
Isotherm adsorption studies were performed with the following media to compare performance between
GAC and IEX resins as part of developing a technology basis for treatment of PFAS in 0OF2:
• GAC
o Calgon F400
o Calgon F400 (reduced pH)
• IEX Resin
o Calgon CalRes 2301
o Calgon CalRes 2304
o DOWEX Marathon A (Cl- form)
o DOWEX Marathon A (OH- form)
o DOWEX Marathon A2
Additional testing of alternative GAC products is anticipated for comparison with results obtained with
F400. On -site pilot testing is following the isotherm studies, in accordance with the Consent Order,
utilizing a column testing protocol.
TEST PROCEDURES
The isotherm studies were conducted by adding different amounts of adsorbent (pulverized GAC or IEX
resin) to a series of identical test samples containing water from OOF2. The concentrations of individual
PFAS compounds remaining in solution (equilibrium concentration, Ce) at each adsorbent dose following
a period of mixing were analyzed. The amount of target compound adsorbed (x) was calculated at each
adsorbent dose (m); x/m was then calculated at each dose and plotted versus the corresponding Ce values
to generate the Freundlich adsorption isotherm. Performance of the study using water from OOF2
accounted for matrix and potential competitive adsorption effects.
Water from OOF2 was oxidized and pH adjusted to 7.5 ± 0.1 s.u. The treated water underwent gravity
settling for approximately one hour after which the supernatant was filtered through a 5 micrometer (µm)
bag filter. For each adsorbent tested, pH -adjusted water was then transferred to a series of 1-quart wide -
mouth amber glass bottles with each containing a different mass of the adsorbent, including a control
bottle containing no adsorbent to account for losses not attributable to adsorbent removal. Adsorbent
doses ranged from approximately 0.050 —10 grams per liter (g/Q. The bottles were weighed empty and
after adding adsorbent and test water to determine exact test volumes to calculate actual adsorbent
Parsons PLUS envision more 1W 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 3
doses. The bottles were capped and vigorously shaken, then placed on a table -top rotary mixer for
approximately 48 hours.
Following the mixing period, the bottles were removed from the rotary mixer and allowed to settle.
Treated water from each test bottle (including control) was collected using a polypropylene syringe and
dispensed through a 1 µm pore size glass fiber syringe filter into 3 x 250 mL unpreserved HDPE sample
bottles. Upon collection, the sample bottles were stored refrigerated at approximately 4 degrees Celsius
(°C), then submitted for analysis of Table 3+, hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and Mod
537 MAX compounds.
)ATA EVALUATION
Adsorption Capacity. The Freundlich model was used to interpret isotherm study analytical data for each
compound which had a sufficient number of detectable concentrations within a given test series (i.e.,
measurable concentrations at three or more adsorbent doses plus control). The Freundlich model relates
the equilibrium concentration of the adsorbate (target compound) to the mass of adsorbate that is
adsorbed to the adsorbent as follows:
x 1
m = KfCen Equation 1
where: x/m = mass of adsorbate (target compound) per mass of adsorbent (mg/g)
Ce = equilibrium concentration of adsorbate in solution after adsorption (mg/L)
Kf = empirical constant
n = empirical constant
The parameters Kf and 1/n were calculated through logarithmic linearization of Equation 1 and linear,
least -squares graphical analysis as follows:
Log Cm) = LogKf + n LogCe Equation 2
Equation 2 is in the form of a linear equation y = mx +b, with y = log(x/m), x = LogCe, m (slope) = 1/n, and
b (y-intercept) = IogKf.
For each applied absorbent dose, the x/m ratio was calculated as follows:
x _ v(Co —ce) Equation 3
m M
where: Co = Initial concentration of adsorbate in solution before adsorption (mg/L)
V = Isotherm test sample volume (L)
M = Mass of adsorbent applied to test bottle (g)
In these calculations, Co = equilibrium concentration in control sample, to account for any losses not
attributable to adsorption to the test adsorbent. The log(x/m) values were then plotted versus the
corresponding log(Ce) values. A least -squares linearization was applied to obtain the Freundlich
parameters Kf and 1/n as shown in Equation 2.
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 4
Freundlich parameters are presented in Table 1 for each compound which provided an equilibrium
concentration above the respective method reporting limit (MRL) at a minimum of three (3) adsorbent
doses.
Table 1. Freundlich Isotherm Parameters(')
Compound
Calgon CalRes 2301
Calgon CalRes 2304
DOWEX Marathon
Calgon F400 GAC
Kf
1/n
Kf
1/n
Kf
1/n
Kf
1/n
HFPO-DA
8.8
0.62
14.2
0.67
1.3
0.61
38.7
0.62
PEPA
1.6
0.56
3.6
0.64
0.23
0.51
2.1
0.53
PFBA
0.94
0.66
2.5
0.74
0.09
0.62
0.55
0.66
PFPeA
1.1
0.60
3.4
0.64
0.09
0.56
1.6
0.54
PFMOAA
9.2
0.72
10.3
0.76
0.98
0.58
3.8
0.73
PF02HxA
12.1
0.69
20.4
0.77
1.6
0.67
31.8
0.68
PF030A
3.4
0.51
7.0
0.58
0.71
0.50
Note (2)
PMPA
9.1
0.84
31.5
0.97
0.64
0.67
4.5
0.84
(1) Results to be refined as data from on -going studies is evaluated and processed.
(2) Equilibrium concentrations above the MRL were measured at fewer than three doses.
The dosing ranges applied in each study were selected to target the compounds which were expected to
drive adsorbent consumptions. The absence of measurable concentrations for other compounds reflected
a combination of adsorption performance and influent concentration such that measurable
concentrations were obtained at fewer than three doses. A number of compounds were below the MRL
prior to exposure to any adsorbent.
GAC UTILIZATION AND ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE
Estimated GAC Utilization Rate. The Freundlich isotherm parameters Kf and 1/n obtained for Calgon F400
GAC were used to estimate the theoretical Carbon Utilization Rate (CUR) as follows:
Theoretical CUR (9) _ ((co)
)co Equation 4
where: Co = Initial concentration of adsorbate in solution before adsorption (mg/L)
Ce = Treated effluent concentration (mg/L)
(x/m)co= Theoretical breakthrough capacity (mg/g) = KfCo1/n
The theoretical CUR in Equation 4 expresses complete utilization of the GAC in a GAC adsorber up to its
capacity for a given compound. It assumes that the mass transfer zone within the column is much shorter
than the column itself such that breakthrough occurs only upon saturation in the adsorber at its
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 5
adsorption capacity. The theoretical utilization was calculated using the Freundlich parameters obtained
from the aforementioned tests, applied to Option B OOF2 PFAS concentrations obtained from
characterization sampling. The theoretical GAC utilization rates were calculated for each parameter for
which isotherms could be generated. The results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Theoretical GAC Utilization Rates and Effluent Concentrations(')
Compound
Kf
1/n
Co (µg/L)
(x/mko
(mg/g)
GAC Utilization
Rate (g/L)
HFPO-DA
38.7
0.62
7.6
1.83
0.0041
PEPA
2.1
0.53
2.2
0.083
0.026
PFBA
0.55
0.66
0.098
0.0012
0.079
PFPeA
1.6
0.54
0.22
0.018
0.012
PFMOAA
3.8
0.73
105
0.73
0.142
PF02HxA
31.8
0.68
23
2.45
0.0094
PF030A
--
--
7.4
--
--
PMPA
4.5
0.84
7.3
0.072
0.10
ilk Results to be refined as data from on -going studies is evaluated and processed.
The compound with the highest utilization rate based on the influent conditions, target treatment
concentration, and Freundlich parameters would govern GAC usage rates; the usage rates are not
additive. These results demonstrate that perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid (PFMOAA) would be expected to
drive GAC consumption.
Estimated Annual Consumption. Theoretical GAC consumption would be calculated as follows:
Theoretical GAC Consumption = Q * CUR
where: Q = Flow rate (gpm)
Equation 5
Based on an estimated OOF2 flow rate of 500 - 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm), theoretical annual GAC
consumption would be approximately 312,000 - 624,000 pounds per year (lb/yr). To provide a design
safety factor, overall GAC utilization has been assumed to be 75% of theoretical calculated from the
isotherm test results. This is a reasonably conservative assumption based on a preliminary arrangement
of four (4) GAC adsorption vessels operating in series. Based on this assumption, annual GAC utilization
to treat OOF2 flow at a continuous flow rate of 500 - 1,000 gpm would be 416,000 - 832,000 lb/yr.
IEX RESIN UTILIZATION AND ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE
Parsons performed IEX resin isotherm testing using the same procedures applied to GAC isotherm testing.
The Freundlich parameters Kf and 1/n were presented in Table 1. Theoretical IEX resin utilization rates
were calculated using Equation 4. The IEX utilization rate estimates are presented in Table 3 for all
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 6
compounds which had measurable equilibrium concentrations at a minimum of three resin doses and for
which Freundlich adsorption isotherms were therefore generated.
Table 3. Ion Exchange Utilization Estimates(')
Compound
Adsorbent
Kf
1/n
Co (µg/L)
(x/m)co
(mg/g)
IEX Utilization
Rate (g/L)
HFPO-DA
CalRes 2301 IEX
8.8
0.62
7.6
0.43
0.018
CalRes 2304 IEX
14.2
0.67
0.53
0.014
DOWEX Marathon A2
38.7
0.62
0.069
0.11
PEPA
CalRes 2301 IEX
1.6
0.56
2.2
0.050
0.043
CalRes 2304 IEX
3.6
0.64
0.070
0.031
DOWEX Marathon A2
2.1
0.53
0.010
0.21
PFBA
CalRes 2301 IEX
0.94
0.66
0.098
0.0022
0.044
CalRes 2304 IEX
2.5
0.74
0.0026
0.037
DOWEX Marathon A2
0.55
0.66
0.00031
0.32
PFPeA
CalRes 2301 IEX
1.1
0.60
0.22
0.0071
0.030
CalRes 2304 IEX
3.4
0.64
0.015
0.014
DOWEX Marathon A2
1.6
0.54
0.00081
0.27
PFMOAA
CalRes 2301 IEX
9.2
0.72
105
1.80
0.058
CalRes 2304 IEX
10.3
0.76
1.86
0.056
DOWEX Marathon A2
3.8
0.73
0.26
0.40
PFO2HxA
CalRes 2301 IEX
12.1
0.69
23
0.89
0.026
CalRes 2304 IEX
20.4
0.77
1.1
0.020
DOWEX Marathon A2
31.8
0.68
0.13
0.18
PFO3OA
CalRes 2301 IEX
3.4
0.51
7.4
0.28
0.026
CalRes 2304 IEX
7.0
0.58
0.41
0.018
DOWEX Marathon A2
--
--
0.063
0.12
PMPA(l)
CalRes 2301 IEX
9.1
0.84
7.3
0.15
0.050
CalRes 2304 IEX
31.5
0.97
0.26
0.027
DOWEX Marathon A2
4.5
0.84
0.023
0.31
(1) Results to be refined as data from on -going studies is evaluated and processed.
Similar to GAC testing, most compounds had an insufficient number of data points due to a number of
potential factors (e.g., they adsorbed more effectively than the compounds in Table 3; their starting (Co)
concentrations were too low to provide sufficiently useful information).
The best performing IEX resin was the resin with the lowest utilization rate for the governing compound.
The results presented in Table 4 suggest PFMOAA would drive IEX resin consumption; of the resins tested,
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 7
CalRes 2304 provided the best performance for PFMOAA. Theoretical IEX resin (CalRes 2304) utilization
using Equation 5 for 0OF2 continuously flowing at 500 — 1,000 gpm would be approximately 123,500 —
247,000 lb/yr. Assuming actual utilization would be 75% of theoretical, as was assumed for GAC
adsorption, estimated utilization for OOF2 would be approximately 165,000 — 330,000 lb/yr.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN GAC AND IEX
Treatment testing demonstrated that both GAC and IEX would be effective for treating the indicator
compounds PFMOAA and HFPO-DA along with other PFAS in OOF2 flow. The GAC provided generally
better performance for other PFAS compounds as demonstrated by the lower utilization rates for GAC
versus IEX.
PROPOSED OLD OUTFALL 002 TREATMENT SYSTEM
PROPOSED TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN
Treatment of flow captured at OOF2 — Option B location (proposed dam) will undergo the following unit
treatment processes:
1) Chemical Precipitation
2) Flocculation
3) Clarification
4) Filtration
5) Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
6) Discharge
7) Solids Handling and Dewatering
A process flow diagram of the treatment process is shown in Figure 1.
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 8
0 E i G
M •001 Y-W1 w.w wrw e•2
aTe
� z
P-COi �± L-� i942 CLS91 *�H �I �1 L9fr �i LQ�
N-001 f
NOT f�R
ppN$iRUCi�ON
u-oo
i-m� c-ms LSei o_mi L-SQ& P�R4
P91■7ISCM
P-010 r-m� P-MS wr-oi �� CHNOURS
MEM Fw vacua.
—"uexv-o-■oi i
Figure 1. Old Outfall 002 Treatment System Process Flow Diagram
The unit treatment processes involved with the anticipated treatment system are discussed below.
1. Chemical Precipitation. Chemical precipitation will be implemented to remove iron which
otherwise would cause fouling/plugging in the downstream GAC adsorption process. Chemical
precipitation will be applied to oxidize soluble "ferrous" iron (Fe+z), thereby transforming it to
insoluble "ferric" iron (Fe+3) which will precipitate (come out of solution) in the form of ferric
hydroxide [Fe(OH)31. Chemical precipitation will be implemented by applying the following:
• Aeration, using a rotary lobe -type blower supplying forced air through a diffusion assembly
• pH adjustment, by adding caustic (sodium hydroxide; NaOH) to adjust pH to the range of
minimum Fe(OH)3 solubility.
To achieve optimum iron removal, the pH will be adjusted to the range of 7 — 8 to achieve
minimum solubility of Fe+3 as shown in Figure 2.
The precipitation of iron will also directly or incidentally provide for removal of total organic
carbon (TOC) and other metals present in Old Outfall 002 flow. Estimated removal rates are
discussed in the next section.
2. Flocculation. Polymer will be applied to cause influent and precipitated solids to agglomerate into
larger "flocs". The larger agglomerates settle more efficiently, which will allow them to settle by
gravity in the clarification process.
im
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 $M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 9
Water Solubility of Metal Hydroxides/Oxides at 25°C
Dyer, J. A.; Scrivner, N. C.; Dentel, S. K. Environ. Prog. 1998, 17(1), pp, 1-8
1. E+04
Cue+ N?* Coe+ Cd2+ Fea
3 1. E+03 Fe A,3+ ..
E
Q 1 E+02 --- -- ---- A— Zn2+
Cr3+ o b
0 1.E+01-------=- ---- ------------ -
---- ----
1.E+00------- - - ,------- ----- -- ---
d A06
+ Mg z+Ca Pb2+
--------+
A
- --------------- ----- -----
y
0 1.E-01 --------------! --- ---!----------- - -----
1.E-02 -------------- ----- -------- ----- -----
a)
1. E-03
O
H
1.E-04------------------ -- - -
1.E-05 -
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
pH
Figure 2. Solubility of Metal Hydroxides/Oxides in Water as a Function of pH
3. Clarification. The floc particles generated in the flocculation process will be settled out in the
clarification process. Clarification will be performed using a lamella -type inclined plate or tube
clarifier in a dedicated clarification tank. The clarified "supernatant" will be transferred to
downstream treatment processes; settled solids will be pumped from the bottom of the
clarification tank to the sludge holding and dewatering process.
4. Filtration. Treated flow from the clarifier will undergo filtration using pressurized or gravity -fed
multi -media filters (MMF) or other filtration technology to prevent fugitive suspended solids from
fouling the GAC columns. MMFs perform filtration using multiple layers each consisting of a
different filtration media. The MMFs will have backwash capability to periodically remove
accumulated solids. Backwash flow will be conveyed to the head of the treatment process.
5. GAC Adsorption. Effluent from the multimedia process will be conveyed under pressure to the
GAC adsorption process. Treatment testing with water collected from OOF2 Option B location
(proposed dam) has demonstrated that GAC will achieve the PFMOAA and HFPO-DA removal rates
required in the Consent Order. Bench -scale isotherm testing has provided the initial basis for
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 10
developing a treatment system design, which will include GAC contactor vessels installed in series.
The GAC contactor vessels will have backwash capability to allow for periodical removal of
accumulated solids.
The design will maximize the efficiency of GAC utilization while providing hydraulic loading rates
in the range prescribed by sound engineering design for this application. The design, including
sizing and configuration of GAC contactor vessels, will be further refined based on pilot treatment
testing being performed as required by the Consent Order along with additional bench -scale
treatment tests, as part of process development and optimization.
6. Discharge. The treated water will be discharged and reintroduced to the OOF2 channel. The
discharge location will be downstream of the capture dam. Based on process optimization, a
backwash water tank would store a limited volume of treated water to supply MMF backwash,
GAC backwash, and polymer dilution pumps.
7. Sludge Holding and Dewatering. The sludge removed from the clarification process will undergo
thickening either in a gravity settler or by other means. The thickened solids will then be
dewatered using a dewatering technology (e.g., belt filter press; centrifuge) fit for this purpose
based on solids generation rates and dewatering efficiency. The dewatered solids cake will be
transported off -site to a landfill certified to accept the solids. The liquid from the process will be
returned to the head of the plant and blended with influent in the oxidation treatment process.
The thickening and dewatering technologies and associated equipment (e.g., thickened sludge
transfer pumps, polymer addition) will be evaluated during the design phase.
ESTIMATED EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
PFAS Compounds. Treatment testing demonstrated that 99% removal of the indicator compounds
PFMOAA and HFPO-DA was achievable using GAC. It is assumed that this level of treatment is required for
average daily concentrations. Treatment testing demonstrated that other PFAS compounds in the Table
3+ and EPA Mod 537 MAX analyses were removable by at least 99% when PFMOAA and HFPO-DA were
also removed by 99%. Therefore, average daily effluent concentrations were estimated by assuming 99%
removal of each PFAS compound; these were calculated as 0.01 x concentration presented in Table 1.
Compounds with influent concentrations below detection or with influent concentrations such that 99%
removal would render them below detection are indicated as such.
Maximum daily concentrations were estimated by multiplying the estimated average daily concentration
by 1.46. The factor 1.46 was obtained from the EPA Technical Support Document, Table 5-3 using a
Coefficient of Variance of 0.6 and assumes one sample per month. The results for estimated Average Daily
and Maximum Daily effluent concentrations of PFAS compounds are presented in Table 4. Table 4 is
intended to supplement the information presented in EPA Form 2D, Tables A — D.
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 11
Table 4. Estimated Effluent Concentrations — PFAS Compounds
Parameter
Units
Average Daily
Maximum Daily
Table 3+
PFESA BP 1
µg/L
0.0038
0.0055
PFESA BP 2
µg/L
0.0031
0.0045
PFESA BP 4
µg/L
0.0038
0.0055
PFESA BP 5
µg/L
0.0082
0.012
PFESA BP 6
µg/L
ND
ND
DFSA
µg/L
--
--
EVE Acid
µg/L
0.00034
0.00050
Hydro -EVE Acid
µg/L
0.0019
0.0028
McFOSA
µg/L
ND
ND
M-McFOSE-M
µg/L
ND
ND
M M P
µg/L
--
--
MTP
µg/L
--
--
NEtFOSAM
µg/L
ND
ND
N-EtFOSE-M
µg/L
ND
ND
NVHOS
µg/L
0.0078
0.011
PEPA
µg/L
0.019
0.028
PES
µg/L
ND
ND
PFECA B
µg/L
ND
ND
PFECA G
µg/L
ND
ND
PFMOAA
µg/L
0.85
1.24
PF02HxA
µg/L
0.17
0.25
PF030A
µg/L
0.051
0.074
PF04DA
µg/L
0.016
0.023
PF05DA
µg/L
0.0058
0.0085
EPA Mod 537 Max
PMPA
µg/L
0.054
0.079
PPF Acid
µg/L
--
--
R-EVE
µg/L
0.0012
0.0018
8:2 FTS
µg/L
ND
ND
HFPO-DA
µg/L
0.060
0.088
N EtFOSAA
µg/L
ND
ND
NEtPFOSA
µg/L
ND
ND
NEtPFOSAE
µg/L
ND
ND
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 12
Table 4. Estimated Effluent Concentrations — PFAS Compounds (Continued)
Parameter
Units
Average Daily
Maximum Daily
NMeFOSAA
µg/L
ND
ND
NMePFOSA
µg/L
ND
ND
NMePFOSAE
µg/L
ND
ND
PFBS
µg/L
ND
ND
PFBA
µg/L
0.00072
0.0011
PFDS
µg/L
ND
ND
PFDA
µg/L
ND
ND
PFDoS
µg/L
ND
ND
PFDoA
µg/L
ND
ND
PFHpS
µg/L
ND
ND
PFHpA
µg/L
0.00024
0.00035
PFHxDA
µg/L
N D
N D
PFHxS
µg/L
ND
ND
PFHxA
µg/L
0.00015
0.00022
PFNS
µg/L
ND
ND
PFNA
µg/L
ND
ND
PFODA
µg/L
ND
ND
FOSA
µg/L
N D
N D
PFOS
µg/L
N D
N D
PFOA
µg/L
N D
N D
PFPeS
µg/L
ND
ND
PFPeA
µg/L
0.0015
0.0022
P FTeA
µg/L
N D
N D
PFTriA
µg/L
N D
N D
PFUnA
µg/L
ND
ND
Note: ND indicates compound not expected to be at detectable concentrations in treated effluent
since compound was below reporting limit in the influent characterization sample, or at a
concentration such that 99% removal would reduce the concentration to below detection limit.
TOC, TSS, and Metals. Effluent concentrations of TOC, total suspended solids (TSS), and metals were
estimating by applying engineering judgment. Average daily concentrations of metals were estimated
based on assumed levels of removal during chemical precipitation / flocculation / settling / filtration;
additional "polishing" in the GAC adsorption process was not taken into consideration. Estimated
removals of TOC and TSS included removal across all treatment processes including additional removal at
the GAC adsorption process. Maximum daily concentrations were estimated by multiplying the estimated
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 13
average daily concentration by a factor of 1.46. The factor 1.46 was obtained from the EPA Technical
Support Document, Table 5-3 using a Coefficient of Variance of 0.6 and assumes one sample per month.
The results are presented in Table 5 and are also included in the corresponding tables in the permit
application Form 2D.
Table S. Estimated Effluent Concentrations - Conventional Parameters and Radiation
Parameter
Units
Influent
% Removal
Average Daily
Maximum Daily
TOC
mg/L
1.1
50%
0.55
0.80
TSS
mg/L
10.4
80%
2.1
3.0
Alpha, Total(')
PCi/L
7.38
80%
1.5
2.2
Beta, Total(')
PCi/L
6.79
80%
1.4
2.0
Radium, Total(')
PCi/L
3.44
80%
0.69
1.0
Radium 226, Total(�)
PCi/L
< 0.373
--
ND
ND
Aluminum, Total
mg/L
8.1
90%
0.81
1.2
Barium, Total
mg/L
0.052
10%
0.047
0.068
Boron, Total
mg/L
0.14
0%
0.14
0.20
Cobalt, Total
mg/L
0.17
20%
0.14
0.20
Iron, Total
mg/L
11.7
95%
0.59
0.85
Magnesium, Total
mg/L
1.95
0%
2.0
2.8
Molybdenum, Total
mg/L
< 0.0020
--
ND
ND
Manganese, Total
mg/L
0.195
10%
0.18
0.26
Tin, Total
mg/L
< 0.0070
--
ND
ND
Titanium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0020
--
ND
ND
Antimony, Total
mg/L
< 0.0100
--
ND
ND
Arsenic, Total
mg/L
< 0.0160
--
ND
ND
Beryllium, Total
mg/L
0.0018
20%
0.0014
0.0021
Cadmium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0010
--
ND
ND
Chromium, Total
mg/L
0.0094
50%
0.0047
0.0069
Copper, Total
mg/L
0.0064
20%
0.0051
0.0074
Lead, Total
mg/L
< 0.0060
--
ND
ND
Mercury, Total
µg/L
< 0.050
--
ND
ND
Nickel, Total
mg/L
0.002
10%
0.0018
0.0026
Selenium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0210
--
ND
ND
Silver, Total
mg/L
< 0.0050
--
ND
ND
Thallium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0140
--
ND
ND
Zinc, Total
mg/L
0.0368
50%
0.018
0.027
(1) Assumed associated with influent solids and therefore subject to same removal rates as influent TSS.
11ME
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 14
TREATMENT TESTING CONCLUSIONS
Parsons performed GAC isotherm testing and IEX resin isotherm testing using identical procedures
applied. The Freundlich model was used to interpret isotherm study analytical data for each compound
which had a sufficient number of detectable concentrations within a given test series.
The Freundlich isotherm parameters, Kf and 1/n, were obtained for the GAC and IEX resins, and theoretical
utilization rates were calculated using the Freundlich parameters discussed previously (Equation 4).
Per the test results for GAC, the compound with the highest utilization rate based on the influent
conditions, target treatment concentration, and Freundlich parameters would govern GAC usage rates;
the usage rates are not additive. These results demonstrated that PFMOAA would be expected to drive
GAC consumption.
The best performing IEX resin was the resin with the lowest utilization rate for the governing compound.
The results suggested that PFMOAA would drive IEX resin consumption.
Based on an estimated flow rate of 500 — 1,000 gpm, theoretical annual GAC consumption would be
approximately 312,000 — 624,000 lb/yr. On applying a design safety factor, annual GAC utilization to treat
Lower OOF2 flow at a flow rate of 500 — 1,000 gpm continuous would be 416,000 — 832,000 lb/yr.
Theoretical IEX resin for the same flow rate would be approximately 123,500 — 247,000 lb/yr. On applying
a design safety factor, estimated annual utilization for Lower OOF2 would be approximately 165,000 —
330,000 lb/yr.
Although the total pounds of annual consumption of IEX resins tested is calculated to be lower than GAC
tested, the generally superior adsorptive capacity of GAC for other target PFAS compounds provides the
favored technology basis for treatment of OOF2 flow in the NPDES permit application. This superior
adsorptive capacity was demonstrated through the reported testing discussed in this report. Further,
there is also an established logistical supply system for GAC replacement.
Authored by:
Ted Schoenberg, Ph.D., P.E.
Parsons PLUS envision more 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 15
Attachment 1
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
Old Outfall 002 Option B Location (Proposed
Dam)
■
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 16
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
Old Outfall 002 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1
Parameter
Units
Result
Table 3+ PFAS
Byproduct 1 (PFESA BP 1)
µg/L
0.38
Byproduct 2 (PFESA BP 2)
µg/L
0.31
Byproduct 4 (PFESA BP 4)
µg/L
0.38
Byproduct 5 (PFESA BP 5)
µg/L
0.82
Byproduct 6 (PFESA BP 6)
µg/L
< 0.015
DFSA
µg/L
Note (1)
EVE Acid
µg/L
0.034
Hydro -EVE Acid
µg/L
0.19
McFOSA
µg/L
< 0.035
M-McFOSE-M
µg/L
< 0.11
MMP
µg/L
Note (1)
MTP
µg/L
Note (1)
NEtFOSAM
µg/L
< 0.037
N-EtFOSE-M
µg/L
< 0.060
NVHOS
µg/L
0.78
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-(pentafluoroethoxy)propanoic acid (PEPA)
µg/L
1.9
PES
µg/L
< 0.046
PFECA B
µg/L
< 0.060
PFECA G
µg/L
< 0.041
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA)
µg/L
85
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid (PFO2HxA)
µg/L
17
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid (PFO3OA)
µg/L
5.1
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid (PFO4DA)
µg/L
1.6
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,11-pentadodecanoic) acid (PFOSDA)
µg/L
0.58
Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA)
µg/L
5.4
PPF Acid
µg/L
Note (1)
R-EVE
µg/L
0.12
EPA Mod 537 MAX PFAS
10:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (10:2 FTS)
µg/L
< 0.0026
4:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (4:2 FTS)
µg/L
< 0.0026
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 17
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
Old Outfall 002 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1-Contd.
Parameter
Units
Result
8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (8:2 FTS)
µg/L
< 0.0052
Perfluoro-2-propoxypropanoic acid (HFPO-DA; "Dimer Acid")
µg/L
6.0
N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA)
µg/L
< 0.0026
N-ethylperfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide (NEtPFOSA)
µg/L
< 0.0079
2-(N-ethylperfluoro-l-octanesulfonamido) ethanol (NEWFOSAE)
µg/L
< 0.0026
N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA)
µg/L
< 0.0026
N-methylperfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide (NMePFOSA)
µg/L
< 0.0079
2-(N-methylperfluoro-l-octanesulfonamido) ethanol (NMePFOSAE)
µg/L
< 0.0026
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid (PFBS)
µg/L
0.0013
Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PFBA)
µg/L
0.072
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid (PFDS)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluorodecanoic Acid (PFDA)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluorododecane Sulfonic Acid (PFDoS)
µg/L
< 0.00087
Perfluorododecanoic Acid (PFDoA)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluoroheptane Sulfonic Acid (PFHpS)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid (PFHpA)
µg/L
0.024
Perfluorohexadecanoic Acid (PFHxDA)
µg/L
< 0.00087
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid (PFHxS)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA)
µg/L
0.015
Perfluorononane Sulfonic Acid (PFNS)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA)
µg/L
0.0069
Perfluorooctadecanoic Acid (PFODA)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA)
µg/L
< 0.0026
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFDS)
µg/L
0.0018
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFDA)
µg/L
0.028
Perfluoropentane Sulfonic Acid (PFPeS)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Perfluoropentanoic Acid (PFPeA)
µg/L
0.15
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid (PFTeA)
µg/L
< 0.00087
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA)
µg/L
< 0.00087
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid (PFUnA)
µg/L
< 0.0017
Parsons PLUS envision more 5m

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 18
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
Old Outfall 002 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1-Contd.
Parameter
Units
Result
Conventional and Nonconventional Parameters
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
mg/L
< 2
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/L
< 12.8
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/L
1.1
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/L
10.4
Ammonia (NH3-N)
mg/L as N
< 0.05
Certain Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Bromide
mg/L
< 1.3
Chlorine, total residual
mg/L
Not Measured')
Color
CP Units
< 5
Fecal Coliform
UNITS
Not Measured(�)
Fluoride
mg/L
< 0.25
Nitrate -nitrite
mg/L
0.29
Nitrogen, Total Organic
mg/L as N
Not Measured')
Oil and Grease
mg/L
< 1.4
Phosphorus, Total
mg/L as P
< 0.050
Sulfate
mg/L as SO4
71
Sulfide
mg/L as S
< 0.70
Sulfite
mg/L as S03
< 2
Surfactants (MBAS)
mg/L
< 0.040
Aluminum, Total
mg/L
8.1
Barium, Total
mg/L
0.052
Boron, Total
mg/L
0.14
Cobalt, Total
mg/L
0.17
Iron, Total
mg/L
11.7
Magnesium, Total
mg/L
1.95
Molybdenum, Total
mg/L
< 0.0020
Manganese, Total
mg/L
0.195
Tin, Total
mg/L
< 0.0070
Titanium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0020
Parsons PLUS envision more 5m

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 19
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
OOF2 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1-Contd.
Parameter
Units
Result
Certain Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants (Continued)
Radioactivity
Alpha, Total
PCi/L
7.38
Beta, Total
PCi/L
6.79
Radium, Total
PCi/L
3.44
Radium 226, Total
PCi/L
< 0.373
Toxic Metals, Total Cyanide, and Total Phenols
Antimony, Total
mg/L
< 0.0100
Arsenic, Total
mg/L
< 0.0160
Beryllium, Total
mg/L
0.0018
Cadmium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0010
Chromium, Total
mg/L
0.0094
Copper, Total
mg/L
0.0064
Lead, Total
mg/L
< 0.0060
Mercury, Total
µg/L
< 0.050
Nickel, Total
mg/L
0.0020
Selenium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0210
Silver, Total
mg/L
< 0.0050
Thallium, Total
mg/L
< 0.0140
Zinc, Total
mg/L
0.0368
Toxic Metals, Total Cyanide, and Total Phenols (Continued)
Cyanide, Total
mg/L
< 0.0050
Phenols, Total
mg/L
< 0.010
Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction — Volatile Compounds)
Acrolein
µg/L
< 3
Acrylonitrile
µg/L
< 0.5
Benzene
µg/L
< 0.2
Bromoform
µg/L
< 0.5
Carbon Tetrachloride
µg/L
< 0.2
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 20
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
OOF2 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1-Contd.
Parameter
Units
Result
Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction — Volatile Compounds) (Continued)
Chlorobenzene
µg/L
< 0.2
Chromodibromomethane
µg/L
< 0.3
Chloroethane
µg/L
< 0.3
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
µg/L
< 0.1
Chloroform
µg/L
< 0.2
Dichlorobromomethane
µg/L
< 0.3
1,1-Dichloroethane
µg/L
< 0.2
1,2-Dichloroethane
µg/L
< 0.2
1,1-Dichloroethylene
µg/L
< 0.2
1,2-Dichloropropane
µg/L
< 0.2
1,3-Dichloropropylene
µg/L
< 0.2
Ethylbenzene
µg/L
< 0.1
Methyl bromide
µg/L
< 0.4
Methyl chloride
µg/L
< 0.3
Methylene chloride
µg/L
< 0.3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
µg/L
< 0.2
Tetra chIoroethylene
µg/L
< 0.2
Toluene
µg/L
< 0.1
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
µg/L
< 0.2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
µg/L
< 0.2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
µg/L
< 0.2
Trichloroethylene
µg/L
< 0.1
Vinyl Chloride
µg/L
< 0.4
Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction — Acid Fraction)
2-Chlorophenol
µg/L
< 0.3
2,4-Dichlorophenol
µg/L
< 0.3
2,4-Dimethylphenol
µg/L
< 0.3
4,6-Dinitro-o-Cresol
µg/L
< 4
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 21
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
OOF2 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1-Contd.
Parameter
Units
Result
Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction —Acid Fraction) (Continued)
2,4-Dinitrophenol
µg/L
< 10
2-Nitrophenol
µg/L
< 0.4
4-Nitrophenol
µg/L
< 5
p-Chloro-m-cresol
µg/L
< 0.3
Pentachlorophenol
µg/L
< 3
Phenol
µg/L
< 0.4
2,4-6-Trichlorophenol
µg/L
< 0.7
Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction — Base/Neutral Compounds)
Acenaphthene
µg/L
< 0.3
Acenaphthylene
µg/L
< 0.3
Anthracene
µg/L
< 0.2
Benzidene
µg/L
< 20
Benzo(a)anthracene
µg/L
< 0.2
Benzo(a)pyrene
µg/L
< 0.3
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
µg/L
< 0.3
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
µg/L
< 0.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
µg/L
< 0.3
Bis (2-chloroethoxy)methane
µg/L
< 0.5
Bis (2-chloroethyl)ether
µg/L
< 0.4
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)ether
µg/L
< 0.3
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
µg/L
< 1
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
µg/L
< 0.3
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
µg/L
< 0.8
2-Chloronaphthalene
µg/L
< 0.6
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
µg/L
< 0.3
Chrysene
µg/L
< 0.2
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
µg/L
< 0.4
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
µg/L
< 0.5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
µg/L
< 0.5
Parsons PLUS envision more 5m

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 22
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
OOF2 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1-Contd.
Parameter
Units
Result
Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction — Base/Neutral Compounds) (Continued)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
µg/L
< 0.5
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidene
µg/L
< 0.8
Diethyl Phthalate
µg/L
< 0.3
Dimethyl Phthalate
µg/L
< 1
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
µg/L
< 0.5
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
µg/L
< 0.4
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
µg/L
< 0.3
Di-n-octyl-phthalate
µg/L
< 0.5
1,2-Dipheny1hydrazine
µg/L
< 0.2
Fluoranthene
µg/L
< 0.3
Fluorene
µg/L
< 0.3
Fluorene
µg/L
< 0.3
Hexachlorobenzene
µg/L
< 1
Hexachlorobutadiene
µg/L
< 0.8
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
µg/L
< 2
Hexachloroethane
µg/L
< 0.4
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
µg/L
< 0.3
Isophorone
µg/L
< 0.3
Naphthalene
µg/L
< 0.2
Nitrobenzene
µg/L
< 0.5
N-nitrosodimethylamine
µg/L
< 2
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
µg/L
< 0.4
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
µg/L
< 0.3
Phenanthrene
µg/L
< 0.2
Pyrene
µg/L
< 0.2
1,2-4-Trichlorobenzene
µg/L
< 0.3
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

The Chemours Company
Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatability
July 2019
Page 23
24-Hour Influent Characterization Results
OOF2 Option B Location (Proposed Dam)
Attachment 1-Contd.
Parameter
Units
Result
Organic Toxic Pollutants (GC/MS Fraction — Pesticides)
Aldrin
µg/L
< 0.00504
a-BHC
µg/L
< 0.0121
R-BHC
µg/L
< 0.0464
y-BHC (Lindane)
µg/L
< 0.00524
5-BHC
µg/L
< 0.0111
Chlordane
µg/L
< 0.234
4,4'-DDT
µg/L
< 0.0101
4,4'-DDE
µg/L
< 0.0202
4,4'-DDD
µg/L
< 0.00907
Dieldrin
µg/L
< 0.00807
a-Endosulfan
µg/L
< 0.00302
(3-Endosulfan
µg/L
< 0.00988
Endosulfan Sulfate
µg/L
< 0.0101
Endrin
µg/L
< 0.00907
Endrin Aldehyde
µg/L
< 0.00917
Heptachlor
µg/L
< 0.00807
Heptachlor Epoxide
µg/L
< 0.00504
PCB-1242
µg/L
< 0.0746
PCB-1254
µg/L
< 0.0746
PCB-1221
µg/L
< 0.0746
PCB-1232
µg/L
< 0.0746
PCB-1248
µg/L
< 0.0746
PCB-1260
µg/L
< 0.0746
PCB-1016
µg/L
< 0.0746
Toxaphene
µg/L
< 0.358
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
pg/L
< 0.24
Note 1— PFAS compounds PPF Acid, DFSA, MMF and MTP are presently undergoing analytical methods
development and therefore data for these compounds are not reported here.
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 5.

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT D-2
OLD OUTFALL 002 ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVED ANALYSIS
REPORT
November 2019

PARSONS
4701 Hedgemore Drive ♦ Charlotte, NC 28209
P: +1 704.529.6246 1 F: +1 704.529.0374
www.parsons.com
CHEMOURS FAYETTEVILLE ENGINEERING
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (EAA)
FOR
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION -OLD OUTFALL 002
DISCHARGE
Prepared for:
The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Fayetteville)
Prepared by:
� zl.!.l : �=iwl 0 ��
July 2019
US 165128608v1 ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 5M

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Thermal Oxidizer Process Wastewater
July 2019
Applicant's Information:
Applicant Name: Chemours Company (The Chemours Company FC, LLC)
Facility Name: Fayetteville Works
Facility Mailing Address: 22828 NC Highway 87 W, Fayetteville, NC 28306
County: Bladen
Phone Number: [phone]
Contact Person: Christel Compton
Preparer's Information:
EEA Preparer: Parsons Corporation
Mailing Address: 4701 Hedgemore Drive, Charlotte, NC 28209
Phone Number: [phone]
Contact Person: Michael Robinson, P.E.
US 165128608v1 ■
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 1
Table of Contents
SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND............................................................................................................2
STEP1........................................................................................................................................................4
ALLOWABILITY OF PROPOSED DISCHARGE........................................................................................... 4
ProjectDescription................................................................................................................................ 9
Schedule..............................................................................................................................................10
STEP2......................................................................................................................................................
11
NON -MUNICIPAL FLOW PROJECTIONS...............................................................................................11
STEP3......................................................................................................................................................
14
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION...........................................14
Alternative A: Connection to Existing Treatment Plant.................................................................
14
Alternative B: Land Application Alternative Evaluation.................................................................14
Alternative C: Wastewater Reuse in Facility..................................................................................
17
Alternative D: Direct Discharge......................................................................................................
18
Alternative E: Combination of Alternatives....................................................................................
22
STEP4......................................................................................................................................................
23
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................
23
CONCLUSION AND PATH FORWARD.......................................................................................................
24
List of Tables
Table 1— Preliminary Schedule
Table 2 — PVCA Summary Table
List of Figures
Figure 1— Site Location Map
Figure 2—Site Plan and Proposed Treatment Plant Location
Figure 3 — Receiving Stream Classification
Figure 4 — Sub -Basin Water Quality Plan
Figure S — Impaired Waters Map
Figure 6 — Flow Measurement Locations in 0OF2
Figure 7 — Hydrogeological Units at the Site
Figure 8 — Preliminary Process Flow Diagram
Figure 9 — Preliminary General Arrangement Drawing
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 2
SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
In accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0105(c)(2), Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) has prepared this
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for review by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ). The EAA supports the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
application for Old Outfall 002 (OOF2) at the Fayetteville Works Facility (the Site), Bladen County, North
Carolina. Pursuant to Paragraph 12(e)(i) of the signed Consent Order dated February 25, 2019, Chemours
will capture the dry weather flow at the lower reaches of the Former Outfall 002 channel and treat such
water prior to discharge. Chemours is required to provide a treatment system to remove per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) constituents from this flow to meet the requirements and criteria
stipulated in the Consent Order. An NPDES permit application and supporting EAA is a pre -requirement
for the construction and operation of the treatment system to treat water from the drainage area of
OOF2. The treatment system is required to be constructed and operational by September 30, 2020,
assuming permits are issued in a timely manner.
The Site is located on NC Highway 87, 15 miles southeast of the City of Fayetteville, and south of the
Bladen-Cumberland county line. The Site encompasses 2,177 acres of relatively flat undeveloped open
land and woodland bounded on the east by the Cape Fear River, on the west by NC Highway 87, and on
the north and south by farmland. The site's location is shown in Figure 1.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 3
11363 Topo waep, •mee by Nc b61 "�
- -- - -�i Bladen Co— _
PARSONS sea L.-t— Map •� N�a
NPOES Pe Ii Appil a lon -old C-fall 002
a�Nr�i eza aco ears Fayett 41. W-k. m Figure: w
Fayatlovllle. North Carolina
Figure 1- Site Location Map
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) purchased the property in parcels from several families
in 1970. The Site's first manufacturing area was constructed in the early 1970s. Currently, the Site
manufactures plastic sheeting, fluorochemicals, and intermediates for plastics manufacturing. A former
manufacturing area, which was sold in 1992, produced nylon strapping and elastomeric tape.
DuPont sold its Butacite° and SentryGlas° manufacturing units to Kuraray America, Inc. in June 2014. In
July 2015, DuPont separated its specialty chemicals business into a new publicly -traded company named
The Chemours Company FC, LLC. With this separation, Chemours became the owner of the entire 2,177
acres of the Fayetteville Works along with the Fluoromonomers, Nafion° membranes, and Polymer
Processing Aid (PPA) manufacturing units. The polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) resin manufacturing unit remained
with DuPont.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 4
In addition to the manufacturing operations, Chemours operates two natural gas -fired boilers and a
biological wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for the treatment of DuPont and Kuraray process
wastewater and sanitary wastewaters from DuPont, Kuraray, and Chemours.
STEP 1
ALLOWABILITY OF PROPOSED DISCHARGE
Based on the Consent Order, Chemours will capture dry weather flow (i.e. baseflow) from the OOF2
channel, treat it, and reintroduce it into the OOF2 channel, which drains into the Cape Fear River. The
baseflow is expected to be captured in a dam in the OOF2 channel, while the expected discharge location
will be immediately downstream of the dam in the channel. The discharge location is anticipated to be
approximately less than 1000 feet from the Cape Fear River. The dry weather flow will be intercepted and
reintroduced into the OOF2 channel, therefore, no new flow will be added to the OOF2 channel and
subsequently the Cape Fear River. Zero flow restrictions to a receiving body have therefore been assumed
to not be pertinent to this treatment system and discharge.
An aerial site plan showing the location of the Site in relation to the Cape Fear River, and preliminary
anticipated location of the treatment system relative to the current manufacturing facility and the Cape
Fear River is shown below in Figure 2.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 5
Figure 2 - Site Plan and Proposed Treatment Plant Location
Applicability of the Local Government Review form (Attachment A per the EAA guidance document) and
a stepwise assessment for each potential restriction of the receiving body discussion per the EAA guidance
document is addressed below. The DEQ EAA guidance is in italics, and a discussion follows:
Applicability of the Local Government Review
Per the EAA guidance document, the North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from
local governments in the issuance of NPDES Permits for new non -municipal domestic wastewater
treatment facilities. As this facility is intended to treat surface water containing PFAS, it has been
determined that the local government review form does not need to be completed.
EAA Guidance on Potential Restrictions
1) EAA Guidance: Zero flow stream restrictions (15A NCAC 2B.0206(d)(2)J apply to oxygen -consuming
waste in zero flow streams. In order to determine streamflow at the proposed discharge location,
contact the U.S. Geological Survey at 919-571-4000.
EAA Guidance on Streamflow: Streamflow data, specially the low flow data of the receiving body
is required to support the EAA (7Q10, 30QZ annual average streamflow).
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 6
On reviewing publicly available data from NCDEQ and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), it was
determined that the OOF2 channel (unnamed tributary) is not shown or referenced on any state
map or documents.
Streamflow data, such as the seven-day, 10-year average (7Q10), 30Q2 and annual average
streamflow, typically available for waterbodies from USGS, is not currently available for the
unnamed tributary. The hydrologic unit code has been determined to be 03030005.
The OOF2 baseflow will be collected, treated (by physical/chemical precipitation and carbon
adsorption), re -introduced into the channel, and subsequently discharged. The discharge
therefore will be of a higher quality than the existing baseflow and also have a lower amount of
oxygen consuming constituents than currently exist in the channel. There will also be no addition
of any external flow or constituents to the baseflow. Therefore, based on this assessment, zero
flow discharge restrictions are not applicable to the current scenario because the organic
compounds in the baseflow will be reduced due to treatment and subsequently oxygen
demanding material will also be reduced from existing conditions. The carbon adsorption
treatability study provides data supporting this assessment (Engineering Report Treatability
Study, Chemours, July 2019). Furthermore, a write up of the treatment system provides details of
the unit processes.
2] EAA Guidance: Receiving stream classification restrictions [e.g., ORW, INS, SA, NSW, and HQ class
waters have various discharge restrictions or require stricter treatment standards]. Stream
classifications are available on the DWR Classification and Standards/Rule Review Branch website:
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu), while wastewater discharge restrictions for various
stream classifications are presented in state regulations [15A NCAC 2B.0200].
In reviewing publicly available resources such as the NCDEQ Surface Water Classifications maps,
it was determined that the OOF2 channel (unnamed tributary) is not shown or referenced on any
state map or documents.
Tributaries in the vicinity (Georgia Branch and Willis Creek) have the classification of WS-IV.
Additionally, the classification of the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of the proposed OOF2
discharge location is also WS-IV.
Based on guidance provided by 15A NCAC 026.0301 (i)(1) on "Unnamed Streams", it has been
determined that the OOF2 channel carries the same classification of WS-IV, which is that assigned
to the stream segment to which it is a tributary (i.e. proposed location of discharge to the Cape
Fear River).
WS-IV are classified as waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also
protected for Class C uses (fishable/swimmable).
As the OOF2 baseflow will be collected, treated (by physical/chemical precipitation and carbon
adsorption), re -introduced into the channel, and subsequently discharged, this discharge should
not degrade the existing classification of the receiving body.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 7
The classification map showing the Cape Fear River, Georgia Branch, and Willis Creek in/around
the site is shown in Figure 3.
i
tRPE _11;r.:vn: Fiam� pa�m �ppie :rl.
nw upul..mdG•.ye
.ppmrm.wy O.S nil.
wba.md S.��.a
Far3sg ia.c.rq•} ntaw
_ CI.wFenie+� WSN
n.e.w D—N, 31.2Wa
xmNdo.. �mc
•a Cl.0
I
Figure 3 - Receiving Stream Classification
3) EAA Guidance: Basinwide Water Quality Plans. These basin -specific plans list NPDES permitting
strategies that may limit wastewater discharges to particular streams within the basin due to lack
of stream assimilative capacity, etc. Basin plans are available on the DWR website, or you may
contact the DWR Basinwide Planning Branch (http.Ilportal.ncdenr.orp/web/wp/ps/bpu).
The latest version of the Cape Fear River basinwide water quality plan available is from 2005 and
has been reviewed for references to stream assimilative capacity for the Cape Fear River section
pertinent to the likely discharge location of 0OF2. The sub -basin is the Lower Cape Fear. Georgia
Branch and Willis Creek draining to the Cape Fear River in the area are shown on a DEQ sub -basin
map; however, the 0OF2 channel is not included.
As such, it is anticipated that the 0OF2 discharge will be low in organic carbon and total Kjehldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) and therefore should not lead to a significant dissolved oxygen sag. The 0OF2
baseflow will be collected, treated by physical/chemical precipitation and carbon adsorption), re-
introduced into the channel, and subsequently discharged. The discharge will therefore be of a
higher quality than the existing baseflow and will reduce organic carbon impacts from the current
condition. Therefore, the assimilative capacity of the Cape Fear River will not be modified.
The available sub -basin map is shown in Figure 4
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 8
2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
-r
Gp a
flr,
1 ¢d rRv
e x
Subbasin Information:
8-Digit HUC
03030005
(Subbasin):
Subbasin Name:
Lower Cape Fear
Sq. Miles:
1,062
Acres:
717,748
River Basin:
Cape Fear
Zoom to
Ob
s
Figure 4-Sub-Basin Water Quality Plan
4) Impaired waters and TMDLs. Certain waterbodies listed as impaired on the 303(d) list and/or
subject to impending TMDLs may have wastewater discharge restrictions. The list of 303(d)
impaired waters is located on the DWR website, or you may contact the DWR Modeling and
Assessment Branch (http://portal.ncdenr.orp/web/wp/ps/mtu).
Based on the latest available 303(d) list (Draft 2018, NC Category 5 Assessments) for the Lower
Cape Fear, the Georgia Branch, Willis Creek and the pertinent water section of the Cape Fear River
receiving the OOF2 channel discharge are not on the impaired list. This was additionally confirmed
against the latest available "Impaired Waters Map" from the NCDEQ.
There are portions of the Cape Fear River and contributing tributaries that are impaired but do
not appear to be within the vicinity of the proposed discharge location. Per publicly available
information, the nearest upstream impaired tributary to the Cape Fear River is Cross Creek (in
Fayetteville, NC, ^20 miles upstream), while the nearest downstream impaired section of the Cape
Fear River is near Riegelwood, NC (-50 miles downstream).
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 9
The referenced impaired waters map showing the un-impaired Cape Fear River section that would
receive the OOF2 treated baseflow is shown in Figure 5.
®0
��
2012 Ii�IR �,a tl OIR
El
t°
SuDparngi1 m21
{p
_ ------
-f------
ka 14ce0fi]
'
'— rro Ona rks
c(P
Y 4
-edG 303:ds Lr ii!
2012JR-OwaILPAngs u da l
_
_
7p:2�tPrnali Famgy�3cL� M
fly
F
k
5 -
I
-
M1d�
,r. w�
A
� .._..u_� e_.__ _: •i. ���.._r _. nnf e.. user r.
Figure 5 — Impaired Waters Map
5) Presence of Endangered Species. If endangered species are present in the proposed discharge
location, there may be wastewater discharge restrictions. Endangered species information may
be included in the easinwide Water Quality Plan, or you may contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (919-856-4520), N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (919-733-3633), or the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (919-733-7701).
The basinwide water quality plan, maps provided by the Environmental Conservation Online
System (ECOS) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) resource list from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not indicate the
presence of any aquatic endangered species in the pertinent area of the Cape Fear River and the
Georgia Branch and Willis Creek.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The dry weather flow from OOF2 is to be captured West of Glengerry Road. The location of the treatment
system is also anticipated to be in this vicinity. The preliminary location is shown in Figure 2. The discharge
standards for the treatment system, per the Consent Order, Paragraph 12 (e,i), have been defined as:
"such discharge standards as shall be set by DEQ, and shall, in addition and at a minimum, be at least 99%
effective in controlling indicator parameters, GenX and Perfluoro-1-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA)."
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 10
The treatment system is expected to target PFAS compounds and meet the discharge standards by
implementing the process best suited to PFAS removal guided by completed treatability and pending/on-
going pilot studies. Based on preliminary information, the treatment system is expected to sequentially
consist of a capture dam to intercept the dry weather flow in OOF2; nuisance iron removal system using
chemical precipitation (acid/caustic); solids handling using flocculation tanks aided by polymer addition,
clarifiers, filter press, and sludge tanks; multi -media filters (MMF) to remove suspended solids which may
inhibit carbon bed efficiency; and granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption units. Associated design
elements such as pumps, piping, electrical, instrumentation and control for interlocks, mechanical and
civil/structural elements will be finalized during the detailed design phase. This design concept may be
optimized based on pending pilot studies.
Additional process details associated with the treatment system are discussed later in this document,
under the "Direct Discharge Evaluation" section. A preliminary Process Flow Diagram (PFD) showing the
treatment schematics and a preliminary General Arrangement Drawing showing the major process
equipment in a plan view are also discussed later in the same section.
SCHEDULL
Per the Consent Order, provided the NCDEQ and any additional permitting authorities issue the necessary
permits, a treatment system to capture the dry weather flow in 0OF2 shall be implemented by September
30, 2020.
To meet the requirements stated in the EAA guidance document, a schedule for the project is provided
below in Table 1. This assumes that permits will be authorized in a timely manner by the NCDEQ and
relevant authorities. As indicated in the preliminary schedule, permit authorization is requested by
December 31, 2019 to meet the September 30, 2020 treatment plant discharge date (per Consent Order).
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 11
Planning Level Preliminary Estimated Schedule
2019
2020
Project Milestone
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
eptembe
Octobei
NPDES Permit
404 Permit
County Permits (Building, Land Disturbance etc.)
Basis of Design
Detailed Design
Procurement
Construction
Start -Up and Commissioning
Plant Discharge to Meet Compliance Requirements
Notes:
1) Schedule assumes timely authorization of local permits (e.g. civil/electrical) and availability of civil/electrical infrastructure to facilitate construction requiring no major infrastructure upgrades
2) Construction expected to take approximately eight months after issuance of relevant permits
3) Permit authorization requested by Dec 31, 2019 to meet Sept 30, 2020 treatment plant discharge date (per CO)
4) Schedule assumes that issued permit will be similar to the assumed requirements used to develop the design
Table 1- Preliminary Schedule
STEP 2
NON-MUNICIPK LOW PROJECTIONS
Flow projections have been based on the measured dry weather flow in the 0OF2 channel. Since the dry
weather flow is not anticipated to fluctuate significantly, the treatment system is expected to be designed
to treat flows in the range of 500 to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). This is based on flow measurements
at different locations in the 0OF2 channel using gauging by salt dilution. Figure 6 shows the locations of
the approximate measurements.
US 165128608v1 ■
Parsons PLUS envision more SM

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 12
OLDOF-
OLDOF-1
OLDOFTR7-I
Legend
16 Gan stank Injection SRe Boundary
♦ Slug
Cape Fear Rim
Nearby Tributary
Figure 6-Flow Measurement Locations in 0OF2
The measurement methodology is summarized as follows.
Volumetric flow rates along the length of the OOF2 channel were assessed at five locations as shown in
Figure 6 using salt dilution gauging. Flow velocity gauging measurements were collected as an
independent assessment of volumetric flow rates at location OLDOF-2, where the 0OF2 channel passes
through a culvert.
Assessment began at downstream location OLDOF-1 and progressed sequentially upstream towards
location OLDOF-5. Some locations are individual locations, and some are grouped locations to assess flow
where two streams meet: the mainstem and a tributary. Tributaries are indicated by the suffix "TR". The
groupings are as follows:
OLDOF-1— individual
OLDOF-2 — individual
OLDOF-4 — individual
OLDOF-3, OLDOF-TR1-1— grouped
OLDOF-5 — individual
At grouped locations, the salt dilution gauging stock solution was placed upstream of the confluence of
the stream and tributary. The solution was metered at a sufficient distance upstream such that the salt
solution was fully mixed into the stream before the tributary joins (i.e., such that electrical conductivity is
stable ±10% across the stream cross section). This way both the upstream and downstream locations of
the confluence (e.g., OLDOF-3 and OLDOF-4) were gauged using a single salt dilution gauging location.
The flow of streams was measured by dosing the stream with a known concentration of a tracer
compound chosen to be sodium chloride. Chloride concentrations were maintained below 230 milligrams
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 13
per liter (mg/L) throughout the assessment; which is the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) acute freshwater aquatic life criteria and the North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Water Quality
Standards for Surface Waters (USEPA, 2019; NCDEQ, 2019).
Salt solution with a known concentration was dosed into the flowing stream as a near -instantaneous slug.
The metered salt solution then mixes with the stream flow. Electrical conductivity, with units of
microsiemens per centimeter (µS/cm), was measured using a conductivity probe in both the stock salt
solution and at a well -mixed point downstream of the salt injection point. Using the known stock solution
concentration and the recorded passage of the salt -wave across the downstream measurement point, the
flow rate of the stream was calculated. Salt is a suitable tracer since it is conservative, can be easily and
accurately measured in the field, and can be used at concentrations that do not impact aquatic life. The
following implementation steps were generally followed at each location:
Select gauging location: A location along the stream suitable for the measurements was selected
based on visual observations. Generally, deep pools and obstructions were avoided and a flowing,
linear channel section that is 10-20 times the width of the stream was selected (moving water helps
increase mixing of the stock solution).
Calibrate conductivity probe: The conductivity probe was calibrated using calibration solutions
ranging in concentrations from 10 mg/L to 100,000 mg/L.
Record background stream conductivity: Background stream conductivity was recorded along the
length of the stream and a background stream sample was collected for independent laboratory
verification of background stream concentrations.
Prepare stock solution: Stock solution was prepared by mixing a known volume of water from the
stream with previously prepared sodium chloride packets of measured mass. Conductivity of the
stock solution was measured to verify adequate mixing of salt mass at stream temperatures and a
sample of the stock solution was collected.
Begin dosing stream with stock solution: The stock solution was dosed instantaneously as a slug.
Measure stock solution and stream concentrations: The conductivity of the stream was recorded
continuously, every 1 second, at a single downstream location 10-20 times the width of the stream.
Measurements were recorded until the stream conductivity reached background values recorded
earlier.
Further field studies (e.g., Parshall Flume) will likely be implemented in the coming weeks prior to the
detailed design to confirm.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 14
STEP 3
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Alternative A: Connection to Existing Treatment Plant
Conveying the effluent from the new treatment system for the OOF2 to a local Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) was evaluated in lieu of discharging the treated effluent from the treatment system back
into the OOF2 channel.
The nearest POTW to the site is Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC) Rockfish Creek Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) located approximately nine miles north of the Chemours site. The nearest
public sewer connection to this facility is approximately six miles north of the Chemours site. The
Fayetteville PWC has indicated that they will not accept the treated water. The PWC Rockfish Creek WRF
uses biological treatment technology and does not provide treatment for PFAS compounds. The OOF2
treated baseflow will be treated for 99% removal of the PFAS indicator compounds which will also remove
other organic compounds in the water such that there will be very little to no additional oxygen
demanding compounds. Thus, the PWC wastewater treatment cannot provide any additional treatment
of this OOF2 discharge and will only dilute the overall organic load to the PWC Rockfish Creek WRF
potentially causing operational problems and additional operating costs for no additional environmental
benefit.
Additionally, the City of Fayetteville Sewer Use Ordinance, precludes the discharge of surface water into
the citys sewer system. As such, there are no local public sewer connections available for this recovered
base flow. Therefore, discharging this treated water to a POTW is not a feasible option.
Alternative B: Land Application Alternative Evaluation
As part of the EAA, the efficacy of land application alternatives (e.g., infiltration galleries, spray irrigation,
injection wells, etc.) of treated water from OOF2 in lieu of a direct discharge has been evaluated.
Based on historical investigation by Parsons at the facility, site features relevant to land application are
summarized below.
Site Topography and Drainage
The facility topography is relatively flat within the developed portion of the Site; surface topography
then decreases towards the Cape Fear River to the east and Willis Creek to the north of the facility.
Topographic relief from the main manufacturing area down to the top of the riverbank is
approximately 100 feet and approximately 40 feet from the main manufacturing area to Willis Creek.
Surface topography generally remains flat to the west; however, there is a gentle increase of about
5 feet to a topographic divide near Highway 87. In the far southwestern portion of the property,
surface topography again decreases by 15 to 25 feet where the Georgia Branch channel runs along
the property line. The Georgia Branch confluence with the Cape Fear River is approximately 1.3 miles
south of the William 0. Huske dam (0.75 miles southeast of the property).
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 15
The Cape Fear River is located along the eastern property boundary of the plant, approximately 1,850
feet from the eastern portion of the manufacturing area. Willis Creek, a tributary of the Cape Fear
River, is in the northern portion of the Site approximately 3,000 feet from the manufacturing area.
Portions of Georgia Branch, another tributary to the Cape Fear River, flow along part of the southern
boundary of the Site. The plant facilities are located on a plateau at an approximate elevation of 145
feet above mean sea level (MSL). The plant is situated approximately 70 feet above the 100- and 500-
year Cape Fear River floodplains and at least 1,000 feet from the 100-year floodplain's nearest
approach.
Site Geology
The soil on the Site falls within the Norfolk -Goldsboro -Raines general classification (Leab, 1990).1
These soils are located on old, high stream terraces in the northern part of Bladen County and are
generally poorly drained soils that have a sandy or loamy surface layer and loamy subsoil.
Based on the lithology logged during historical on -site investigations, the Site is underlain by a fine -
to medium -grained sand unit with thin discontinuous interbedded silt/clay lenses. The sand extends
to a depth of approximately 65 feet below ground surface (bgs) (elevation of +80 ft. MSL). The
saturated portion of this unit has been identified as the Surficial Aquifer. Beneath this unit is a 7- to
15-foot thick, laterally -continuous dense clay that has been identified as the Black Creek Confining
Unit. The elevation of this unit (approximately +65 to +77 feet MSL) indicates that it outcrops along
the bluff face adjacent to the Cape Fear River, and potentially along the embankment near Willis
Creek. Beneath this confining unit is the Black Creek Aquifer, which is approximately 8 to 20 feet
thick and is encountered at depth between 80 and 100 feet bgs (elevation of approximately +45 to
+65 feet MSL). Beneath this aquifer is a massive dense clay (with minor sand stringers) that has been
identified as the Upper Cape Fear Confining Unit.
Site Hydrogeology
Hydrogeologic units relevant to the Site include a Perched Zone, the Surficial Aquifer, and the Black
Creek Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer and Black Creek Aquifer are regionally extensive features while
the Perched Zone is limited in extent to the top of the clay lens that underlies most of the
manufacturing area. A schematic showing the units with surface water features in reference to the
manufacturing facility is shown in Figure 7.
1 Leab, R.J. (1990). Soil Survey of Bladen County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North Carolina
Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, and Bladen County Board of Commissioners.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 16
Figure 7 - Hydrogeological Units at the Site
Perched Zone
An aerially limited perched water zone exists on top of the clay lens that underlies most of the
manufacturing area. This Perched Zone appears mainly to result from seepage of surface water
through the bottom of the Sediment Basins that are used to settle out solids from Cape Fear River
water (which is used on -site as non -contact cooling water) and infiltration of non -contact cooling
water from a cooling water channel. The sediment basins and the cooling water channel were lined
in November 2018 as part of the ongoing Site remedial actions to reduce infiltration to the Perched
Zone. The Perched Zone may also be recharged to a lesser extent by direct infiltration of rainfall.
Where perched water is present, it is encountered from approximately 6 feet bgs at the basins to a
depth of approximately 20 feet bgs along the edges of the Perched Zone west of the sedimentation
basins.
Surficial Aquifer
A shallow unconfined aquifer (Surficial Aquifer) is encountered at approximately 40 to 50 feet bgs
and extends to a depth of approximately 65 feet bgs. Groundwater elevations range from
approximately 100 to 107 feet above MSL in the western areas of the Site to approximately 93 feet
MSL in the eastern areas of the Site, indicating that groundwater flow is generally toward the Cape
Fear River.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 17
Black Creek Aquifer
The Black Creek Aquifer is potentially under semi -confined to confined conditions at portions of the
Site where it is separated from the overlying Surficial Aquifer by the clay Black Creek Confining unit.
The lateral extent of the clay confining unit has not been verified towards the eastern portion of the
Site. Groundwater
Flow in the Black Creek Aquifer is toward the Cape Fear River. At the Site, only the Black Creek Aquifer
is in direct connection to the Cape Fear River with the potential exception of the Surficial Aquifer
during extreme flood events.
Based on the flow rate range of 500 to 1,000 gpm, soil type at the site, and assuming application using
spray irrigation, approximately 100 to 200 acres of land may be required.
Per available information, riparian damage concerns with using land application as a feasible discharge
option exist and are discussed below:
a) Land application is expected to cause the drying up of 0OF2. Possible irreversible riparian
damage may likely result from disrupting this flow into the Cape Fear River, should land
application alternatives be pursued.
b) Manipulation of the 0OF2 stream may influence the physical and biological character of this
riparian system. The possible alteration of streamside vegetation due to the drying up of 0OF2
in the future may remove the binding effects of roots upon the soil, and also cause a reduction
in the hydraulic roughness of the bank and an increase in stormwater flow velocities near the
bank. This may likely lead to accelerated channel erosion during subsequent periods of high flow
and large rain events.
c) It is also likely that the 0OF2 streambank may possibly be replaced by an unstable shoreline in
which floodplain vegetation is gradually eliminated.
d) Additionally, changes in natural hydrologic disturbance regimes and patterns of sediment
transport may include alteration of the timing of downstream flow, attenuation of peak flows,
and other cascading effects on the Cape Fear River.
Based on the above assessment with regards to riparian damage concerns, this option is assumed to be
technically unfeasible and not beneficial to the environment.
Alternative C: Wastewater Reuse in Facility
Reusing the treated effluent from the new 0OF2 treatment system within the process was evaluated in
lieu of discharging the treated effluent from the treatment system back into the 0OF2 channel.
Riparian issues posed by disrupting the flow of the 0OF2 channel to the Cape Fear River is a factor that
has been considered which likely negates this option. The same factors discussed under the land
application section are applicable to this evaluation and are listed below:
a) Manipulation of the 0OF2 stream may influence the physical and biological character of this
riparian system. The possible alteration of streamside vegetation due to the drying up of 0OF2
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 18
in the future may remove the binding effects of roots upon the soil, and also cause a reduction
in the hydraulic roughness of the bank and an increase in stormwater flow velocities near the
bank. This may likely lead to accelerated channel erosion during subsequent periods of high flow
and large rain events.
b) It is also likely that the OOF2 streambank may possibly be replaced by an unstable shoreline in
which floodplain vegetation is gradually eliminated.
c) Additionally, changes in natural hydrologic disturbance regimes and patterns of sediment
transport may include alteration of the timing of downstream flow, attenuation of peak flows,
and other cascading effects on the Cape Fear River.
In terms of location, the proposed OOF2 collection dam in the channel is more than a mile from the
current manufacturing facility. Although theoretically possible to convey the water to the facility, this
option is assumed to be technically unfeasible and not beneficial to the environment due to above
discussed riparian concerns.
Alternative D: Direct Discharge
This section discusses the direct discharge of treated OOF2 water back into the OOF2 channel which flows
to the receiving body (Cape Fear River), and the treatment process of the proposed treatment system
supported by a conceptual PFD and a GA drawing.
The treatment plant location has been discussed previously in the EAA and is shown on Figure 2.
Process Overview
A summary of the conceptual treatment system that will be designed and constructed to remove PFAS
from OOF2 water is discussed here. The design concept is based on treatability test data and field data on
estimated flow rates and PFAS concentrations. A summary of the treatability tests has been included with
this application package. Pending data from pilot studies, in addition to verification of flow rates in the
OOF2 and direction on final allowable discharge concentrations of PFAS constituents, will likely contribute
to optimization to this design concept and will be communicated to the NCDEQ as the project progresses.
Based on preliminary estimates the flow rate is expected to range between 500 and 1,000 gallons gpm.
The expected influent concentration range of PFAS indicator compounds is listed in Form 2D of the NPDES
application.
It is anticipated that there may be a presence of nuisance iron in the influent. Based on sampling data, the
influent iron concentration is expected to range between 11.3 to 16.6 mg/I. The nuisance iron levels may
be sufficient to cause fouling and reducing treatment efficiency and as such an iron removal system is
expected to be required. The following unit processes and associated equipment are anticipated to be
implemented:
1) Iron Removal
o Oxidation Tank Blower
o Oxidation Tank
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 19
o Acid/Caustic Tanks and Conveyance Pumps
2) Flocculation
o Flocculation Tank
o Polymer Tank and Conveyance
3) Clarification
4) Solids Handling and Dewatering
o Sludge Storage and Conveyance
o Filter Press
5) Multi -Media Filtration
6) Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
A preliminary PFD of the treatment process is shown in Figure 8.
y:..,_.
ffL--T
NOi FOR
CONSTRIJ�TgH
u-m
t-oai P-ro2 L-PM �7 L-P➢9 EIS
P•�lO ��� P�2lE 5�41 u^�ui µ�I CHEIINHRS
Figure 8 — Preliminary Process Flow Diagram
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 20
The unit treatment processes involved with the preliminary process are discussed below.
Iron Removal
The influent oxidation system will be designed to achieve complete oxidation of aquifer reduced
iron species as well as attenuate variations in influent flow rates and target constituent
concentrations. Sizing for the system for 0OF2 will be driven by the measured flow rates and PFAS
concentrations in the stream flow to achieve a desired level of equalization that will be
determined during detailed design.
Chemical precipitation will be implemented to remove iron which is expected to be present at
levels that will cause operational problems in the downstream treatment unit operations. The
preliminary system will consist of aeration and pH adjustment to allow oxidation/precipitation of
iron hydroxide. Following oxidation, flow will proceed to the flocculation process via gravity flow.
Flocculation
Iron hydroxide particles precipitated in the oxidation process will be bound together using
polymer to form larger floc particles which will be gravity separated and filtered in downstream
removal processes. Polymer will be added to the oxidation tank where it will be rapidly mixed.
The flocculation tank will be sized to provide optimal flocculation time. Water exiting the
flocculation process will flow, by gravity, to the clarification process.
Clarification
Floc particles generated in the flocculation process will be settled out in the clarification process.
Clarification will be performed using a lamella -type inclined plate or tube clarifier. Settled solids
will be pumped from the bottom of the tank to the sludge holding process.
Sludge Holding and Dewatering
The sludge solids will undergo thickening either in a gravity settler or by other means. The
thickened solids will then be dewatered likely using a plate and frame filter press (although other
dewatering devices will be considered including belt filter presses and centrifuges).
Filtrate from the process will be returned to the head of the plant and blended with influent in
the oxidation tanks. The thickening and dewatering technologies and associated equipment (e.g.,
thickened sludge transfer pumps, polymer addition) will be evaluated during the design phase.
Filtration
Treated flow from the clarifier will likely undergo filtration by MMF to prevent fugitive suspended
solids from reducing the efficiency of GAC columns. Based on bench and pilot scale tests, the type
of filter is subject to change. MMFs perform filtration using multiple layers each consisting of a
different filtration media. The MMFs will likely have backwash capability.
Effluent from the multimedia process will be conveyed, under pressure, to the GAC adsorption
process. The MMF selection, sizing, and configuration is likely to be refined as the process design
is evolved and process optimization is performed.
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

7
7
E
The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 21
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption
Based on GAC adsorption studies, PFAS removal to meet discharge requirements (per the Consent
Order), is expected to be accomplished using GAC adsorption. Design efficiencies may be
implemented based on pending pilot tests. Preliminary sizing for this application indicates that
standard vendor -provided adsorbers will be adequate for this application. Sizing and
configuration may be modified during process optimization.
Discharge
The treated water will be discharged and reintroduced to OOF2. The discharge location will be
downstream of the capture dam. Based on process optimization, a backwash water tank would
store a limited volume of treated water to supply MMF backwash, GAC backwash, and Polymer
Dilution pumps.
A preliminary General Arrangement drawing of the anticipated equipment and positioning with
respect to the location topography in the vicinity of the OOF2 is shown in Figure 9.
---- --- ---- 9 ` l F V
l V
l
n. fd
�-�: 1�
b
+
N8T FOR
CDNSTRIICTIDN
uisf_o�xm"iia
-wozz
CHEM011�5
.ox ao Rv�s.0 o�
rrcTi�. ec'
PROCESS GENERAL ARR4H MNT
DRAWING (PREUMINART)
A
6
A B C 0 E F G M
Figure 9 — Preliminary General Arrangement Drawing
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 22
Alternative E: Combination of Alternatives
A summary of the alternatives is listed below:
1) Direct Discharge and Land Application
A combination of direct discharge and land application, either partial or whole, although
theoretically possible, does not provide any added environmental or economic benefits.
Assuming direct discharge for a certain period of the year, and land application for the remainder
of the year, will require the baseflow in the 0OF2 channel to be interrupted for a portion of the
year causing riparian issues, while providing no benefits to the ecosystem. Riparian damage
issues have been discussed in detail under the "Land Application" assessment previously in the
document.
Assuming a scenario where a percentage of the treated flow is discharged, and the remainder is
land applied, also provides no betterment as the only factor that would vary from the above
discussed scenario is the amount of flow being discharged to the river. As mentioned earlier, this
baseflow is native to the channel, and an improved effluent (i.e. treated baseflow) is reintroduced
into it, and as such this option appears to be a redundant combination.
2) Direct Discharge and Wastewater Reuse
A combination of direct discharge and wastewater reuse, either partial or whole, although
theoretically possible, does not provide any added environmental or economic benefits.
Assuming direct discharge for a certain period of the year, and wastewater reuse at the
manufacturing facility for the remainder of the year, will require the baseflow in the 0OF2
channel to be interrupted for a portion of the year causing riparian issues, while providing no
benefits to the ecosystem. Riparian damage issues have been discussed in detail under the "Land
Application" assessment previously in the document.
Assuming a scenario where a percentage of the treated flow is discharged, and the remainder is
reused, also provides no betterment as the only factor that would vary from the above discussed
scenario is the amount of flow being discharged to the river. As mentioned earlier, this baseflow
is native to the channel, and an improved effluent (i.e. treated baseflow) is reintroduced into it,
and as such appears to be a redundant combination.
3) Land Application and Wastewater Reuse
A combination of land application and wastewater reuse, although theoretically possible, does
not provide any added environmental or economic benefits. This combination will require the
baseflow in the 0OF2 channel to be ceased permanently causing riparian issues, while providing
no benefits to the ecosystem. Riparian damage issues have been discussed in detail under the
"Land Application" assessment previously in the document.
Us 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 23
STEP 4
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
A 20-year Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) has been performed for the Direct Discharge option
which has been evaluated to be the only technically feasible option. Land application and wastewater
reuse have been determined to be technically unfeasible due to riparian damage concerns and have thus
not been included in the economic evaluation.
A preliminary design level effort has been made for the feasible option and associated costs. The estimate
uses standard factors for cost estimation, and as such is a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate. For
the PVCA costs, future expenditures have been converted to a present value cost at the beginning of the
20-year planning period. Based on EPA guidance, a discount rate of 3.5% for a 20-year period has been
used in the analysis.
The PVCA includes all costs associated with construction, startup and annual operation and maintenance
costs. Costs also include, but are not limited to, the following:
Capital costs
Land acquisition costs
Equipment costs
Labor costs
Installation costs
Design costs
Operations and aintenance costs
Laboratory costs
Waste disposal costs
Labor costs
Utility costs
Cost information is preliminary and has been generated from the following sources:
Non -binding vendor quotes
Publicly available land costs
Previous project experience and bids
Cost estimation manuals (e.g. Means Construction Index) and standard factors
PVCA Calculation Method
The following standard formula per the guidance document for computing the present value has been
utilized:
PV= C° +IC`
r- i (1 + r):
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

The Chemours Company
Engineering Alternatives Analysis -Old Outfall 002
July 2019
Page 24
Where:
PV = Present value of costs
Co = Costs incurred in the present year
Ct = Costs incurred in time t
= Time period after the present year (The present year is t = 0)
= Ending year of the life of the facility
= Current EPA discount rate
As the recurring costs are the same in years 1 through 20, Ct=C and the formula has been reduced to:
(1+r)"-11
Pv= c + �
° r(1+ r)"
PVCA Summary Table
A summary cost table, which summarizes present worth costs developed for the technically feasible
wastewater alternative, for a flow of 1,000 gpm, is provided in Table 2.
Sr. No.
Treatment Option
Total Capital Cost
Total Annual
Total Cost
Present Value
(Co)
0&M Cost (C)
-Ij
Direct Discharge Only Treatment
1
System
$20,600,000
$3,000,000
$23,600,000
$63,300,000
Table 2 - PVCA Summary Table
CONCLUSION AND PATH FORWARD
In summary, the OOF2 baseflow will be collected, treated (by physical/chemical precipitation and carbon
adsorption), and re -introduced into the channel. It is therefore anticipated that the discharge will be of a
higher quality than the existing baseflow, with a significant reduction in PFAS target compounds, total
suspended solids, metal hydroxides, and a reduction in overall biochemical oxygen demand. Land
Application and Wastewater Reuse options are expected to cause riparian issues posed by disrupting the
flow of the OOF2 channel to the Cape Fear River and be environmentally detrimental, which negates these
options that are considered to be technically unfeasible. Riparian concerns have been discussed in detail
under the "Land Application" and "Wastewater Reuse" sections.
No new flow will be introduced to the OOF2 channel and a higher quality of effluent (i.e. treated existing
baseflow) will be reintroduced in the channel for the Direct Discharge option. Chemours therefore
considers this option to be the most feasible and environmentally beneficial to address the requirements
outlined in the Consent Order. This evaluation is further supported by the discussion in this EAA and
treatability studies summarized in the engineering report.
As indicated in the preliminary schedule, permit authorization is requested by December 31, 2019 to meet
the September 30, 2020 treatment plant discharge date (per the Consent Order).
US 165128608v1 ■ ■
Parsons PLUS envision more 0 .

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT D-2-1
ADDENDUM TO EEA OLD OUTFALL 002 COST ESTIMATE
DESCRIPTION
November 2019

O
O
13
O
V
C
N
�
N
Q
C
(6
c
>
yO
�°
O
N
E
CEO
E
c4wE3w
U
N
_o
sm
a
6
m
8
O
w
E
c
^'
E
N
U
c_0
m
N
N
O
O O O N
U U aN-I U
O
U N N O U p N O N N
U E U@ C 8 jp a 0
3 ao
U J W J U O J 7
N
.0

>
)
)
\
!
tto
)k08
=`
q
1
)\()\
|

N
O
O
Q
T
N
4
i
Q
U
Y
�
E
m
w
E
o
N
bA
¢a\
O
F-
W
¢Qci

\\\\\
{
00888
\
00000
-!!}!
\\\|§
;§i!!
§
}\\\
}r00
omw(
644
!\
\!(\\\~
mood°
�r()(§|
;m!mm
!/
°
e(\6§
)"W)O
\/
\,
|!|§|
\\|/)

Sensitive.
Cost Estimate for Land Application-00172
Chemours Fayetteville Works, Nortlt Carolina
Basis of Cost Estimate (Scope and Assumptionsl:
Land Application
See EAA for treatment scenario & mare assumptions
Item
qry Unit
Unit Cost
Total Notes
Capital and Construction Costs
Influent& Effluent Handling
Process Package
$ 31220,000
$
31220,1300
Multi Media Filtration
$ 400,OOO
$
400,000
Granular Activated Carbon
It 1,5003000
$
11500,000
Solids Handling and Chemical Precipitation
$ 1$3003000
$
11300,00D
Prefabricated Building& Containment Structure
Process Package
$ 4,2001000
$
44200,000
Land Costs
Package
It 1,7001000
$
11700,000
Raw Capital Costs
$
124320,000
Installation Cost (Construction, Site Preparation, Civil, Structural)
50% of
Raw Capital Costs
$
81200,000
30% of
Sum of Raw
$
516000000
Capital Costs and
Ancillary Cost(/&C, Piping-Mechnnlcol&Electrical)
Installation Cost
Sum of
Raw Capital Casts,
$
24,200,000
Installation Cost
and Ancillary Cast
Total Capitol & Construction Cost
Prolesslonal5ervlces Costs
Total Capital &
Engineering and Project Management
12% of
Construction Cost
$
3,0003000
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost,
EngineempirM &
Construction Management, Project Management, General Conditions
8% of
Contingency Costs
$
21900,000
Professional Services Subtotal
$
51900,000
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost
and
Engineedng/PM
Contingency
30% of
cost
$
81200100O
Ca.Caphal Cost
$
38,300,000
+50%
$
5714501
-30%
$
26,810,000
Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs
Electricity
$ 35,000
$
35,000
SAC Usage & Replacement
$ 1,7501000
$
11750FOOO
Chemicals for treatment (Acid, Caustic, Ferric, Polymer)
$ 37,000
$
37,000
Solids Disposal
$ 30,000
$
30,000
Sampling & Analytical
$ 64,000
$
64,000
Operational Labor
$ 8000000
$
800,000
Equipment Maintenance
$ 510,000
$
510,000
Annual O&MSubtotal
$
31300,000
C,Annual Cost $ 3,3001000
+50% $ 4,950,000
-30% $ 2,310,000
n,Vears 20
can at Rate 3.5%
Present Worth Formula p ,,tj
+so% $ tzs,000,000
-30% $ 50.20o.Do0
estimates have been prepvred)vrgvldame In prvje�tevvluaflan and ImplemenfativnJmm the information awllabie at the time of the estimate. Theflnal rosfzoJthe
pro)ectwill dependon Rnol approved design, vcfuallvbvrvnd material costs (including asset limited to availability oJlandb and competitive varla6lef rtors. general
rondltions are subject to cl,vnge which mvylevd to v change In the estimate, costs hove been mundedup. wtlNormatron R preliminaryandhas been genemted)rom the
following sources:
Non -binding vendor quotes (Soles fax may vary);Publiclyovallable costs; Previousprojett experience and bids; Cost estimation manuals (e.g. Means Construction Index) and
standardlactom
Page 2 of B November 2018

Sensitive
Cost Estimate for Direct Discharge-00172
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Basis of Cost Estimate (Scope and Assumntiomh
Direct Discharge
See EPA for treatment scenario & more assumptions
Unit Unit Cost
Multi Media Nitration
Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs
$ 400,000
Granular Activated Carbon
$ 1,5001000
Solids Handling and Chemical Precipitation
$ 13300,000
Prefabricated Building& Containment Structure
Process Package
$ 41200,000
Land Costs
Package
$ -
flow Capital Costs
Installation Cost (Construction, Site Preparation, Civil, Structural)
50% of
Raw Capital Costs
30% of
Sum of Raw
Capital Costs and
Ancillary Cost (1&C, Piping-Mechanlcal & Electrical)
Installation Cost
Sum of
Raw Capital Costs,
Installation Cost
and Ancillary Coal
Total Capital & Construction Cast
Professlonal5ervlces Costs
Total Capital &
Engineering and Project Management
12% of
Construction Cost
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost,
Engineering/PM &
Construction Management, Project Management, General Conditions
8% of
Contingency Costs
Professional5ervices Subtotal
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost
and
Engineedng/PM
Contingency
30% of
cast
Ca,phal Cost
+50%
-30%
Total Notes
$
270,000
$
400,000
$
1,5004000
$
1,3001000
$
412004000
$
7,670,000
$
31900,000
$
31600,000
15,1004000
$
$
1,900,000
$
1,8001000
$
32700,000
$
$
2319001000
$
35,850,000
$
16,730,000
Electricity
Electricity
$
28,000
$
28,000
SAC Usage & Replacement
$
13750,000
$
137SOl000
Chemicals fortreatment(Add, Caustic, Ferric, Polymer)
$
32,000
$
32,000
Solids Disposal
$
30,000
$
30,000
Sampling & Analytical
$
64,000
$
644000
Operational Labor
$
780,OOO
$
780,000
Equipment Maintenance
$
292,000
$
292,000
Annual O&M Subtotal
$
31000,000
C,Annual Cost $ 31000,000
+50% $ 4,500,000
-30% $ 2,100,000
n,Years 20
scount Rate 3.5%
Present Worth Formula P!_v �f ,�..r_l
+50% $ 100,500,000
-30% $ 48.900.000
Gough artlerofMagnitude (ROM)prellminaryestlmate (-a0%to+5a%/.Not)or budgefarypurposes ondlsanlymeont to be used)orinteraltemative romparison. The
tes have been prePared)orgmdance In protect ewluvnon and implementatlon)mm the Information available at the time of the estimate. The)Inal wstz of the
psmjectwVll depend on )foal approveddeslgn, octuolloborand maferivl rosfs (including batnot limited to availability of land), and competitive variablejactors. General
condlaons aresub/ec[ to charge which maylead to a rhonge In the estimate. Coss have been rounded up. Costinformallon bpreliminary and Aasbeen genemted)rom the
following sources:
Non -binding vendor quotes (sales tax may varyJ;publiclyovallable costs; Prewouspmject experience and bids; cost estimation manuals (e.g. Means construction Index) and
standaN)actors
Page 3 of 6 November 2019

Sensitive.
Cost Estimate for Wastewater Reuse-00172
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Basis of Cost Estimate (Scope and Assumptionsl:
Wastewater Reuse
See FAA for treatment scenario & more assumptions
Multi Media Filtration
Granular Activated Carbon
Solids Handling and Chemical Precipitation
Prefabricated Building & Containment Structure
Land Costs
Raw Capital Costs
installation Cost (Construction, site Preparation, Civil, Structural)
Ancillary Cost (/&C, Piping -Mechanical & E/ectrical)
Total Capitol&Construction Cast
Pro/essional5ervices Costs
qty Unit Unit Cost Total
Process Package $ 930,000 $ 930,000
$ 400,000 $ 400,000
$ 15500,000 $ 1,500,000
$ 1,3001000 $ 11300,000
Process Package $ 4,2001000 $ 41200,000
Package $ - $
$ 81330,000
50% of Raw Capital Costs $ 41200,000
30% of Sum of Raw $ 31800,000
Capital Costs and
Installation Cost
Sum of Raw Capital Costs, $ 16,400,000
Installation Cost
antl Ancillary Cost
Notes
Installation Cost
antl Ancillary Cost
Notes
Total Capflal &
Engineering and Project Management
12%
of ConsWcBon Cost
$
2,000,000
Sum of Total
Capital &
Consrucion Cost,
EngirmerfingIPM &
Construction Management,
Project Management, General Conditions 8%
of Contingency Costs
$
2,000,000
Professional Services Subtotal
$
41000,000
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost
and
Englneedng/PM
Contingency 30%
of cast
$
53600,000
CmCapital Cost
$
2600000000
+50%
$
39,000,000
-30%
$
38,200,000
Annual Operations & Maintenance
Costs
Electricity
$ 39,000
$
399000
GAC Usage & Replacement
$ 1,750,000
$
13750,000
Chemicals for treatment (Acid, Caustic, Ferric, Polymer)
$ 32,000
$
32,000
Solids Disposal
$ 30,000
$
300000
Sampling & Analytical
$ 64,000
$
64,000
Operational Labor
$ 780,000
$
780,000
Equipment Maintenance
$ 292,000
$
292,000
Annual O&M Subtotal
IS
31000,000
C,Annual Cast $ 31000,000
+so% $ 4,soo,000
-3a% $ z,loo,000
n,Vears 20
r,0iscount Rate 3.5%
Present Worth Formula rs-r,Tti..r-il
+50%
$ 103,500,000
-30% $ 48.300.000
tes have beenpreparedjorguidanrein project ewluatlon andimplementationJom the Information available at the time of the estimate. The final costs of the
project will dependvn pnalapproved desgn, actuallabarandmatedal costs (including or not limited to availability oflandl, and rompetiuve vadable)acrors. General
conditions aresubjecttochange which maylead toachangeln the estimate. Coin havebeen munded up. CostlnJormatbnapreliminaryandhas been genervtedf mthe
following sources:
Non -binding vendor quotes (sales tax may varyj;Pubilclyavallable costs; Previous project experience and bids; Costestimation manuals (e.g. Means Construction Index)and
standardfacrors
Page 4 of 6 Novemher 2019

Sensitive.
Cast Estimate for Offsite Trucking-00F2
Chemours Fayetteville Warier, North Carolina
Basis of Cost Estimate (Scone and Assumptions):
Offsile Tracking
See EAA for treatment scenario & more assumptions
Details on Annual Tracking Costs
Chemours evaluated trucking the 0OF2 water off -site for deep well injection in Texas. At the estimated flow rate of 1000 gpm, this would result in 1,440,000 gallons of water
per day. Each tanker puck holds 5,300 gallons. Therefore, off -site disposal would require 272 truckloads per day. Assuming a 2 day travel time down, a partial day to unload
and 2 days to return, the discharge would require a dedicated fleet of over 1200 tracks. Based on current tracking, fuel, and disposal costs, II Is estimated that it would costs
approximately $1,670,000 per day for transportation and disposal of this water ($609 million per year).
Item
Multi Media Filtration
Granular Activated Carbon
Solids Handling and Chemical Precipitation
Prefabricated Building & Containment Structure
Road Upgrade Costs
Faw Capital Costs
nstallation Cost (Construction, Site Preparation, Civil, structural)
Ancillary Cost (I&C, Piping -Mechanical &Electrical)
Total Capital &Construction Cost
Prolesslonal5ervlces Costs
Engineering and Project Management
Construction Management, Project Management, General Conditions
ProJessional5ervices Subtotal
Unit
Process Package
$
Process Package
$
recess Packag
$
Process Package
$
Package
$
Sum
osts
of Raw Capital C
of Sum of Raw
Capital Costs and
Installation Cost
of Raw Capital Costs,
Installation Cost
and Ancillary Cost
Total Capital &
12% of Conslrac0on Cost
Sum of Total
Capital &
Contraction Cost,
Engineering/PM &
8% of Contingency Costs
Uni[Cost Total
4,BBD,000 $ 4,000,000
$ 7,500,000
$ 31800,000
$ 3,400,000
14,700,000
$
1,800,000
$ 1,800,000
$ 3,800,000
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost
and
Engineepng/PM
Contingency 30% of cast $ 52000,000
CwCapital Cost $ 231300,000
+50% $ 34,9501000
-30% $ 16,3101000
Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs
Electricity $ 40,000 $ 401000
GAC Usage & Replacement $ - $ -
Chemicals for treatment (Acid, Caustic, Ferric, Polymer) $ - $ -
Tracking Water Costs $ 609,600,000 $ 609,600,000
Sampling & Analytical $ - $ -
OperatlonalLabor $ 780,000 $ 780,000
Equipment Maintenance $ 292,000 $ 292,000
Annual O&MSubtotal $ 610,800,000
C,Annual Cos[ $ 610,80Q000
+50% $ 918,200,000
-30% $ 427,580,000
n,years 20
r,Discount Rate 3.5%,f
Present Worth Formula n-c ��n..,_l
+50% $ 13,065,000,000
-30% $ 6.097.000.000
estimates hove heenpreparedforguidana inpro/ectevaluallon andimplementatbn)rom the Information awllable at the time of the estimate. The fin vl casts of the
Oro)ectwlll dependan final approveddeslgn, actual labarandmaterial rusts (including butnot limited to avalbbiliryajlvndl, and aompetitive variable) rtvrs. aenGeneralcandlelonz aresublert tv change which maylead to a cM1angeln the estimate. Costs have been rounded up. Costl formofion a preliminoryvndhvs been generored from the
�llowingsources:
Non -binding vendor quotes (sales tax may varyi;Publiclyavadabie costs; Previous pmJectexpedence and bids; Cost estimation manuals (e.g. Means construction Index) and
ztandardfactors
Page 5offi November 2019
C,Annual Cos[ $ 610,80Q000
+50% $ 918,200,000
-30% $ 427,580,000
n,years 20
r,Discount Rate 3.5%,f
Present Worth Formula n-c ��n..,_l
+50% $ 13,065,000,000
-30% $ 6.097.000.000
estimates hove heenpreparedforguidana inpro/ectevaluallon andimplementatbn)rom the Information awllable at the time of the estimate. The fin vl casts of the
Oro)ectwlll dependan final approveddeslgn, actual labarandmaterial rusts (including butnot limited to avalbbiliryajlvndl, and aompetitive variable) rtvrs. aenGeneralcandlelonz aresublert tv change which maylead to a cM1angeln the estimate. Costs have been rounded up. Costl formofion a preliminoryvndhvs been generored from the
�llowingsources:
Non -binding vendor quotes (sales tax may varyi;Publiclyavadabie costs; Previous pmJectexpedence and bids; Cost estimation manuals (e.g. Means construction Index) and
ztandardfactors
Page 5offi November 2019

Sensillve.
Cost Estimate for Streambed Mitigation-OOF2
Cboomers Fayetteville Worlrs, North Carolina
Basis of Cost Estimate (Scope and Assumptionsl:
Streambed Mitigation
The schedule publishes ILF rates for Stavride Stream antl Wetland ILF program rotes
Stream Mitigation Rate = $525.65/LF
1000 Linear Feet of stream assumed to require miligatlon
Factors or additional costs assumed to be not applicable since a package rate is published and it is assumed this rate covers everything under the mitigation requirements
O&M assumed to be out of scope
Item
Q[y Unit
Unit Cost
Total Notes
Capital and Construction Costs
Influent & Effluent Handling
Process Package
$ -
$ -
Multi Media Filtration
$ -
$ -
GranularActivatedCarbon
$ -
$ -
Solids Handling and Chemical Precipitation
$ -
$ -
Prefabricated Building & Containment Structure
Process Package
$ -
$ -
Streambed Mitigation
Package
$ -
$
Raw Capital Costs
$ -
Installation Cost (Construction, Site Preparation, Civil, Structural)
50% of
Raw Capital Costs
$ -
30% of
Sum of Raw
$ -
Capltal Costs and
Ancillary lost (1&C, Piping -Mechanical & Electrical)
Installation Cost
Sum of
Raw Capital Costs,
$ -
Installation Cost
and Ancillary Cost
Total Capital & Construction lost
Pro(esslonol5ervices Costs
Total Capital &
Engineering and Project Management 12%
of Constmction Cosi
$
-
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost,
Engineering/PM &
Construction Management, Project Management, General Conditions 8%
of Contingency Costs
$
Professional Services Subtotal
$
-
Sum of Total
Capital &
Construction Cost
and
Englneedng/PM
Contingency 30%
of oast
$
C.Capital Cost
$
530,000
+50%
$
795,000
-30%
$
371,000
Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs
Electricity
$ -
$
-
GACUsage &Replacement
$ -
$
-
Chemicals for treatment (Acid, Caustic, Ferric, Polymer)
$ -
$
-
Solids Disposal
$ -
$
-
Sampling &Analytical
$ -
$
-
Operational Labor
$ -
$
Equipment Maintenance
$ -
$
Annual O&M Subtotal
$
-
C,Annual Cost
+50%
n,Years 20
r,Discount Rate 3.5%
Present Worth Formula r� r,ttr..r-il
+50%
-30%
Rough OrderofMagnicude (ROM( preliminary estimate (-30%to+5a%J. NotJorbudgetarypurpgses andlsontymeant to 6e usetlforintemltemative rompanson. The
estimates hove heenpreparedfarguidance In project evoluonon ondlmplementanon/rem the Infgrmaagn awllable at the time of the estimate. TheJlnal roses of the
pmiect will dependon Jinol approved design, actuollobor ondmoterlol costs (Including but nothmiredro availablBtyoJland), and rompeunve vanableJact rs. General
conditions ore subject to change which mayleod m o change In the estimate. casts hove been rounded up. Cost InJormatbn Is prellminaryandhasbeen genemtedjrom the
following
Nonbinding avendor quotes (Sales tax may vary);Publiclyovoilable costs; PreNauspm/ect experience and bids; Cost estimation manuals (e.g. Means construction Index)and
standomfiacmrs
Page 8 of 8 November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT D-2-2
PWC DENIAL LETTER
November 2019

DARSWEIL L. ROGERS, COMMISSIONER
WADE R. FOWLER, JR., COMMISSIONER
EVELYN O. SHAW, COMMISSIONER
D. RALPH HUFF, III, COMMISSIONER
DAVID W. TREGO, CEO/GENERAL MANAGER
Parsons
4701 Hedgemore Drive
Charlotte, NC 28209
Attention: Michael Robinson, P.E.
Dear Mr. Robinson:
u" _ = FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
/Jl'L"/WJJ` 955 OLD WILMINGTON RD
P.O. BOX 1089
UTILITY FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28302-1089
TELEPHONE [phone]
WWW.FAYPWC.COM
September 11, 2019
RE: Sewer/POTW Connection Near Chemours,
This is in response to your inquiry to this office regarding the above referenced subject.
More specifically, you mentioned that Chemours is required to treat PFAS impacted water from
a surface water body on -site. The water is groundwater that is daylighting into a ditch and
ultimately flowing to the Cape Fear River. In order to obtain an NPDES permit, it is necessary
to get a letter from the local POTW indicating that they will or will not accept it. It is further
understood that Chemours is required to remove 99% of two specific constituents (HFPO-DA
and PFMOAA). As such the water would have a maximum of 50 parts per trillion of HFPO-DA
and around 800 ppt of PFMOAA (along with lower levels of other PFAS constituents).
Currently, PWC owns and operates a water reclamation facility, Rockfish Creek WRF,
approximately 9 miles to the north of the Chemours site at the intersection of Highway 87 and
Old Wilmington Road. The nearest collection lines that discharge to this facility are located
approximately 6 miles north of the Chemours site. In addition, this facility is not designed to
treat wastewater containing HFPO-DA, PFMOAA or other PFAS and PWC will not be able to
accept this wastewater•.
If there are questions or• if additional information is needed, please let me.
S' cerely,
oseph E. Glass, PE
Manager, Water Resources Engineering
BUILDING COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS SINCE 1905
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT E
FW OUTFALL 002 MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT E-1
MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS (CORMIX)
November 2019

GeosyntecO'
consultants
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC:
MIXING ZONE REPORT
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Outfall 002
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Prepared for
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607
Project Number TRO807C
July 2019

Geosyntec r-'
consultants
[.—y [ne umuillanie d Nu. 11;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1
2 FACILITY AND DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS ..................................... 1
2.1 Chlorine Compound Concentrations in Effluent ......................................... 2
3 MIXING ZONE METHODOLOGY.................................................................... 3
3.1 Model Selection........................................................................................... 3
3.2 CORMIX Model Inputs............................................................................... 3
3.2.1 Discharge Characterization............................................................. 3
3.2.2 Receiving Water Characterization.................................................. 5
3.2.3 Outlet Structure Configuration........................................................ 8
3.2.4 Additional CORMIX Inputs............................................................ 9
4 CORMIX RESULTS.......................................................................................... 11
4.1 Simulated Plume Result............................................................................. 11
4.2 Centerline Dilution Factor......................................................................... 13
4.3 HFPO-DA Concentration.......................................................................... 14
5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS............................................................................... 15
6 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS...................................................... 17
6.1 Water Quality Standards............................................................................ 17
6.2 Mixing Zone.............................................................................................. 19
6.3 Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits........................................................ 21
6.4 Results of RPA Analysis........................................................................... 21
7 MASS BALANCE CALCULATION FOR HFPO-DA..................................... 21
8 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 23
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report a July 2019

Geosyntec c"
consultants
[.—y me umuilianie d M.. a
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Measured Concentrations (ug/L) for Chlorination Byproducts in the Intake
Water and Effluent Discharge for Outfall 002................................................................. 3
Table 2: Measured Monthly Temperature at USGS Gauge from 2000 to 2005............... 7
Table 3: CORMIX Model Inputs.................................................................................... 10
Table 4: Preliminary Mass Balance Calculation for HFPO-DA Upstream of Outfall 002
Under 7Q10 River Flow.................................................................................................16
Table 5: Sensitivity Analysis Results for Discharge at Outfall 002 ............................... 16
Table 6: Comparison for Instream Water Quality Standards in the Cape Fear River and
Maximum Effluent Concentrations at Outfall 002......................................................... 19
Table 7: Water Quality- Based Effluent Limits for Critical Parameters ........................ 21
Table 8: Preliminary Mass Balance Calculation for HFPO-DA upstream of William O.
Huske Dam (Before Old Outfall 002)............................................................................ 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1: Site Location..................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Outfall 002 Monitoring Results for Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid
(HFPO—DA) from May 2018 to February 2019............................................................... 5
Figure 3: Cross-section near Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River ..................................... 6
Figure 4: Stage -Discharge Rating Curve for from USGS Gage 02105500 Cape Fear River
at William O. Huske Lock and Dam................................................................................ 7
Figure 5: Outfall 002 Structure Configuration, at 7Q 10 River Flow ............................... 9
Figure 6: Three -Dimensional Representation of Simulated Dilution of the Plume from
Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River................................................................................. 12
Figure 7: Longitudinal Representation of the Plume from Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear
River............................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Simulated Center Line Dilution of the Discharge Plume from Outfall 002 in the
CapeFear River.............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 9: Simulated Center Line Concentration of HFPO-DA Downstream of Outfall 002
........................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 10: Proposed Chronic Mixing Zone Location for Outfall 002 at Chemours
FayettevilleWorks.......................................................................................................... 20
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report iii July 2019

Geosyntec c"
consultants
[.—y [ne umuillanie of NU. 11;
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Engineering Drawing for Outfall 002
Appendix B: Calculated Water Quality Based Effluent Limits for 2C Compounds
Appendix C: CORMIX Modeling Files
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report iv July 2019

Geosyntec r-'
consultants
[icuym umuillanie d Nu. 11;
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3-D
Three-dimensional
7Q 10 Flow
Seven-day, 10-year average low flow
CORMIX
Cornell Mixing Zone Model
DEM
Digital Elevation Model
DWR
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
HFPO-DA
Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid
NAVD 88
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NFR
Near Field Region
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RWQC
U.S. EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria
RPA
Reasonable Potential Analysis
TSD
Technical Support Document
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WQBEL
Water Quality -Based Effluent Limit
ZID
Zone of Initial Dilution (acute mixing zone)
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report v July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of Nc. 11;
INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, P.C. (Geosyntec) has prepared this report to
document the results of a mixing zone study completed on behalf of The Chemours
Company FC, LLC (Chemours). The Chemours Fayetteville Works facility (the Site) is
submitting a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
application for the Site. The mixing zone analysis was conducted to support the future
development of Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs) for the NPDES permit.
2 FACILITY AND DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
The Site is located within a 2,177-acre property at 22828 NC Highway 87, approximately
15 miles southeast of the City of Fayetteville along the Bladen-Cumberland county line
in North Carolina. The Site is located along the Cape Fear River, 0.5 miles upstream of
William O. Huske Lock and Dam (USGS Gauge 02105500). Figure 1 show the location
of the Site.
The mixing zone study is being conducted to calculate WQBELs for Outfall 002. The
discharge from Outfall 002 consists of non -contact cooling water, treated process water
from the Site's two tenants, sanitary wastewater, and stormwater runoff. Chemours
process water, a portion of which was previously discharged through Outfall 002, is
currently trucked off site. The average discharge rate from Outfall 002 is 21 million
gallons per day (MGD) (Chemours, 2016). A proposed thermal oxidizer is currently being
designed for the facility which will generate approximately an average of 39,560 gallons
per day (gpd) of water, which will also be discharged through Outfall 002.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 1 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of N(.. 11;
Outfall 0
�� oLaoFys�
. L • . F_ • L� • F- • LpOF-
�
r
•L�•F-T 1-
Legend
y Sampling and Gauging Lxalion
Cape Fear Ricer
i - Nearby Tri6ulery
Observed Sore
� T.
3: Sire Boundary
f
»
Figure 1: Site Location
2.1 Chlorine Compound Concentrations in Effluent
The Chemours facility withdraws water from the Cape Fear River upstream of Outfall
002. This water is disinfected with chlorine to prevent the growth of bacteria in the water
distribution system and at other locations at the site. This chlorination can result in
chlorine by-products such as trihalomethanes in the effluent discharge of Outfall 002.
Chlorine by-products are also present in the intake water from upstream sources.
Table 1 shows the measured concentration of chlorination byproducts in the intake before
chlorination and in Outfall 002's discharge in 2016 and 2019. The reported values of
residual chlorine are 200 micrograms per liter (ug/L) at the intake and 360 ug/L at Outfall
002. Chemours does not chlorinate the water at the intake location, so this high value may
be due to potential analytical interference due to presence of manganese. Chemours will
perform additional chlorine analysis on the intake and Outfall 002 discharge to determine
if interference exists. Chemours is currently working on optimizing the chlorine dosage
used for disinfection and the updated system will be operational in the Fall of 2019. After
the optimization of the chlorine dosage, additional monitoring will be conducted at
Outfall 002 to further reductions in chlorination byproducts.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 2 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of Nu. 11;
Table 1: Measured Concentrations (ug/L) for Chlorination Byproducts in the
Intake Water and Effluent Discharge for Outfall 002
Chlorination By-
Intake Water
Monitoring Result
Monitoring Result
Products
Concentration
for Outfall 002
for Outfall 002
(ug/L)
Effluent in 20163
Effluent in 2019
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
Dichlorobromomethane
ND'
4.2
14.24
Chlorodibromomethane
ND'
1.684
Chlorine Residual
2002
140
3602
'Non -detect values for samples collected on 06/07/2019
2Samples collected on 06/13/2019- values may be influenced by presence of manganese
3NPDES Permit Renewal Application
4Sample collected on 06/07/2019
3 MIXING ZONE METHODOLOGY
Geosyntec conducted a mixing zone study to simulate the dilution of the discharge plume
from Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River. This section documents the model selection and
inputs.
3.1 Model Selection
Geosyntec used the Cornell Mixing Zone Model or CORMIX (Doneker and Jirka, 2007)
to simulate mixing of the effluent discharge from Outfall 002 with the Cape Fear River.
This is an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) supported mixing zone
model and is also referenced in the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality's (NCDEQ's) mixing zone guidance (NCDEQ, 1999). CORMIX was selected
because it can simulate mixing in three dimensions, can predict centerline dilution, and
can be used to evaluate the thickness and width of a discharge plume. CORMIX has a
long history of application throughout the United States for similar evaluations.
3.2 CORMIX Model Inputs
Geosyntec used available discharge and receiving water data to parameterize the
CORMIX model. The modeling inputs and assumptions are described below.
3.2.1 Discharge Characterization
CORMIX requires the effluent characteristics such as flow rate, temperature, and
concentration to simulate the effluent plume in the river. For this application, the effluent
characteristics need to be representative of the seven-day, 10-year average low flow
(7Q10) conditions.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 3 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of N(;. 11;
The monitoring results for hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO—DA) from May
2018 to February 2019 were analyzed to determine the representative concentration of
hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) under river low flow conditions, close
to the 7Q 10 flow, if possible (Figure 2). The maximum reported concentration for HFPO-
DA during this time was 710 nanograms per liter (ng/L) which occurred on December
10, 2018, with an average river flow of 17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). This value was
not chosen as a conservative scenario because the season and the river discharge were not
representative of the low flow river conditions, which occur during the late spring or
summer.
A conservative scenario was established using the monitoring results from June 11, 2018,
with a measured HFPO-DA concentration of 220 ng/L (Figure 2). The effluent flow
reported on June 11, 2018 is 23.4 MGD. A conservative value of 25 MGD (38.7 cfs) was
used as input into the CORMIX model. The river flow at the USGS gauge was at 1,510
cfs. This combination was selected since it consisted of a combination of relatively high
mass flux from Outfall 002 with a relatively low river flow. For the time period between
May 2018 and February 2019, this June 11, 2018 Outfall 002 values was estimated to
have a considerable contribution to estimated river concentrations, while the river flow
was quite low. The corresponding effluent temperature, based on the field measurement
at the inlet manhole for Outfall 002 pipe, for June 11, 2018 was 33 degrees Celsius.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 4 July 2019

1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
J 1,200
"'0 1,100
0 1,000
(2 900
800
V
C
0 700
0 600
a s0o
LL
M 400
300
200
100
Value used for mixing zone
analysis [Outfall 002 flow =
Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of NU. 11;
100,000
10,000 n
3
a
1,000 2
0 - 100
05/01/2018 06/20/2018 08/09/2018 09/28/2018 11/17/2018 01/06/2019 02/25/2019
—Detected ❑utfall 002 HFPO-QA (ng/L) Mean River Flow (cfs) —7Q10 Flow
Figure 2: Outfall 002 Monitoring Results for Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer
Acid (HFPO—DA) from May 2018 to February 2019
3.2.2 Receiving Water Characterization
CORMIX requires the receiving water characteristics such as river now, width, depth,
and water temperature. NCDEQ guidance recommends the use of the 7Q 10 as the critical
low flow for mixing zone analysis (NCDEQ, 1999). The channel cross-section was
extracted from the available bathymetry datasets and schematized into a rectangular
channel for CORMIX input. The calculated 7Q10 flow was used to estimate the width
and depth of the channel at the critical low flow.
3.2.2.1 Cape Fear River 7010
The flow record from USGS Gage 02105500 Cape Fear River at William O. Huske Lock
and Dam was used to estimate the 7Q10 flow. The USGS provided NCDEQ with an
estimate of the 7Q10 based on flows recorded for the climatic years 2007 to 2018
(NCDEQ, 2019). The estimated 7Q10 flow rate was 467 cfs (251 MGD).
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 5 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of N(;. 11;
3.2.2.2 Cape Fear River Channel Cross -Section
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has bathymetry data available in the Cape
Fear River near Outfall 002. The navigational channel data was supplemented by the
USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) to create a digital elevation model (DEM) of
the channel near Outfall 002. The navigation channel elevation dataset was used for the
middle of the channel and the USGS NED was used for the overbank areas. The elevation
of the gaps in between the banks and the navigation channel was estimated using linear
interpolation. Figure 3 shows the resulting cross section in blue.
The river stage in the Cape Fear River near Outfall 002 corresponding to the 7Q 10 flow
rate was calculated to be 28.7 ft (NAVD 88) using the rating curve of the USGS gage
(Figure 4). The depth input for the receiving water at 7Q 10 flow was calculated as 18.9
feet by subtracting the stage elevation at 7Q 10 (28.7 feet) by the bottom elevation of the
cross section (9.8 feet). The width of the schematized channel (151.8 feet) was calculated
by dividing the area under the 7Q10 stage in the Cape Fear River cross section by the
depth. Figure 3 illustrates the difference between the Cape Fear River cross section (blue)
and the schematized cross section (red) used as input in CORMIX.
50
45
o 40
00
35
z 30
4-1
25
w
g 20
0
c 15
w 10
Cape Fear River Cross Section — — 7Q10 CORMIX Cross Section Outfall 002
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station, feet
Figure 3: Cross-section near Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 6 July 2019

45
0 40
35
w 30
0
Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of NU. 11;
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Flow (cfs)
Figure 4: Stage -Discharge Rating Curve for from USGS Gage 02105500 Cape Fear
River at William O. Huske Lock and Dam
3.2.2.3 Cape Fear River Temperature
The monthly average ambient water in the Cape Fear River at the Chemours Fayetteville
Works shown in Table 2 was extracted from the available surface water temperature
monitoring at the USGS gauge from 2000 to 2005 (temperature monitoring was
discontinued at this location in 2005). Low flow conditions close to the 7Q10 flow occur
mostly in the period of September to October. Hence the average temperature of 21.6
degrees Celsius for this period was used as input for ambient water temperature for model
simulations.
Table 2: Measured Monthlv Temperature at USGS Gauge from 2000 to 2005
Month
Monthly Mean
Temperature (°C)
January
6.2
February
9.9
March
12.6
April
18.5
May
22.4
June
24.5
July
27.5
August
27.7
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 7 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of NU. 11;
Month
Monthly Mean
Temperature (°C)
September
24.6
October
18.6
November
14.2
December
7.1
3.2.3 Outlet Structure Configuration
CORMIX requires specification of pipe outfall diameter, its orientation relative to the
receiving water, and its distance from the nearest bank. The engineering drawing for
Outfall 002 is included in Appendix A. The outlet structure for Outfall 002 is a 60-inch
circular pipe oriented perpendicular to the right bank (looking downstream) of the Cape
Fear River (Figure 5). The last segment of the discharge pipe has a downward slope of
2.9%, which equates to a vertical angle of 1.66 degrees with the horizontal pipe line.
CORMIX also requires the input of height of pipe center for the outfall from the bottom
of the channel cross-section. The invert elevation of the outfall pipe is 24.4 feet (NAVD
88) based on the engineering drawing (Appendix A). The height of pipe center above
river bottom was calculated to be 17.14 feet. As a result, the depth of the water, when the
river is at a 7Q 10 flow rate, is 18.9 feet.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 8 July 2019

---------- '■
■
I ■�
I `
ANTI -SEEP
j COLLAR-\ �5
I y
60.. RCP ----
2. g97. S 1 �e
Level (Recorded)
WARNING SIGN I
(SEE DWG. W1716560)
CAPE FEAR RIVER
Mean Water Level
Elegy. 31.8'
-11OUTLET
%ELEV. 25.33'
i
10 15+00 16+00 17+00
Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihani. of NU. 11;
70
!LJ
50
40
J0
20
18 +00
Figure 5: Outfall 002 Structure Configuration, at 7Q10 River Flow
3.2.4 Additional CORMIX Inputs
Additional CORMIX inputs include background pollutant concentration, Manning's
roughness coefficient, and wind speed. The background concentration of HFPO-DA was
assumed to be zero for the Cape Fear River per NCDEQ guidance (NCDEQ, 1999). A
Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.032 was assumed for Cape Fear River. An average
wind speed of 7.9 miles per hour (mph) in September and October was used as an input
into the CORMIX model, based on the historical (1984 — 2015) monthly climate
information for Wilmington, NC from the Southeast Regional Climate Center.
(htt2s://sercc.com/climateinfo/historical/avgwind.html)
The inputs for the CORMIX model are summarized in Table 3.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 9 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of NU. 11;
Table 3: CORMIX Model Inputs
Description
I Variable
Value
I Units
I Source/Notes
Discharge metry
Pipe Diameter
5
ft
60-inch RCP pipe (DWG No W 1712043 Rev
5, Appendix A
Above or below
Below
NA
DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5
water surface
Height of Pipe
ft,
above River
17.14
NAVD
DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5
Bottom
88
Distance of pipe
0.00
ft
Pipe is flush with the bank (DWG No
from bank
W 1712043 Rev 5
Horizontal angle
90
degree
DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5
Vertical angle
-1.66
degree
DWG No W1712043 Rev 5
Discharge Flow
Flow Rate
QO
38.7
cfs
Reported effluent flow that occurred on June
14, 2018, 1095 Us converted to cfs
Temperature
33.0
Celsius
Average influent temperature from
monitoring result on June 14, 2018
Concentration
CO
220
ng/L
Monitoring result from June 14, 2018
Nearest Bank
Right
NA
DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5
Receiving Water
Calculated value based on USGS 02105500
Flow Rate
QA
467
cfs
CAPE FEAR R AT WILM O HUSKE LOCK
NR TARHEEL, NC
Background
Concentration
0
ng/L
Per NCDEQ mixing zone guidance
ft,
Average Depth
HA
18.92
NAVD
Calculated from USGS rating curve
88
Depth at
HB
18.92
ft,
NAVD
The same as average depth
discharge
88
Average Width
BS
151.81
ft
Calculated by dividing the cross-section area
below 7Q10 by the average depth
Ambient
21.6
Celsius
Average of September & October water
Temperature
temperature at USGS Gage 0210550*
Manning's n
n
0.032
NA
Calculated by dividing the cross-section area
below 7Q10 by the average depth
Wind Speed
w
7.9
mph
Average wind speed in September & October
at Wilmington, NC
* Average September & October water temperatures are used for the discharge and receiving water
because lowest monthly average flow at Outfall 002 occurred in September & October.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 10 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of N(;. 11;
4 CORMIX RESULTS
The CORMIX model was used to predict the effluent plume characteristics and dilution
in the Cape Fear River. These results are summarized below.
4.1 Simulated Plume Result
The simulated model results show the near -surface discharge from Outfall 002 into the
Cape Fear River creates a positively buoyant plume into a uniform density receiving
water. For the first 11.5 meters downstream of the outfall, the effluent plume behaves like
a momentum jet spreading both laterally and vertically due to turbulent mixing in the
near -field region. This constitutes the near field region (NFR) for the plume. The plume
is vertically mixed at the edge of the NFR. The travel time to the edge of the NFR is about
2 minutes. The plume will continue to stay vertically mixed up to 15.5 meters downstream
of Outfall 002.
After this distance, the model predicts the plume will experience buoyant (i.e., the diluted
plume still has enough density difference to be buoyant) ambient spreading where it
spreads laterally and stratifies into a uniform -density layer. The plume becomes
horizontally mixed across the width of the channel at 27.4 meters downstream of Outfall
002, at which point the plume is stratified to a depth of 3.83 meters below the water
surface. The plume is not vertically mixed at this location because of buoyancy of the
plume. The predicted travel time to 27.4 meter downstream of the outfall is 7.4 minutes.
After this distance, the plume reaches a buoyant equilibrium level and hence is not diluted
further until it reaches the William O. Huske Dam. While the CORMIX model does not
simulate the impact of the dam on the plume, the river would be contracted into a
narrower channel cross-section with increased velocities just upstream of the dam. This
would conceptually result in complete mixing of the effluent plume at the dam structure,
which is 450 meters downstream of Outfall 002.
The model simulated dilution downstream of Outfall 002 is illustrated in Figure 6 as a
three-dimensional (3-D) representation of the plume in the Cape Fear River. Figure 7
shows the longitudinal profile of extent of upper and lower plume boundaries as well as
specific gravity of plume.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 11 July 2019

Geosyntec a
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of Nu. 11;
Chemaur OF2_lodel_v2_454c(s
pffion S Pe Clam: IFli5 OW! ATbmt 9mam — —
�.❑ ].3 l.6 �. ] 2.7 3.4 4.3 Jr. g 7. 1 9.t7 coFm- 9mdaim 1un4h. ftM mum ' _ — Haar Feld Fa gm NFFl}
oMAW Soak: YJX.1 Z.X.1 LanrRMod�teHdu+dsyPHI01
�. Y&Aku im.p to X . 100 m W d ROI K . MO m)
Figure 6: Three -Dimensional Representation of Simulated Dilution of the Plume
from Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River
_
10
1.0000
E
.�
9
---T----
�-- -
0.9995
c
o
g
•'� i
a
0
7
`r ; Near Meld Region Edge
�I,
0.9990
w
6
0.9985
'7-5
,' 1
1
+_
0
4
I
` i� ❑istance at which
0.9980
D
(D
ran
3
horizontal mixing is
0.9975
S2
2
achieved
........................................................
Qj
1
0.9970
cQ
I
0
0
.�
0.9965
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance Downstream from Outfall 002 (m)
—Upper Boundary of Plume...., Lower Boundary of Plume
Specific gravity of plume
Figure 7: Longitudinal Representation of the Plume from Outfall 002 in the Cape
Fear River
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 12 July 2019

Geosyntec a
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of Nc. 11;
4.2 Centerline Dilution Factor
The CORMIX model simulates the centerline dilution of the effluent plume from Outfall
002 in the Cape Fear River during the 7Q10 river flow conditions. The simulated center
line dilution is shown in Figure 8. The model predicts a dilution of 5.4 at the edge of the
NFR at 11.5 meters downstream of Outfall 002. The predicted dilution at 27.4 meters,
where the plume is mixed horizontally across the channel, is 8.7. This simulated dilution
is less than the theoretical maximum dilution of 12 at the 7Q10 flow condition because
the plume is not vertically mixed at this location.
10
cl
8
►►
0
Y
m 6
LL
0
5
4
3
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance Downstream of 0utfa11002 (m)
Figure 8: Simulated Center Line Dilution of the Discharge Plume from Outfall 002
in the Cape Fear River
To determine the concentration of any given constituent at a given distance downstream
of the outfall, the effluent concentration is divided by the corresponding dilution factor
shown in Figure 9.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 13 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
[i—p-Co ihams of NU. 11;
4.3 HFPO-DA Concentration
The simulated HFPO-DA concentration with respect to the distance downstream of
Outfall 002 was calculated and is illustrated in Figure 9. The North Carolina Provisional
Health Goal for HF PO-DA (140 ng/L) is met 0.9 meters downstream of Outfall 002 when
assuming a zero -background (upstream) concentration. The travel time to this location is
about 1.6 seconds. An assessment of impact of other sources of HFPO-DA on the
instream concentration is presented in Section 7.
300 1
250
J
C
200
n
m
C
v 150
ca
C
U
Q
100
0
a
LL
_
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance Downstream, m
—HFPO-DA Concentation — —North Carolina Provisional Health Goal
Figure 9: Simulated Center Line Concentration of HFPO-DA Downstream of
Outfall 002
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 14 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of N(;. 11;
5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The uncertainty in the CORMIX model inputs was addressed in a series of sensitivity
analysis model runs by modifying individual input parameters in the baseline CORMIX
model presented in Sections 3 and 4. The parameters for which sensitivity analyses were
conducted included:
1) Outfall Discharge Flow Rate: the minimum and maximum discharge flow rate
during monitoring events from May 2018 to February 2019.
2) Outfall Discharge Temperature: the discharge effluent temperature in the
baseline model was increased and decreased by 20%
3) River Flowrate: the 7Q 10 flowrate in the baseline model was increased and
decreased by 20%. The river stage was recalculated based on the USGS rating
curve and the channel depth and width were adjusted accordingly.
4) River Ambient Temperature: the river temperature in the baseline model was
increased and decreased by 20%.
Background Concentration: the background concentration was increased to
96.5 ng/L, which was estimated using the HFPO-DA mass loading model
developed by Geosyntec including contributions from the Cape Fear River
upstream of the Site, Willis Creek, on -site groundwater (upwelling and seeps),
off -site groundwater adjacent to site and aerial deposition. The mass loading
model utilizes the HFPO-DA concentration data measured in February 2019
Table 4). The results of the mass loading model are preliminary, and an
updated version of the mass loading model will be presented in the Consent
Order Paragraph 12 submittal due August 25, 2019.
5) Channel Width: the channel width in the baseline model was increased and
decreased by 20%.
6) Channel Depth: the channel depth in the baseline model was increased and
decreased by 20%. The discharge depth was adjusted accordingly such that the
outlet pipe was located at the same location relative to water surface elevation.
7) Offshore Discharge Configuration: the discharge pipe was changed from
submerged to 0.01 meters above the water surface level in the river.
Table 5 summarizes the result of the sensitivity analyses. As shown in
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 15 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of Nc. 11;
Table 5, the concentration of HFPO-DA was reduced to North Carolina's Provisional
Health Goal concentration within 10.3 meters downstream of Outfall 002 in all sensitivity
analysis scenarios presented, which is less than the NFR of the mixing region of the
baseline model.
Table 4: Preliminary Mass Balance Calculation for HFPO-DA Upstream of
Outfall 002 Under 7Q10 River Flow
Mass Estimated
Flow Contribution to Rive
Loading Concentration
(L/s) (µg/s) (ng/L)
1
Potential Pathway
rentratcion
(ng/L)
Up-Stream1
Willis Creek
Aerial Depositionon
® 1
Groundwater
(Upwelling HIV
11 24,000
� :1 1:1 •
• •(Adjaeent
PW
1�
1� 1 • 1 1 1
Total Estimated Mass
Loading and Corresponding
aqI
River Concentration
13,224 544 - 1,276
upstream of Outfall 002
Table 5: Sensitivity Analysis Results for Discharge at Outfall 002
Distance downstream
of Outfall 002 where
HFPO-DA was diluted
to NC Provisional
Model
Health Goal
ID
Change from Baseline
Concentration', m
Baseline
None
0.89
Outfall 002 discharge flow rate
S 1
reduced to the minimum during the
1.2
monitoring events.
Discharge temperature decreased by
S2
0.89
20%
S3
River flow decreased by 20%
0.71
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 16 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
� ynwc �Ikd131-11W N'..
Distance downstream
of Outfall 002 where
HFPO-DA was diluted
to NC Provisional
Model
Health Goal
ID
Change from Baseline
Concentration', m
River ambient temperature increased
S4
by 20%
0.89
S5
Background concentration = 96.5 n /L
10.3
S6
Channel width increased by 20%
0.74
S7
Channel depth decreased by 20%
1.09
Above Surface Discharge, at 0.01
S8
meters above WS
0.64
River flow equal to harmonic mean
S9
value and Outfall 002 discharge equal
1.8
to average value of 21 MGD
Outfall 002 discharge flow rate
S 10
increased to maximum value of 34.8
0.52
MGD
'North Carolina's Provisional Health Goal concentration is 140 ng/L for HFPO-DA in North
Carolina.
'The WQBEL is calculated based on the simulated dilution factor at the end of the proposed
mixing zone of 25 meters downstream of Outfall 002.
6 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Geosyntec conducted a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) to calculate the WQBELs
based on the applicable standards and the mixing zone study analysis for Outfall 002
presented in this report. The results of this analysis are presented below.
6.1 Water Quality Standards
Surface water quality standards in North Carolina are based on the designated best uses
in the surface water classification established in the Title 15A of North Carolina
Administrative Code subchapter 02B. The designated uses of the Cape Fear River near
the Outfall 002 include water supply, aquatic life, secondary recreation, and fish
consumption. Hence, the portion of the river at the Site is classified as WS-IV Class C
stream by the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR). The water quality standards
for different parameters were calculated based on the recommendations provided by
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 17 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Cm ihanis of N(.. 11;
DWR.1 DWR recommendations consist of three types of instream water quality
standards:
1. NCO2B Standards: These water quality standards are included in Title 15A of
North Carolina Administrative Code subchapter 02B. They take precedence over
the US EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria (RWQC).
2. US EPA RWQC: These are water quality standards established by US EPA after
a scientific and national stakeholder evaluation. They take precedence over the
NC instream-target values.
3. NC Instream Target Values: These were determined based on available
toxicological data for chemicals per language in Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code (15A NCAC 02B .0202 and .0208).
A summary of water quality standards based on the most sensitive designated use is
provided in Appendix B. Metals standards were calculated based on an assumed hardness
of 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) since recent data is not available. Appendix B also
includes the reported the maximum effluent concentration based on the 2019 effluent
data.
The parameters that have the maximum effluent higher than instream water quality
standard ("critical parameters") are shown in Table 6 below. The reported concentration
for mercury in the 2019 Outfall 002 effluent is an estimated value of 0.051 ug/L, which
is slightly greater than the Maximum Detection Limit of 0.050 ug/L, but less than the
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) of 0.2 ug/L. Mercury was not detected in river intake sample
collected during the same time period.
The dilution required to meet the instream water quality standard for these parameters
was calculated by taking the ratio of daily maximum effluent concentration and the water
quality standard. Two parameters, total residual chlorine and dichlorobromomethane,
require dilutions greater than theoretical maximum possible dilution of 12. These
parameters were not considered further in the analysis as the concentrations in the Outfall
002 effluent will be lowered after chlorine dosage optimization occurs between June 2019
and the fall of 2019.
1 NCDEQ (2019). StandardsTable_06102019 DetectionLimitComparison.xlsx
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 18 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of NU. 11;
Table 6: Comparison for Instream Water Quality Standards in the Cape Fear
River and Maximum Effluent Concentrations at Outfall 002
N
NC
Water
Effluent
Standards
EPA
Instream
Quality
Daily
Dilution
Permit List
RWQC*
Target
S(u
Maximum
Factor
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
Values*
/L)d
Value***
Required
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
Total Residual Chlorine
17
17
270**
15.8
Mercury
0.012
0.012
0.051 J
4.3
Chlorodibromomethane
0.8
0.55
0.8
1.68**
2.1
Dichlorobromomethane
0.95
0.55
0.95
0.95
14.1**
14.8
Iron
1,000
1,000
1,050
1
Manganese
50
50
121
2.4
*Chronic criterion
**Will be lowered after chlorine dosage is optimized
***Based on 2019 effluent sampling
J Estimated value >= Method Detection Limit (MDL) and < Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)
6.2 Mixing Zone
NCDEQ permits the size of the chronic mixing zone for wastewater discharges on a case -
by -case basis considering the type of receiving waters, outfall configuration, effluent
characteristics, extent of mixing/dilution, and specific aquatic resources concerns (e.g.
sensitive area, recreational use, and navigation.
For the establishing the acute mixing zone NCDEQ utilizes the recommendations
provided in EPA's "Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics
Control" (EPA, 1991).
The model results show the plume is horizontally mixed across the width of channel at
27.4 meters downstream of the outfall. The predicted dilution at this location is 8.7. Hence
a conservative chronic mixing zone of 27.4 meters is proposed for the Outfall 002 for
calculating WQBELs. The proposed chronic mixing zone is shown in Figure 10.
The acute mixing zone or zone of initial dilution (ZID) was calculated based on the
recommendation provided in EPA's "Technical Support Document for Water Quality -
Based Toxics Control" (EPA, 1991) document. The TSD suggests the zone of initial
dilution (ZID) be limited to the more restrictive of the following conditions:
• 10% of the chronic mixing zone length (10% of 27.4 m = 2.7 m),
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 19 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of N(.. 11;
• 50 times the discharge length' scale in any direction (50*sgrt (1.8 m2) = 67 meters
or), or
• 5 times the local water depth (5*5.8 feet = 29 meters).
Hence, an acute mixing zone (ZID) of 2.7 meters is proposed. The predicted dilution at
the edge of the acute mixing zone is 2.4 and the travel time is 36 seconds.
NCDEQ mixing zone regulations also require that mixing zones not endanger public
health or welfare. There are no drinking water intakes located in the proposed acute and
chronic mixing zones.
Figure 10: Proposed Chronic Mixing Zone Location for Outfall 002 at Chemours
Fayetteville Works
2 The discharge scale is defined as square root of cross -sectional area of discharge pipe.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 20 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of Nc. 11;
6.3 Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits
A dilution of 8.7 at the edge of proposed chronic mixing zone was used to calculate the
WQBELs based on the water quality standards provided in Appendix B. The WQBEL
for HFPO-DA was calculated based on the North Carolina Provisional Health Goal of
140 ng/L and upstream concentration was assumed to be zero for the constituents
analyzed. The water quality standards and the calculated WQBELs for the six critical
parameters identified above as well as HFPO-DA are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Water Oualitv- Based Effluent Limits for Critical Parameters
Chronic
Water Quality -Based
Water Quality
Effluent Limit
Standard
(ug/L)
Permit List
u /L
Total Residual Chlorine
17
148
Mercury
0.012
0.104
Chlorodibromomethane
0.8
7
Dichlorobromomethane
0.95
8
Iron
1,000
8,700
Manganese
50
435
HFPO-DA (zero background)
140*
1,218
* North Carolina Provisional Health Goal.
6.4 Results of RPA Analysis
The results of RPA Analysis show the Outfall 002 effluent will meet the instream water
quality standard except for total chlorine residual and dichlorobromomethane. The
reported effluent concentrations for total chlorine residual and dichlorobromomethane are
currently being analyzed for potential analytical interference as indicated in Section 2.
The concentration of these parameters will be reduced in the effluent by optimizing the
chlorine dosing and it is believed that this optimization will allow the discharge to meet
the instream water quality standards.
7 MASS BALANCE CALCULATION FOR HFPO-DA
A mass balance calculation was done to estimate the concentration of HFPO-DA just
upstream of William O. Huske Dam at the 7Q10 flow of 467 cfs. The sources of HFPO-
DA that were assessed include upstream river, seeps, aerial deposition, Outfall 002, and
on -site and off -site groundwater. As discussed above, the river plume is assessed as
mixing completely at the dam location. Table 8 shows the mass balance calculation for
HFPO-DA including the sources upstream of William O. Huske Dam. This assessment is
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 21 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of N(.. 11;
based on a combination of most recent available data as of early February 2019 sampling,
but using a 7Q10 river flow value and a more conservative estimate of the Outfall 002
concentration. The upstream river concentration was set to 10 ng/L since the upstream
river samples to date have been either non -detect at 10 ng/L or had detects below 10 ng/L.
The calculated maximum concentration for HFPO-DA at the dam is 113.6 ng/L which is
below the health goal of 140 ng/L. A preliminary estimate of identified PFAS mass
loadings to the Cape Fear River, including loadings to the river below the dam are
presented in the Cape Fear River HFPO-DA and PFMOAA Mass Loading Assessment
Summary (Geosyntec, 2019) which is also included in Attachment E of Chemours' July
2019 NPDES permit submittal. The preliminary estimated Cape Fear River HFPO-DA
concentration range for present PFAS mass loadings is 67 to 128 ng/L under 7Q 10 flows,
which is also below the health goal of 140 ng/L. The results of the mass loading model
are preliminary, and an updated version of the mass loading model will be presented in
the Consent Order Paragraph 12 submittal due August 26, 2019.
Table 8: Preliminary Mass Balance Calculation for HFPO-DA upstream of
William O. Huske Dam (Before Old Outfall 002)
qF
Estimated
Concentration
Flow
Mass
Contribution
Potential Pathway
(ng/L)
(L/s)
Loading
(µg/s)
to River
Concentration
Up-Stream1
1
(ng/L)
1
Willis Creek
1 •1
:1
Aerial Depositionon
'
1
• • • •
-8,500
Seeps)
24,000
�
:1 1:1
•
• • •(Adjacent
• 11
1
1
1
otal Estimated Mass Loading
@17,224
nd Corresponding River
oncentration upstream of
770 - 1502
58.2 - 113.6
illiam O. Huske Dam
Notes:
L/s - liters per second
NA - not available
ng/L - nanograms per liter
µg/s - micrograms per second
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 22 July 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
lieofynwc Gm ihanis of Nu. 11;
8 REFERENCES
Chemours, 2016. NPDES Permit Renewal Application NPDES Permit No. NC0003573.
Submitted to NCDEQ Division of Water Resources, May 2016.
Geosyntec, 2019. Cape Fear River HPFO-DA and PFMOAA Mass Loading Assessment
Summary. Submitted to Chemours Company FC, LLC, June 2019
Doneker, R.L. and G.H. Jirka (Doneker and Jirka), 2007. CORMIX User Manual: A
Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant
Discharges into Surface Waters, EPA-823-K-07-001, Dec. 2007.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Technical Support Document for Water
Quality -Based Toxics Control. Office of Water. Washington DC. EPA/505/2-90-001.
NCDEQ 1999. Mixing Zone in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality. July 1999.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report 23 July 2019

APPENDIX A
Engineering Drawing for Outfall 002

40
39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29
28 27 26 25
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11 19
I I I I I
9
I
6 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
I I I I I I I I
Ln PLANT o
0
0
ANALYZE FOR SAFETY,ECOLOGY,AND MINIMUM ESSENTIAL DESIGN
o I
N Ln
GRID
O\
<
N N
�
NORTH
N
`
`i +_ y I I n I 1 I
\\ I Q .IIIIIII IIII1111 N
1
A
Q;
W, W,
W
W
IIIIIIIIIIIIII�
N.C° GRID
\
\ \ I I " II Ifl1 I
I \ I I
Z I
NORTH
\
`\
\ I11111III III
\\ \ i \ !� Lei/i l iiil� iiil�
^\
I II I I I1 I,I
wA TER I
o!
\
8\
/ I
\ 11 P 1 X /32l 011 IIII I
-B
UCo11'IIIIIIIIIIII
IIII
�
OUTFALL MANHOLE No. 7
II i ; it ;; ICI II101 IIIII
I
I
o :
8' DIAMETER
N 10,785.0 E 13,087.9
\ I
I I, I 4'
1i I I I IIIIIII I, I ICI IIIII III
wl
\ I, I I II .IIIII NIIIIIIIIIIII
N!
/IIIII
RIM E14+1S.0096
/ d °° °° ° I.° I. I �11I I°IIIII 11 IIIII11111111
II III (IIIII I
Q '
ON;
9° 06
SHELF ELEV. 31.51 51
x I
` 1 NEW'PRECAST PRECAST CONCRETE'\\ WATER( I� I I I IIIIIII
�\ I I II 4.' ` 1111 11
32 �1�1i ii III AREA OE
FLARED END SECTION \'lllii
- C
INV. EEEV. 30.27
48.2
i
d 1, II
i
rINVERT ELEV. 25.33 II GROUT -FILLED
II
OUTFACE MANHOLE
175 LF - 60 RCP
I
No. 6 e.°°°
3.19% SLOPE 6
-, p I \ 1 li I REVETMENT MAT
C �� Iv v 1 i11 VlI I 1 11 11111111 RIVER BANK
I - p
49-_
'1�-'�h5+5o\
8 DIAMETER
-1
/,±5_0
-T
\� -I �11 IIIII STABILIZATION
I+��----(SEE
-�-_ 4�--
' '
N 10,742.6 E 12,918.1
/
/
, --�\���
NOTE #5 )
STA. 12+40.00
OUTFACE MANHOLE No.5
/ I 0
_ /� 14
SEEP I,-�
\
I i \\ \\ \\ \\ 611111111
� p \
II
�
o l �'
RIM FLFv. 45.45'
SHELF ELEV. 36. 45'
/�
1 sa- I/
` ANTI �� / I
/ �, II I I If I �
AN SEE COLLAR 1 71 LF - 60 RCP III:,I
llllllll IIIII II
%�
I°°
w •
•
/
/ i
8 DIAMETER
INV. ELEV. 37.80'(IN)
N 1 0, 691 . 5 E 1 2 , 805. 0
III,, 1� COLLAR ` ,,
• _ \ / i /
x 3��' `''
'
,III,, IIII W
X @ 2 . 89% SLOPE - it II Il ' II
°
\ / II I II II I II
�.
N 1 0, 750
w
• / °°
// /
/
/ /
STA, 1 1 +1 5. 86 INV, ELEV. 35. 87' (
RIM EEEV. 68.78
OUT) �° ;/i
°
° I ,4 � � °
/- / I
\ I
\ \ \ � Ilru I � N 10,750
so_I \ \ i �� I
I
INV. ELEV. 55. 98' (I N)�\\
/
\ \ `� rnll' s�
_
E
0
9 /
- \
INV. EEEV. 50. 97 (OUT) 124 LF 60 RCP \°°
@ 1 0. 63% SLOPE °\
\ \ `°r°o° /
�\ \\�\°°°!°° /
i �\ \ \� �z.° /
/ \ �\ nl
° I
/
/
i41
\ �\ \ II!'llllll I
CLEARING LIMITIII
I \\ \ \ 11 u1
, ,
i \
\\
(TYPICAL ) \ \\�` \` \ IIIIIIIIIIIII WATER/BLE 1 I I II I
x I \\ \ \ \ 4
f /
� I I /
o \ \ \ l 1 I I 1 I
\ O \ \\ \ YI (III 1x \32
a50.40' \ \
\I\ \ I\ III
• � \F\ /.
\ /
I � -� . OUTFALL MANHOLE
No. 3
1 1 \ \ � i'1 I Q\ _ / / \
OUTFACE MANHOLE No-4 1 \ .°\.\° \ \ y? � I °°° �° \I �, -- j � I
i ` �-
6 DIAMETER 1 \ ' � , I % / � I I
°
1\� 1 \
'
\
\\ \ I
\X
\ \\ \ \ II 111 \
\ EXISTING MONITORING \ �`!�\ \\�\I Ii \\ iii iiii it
WELL To REMAIN I \\\ I 11I,
T
-F
i -
• _
`\ \�/ 297 LF - 48w HDPE
O \ PIPE 4. 01 % SLOPE 6 DIAMETER
/
� \ \ + � °° N 10,660®5 E 12,428.0
✓ , i° y „
N 10,651 . 1 E 12,639.E 1 \° le ° \ \ \ I �y o I/J; /%% �i „�. \
I !� r° I -- \
STA. 9+45 . 56 it ' `° ` \5°� /�' __- ��
\ �\ ° � °11
I If I
' ili,, `\` „1ijI
I I 1 1
I 1 11111111111 W
III
�i /'
STA. 7+33. 79
'
RIM ELEV. 77 . 29 \ \ \ \ \
1 \ ° >--11
° 11 \ \ \ \ / + I
SHELF ELEV. 67 . 39 � 1 , 1 \ � \ .� � �_ \ I
\ /�- __ fi-- I
i ,`=- I - � �, I
WETLAND
II 1 il1jl11il
I�
I II 1 II N1 1 IIIII 1 ICL
DELINEATION LINE I I' I II III 1 I I il'�11 i11 �i i i III 1 I I Q
III N
/°°°
\ \ RIM ELEV. 84. 50
o \ \� \� �, \+ , SHELF ELEV. 79 . 21
6
/ INV, ELEV. 78.33
CLEARING LIMIT
(TYPICAL)
\ \ .� /
\ \ �_-
INV. ELEV. 66.61 \ \�; \ \ X�`__ �I e°° \
\\ 1 + \1 `\ iY�/� I,i l
� ° � \� / / / \`
169 LF - 48 HDPE \ \ 1\1 r,� 1 I�/1� 1, l
-
/ \
��-4sl I \
-' 1 - EX I ST I NG 1 8" D A
/ / � _ ' ' - , � 1j
i
/
I I� I II 1 \ o IIII
I IIIIIII ! Ij 1b;11j11111 1I IIIIIII U
I 1 I I I 1P,11 I
0 1 1 I y1
i
v /
j \ \\
"
212 LF 48 HDPE
\ ° .
PIPE Cd 6. 28% SLOPE o .° \ \ \
v w-y- //L( \v
-- 4-= CULVERT TO RE AIN
��:,--aI
- \ /
s 0.83' "I I IIII 1it IIII
I
\ ��
P I PE @ 5. 54% SLOPE
'Q
cA
I '11 11 I I I I IIII I I
/
�h
°j
\
/°
10 +0/
I
I I I PII'I W
/
�\
\
-\ IIII I I , WETLAND DEL E T I ON _,I Ejj11
I \ III I
1\ I I \ I I 1 I
/
-�- -_f-i- I , , I I I / I I , / I I -p � I I I
- / I
1
�t��-
1 I I I I I XI 3121•�� 1 1 1 1 I
I I II I III I IIIII II I 1
i I
I
I I I I \ I fll,11 II
----
- - -I- / / _�,'�_ �
I
I
llll�
1 I IIII I
csi
I
I
/ I I
,
/
�6\I
LINE
OF
EXISTING
/ CO \- ,�
a
�� 9
,� ' ,' ; ;
/l/ -
/ ' ' ///-_�-' --�
/ // �/
LOGGING
/ III I
ROAD
\ \ I _ ------ _
\
/ ,,-
_/
// , / ✓ ,/ , /, � f / / �C���\C \\ -�\-f �__--_ --'
1
_/ / / ,' ,/ I i I III �'I 11 1 I
WI
z
-
EX I S7BNG ACCESS
, -- \�
i
I I 41.27'
-
ROAD TO REMgI N
l //
`\ C� / / /' I
1
wI
\
!(\�:/'
I
EL
I I I
CD'
CL ;
5 \
o,
_ K
Q
LINE OF 1 00-YEAR FLOOD
'
Qi
ELEV. 67. 1 (NGVD 1 929)
o b'
/ ` o
0
I 0
Ln o
N L'
PLAN
L
�
O
CDN
Ln
N N
N
SCALE: 1"- 30'
w w
w
w
w
l50
OUTFALL MANHOLE
No.1
NOTES:
STA. 1 +78.95
BASIN
RIM ELEV. 141.13'
----- ----
_
SHELF ELEV. 127.60'
1. REFER TO DRAWING No. W1712039 FOR GENERAL NOTES.
/-
_ INVERT ELEV.
126.49'
/40
/40
2 CLEARINGSHOWN A RE AFINALE AND
II
ANTI
-SEEP
�
SHALLE DETERMINED INTI HEFELDIASSTREQUIRED TO COMPLETE
-N
COLLAR
\\\
GRADING OPERATIONS.
I
48
��
3. ALL DISTRUBED AREAS NOT RECEIVING PAVING, STONE COVER OR
HD
@
OUTFALL
MANHOLE No-2
/30
REVETMENT MATS SHALL BE TOPSOILED AND SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE
STA® 4+48.93
WITH DUPONT STANDARD SPECIFICATION SC8E.
\
RIM ELEV.
99.55'
-�
ANITI-SEEP
CUT-OFF\�
SHELF ELEV.
91.74'
4. HIGHDENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPING (HDPE) SHALL BE THERMAL
COLLAR
TRENCH
\\
INVERT
ELEV. 90.26'
BUTT FUSED JOINTED PIPE WITH MINIMUM
OUTFALL MANHOLE No-4
DIMENSION RATIO NUMBER (DR) of DR-26. LAST
/20
/20
ALL PIPE MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION
8''
STA. 9+45.56
RIM ELEV. 77.29'
SHALL BE PER PROJECT SPECIFICATION. W 1712043
5
MONITORING STATION F @
SHELF ELEV. 67. 39
S. AREA AROUND NEW OUTFALL PIPE AT CAPE REV
-P
60" PREFABRICATED
3
INVERT ELEV. 66.61'
FEAR RIVER BANK SHALL BE COMPLETELY
//0
PARSHALL FLUME
6
OUTFALL MANHOLE No-3
//�
STABILIZED WITH GROUT FILLED REVETMENT
S \
N 10, 692. 5 E 1 1 , 81 4 ®4
STA. 7+33. 79
MAT SYSTEM. REFER TO DWG No. W1 71 6560
STA. 0+75.25
�o°\\
FILL (TYP.)
RIM ELEV. 84.50'
FOR DETAIL.
RIM ELEV. 147.87'
e `\
SHELF ELEV. 79.21'
INVERT ELEV. 129.38' (IN)
INVERT ELEV. 78.33'
_Q
INVERT ELEV. 129. 1 3' ( OUT
\\\
OUTFALL
MANHOLE No-5
/00
( SEE DWG® No. W1 721 680 )
/00
AS -BUILT NOTE:
\\,
I
I
I
STA. 1 1 +1 5 a 86
_ _
RIM ELEV. 68.78
BASIN
OUTFACE
CONTROL STRUCTURE
\`
INVERT ELEV. 55. 98' (IN)
THE AS CONSTRUCTED LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN FOR THE
INVERT ELEV. 50.97'(OUT)
NEW OUTFALL 002 PIPING SYSTEM IS TAKEN FROM A FIELD SURVEY
STA. 0+08.75
90
g�
PERFORMED BY 4D SITE SOLUTIONS, INC. OF FAYETTEVILLE, NC.
_R
4g„`
TOP OF WALL EEEV® 145.48'
INVERT
sEER�w��ENo.
1 wg7T2o4o �T)
HDPE
--'--_-____
OUTFALL MANHOLE No. 7
z
o
@
4. 01
CD°pe
54009E
EXISTING
RIM ELEV1
a
80
'---____
GRADE
SHELF ELEV. 31.51'
a
80
w
-
INVERT ELEV. 30.27'
w
_S
J
H
PE
_______-_
100-Year
Flood
w
@ 5,5 47
-\,
Elev. 67.1'
(NGVD 1929)
w
I
Slope
\\
\\
Elev. 68.0'
(NAVD 1988)
0 10 20 40 75
70
70
48
OUTFALL MANHOLE No. 6
5 15 30 50 100
_ T
I
N
PE
@
STA. 12+40.00
6. 28i
��
RIM LLLV. 45.45'
GRAPHIC SCALE
S/o
SHELF ELEV. 36.45'
60
�\
60
SCALE® 1" 30'
INVERT ELEV. 35.87'(DUT)
Level
(Recorded)
EI
v. 55.7
\
WARNING SIGN
50
`.
(SEE DWG. W1716560)
50
---
0.
'\
CAPE FEAR
RIVER
�
- V
40
40
-
ANTI SEEP
Mean Water Level
BLDG
PRO J
DA
TYPE
(-AST
So/
3 @
9%
COLLAR
``
Elev. 31.8
M/F
W 171 2Z43
5
-
C4016
-
42
Slops
ops
1
7010
Flow Water Level
6"
0 R
1
P I
Elev.
.
302'
30
REV
-W
_
30
ANT I -SEEP
COLLAR
°
I ope `.
'
OUTLET
ELEV. 25.33'
FAYETTEVILLE WORK S
Hist
ric Low Water
\\\
(Recorded)
20
Eeeel
29.6
20
SITE OUTFALL 002 RELOCATION
- X
GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
0+00
1 +00 2+00 3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00 9+00
1 0+00 1 1 +00 1 2+00 1 3+00 1 4+00
1 5+00 1 6+00
1 7+00
1 8+00
PIPE PROFILE
SHEET #4 AND PIPE PROFILE
-Y
SCALE: 1" 60'(Hor(zontal)
C I I
1" 12' ( Vert Pccl)
V
PRO
NO
REVISION
RVSD
CHKD
APPD
DATE
PROD
NO
REVISION
RVSD
CHKD
APPD
DATE
PROD
NO
REVISION
RVSD
CHKD
APPD
DATE
PROD
NO
REVISION
RVSD
CHKD
APPD
DATE
SEAL
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
PROJECT -------- E4Z16___ T
C4U16
Z
RELEASED
FOR PERVITTINO
EJO
JST
WJC
4-12-1
SCALE --___AS- NOTED -_____DATE_
DRAWN-_ E. J.- OSTRANDER3-17-Z9
C4U16
1
REV. PER NCDENR REVIEW LTR
EJO
JST
WJC
11-29-1
REFER
TO DWG.
No. W1712�39
FOR
LIST OF REFERENCE
DWGS.
�-------
CHECKED-J. S.- FANNON 1 3-31-1Z
APPROVED - IL-WJ-CONSALV� 4-12-1Z
C4Z16
2
RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
EJO
JST
WJC
12-ZI-IV
C4016
3
REVISED MONITORING STATION
DTH
E J 0
WJC
4-11-11
DESIGN RErEasE
C4Z 1 G
4
REV. FLUME ELEV. PER SHOP DWG
EJO
WJC
WJC
10-10-11
APPROVED-L WJ_CONSALVI�12-_Z_1_-_1_Z
C4Z16
5
AS -BUILT INEORVATION
EJO
WJC
WJC
1Z-IZ-12
THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY E.I. DU PONT DE
NEVOURS & CO. THE INFORMATION AND KNOW-HOW THEREON
i -t
CONSTR. RELEASE I
MAY NOT BE USED NOR THE DRAWING REPRODUCED WITHOUT
THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF DU PONT. ALL REPRODUCTIONS
�
------------------------! -------
QPO(\IT
IN WHOLE OR IN PART, INCLUDING VENDOR'S SHOP
C . I , DU PONT DC RUMOURS & CO o INC .
DRAWINGS, SHALL BEAR OR REFER TO THIS STAMP.
,
WILMINGTON, DEEAWARE
INTERGRAPH
COVPUTER
DRAWING PLOTTED
DUPONT ENGINEERING
3
W 171 2Z43
E 2 N �] N E E �] RFIZ][II] ED [T4 2 E[E� D E F2Z]E E 5 24 25 g 27 g E E E E E 34 E g E 38 E 40 41 [42 43 [44 45 F46] 47 48 479 50 51 52 F53] F54] F55] F56] F57] F58] F59] FGZ] 61 F62] F63]

APPENDIX B
Calculated Water Quality Based Effluent
Limits for 2C Compounds

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Table B
10000
2500
10000
U
87000
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Table B
0.17
0.17
U
1.48
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Table B
0.55
2300
0.55
U
4.79
1,1-dichloroethane
Table B
6
6
U
52.2
1,1-dichloroethylene
Table B
300
300
U
2610
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Table B
0.076
61
0.076
U
0.66
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Table B
3000
3000
U
26100
1,2-dichloroethane
Table B
9.9
9.9
U
86.13
1,2-dichloropropane
Table B
0.9
0.9
U
7.83
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Table B
0.03
0.03
U
0.26
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Table B
10
10
U
87
1,3-dichloropropylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Table B
900
900
U
7830
2,2-dichloropropionic acid
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichloropheni
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
2,4,5-TP [2-(2,4,5-trichlorop
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Table B
2.8
2.8
U
24.36
2,4-D
Table D
70
12000
60
70
U
609
2,4-dichlorophenol
Table B
60
60
U
522
2,4-di methyl phenol
Table B
100
100
U
870
2,4-dinitrophenol
Table B
10
10
U
87
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Table B
0.049
0.049
U
0.43
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Table B
0.048
0.048
U
0.42
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
2-chloronaphthalene
Table B
800
110
800
U
6960
2-chlorophenol
Table B
800
800
U
6960
2-nitrophenol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Table B
0.049
0.049
U
0.43

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
3,4-benzofluoranthene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4,4'-DDD
Table B
0.00012
0.00012
U
0
4,4'-DDE
Table B
0.000018
0.000018
U
0
4,4'-DDT
Table B
0.0002
0.0002
U
0
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4-bromophenyl phenyl ethe
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ethei
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4-nitrophenol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Acenaphthene
Table B
70
60
70
U
609
Acenaphthylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Acetaldehyde
Table D
970
970
U
8439
Acrolein
Table B
3
0
3
U
26.1
Acrylonitrile
Table B
0.061
0.061
U
0.53
Aldrin
Table B
0.00005
0.00005
U
0
Allyl alcohol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Allyl chloride
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Alpha, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Aluminum
Table C
6500
6500
222
56550
Amyl acetate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Aniline
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Anthracene
Table B
300
0.05
300
U
2610
Antimony
Table B
5.6
5300
5.6
U
48.72
Arsenic
Table B
10
10
0.75
87
Asbestos
Table D
0
0
U
0
Barium
Table C
1000
21000
1000
23.5
8700
Benzene
Table B
1.19
1.19
U
10.35
Benzidine
Table B
0.00014
0.00014
U
0.0012
Benzo anthracene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzo fluoranthene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Benzo perylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzo pyrene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzonitrile
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzyl chloride
Table D
0.2
0.2
U
1.74
Beryllium
Table B
6.5
6.5
U
56.55
Beta, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis ether
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis ether
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis methane
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis phthalate
Table B
No Standard
7
No Standard
Boron
Table C
150
150
26.2
1305
Bromide
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bromoform
Table B
7
7
U
60.9
Butyl acetate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Butylamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Cadmium
Table B
0.15
0
0.15
U
1.31
Captan
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Carbaryl
Table D
2.1
0.67
2.1
U
18.27
Carbofuran
Table D
9.7
9.7
U
84.39
Carbon disulfide
Table D
100
100
U
870
Carbon tetrachloride
Table B
0.254
0
560
0.254
U
2.21
Chlordane
Table B
0.0008
0
0.0008
U
0.01
Chlorine, total residual
Table C
17
17
270**
147.9
Chlorobenzene
Table B
488
800
488
U
4245.6
Chlorodibromomethane
Table B
0.8
0.8
1.68**
6.96
Chloroethane
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Chloroform
Table B
60
60
51.5
522
Chlorpyrifos
Table D
0
0
U
0

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Chromium, total
Table B
No Standard
1.1
No Standard
Chrysene
Table B
0
0
0
U
0
Cobalt
Table C
3
3
0.64
26.1
Color
Table C
No Standard
35
No Standard
Copper
Table B
2.74
2.74
U
23.84
Coumaphos
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Cresol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Crotonaldehyde
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Cyanide, total
Table B
5
5
U
43.5
Cyclohexane
Table D
230
230
U
2001
Diazinon
Table D
0.17
0.17
0.17
U
1.48
Dibenzo anthracene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dicamba
Table D
200
200
U
1740
Dichlobenil
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dichlone
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dichlorobromomethane
Table B
0.95
0.55
0.95
14.1**
8.27
Dichlorvos
Table D
0
0
U
0
Dieldrin
Table B
0.00005
0.00005
U
0
Diethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Diethyl phthalate
Table B
600
1200
600
U
5220
Dimethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dimethyl phthalate
Table B
2000
3400
2000
U
17400
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Table B
20
20
U
174
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dintrobenzene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Diquat
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Disulfoton
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Diuron
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Endosulfan
Table B
0.05
0.05
U
0.44

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Endrin
Table B
0.002
0.002
U
0.02
Endrin aldehyde
Table B
1
1
U
8.7
Epichlorohydrin
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Ethion
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Ethylbenzene
Table B
68
97
68
U
591.6
Ethylene diamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Ethylene dibromide
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Fecal Coliform
Table C
200
200
U
1740
Fluoranthene
Table B
20
0.11
20
U
174
Fluorene
Table B
50
30
50
U
435
Fluoride
Table C
1800
1800
520
15660
Formaldehyde
Table D
1200
1200
U
10440
Furfural
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Guthion
Table D
0.01
0.01
U
0.09
Heptachlor
Table B
0.00008
0.00008
U
0
Heptachlor epoxide
Table B
0.000032
0.000032
U
0
Hexachlorobenzene
Table B
0.000079
0.000079
U
0
Hexachlorobutadiene
Table B
0.44
0.44
U
3.83
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Table B
4
4
U
34.8
Hexachloroethane
Table B
0.1
0.1
U
0.87
Indeno pyrene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Iron
Table C
1000
1000
1050
8700
Isophorone
Table B
34
34
U
295.8
Isoprene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Isopropanolamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Kelthane
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Kepone
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Lead
Table B
0.54
0.54
U
4.7
Magnesium
Table C
No Standard
2790
No Standard

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Malathion
Table D
0.1
0.1
U
0.87
Manganese
Table C
50
50
121
435
Mercaptodimethur
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Mercury
Table B
0.012
0.012
0.051
0.1
Methoxychlor
Table D
0.03
0.02
0.03
U
0.26
Methyl bromide
Table B
100
0.04
100
U
870
Methyl chloride
Table B
2.6
2.6
U
22.62
Methyl mercaptan
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Methyl methacrylate
Table D
9600
9600
U
83520
Methyl parathion
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Methylene chloride
Table B
20
11000
20
U
174
Mevinphos
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Mexacarbate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Molybdenum
Table C
160
160
0.81
1392
Monoethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Monomethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Naled
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Naphthalene
Table B
12
12
U
104.4
Naphthenic acid
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Nickel
Table B
16.1
4600
16.1
1.6
140.07
Nitrate nitrogen
Table C
10000
10000
1100
87000
Nitrobenzene
Table B
10
4600
10
U
87
Nitrogen, total organic
Table C
No Standard
530
No Standard
Nitrotoluene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Table B
0.00069
0.00069
U
0.01
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Table B
0.005
0.005
U
0.04
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Table B
3.3
290
3.3
U
28.71
Oil and Grease
Table C
0
0
U
0
Parathion
Table D
0.013
0.013
U
0.11

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
PCB-1016
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1221
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1232
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1242
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1248
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1254
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1260
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
p-chloro-m-cresol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Pentachlorophenol
Table B
0.04
0.04
U
0.35
Phenanthrene
Table B
0.7
0.7
U
6.09
Phenol
Table B
4000
4000
U
34800
Phenolic Compounds
Table B
300
300
U
2610
Phenolsulfonate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Phosgene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Phosphorus, total
Table C
No Standard
460
No Standard
Propargite
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Propylene oxide
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Pyrene
Table B
20
20
U
174
Pyrethrins
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Quinoline
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Radium 226, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Radium, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Resorcinol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Selenium
Table B
5
170
5
U
43.5
Silver
Table B
0.06
0.06
U
0.52
Strontium
Table D
14000
14000
U
121800
Strychnine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Styrene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Sulfates
Table C
250000
250000
32100
2175000

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
�ug�L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
�ug�L)
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
dug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Sulfide (as S)
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Sulfite (as S03)
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Surfactants
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
TIDE (tetrachlorodiphenyl et l
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Tetrachloroethylene
Table B
0.7
0.7
U
6.09
Thallium
Table B
2
2
U
17.4
Titanium
Table C
No Standard
7.8
No Standard
Trichlorofon
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Toluene
Table B
11
57
0
11
U
95.7
Toxaphene
Table B
0.0002
0.0007
0.0002
U
0
Trichloroethylene
Table B
2.5
0
2.5
U
21.75
Triethanolamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Triethylamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Trimethylamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Uranium
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Vanadium
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Vinyl acetate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Xylene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Vinyl chloride
Table B
0.025
0.025
U
0.22
Xylenol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Zirconium
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Zinc
Table B
36.2
36.2
9.4
314.94
Tin
Table C
770
770
U
6699
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexat
Table B
0.00036
0.00036
U
0
alpha-endosulfan
Table B
20
20
U
174
b- Hexachlorocyclohexane
Table B
55
55
U
478.5
beta-endosulfan
Table B
0
0
U
0
Lindane, g-BHC
Table B
0.01
0.01
U
0.09
d- Hexachlorocyclohexane
Table B
40
40
U
348

NC
Effluent Daily
NCO2B
EPA RWQC*
Instream
Water Quality
Maximum
WQBEL
Constiuent
EPA Table ID
Standards*
Target
Standard
�ug�L)
Value***
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
Values*
(ug/L)
dug/L)
�ug�L)
*Chronic criterion
**Will be lowered after chlorine dosage is optimized
***Based on 2019 effluent sampling

APPENDIX C
CORMIX Modeling Files
(On Flash Drive)

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT E-1-1
MIXING ZONE ADDENDUM
November 2019

Geosynteccl'
consultants
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
MIXING ZONE REPORT, Addendum
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Outfall 002
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Prepared for
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607
Project Number TRO807C
October 2019

Geospte&
consultants
Geosynec Con id—ofNC, PC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1
2 MIXING ZONE METHODOLOGY....................................................................
1
2.1 CORMIX Model Inputs...............................................................................
1
2.1.1 Receiving Water Characterization..................................................
2
2.1.2 Discharge Characterization.............................................................
5
2.1.3 Outlet Structure Configuration........................................................
6
2.1.4 Background Concentrations............................................................
6
2.1.5 Additional CORMIX Model Inputs ................................................
8
3 CORMIX RESULTS..........................................................................................
11
3.1 Simulated Plume Result.............................................................................
11
3.2 Centerline Dilution Factor.........................................................................
13
3.3 HFPO-DA Concentration..........................................................................
13
3.4 Temporal Variation....................................................................................
14
4 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS......................................................
15
4.1 Mixing Zone..............................................................................................
15
4.2 Results of RPA Analysis...........................................................................
17
4.3 Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits (WQBEL)......................................
17
4.4 Results of RPA Analysis...........................................................................
18
5 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................
18
6 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 19
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum ii October 2019

Geosyntec O'
consultants
G... yntec Consulianis of NC, PC
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cape Fear River Flow, loth percentile lowest 7-day average flow per
month, except October which was the 7Q10 flow. ....................................................... 3
Table 2: Monthly Minimum Water Temperature at USGS Gauge from 2000 to 2005
.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Table 3: Outfall 002 Monthly Discharge Characteristics ........................................... 5
Table 4 Estimated HFPO-DA Background Concentration Upstream of Outfall 002
.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 5: CORMIX Model Scenarios Input.................................................................. 9
Table 6: CORMIX Model Scenario Results............................................................... 15
Table 7: Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits for Critical Parameters ................. 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Cape Fear River, Monthly Flow Frequency, 2007 to 2018......................... 3
Figure 2: Three -Dimensional Representation of Simulated Dilution of the Plume
from Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River.................................................................... 12
Figure 3: Longitudinal Representation of the Plume from Outfall 002 in the Cape
FearRiver...................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Simulated Center Line Dilution of the Discharge Plume from Outfall 002
inthe Cape Fear River................................................................................................. 13
Figure 5: Simulated Center Line Concentration of HFPO-DA Downstream of
Outfall002..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Proposed Chronic Mixing Zone Location for Outfall 002 at Chemours
FayettevilleWorks........................................................................................................ 17
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 111 October 2019

Geosynte&
consultants
Geosynec Con id—ofNC, PC
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Calculated Water Quality Based Effluent Limits for 2C Compounds
Appendix B: CORMIX Modeling Files
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum iv October 2019

Geospte&
consultants
Geosymec Consid—of NC, PC
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3-D
Three-dimensional
7Q 10 Flow
Seven-day, I 0-year average low flow
CORMIX
Cornell Mixing Zone Model
DEM
Digital Elevation Model
DWR
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
HFPO-DA
Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid
NAVD 88
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NFR
Near Field Region
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RWQC
U.S. EPA Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria
RPA
Reasonable Potential Analysis
TSD
Technical Support Document
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WQBEL
Water Quality -Based Effluent Limit
ZID
Zone of Initial Dilution (acute mixing zone)
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum V October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, P.C. (Geosyntec) has prepared this report
addendum to document the updated results of a mixing zone study completed on behalf
of The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours). The Chemours Fayetteville Works
facility (the Site) is submitting a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit application for the Site. The mixing zone analysis was conducted to
support the future development of Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs) for
the NPDES permit.
This report serves as an addendum to the original report submitted in July 2019
Geosyntec, 2019) to address feedback from North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) that includes the following requests:
Develop a worst -case condition scenario that is representative of the maximum
discharge HFPO-DA concentration and flow during low river flow conditions
(dry weather) and ambient concentrations based on the mass loading model.
Evaluate the model sensitivity (dilution) during other flow conditions, or multiple
worst -case conditions together (low flow, high temperatureibuoyancy, high
concentration in discharge and ambient conditions, etc.)
The following sections discuss in detail the data review and analyses to develop the
CORMIX model inputs for these scenarios.
2 MIXING ZONE METHODOLOGY
Geosyntec conducted a mixing zone study to simulate the dispersion of the discharge
plume from Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River under a variety of conditions, including a
worst -case scenario.
2.1 CORMIX Model Inputs
Geosyntec used available discharge and receiving water data to parameterize a series of
CORMIX models to explore what are the worst -case conditions for potential impacts
from the discharge. This would allow for considering that the environmental conditions
are not necessarily going to correspond in time. For example, as the discussion below
reveals the river experiences its lowest flows in October, including the 7Q10 now, the
highest stream temperature in not in October but in July, when flows are higher.
As a result of this temporal variability of the discharge and receiving water characteristics,
a set of conservative model scenarios were developed for each month of the year to
identify the worst -case scenario(s).
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 1 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
2.1.1 Receiving Water Characterization
The CORMIX model needs the receiving water characteristics such as river now, width,
depth, and water temperature. NCDEQ guidance recommends the use of the 7Q 10 as the
critical low flow for mixing zone analysis (NCDEQ, 1999).
The Cape Fear River channel cross-section was extracted from the available bathymetry
datasets and schematized into a rectangular channel for CORMIX input. The calculated
7Q10 flow was used to estimate the width and depth of the channel for this critical low
flow and for the other flows selected.
2.1.1.1 Cane Fear River Flow
The flow record from United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gage 02105500 Cape
Fear River at William O. Huske Lock and Dam was used to estimate the 7Q10 flow. The
USGS provided NCDEQ with an estimate of the 7Q 10 flow based on the flow record
from climatic years 2007 to 2018 (NCDEQ, 2019) as 467 cfs (302 MGD).
The flow record at this USGS gauge was analyzed for the same time period to better
understand the seasonal variation of low river flow and when during the year the 7Q 10
flow occurs. Using the seven-day average stream flows over the 12-year record, a
monthly flow frequency plot was developed. As shown in Figure 1, the lowest seven-day
average stream flow occurred in October during this time period of record.
As a result, the CORMIX model used the 7Q10 river flow in the October model scenario
while a conservative tenth -percentile seven-day average flow value was used for the other
months of the year. Table I summarizes the monthly Cape Fear River flow values used
in the modeled scenarios.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 2 October 2019

2000
1800
�° oa
w o 1600
W1400
0 1200 —
an CA o 1000
800
,, 600
A 400 ----
U 200 —
r� a 0
0% 24%
Geosyntec
consultants
40% 60% 80% 100%
Nanexceedance Probability
C,,, m, cConsuIa t, ofNG,PO
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
- Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Figure 1: Cape Fear River, Monthly Flow Frequency, 2007 to 2018.
Table 1: Cape Fear River Flow, loth percentile lowest 7-day average flow per
month, except October which was the 7Q10 flow.
Scenario
loth percentile
lowest 7-day
average flow, cfs
Jan
1,169
Feb
1,771
Mar
2,347
Apr
1,260
May
1,065
Jun
861
Jul
874
Aug918
Sep
643
Oct
467*
Nov
777
Dec
1,048
*7Q10 Flow
2.1.1.2 Cape Fear River Channel Cross -Section
As discussed in the main report, bathymetry data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and digital elevation model (DEM) of the channel banks from the USGS
National Elevation Dataset (NED) were used to estimate the channel cross-section (depth
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 3 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynre Consul —of NC, PC
and width) at the outfall. The river stage for each monthly ten -percentile seven-day
average low flow rate, including the 7Q 10 flow rate, was calculated based on the USGS
gauge rating curve at Gage 02105500 and compared to the channel bottom elevation to
calculate the wetted depth and width.
2.1.1.3 Cape Fear River Temperature
In developing the worst -case scenario to run in CORMIX it was important to identify the
appropriate receiving water conditions when the 7Q10 river flow occurs or when other
critical low flows might be occurring. Outfall 002 discharge temperature is expected to
be higher than the river temperature year-round. The higher the difference between the
two would result in more buoyant discharge and worse dilution. As a result, the monthly
minimum ambient temperature was considered to develop the worst -case scenario(s).
The monthly minimum ambient water temperature of the Cape Fear River at the
Chemours Fayetteville Works is shown in Table 2 and was extracted from the available
surface water temperature monitoring at the USGS gage from 2000 to 2005 (temperature
monitoring was discontinued in 2005). The values in Table 2 were used as input for
receiving water temperature corresponding for different month scenarios.
Table 2: Monthly Minimum Water Temperature at USGS Gauge from 2000 to
2005
Month
Monthly Minimum Stream
Temperature, Degree
Celsius
Jan
5.8
Feb
8.5
Mar
12.1
Apr
17.1
May
21.6
Jun
25.2
Jul
27.2
Aug27.1
Set
24.3
Oct
19.0
Nov
13.7
Dec
8.2
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 4 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
2.1.2 Discharge Characterization
The mixing zone model needs to include the effluent characteristics such as flow rate,
temperature, and concentration to simulate the effluent plume in the river. In this
application, sampling data at Outfall 002 from May 2018 to July 2019 was used to
determine the appropriate input characteristics for each CORMIX model scenario.
The 99th percentile discharge flow for each month using over 10 year of Outfall 002
discharge flow data as discharge flow rate input in the CORMIX models. The monthly
99t, percentile discharge flow values are consistent with Geosyntec's mass loading
analysis (Geosyntec, 2019c).
The monthly maximum Outfall 002 discharge concentration of HFPO-DA was used in the
CORMIX models. This approach was selected because during the dry season, for
example Outfall 002 does not discharge as large of concentration as during the wet time
periods. By breaking the Outfall discharge HFPO-DA concentration up by month, and
using the monthly maximum value, any seasonal patterns are captured, creating realistic
worst -case scenarios. The monthly maximum values are shown in Table 3.
The monthly maximum Outfall 002 discharge temperature was used in the CORMIX
model scenarios. When combined with the monthly minimum ambient temperature this
would result in the highest temperature difference between the effluent discharge and the
river and therefore the most buoyant discharge and worst dilution. The monthly
maximum Outfall 002 discharge temperature are also shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Outfall 002 Monthly Discharge Characteristics.
Month
Discharge
Flow
Rate, cfs
Maximum of Discharge
Temperature, Degree
Celsius
Maximum of
Discharge HFPO-DA
Concentration, n
Jan
32.2
18.0
340
Feb
36.6
16.0
350
Mar
36.9
16.0
290
Apr
36.9
21.0
350
May
44.1
29.0
370
Jun
1 48.1
32.0
220
Jul
45.1
31.0
110
Aug44.1
31.0
230
Set
46.6
31.0
310
Oct
38.1
28.0
400
Nov
43.9
20.0
390
Dec
38.0
18.0
710
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 5 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
2.1.3 Outlet Structure Configuration
The outlet structure configuration was kept consistent with the approach in the main
report.
2.1.4 Background Concentrations
According to the mass loading analysis conducted by Geosyntec, there are eight pathways
that contribute to the HFPO-DA background concentration in the river upstream of
Outfall 002 (Geosyntec 2019a and 2019b). These include the upstream river; Willis
Creek; aerial deposition on the river; on -site groundwater including upwelling; off -site
groundwater adjacent to the site; and three seeps (A, B & C) located upstream of Outfall
002. The contribution from on -site and off -site groundwater was only partially
contributing upstream of Outfall 002.
The calculation of background concentration for the addendum analysis was calculated
based on the revised mass -loading report to be submitted by Geosyntec in October 2019
(Geosyntec, 2019c). The revised mass loading used conservative concentration and flow
values from three sampling events in February, March and June 2019. These values
represent a more accurate representation of loading of HFPD-DA into the Cape Fear
River. In addition, the monthly river flow presented in Table 1 was used to estimate the
concentration of HFPO-DA (based on mass loading) contributed by each pathway in
order to account for the seasonal variation of the site condition.
The combined background concentrations in the Cape Fear River upstream of Outfall 002
for each month are presented in Table 4. The maximum discharge concentration and the
excess concentration of HFPO-DA (difference between the discharge concentration and
background concentration) are also presented in Table 4.
The background concentration of 96.5 ng/L presented in the original mixing zone analysis
report was based on the maximum reported loadings during the February sampling event
only. This was consistent with Geosyntec's preliminary mass loading analysis of HFPO-
DA in the Cape Fear River (Geosyntec 2019a).
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 6 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
Table 4 Estimated HFPO-DA Background Concentration Upstream of Outfall 002
Total Estimated
Maximum
Estimated Contribution
to River Upstream
of Outfall 002
loth
Background
HFPO-DA
Excess
Month
(Ng/s)
Percentile
River
Concentration
Upstream of
Effluent
Discharge
Concentration
Flow, L/s
Outfall 002
Concentration
(ng/L)
p-SRiver/Gr tream
Other Sources1,2
Total3
(ng/L)4
(ng/L)
ter
��
i
0
�Mllll
MMI
INNIM1111
:••
111101111
1 ••
rAugu
leptember
: •
1 :
1 :
• 1
1
I —October
Vvember
December
: •
1:
• •
1
•
'Other sources: a portion of on -site and off -site groundwater, aerial deposition, Willis Creek, Seeps A, B and C, which are upstream of Outfall 002.
2 80% of the onsite groundwater and 8% of the off -site groundwater contribution estimated in the mass loading analysis to the Cape Fear River is located
upstream of Outfall 002. The on -site and off -site groundwater contribution estimated in the mass loading analysis was multiplied by 80% and 8%
respectively.
'The total contribution to the river was calculated by adding the up -stream river/groundwater contribution to the contribution from the other sources.
'The total estimated background concentration upstream of Outfall 002 is calculated by dividing the total upstream contribution by the river flow.
'The excess concentration was calculated by subtracting the estimated background concentration from the maximum HFPO-DA discharge concentration
for each month.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 7 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
HFPO-DA loading from several more pathways that discharge into the Cape Fear River
were originally estimated in the overall mass loading reports (Geosyntec, 2019a and
2019b): off -site groundwater downstream of Outfall 002, on -site groundwater
downstream of Outfall 002, old Outfall 002, Seep D, and Georgia Branch Creek. Loading
from these pathways were not included in the background concentration calculation for
the mixing zone analysis conducted for Outfall 002 because they are located downstream
of the discharge point of interest. The mass loading model assessment (Geosyntec,
2019c) details a refined analysis based on additional field sampling, whereas the previous
analysis (Geosyntec, 2019a) was based on less data.
The NPDES permit application also includes a mass loading memorandum from
Geosyntec (Geosyntec, 2019b) that includes the HFPO-DA pathways mass loadings
including the off -site groundwater, old outfall 002 and Georgia Branch Creek. An
updated mass loading model analysis of estimated 7Q 10 HFPO-DA concentrations in the
Cape Fear River will be provided (Geosyntec 2019c) separately.
2.1.5 Additional CORMIX Model Inputs
The CORMIX model also needs to include the background pollutant concentration,
Manning's roughness coefficient, and wind speed. These were kept consistent with the
values documented in the main report. A Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.032 was
assumed for Cape Fear River. The monthly average wind speed (mph) was used as an
input into the CORMIX models, based on the historical (1984 — 2015) climate
information for Wilmington, NC from the Southeast Regional Climate Center
(https:Hsercc.com/climateinfo/historical/avp,wind.html).
A summary of the model inputs for the CORMIX model are provided in Table S. The
table combines the lowest seven-day river flow (except October which used the 7Q10)
and the coldest river temperatures with the Outfall 002 maximum discharge flow,
maximum monthly temperature and HPO-DA concentrations to create monthly worst -
case model scenarios.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 8 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul- of NC, PC
Table 5: CORMIX Model Scenarios Input.
Description
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Units
Source/Notes
Discharge Geometry
Pipe Diameter
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ft
60-inch RCP pipe (DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5)
Above or below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
NA
DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5
water surface
Height of Pipe
ft NAVD
Above River
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
17.14
88
DWG No W1712043 Rev 5
Bottom
Distance of pipe
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ft
Pipe is flush with the bank (DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5)
from bank
Type of diffuser
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No diffuser at Outfall 002 (DWG No W 1712043 Rev 5)
Horizontal angle
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
degree
DWG No W1712043 Rev 5
Vertical angle
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
-1.655
degree
DWG No W1712043 Rev 5
Discharge Flow
Flow Rate
32.2
36.6
36.9
36.9
44.1
48.1
45.1
44.1
46.6
38.1
43.9
38.0
cfs
The 99' percentile flow for each month
Temperature
18
16
16
21
29
32
31
31
31
28
20
18
Celsius
Monthly Maximum discharge temperature, based on monitoring
from 2018 to 2019
Monthly Maximum discharge concentration, based on
monitoring from 2018 to 2019, the background concentration is
Concentration
340
350
290
350
370
220
110
230
310
400
390
710
ng/L
subtracted from these values to obtain the excess concentration
for CORMIX input. 157.2 ng/L is the average discharge
concentration for October.
Nearest Bank
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
NA
DWG No W1712043 Rev 5
Receiving
Water
Flow Rate
1,169
1,771
2,347
1,260
1,065
861
874
918
643
467
777
1,048
cfs
7Q10 is used for October 10-percentile 7-day average flow was
used for December and January.
Background
Based on mass loading analysis, worst -case concentration from
Concentration
33
22
16
30
36
45
44
42
60
82
49
37
ng/L
upstream of Outfall 002. The worst case is defined as 1-st
quartile value.
Average Depth
19.72
20.21
20.59
19.80
19.63
19.42
19.43
19.48
19.16
18.92
19.33
19.61
ft, N8A8VD
Calculated from USGS rating curve
Depth at
19.72
20.21
20.59
19.80
19.63
19.42
19.43
19.48
19.16
18.92
19.33
19.61
ft, NAVD
The same as average discharge
discharge
88
Average Width
153.76
154.99
155.91
153.97
153.53
153.04
153.07
153.18
152.41
151.81
152.81
153.49
ft
Calculated by dividing the cross-section area below 7Q10 by the
average depth
Ambient
5.8
8.5
12.1
17.1
21.6
25.2
27.2
27.1
24.3
19.0
13.7
8.2
Celsius
Monthly minimum water temperature at USGS Gage 0210550 at
Temperature
William O Huske Dam*
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 9 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
Description
January
February
March
April
May
June
I July
August
September
October
November
December
Units
Source/Notes
Discharge Geometry
Manning's n
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.032
NA
Calculated by dividing the cross-section area below 7Q10 by the
average depth
Wind Speed
9
9.6
9.9
10.1
9.1
8.4
7.9
7.3
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.4
mph
Average wind speed in the corresponding month at Wilmington,
NC
Output steps per
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,.000
1,000
module
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 10 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
3 CORMIX RESULTS
The CORMIX model results were used to predict the effluent plume characteristics and
dispersion in the Cape Fear River for each of the model scenarios described above in
Table 5. The scenario for October was determined to be the worst -case scenario based
on the results described below. The model results for the scenarios are presented in
Appendix B and summary is provided below.
3.1 Simulated Plume Result
In the 7Q 10 (October) CORMIX model scenario, the results show the near -surface
discharge from Outfall 002 into the Cape Fear River creates a positively buoyant plume
into a uniform density receiving water. For the first 8.5 meters downstream of the outfall,
the effluent plume behaves like a momentum jet spreading both laterally and vertically
due to turbulent mixing in the near -field region. This constitutes the near field region
(NFR) for the plume. The plume is vertically mixed at the edge of the NFR. The travel
time to the edge of the NFR is about 1.5 minutes. The plume will continue to stay
vertically mixed up to 11.2 meters downstream of Outfall 002.
After this distance, the model predicts the plume will experience buoyant (i.e., the diluted
plume still has enough density difference to be buoyant) ambient spreading where it
spreads laterally and stratifies into a uniform -density layer. The plume becomes
horizontally mixed across the width of the channel at 22.1 meters downstream of Outfall
002, at which point the plume is stratified to a depth of 4.4 meters below the water surface.
The plume is not vertically mixed at this location because of the plume buoyancy. The
predicted travel time to 18.6 meter downstream of the outfall is 4.9 minutes.
After this distance, the plume reaches a buoyant equilibrium level and hence is not diluted
further until it reaches the William O. Huske Dam. While the CORMIX model does not
simulate the impact of the dam on the plume, the river would be contracted into a
narrower channel cross-section with increased velocities just upstream of the dam. This
would conceptually result in complete mixing of the effluent plume at the dam structure,
which is 450 meters downstream of Outfall 002.
The model simulated dilution downstream of Outfall 002 is illustrated in Figure 2 as a
three-dimensional (3-D) representation of the plume in the Cape Fear River. Figure 3
shows the longitudinal profile of the extent of the upper and lower plume boundaries as
well as calculated specific gravity of the plume.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 11 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
it()
GeN Cooc 220 Wamrgso
nnaa.�a
D!!uf(onS Rnw oaae IVR= o�gm amelmn eannm --- eluma wmanme m.�aaa to - avm�
7.0 1.3 1.7 22 2.8 3.7 4.8 6.2 8.0 nRMI smw Fen mn unaemm --- as Rom, RAa RpinnwFR) >=ansmGeo.�> ago �aaa�nad
r --- COImM Motlule BounEary
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! PSORIon Scale: V,X=1 Z,X=1
Yieuafizalion upto X=1 �� m lout d R01 X= 6W m)
Figure 2: Three -Dimensional Representation of Simulated Dilution of the Plume
from Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River.
—
10
1
1.0000
%
1
1 I
E
0
8
i
0.9995
11
0
0
7 1'
I
-
w
a`j
6
0.9990
0
5
I
0
f
4 1
1
i Near Field Region Edge
0.9985
ru
3
U
0
Distance at which horizontal
`~
2 :.
mixing is achieved
0.9980
ra
N_
1 -
j .......-..................................
CL
to
0
-.1
0.9975
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance Downstream from Outfall 002
—Upper Boundary of Plume Lower Boundary of Plume
Specific gravity of plume
Figure 3: Longitudinal Representation of the Plume from Outfall 002 in the Cape
Fear River.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 12 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
3.2 Centerline Dilution Factor
In the 7Q10 (October) CORMIX model scenario, the results show the centerline dilution
of the effluent plume from Outfall 002 in the Cape Fear River during the 7Q10 river flow
conditions. The simulated center line dilution is shown in Figure 4. The model predicts a
dilution of 4.9 at the edge of the NFR at 8.5 meters downstream of Outfall 002. The
predicted dilution at 18.6 meters, where the plume is mixed horizontally across the
channel, is 7.3. This is the worst -case scenario due to a combination of low river flow,
buoyancy and high effluent HFPO-DA concentration.
8
7
6 r I
0 5 Complete Horizontal Mixing: 18.5 m, 7.3
� I
0 4
.2
n~—I
Q 3
2 Edge of Near Field Region: 8.5 m, 4.9
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance Downstream of Outfall 002, m
Figure 4: Simulated Center Line Dilution of the Discharge Plume from Outfall 002
in the Cape Fear River.
To determine the concentration of any given water quality constituent at a given distance
downstream of the outfall, the effluent concentration is divided by the corresponding
dilution factor shown in Figure 5.
3.3 HFPO-DA Concentration
In the 7Q10 (October) CORMIX model scenario, the simulated HFPO-DA concentration
with respect to the distance downstream of Outfall 002 was calculated and is illustrated
in Figure 5. The North Carolina Provisional Health Goal for HFPO-DA (140 ng/L) is
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 13 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosy.- G1n511—t, of NC, PG
met 9.5 meters downstream of Outfall 002 assuming an 82 ng/L background (upstream)
concentration. The estimated travel time to this location is about 116 seconds.
450
J
400
c
350
O
300
c 250
v
U
0 200
Q 150
100
d
= 50
X1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance Downstream of Outfall 002, m
HFPO-DA Concentration, ng/L — — — NC Provisional Health Goal
Figure 5: Simulated Center Line Concentration of HFPO-DA Downstream of
Outfall 002.
3.4 Temporal Variation
In addition to the 7Q10 CORMIX model scenario, additional CORMIX models
simulating the respective flow and concentration were completed to ensure the mixing
zone proposed based on the 7Q10 scenario is a conservative, yet realistic worst -case
scenario. The results from the additional CORMIX model scenarios were summarized in
Table 6.
As shown in the table, the largest distance it takes for the HFPO-DA concentration to be
diluted to below the NC provisional health goal of 140 ng/L throughout the year is 18.9
m for the December scenario with the mean effluent discharge.
The lowest dilution and longest time to reach the NC provisional health goal is in October,
7Q10 river flow conditions with the discharge flow rate at the 99th percentile of the
discharge flow rate in October from 2006 to 2019.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 14 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
Table 6: CORMIX Model Scenario Results.
Distance to
Time to
Excess HFPO-
reach NC
NC
Scenario
DA Effluent
Provisional
Provision
ation,
Concentration,
Health
al Health
g
Goal,
Goal, In
January
307
4.56
55
February
328
5.36
23
March
274
3.68
14
April
320
5.48
29
May
334
6.09
35
June
175
1.82
15
July2
66
None
None
August
188
2.24
17
September
250
4.95
43
October
318
9.5
116
November
341
7.48
53
December
673
17.73
109
'Excess HFPO-DA concentrations were calculated by subtracting the background concentration
from the maximum effluent concentration for each scenario.
'In the July COMMIX model scenario, the excess effluent concentration (69 ng/L) is already lower
than the dilution target concentration of 99 ng/L, as such, no dilution is needed.
4 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Geosyntec conducted a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) to calculate the WQBELs
based on the applicable standards and the mixing zone study analysis for Outfall 002
presented in this report. The results of this analysis are presented below.
4.1 Mixing Zone
NCDEQ permits the size of the chronic mixing zone for wastewater discharges on a case -
by -case basis considering the type of receiving waters, outfall configuration, effluent
characteristics, extent of mixing/dilution, and specific aquatic resources concerns (e.g.
sensitive area, recreational use, and navigation.
To establish the acute mixing zone NCDEQ utilizes the recommendations provided in
EPA's "Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control" (EPA,
1991).
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 15 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
The model results show the plume is horizontally mixed across the width of channel at
18.6 meters downstream of the outfall. The predicted dilution at this location is 7.3. Hence
a conservative chronic mixing zone of 18.6 meters is proposed for the Outfall 002 for
calculating WQBELs. The proposed chronic mixing zone is shown in Figure 6.
The acute mixing zone or zone of initial dilution (ZID) was calculated based on the
recommendation provided in EPA's "Technical Support Document (TSD) for Water
Quality -Based Toxics Control" (EPA, 1991) document. The TSD suggests that the ZID
is limited to the more restrictive of the following conditions:
• 10% of the chronic mixing zone length (10% of 18.6 m = 1.9 m),
• 50 times the discharge length' scale in any direction (50*sgrt (1.8 m2) = 67 meters
or), or
• 5 times the local water depth (5*5.8 feet = 29 meters).
Hence, an acute mixing zone of 1.9 meters is proposed. The predicted dilution at the edge
of the acute mixing zone is 2.4 and the travel time is 26 seconds.
NCDEQ mixing zone regulations also require that mixing zones not endanger public
health or welfare. There are no drinking water intakes located in the proposed acute and
chronic mixing zones.
' The discharge scale is defined as square root of cross -sectional area of discharge pipe.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 16 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
Wes"'
Figure 6: Proposed Chronic Mixing Zone Location for Outfall 002 at Chemours
Fayetteville Works.
4.2 Results of RPA Analysis
Appendix A presents a side by side comparison of the Outfall 002 NPDES permit
application to Form 2C water quality parameter analytical results, water quality standards
and calculated water quality based effluent limit.
The results of the RPA analysis show the Outfall 002 effluent will meet the instream
water quality standard except for total chlorine residual and dichlorobromomethane. The
reported effluent concentrations for total chlorine residual and dichlorobromomethane are
currently being analyzed for potential analytical interference as indicated in Section 2.
The concentration of these parameters will be reduced in the effluent by optimizing the
chlorine dosing and it is believed that this optimization will allow the discharge to meet
the instream water quality standards.
4.3 Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits (WQBEL)
A dilution of 7.6 at the edge of proposed chronic mixing zone was used to calculate the
WQBELs based on the water quality standards provided in Appendix A. The water
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 17 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
quality standards and the calculated WQBELs for the six critical parameters identified
above. are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Water Oualitv-Based Effluent Limits for Critical Parameters.
Chronic
Water Quality -Based
Water Quality
Effluent Limit
Standard
(ug/L)
Permit List
(u /L)
Total Residual Chlorine
17
124.1
Mercury
0.012
0.0876
Chlorodibromomethane
0.8
5.84
Dichlorobromomethane
0.95
6.935
Iron
1,000
7,300
Manganese
50
365
4.4 Results of RPA Analysis
The results of RPA Analysis show the Outfall 002 effluent will meet the instream water
quality standard except for total chlorine residual and dichlorobromomethane. The
reported effluent concentrations for total chlorine residual and dichlorobromomethane are
currently being analyzed for potential analytical interference as indicated in Section 2.
The concentration of these parameters will be reduced in the effluent by optimizing the
chlorine dosing and it is believed that this optimization will allow the discharge to meet
the instream water quality standards.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The results of the RPA Analysis show the Outfall 002 effluent (2C Compounds) will meet
the instream water quality standard except for total chlorine residual and
dichlorobromomethane (Appendix A).
In this addendum, the feedback from NCDEQ regarding the original report submitted in
July 2019 was addressed:
• The worst -case scenario was updated such that the maximum HFPO-DA
concentration during low flow period (October) was used in the model;
• Scenarios throughout each month of the year were investigated to address the
temporal variation of ambient conditions and potential other worst -case scenarios;
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 18 October 2019

Geosyntec
consultants
Geosynrec Consul— of NC, PC
• The HFPO-DA background concentration in the Cape Fear River was updated in
the analyses based on the latest mass loading model (Geosyntec, 2019c).
Based on the results from the mixing zone analyses, the concentration of HFPO-DA was
diluted to below the North Carolina Provisional Health Goal (140 ng/L) at the end of the
proposed mixing zone (18.6 m) in the simulated scenarios presented above, including the
worst -case scenario when also considering HFPO-DA contribution upstream of Outfall
002. A water quality analysis is presented for the HFPO-DA in the updated mass loading
memorandum (Geosyntec, 2019c) that incorporates the total HFPO-DA upstream and
downstream mass loadings from Geosyntec August Mass Loading Model (Geosyntec
2019b) under 7Q 10 river flow conditions will be provided separately.
6 REFERENCES
Chemours, 2016. NPDES Permit Renewal Application NPDES Permit No. NC0003573.
Submitted to NCDEQ Division of Water Resources, May 2016.
Doneker, R.L. and G.H. Jirka (Doneker and Jirka), 2007. CORMIX User Manual: A
Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant
Discharges into Surface Waters, EPA-823-K-07-001, Dec. 2007.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Technical Support Document for Water
Quality -Based Toxics Control. Office of Water. Washington DC. EPA/505/2-90-001.
Geosyntec, 2019a. Cape Fear River HPFO-DA and PFMOAA Mass Loading Assessment
Summary, Submitted to Chemours Company FC, LLC, July 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019b. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and
Paragraph 11.1 Characterization of PFAS at Intakes, Chemours Fayetteville, NC,
Submitted to Chemours Company FC, LLC, August 2019.
Geosyntec, 2019c. Cape Fear River HPFO-DA Mass Loading Assessment Summary,
Submitted to Chemours Company FC, LLC, October 2019.
NCDEQ 1999. Mixing Zone in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality. July 1999.
Fayetteville Works Mixing Zone Report Addendum 19 October 2019

APPENDIX A
Calculated Water Quality Based Effluent
Limits for 2C Compounds

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Table B
10000
2500
10000
U
73000
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Table B
0.17
0.17
U
1.24
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Table B
0.55
2300
0.55
U
4.02
1,1-dichloroethane
Table B
6
6
U
43.8
1,1-dichloroethylene
Table B
300
300
U
2190
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Table B
0.076
61
0.076
U
0.55
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Table B
3000
3000
U
21900
1,2-dichloroethane
Table B
9.9
9.9
U
72.27
1,2-dichloropropane
Table B
0.9
0.9
U
6.57
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Table B
0.03
0.03
U
0.22
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Table B
10
10
U
73
1,3-dichloropropylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Table B
900
900
U
6570
2,2-dichloropropionic acid
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophen
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
2,4,5-TP [2-(2,4,5-trichloropl
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Table B
2.8
2.8
U
20.44
2,4-D
Table D
70
12000
60
70
U
511
2,4-dichlorophenol
Table B
60
60
U
438
2,4-dimethyl phenol
Table B
100
100
U
730
2,4-dinitrophenol
Table B
10
10
U
73
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Table B
0.049
0.049
U
0.36
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Table B
0.048
0.048
U
0.35
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
2-chloronaphthalene
Table B
800
110
800
U
5840
2-chlorophenol
Table B
800
800
U
5840
2-nitrophenol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Table B
0.049
0.049
U
0.36

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
3,4-benzofluoranthene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4,4'-DDD
Table B
0.00012
0.00012
U
0
4,4'-DDE
Table B
0.000018
0.000018
U
0
4,4'-DDT
Table B
0.0002
0.0002
U
0
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4-bromophenyl phenyl ethei
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
4-nitrophenol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Acenaphthene
Table B
70
60
70
U
511
Acenaphthylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Acetaldehyde
Table D
970
970
U
7081
Acrolein
Table B
3
0
3
U
21.9
Acrylonitrile
Table B
0.061
0.061
U
0.45
Aldrin
Table B
0.00005
0.00005
U
0
Allyl alcohol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Allyl chloride
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Alpha, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Aluminum
Table C
6500
6500
222
47450
Amyl acetate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Aniline
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Anthracene
Table B
300
0.05
300
U
2190
Antimony
Table B
5.6
5300
5.6
U
40.88
Arsenic
Table B
10
10
0.75
73
Asbestos
Table D
0
0
U
0
Barium
Table C
1000
21000
1000
23.5
7300
Benzene
Table B
1.19
1.19
U
8.69
Benzidine
Table B
0.00014
0.00014
U
0
Benzo anthracene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzo fluoranthene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Benzo perylene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzo pyrene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzonitrile
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Benzyl chloride
Table D
0.2
0.2
U
1.46
Beryllium
Table B
6.5
6.5
U
47.45
Beta, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis ether
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis ether
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis methane
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bis phthalate
Table B
No Standard
7
No Standard
Boron
Table C
150
150
26.2
1095
Bromide
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Bromoform
Table B
7
7
U
51.1
Butyl acetate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Butylamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Cadmium
Table B
0.15
0
0.15
U
1.1
Captan
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Carbaryl
Table D
2.1
0.67
2.1
U
15.33
Carbofuran
Table D
9.7
9.7
U
70.81
Carbon disulfide
Table D
100
100
U
730
Carbon tetrachloride
Table B
0.254
0
560
0.254
U
1.85
Chlordane
Table B
0.0008
0
0.0008
U
0.01
Chlorine, total residual
Table C
17
17
270**
124.1
Chlorobenzene
Table B
488
800
488
U
3562.4
Chlorodibromomethane
Table B
0.8
0.8
1.68**
5.84
Chloroethane
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Chloroform
Table B
60
60
51.5
438
Chlorpyrifos
Table D
0
0
U
0

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Chromium, total
Table B
No Standard
1.1
No Standard
Chrysene
Table B
0
0
0
U
0
Cobalt
Table C
3
3
0.64
21.9
Color
Table C
No Standard
35
No Standard
Copper
Table B
2.74
2.74
U
20
Coumaphos
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Cresol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Crotonaldehyde
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Cyanide, total
Table B
5
5
U
36.5
Cyclohexane
Table D
230
230
U
1679
Diazinon
Table D
0.17
0.17
0.17
U
1.24
Dibenzo anthracene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dicamba
Table D
200
200
U
1460
Dichlobenil
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dichlone
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dichlorobromomethane
Table B
0.95
0.55
0.95
14.1**
6.94
Dichlorvos
Table D
0
0
U
0
Dieldrin
Table B
0.00005
0.00005
U
0
Diethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Diethyl phthalate
Table B
600
1200
600
U
4380
Dimethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dimethyl phthalate
Table B
2000
3400
2000
U
14600
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Table B
20
20
U
146
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Dintrobenzene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Diquat
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Disulfoton
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Diuron
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Endosulfan
Table B
0.05
0.05
U
0.37

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Endrin
Table B
0.002
0.002
U
0.01
Endrin aldehyde
Table B
1
1
U
7.3
Epichlorohydrin
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Ethion
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Ethylbenzene
Table B
68
97
68
U
496.4
Ethylene diamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Ethylene dibromide
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Fecal Coliform
Table C
200
200
U
1460
Fluoranthene
Table B
20
0.11
20
U
146
Fluorene
Table B
50
30
50
U
365
Fluoride
Table C
1800
1800
520
13140
Formaldehyde
Table D
1200
1200
U
8760
Furfural
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Guthion
Table D
0.01
0.01
U
0.07
Heptachlor
Table B
0.00008
0.00008
U
0
Heptachlor epoxide
Table B
0.000032
0.000032
U
0
Hexachlorobenzene
Table B
0.000079
0.000079
U
0
Hexachlorobutadiene
Table B
0.44
0.44
U
3.21
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Table B
4
4
U
29.2
Hexachloroethane
Table B
0.1
0.1
U
0.73
Indeno pyrene
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Iron
Table C
1000
1000
1050
7300
Isophorone
Table B
34
34
U
248.2
Isoprene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Isopropanolamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Kelthane
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Kepone
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Lead
Table B
0.54
0.54
U
3.94
Magnesium
Table C
No Standard
2790
No Standard

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Malathion
Table D
0.1
0.1
U
0.73
Manganese
Table C
50
50
121
365
Mercaptodimethur
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Mercury
Table B
0.012
0.012
0.051
0.09
Methoxychlor
Table D
0.03
0.02
0.03
U
0.22
Methyl bromide
Table B
100
0.04
100
U
730
Methyl chloride
Table B
2.6
2.6
U
18.98
Methyl mercaptan
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Methyl methacrylate
Table D
9600
9600
U
70080
Methyl parathion
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Methylene chloride
Table B
20
11000
20
U
146
Mevinphos
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Mexacarbate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Molybdenum
Table C
160
160
0.81
1168
Monoethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Monomethyl amine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Naled
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Naphthalene
Table B
12
12
U
87.6
Naphthenic acid
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Nickel
Table B
16.1
4600
16.1
1.6
117.53
Nitrate nitrogen
Table C
10000
10000
1100
73000
Nitrobenzene
Table B
10
4600
10
U
73
Nitrogen, total organic
Table C
No Standard
530
No Standard
Nitrotoluene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Table B
0.00069
0.00069
U
0.01
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Table B
0.005
0.005
U
0.04
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Table B
3.3
290
3.3
U
24.09
Oil and Grease
Table C
0
0
U
0
Parathion
Table D
0.013
0.013
U
0.09

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
PCB-1016
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1221
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1232
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1242
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1248
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1254
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
PCB-1260
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
p-chloro-m-cresol
Table B
No Standard
U
No Standard
Pentachlorophenol
Table B
0.04
0.04
U
0.29
Phenanthrene
Table B
0.7
0.7
U
5.11
Phenol
Table B
4000
4000
U
29200
Phenolic Compounds
Table B
300
300
U
2190
Phenolsulfonate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Phosgene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Phosphorus, total
Table C
No Standard
460
No Standard
Propargite
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Propylene oxide
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Pyrene
Table B
20
20
U
146
Pyrethrins
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Quinoline
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Radium 226, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Radium, total
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Resorcinol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Selenium
Table B
5
170
5
U
36.5
Silver
Table B
0.06
0.06
U
0.44
Strontium
Table D
14000
14000
U
102200
Strychnine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Styrene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Sulfates
Table C
250000
250000
32100
1825000

Constiuent
EPA Table ID
NCO2B
Standards*
(ug/L)
EPA RWQC*
(ug/L)
NC
Instream
Target
Values*
u /L
Water Quality
Standard
(ug/L)
Effluent Daily
Maximum
Value***
(ug/L)
WQBEL
(ug/L)
Sulfide (as S)
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Sulfite (as S03)
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
Surfactants
Table C
No Standard
U
No Standard
TIDE (tetrachlorodiphenyl etl
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Tetrachloroethylene
Table B
0.7
0.7
U
5.11
Thallium
Table B
2
2
U
14.6
Titanium
Table C
No Standard
7.8
No Standard
Trichlorofon
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Toluene
Table B
11
57
0
11
U
80.3
Toxaphene
Table B
0.0002
0.0007
0.0002
U
0
Trichloroethylene
Table B
2.5
0
2.5
U
18.25
Triethanolamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Triethylamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Trimethylamine
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Uranium
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Vanadium
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Vinyl acetate
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Xylene
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Vinyl chloride
Table B
0.025
0.025
U
0.18
Xylenol
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Zirconium
Table D
No Standard
U
No Standard
Zinc
Table B
36.2
36.2
9.4
264.26
Tin
Table C
770
770
U
5621
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexar
Table B
0.00036
0.00036
U
0
alpha-endosulfan
Table B
20
20
U
146
b- Hexachlorocyclohexane
Table B
55
55
U
401.5
beta-endosulfan
Table B
0
0
U
0
Lindane, g-BHC
I Table B
1 0.01
1
1
1 0.01
1 U
1 0.07
d- Hexachlorocyclohexane
I Table B
I
1
1 40
1 40
1 U
1 292

NC
Effluent Daily
NCO2B
EPA RWQC*
Instream
Water Quality
Maximum
WQBEL
Constiuent
EPA Table ID
Standards*
(ug/L)
Target
Standard
Value***
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
Values*
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
u /L
*Chronic criterion
**Will be lowered after chlorine dosage is optimized
***Based on 2019 effluent sampling

APPENDIX B
CORMIX Modeling Files

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT E-2
MASS LOADING LOW FLOW ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
UPDATE
November 2019

Mass Loading Low Flow Assessment Summary
Memorandum
Date: 31 October 2019
To: Chemours Company FC, LLC
Subject: Cape Fear River HFPO-DA
Mass Loading Low Flow Assessment Summary
1. INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec
consultants
ceosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC (Geosyntec) has prepared this memorandum for The
Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours) for the Fayetteville Works facility (the Site)
in Bladen County, North Carolina. This document summarizes a mass loading
assessment of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) to the Cape Fear River
(CFR) at low flow conditions for each month of the year based on the mass loading
analysis presented in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and
Paragraph IL I Characterization ofPFAS at Intakes report (PFAS Mass Loading Model;
Geosyntec, 2019).
This assessment examines the estimates of HFPO-DA concentrations in the Cape Fear
River by using the results of the PFAS Mass Loading Model to estimate concentrations
at monthly low river flow conditions. Since late 2017 as the facility terminated process
water discharges to the river HFPO-DA concentrations measured at downstream raw
water intakes in the Cape Fear River have been below 140 nanograms per liter (ng/L);
Figure 1. Mass loading estimates presented here demonstrate that actions Chemours is
taking will support maintaining HFPO-DA concentrations below the health advisory goal
set by the NC Department of Health and Human Services in the Cape Fear River.
Additionally, Chemours has committed to taking actions within the next five years that
will reduce the total per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mass reaching the Cape
Fear River, from the Site, by over 50 percent.
2. PFAS TRANSPORT PATHWAYS
Nine general transport pathways for PFAS originating from the Site to the Cape Fear
River, upstream and downstream of Outfall 002, have been identified as described below
and conceptually illustrated in Figure 2:
1. Upstream Cape Fear River and Groundwater — pathway is comprised of
contributions from non-Chemours related PFAS sources on the Cape Fear River
Page 1 October 2019

Geosyntec
Mass Loading Low Flow Assessment Summary consultants
ceosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
and tributaries upstream of the Site, and upstream offsite groundwater with Table
3+ compounds present from aerial deposition
2. Willis Creek — Groundwater and stormwater discharge and aerial deposition to
Willis Creek and then to the Cape Fear River
3. Direct aerial deposition of PFAS on the Cape Fear River;
4. Outfall 002 — Comprised of (i) water drawn from the Cape Fear River and used
as non -contact cooling water, (ii) treated non-Chemours process water and (iii)
Site stormwater which are then discharged through Outfall 002;
5. Onsite Groundwater — Direct upwelling of site groundwater to Cape Fear River
from Black Creek Aquifer;
6. Seeps — Groundwater Seeps (currently identified seeps are A, B, C and D) above
the Cape Fear River water level on the bluff face from the facility that discharge
into the Cape Fear River;
7. Old Outfall 002 — Groundwater discharge to Old Outfall 002 and stormwater
runoff flows into the Cape Fear River;
8. Offsite Groundwater -Adjacent and Downstream— Offsite groundwater adjacent
and downstream of the Site upwelling to the Cape Fear River; and,
9. Georgia Branch Creek— Groundwater, stormwater discharge and aerial deposition
to Georgia Branch Creek and then to the Cape Fear River.
3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLGY
HFPO-DA concentrations were estimated for each month of the year using assumptions
focusing on high concentration and low river flow scenarios. The following information
sources were used to develop these estimates:
a) The estimated mass loading to the Cape Fear River using the results of the June
2019 quarterly mass loading assessment event described in the Mass Loading
Model (Geosyntec, 2019).
b) The I01h percentile, seven-day average river flows for each month of the year
except for October where a lower value, the 7Q 10 flow value, was used. The
7Q 10 represents the lowest 7-day average flow throughout the year with a
recurrence interval of once in every 10 years. Based on the record of historical
flows, this low flow occurs in October.
Page 2 October 2019

Geosyntec
Mass Loading Low Flow Assessment Summary consultants
ceosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
c) The 99tb percentile Outfall 002 daily flow from each month based on data recorded
at the Site since 2006.
d) The maximum monthly Outfall 002 concentration recorded between May 2018
and June 2019.
4. CAPE FEAR RIVER HFPO-DA ESTIMATES
This assessment evaluated the following scenarios to understand potential future HFPO-
DA loadings to the Cape Fear River:
1. June 2019 sampling event HFPO-DA mass balance model calibration
2. Hypothetical Mass Loading Scenarios
a. Low River Flow (monthly 10th percentile and 7Q 10 in October) and high
Outfall 002 loading, with Old Outfall 002 Reductions
b. Low River Flow (monthly 10' percentile and 7Q 10 in October) and high
Outfall 002 loading, with Old Outfall 002, Seeps and Outfall 002
Reductions
4.1 June 2019 Calibration
In this assessment the mass loading model in the CFR was calibrated using the June 2019
HFPO-DA data. For the three data sets examined in the Mass Loading Model, the June
data set had the highest measured mass loading of HFPO-DA in the Cape Fear River and
was therefore chosen as the most conservative scenario to evaluate. The data was
collected between June 4th and June 7th and represent a time period when the third quartile
of the river flow was representative. The HFPO-DA and mass flux were used to calibrate
the mass balance model so that the "Total Estimated Mass Loading and Corresponding
River Concentration" was as closed as possible to the "Measured Concentration and Flow
Down -River 5 Miles and Calculated Mass Loading" (Table 1). The measured HFPO-DA
concentration in the river was 57 ng/L which is close to the estimated concentration of 55
ng/L, indicating the 3rd quartile of the river flow data provides a good calibration for mass
loading calculations for this time period when examining the HFPO-DA data.
4.2 Low River Flow (monthly loth percentile and 7Q10 in October) and high Outfall
002 loading, with Old Outfall 002 Reductions
The first hypothetical mass loading scenario section examined was the potential
maximum HFPO-DA concentrations in the CFR under low flow conditions with 99%
reduction Old Outfall 002 loading. The hypothetical conditions were constructed using
over 10 years of Outfall 002 discharge flow data to determine the 99th percentile
discharge flow; the maximum Outfall 002 HFPO-DA concentration for each month based
Page 3 October 2019

Geosyntec
Mass Loading Low Flow Assessment Summary consultants
ceosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
on data from 2018 and 2019 and the loth percentile low river flow, except for October
where we used the 7Q 10 river flow was used.
Monthly 99th percentile of Outfall 002 (mgd, million gallons per day)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
20.84
23.67
23.83
23.84
28.49
31.10
29.13
28.53
30.14
24.61
28.40
24.56
The results of the analysis (Table 2) show that for each month the HFPO-DA
concentration estimated is below 140 ng/L, except in October, when under 7Q10
conditions the concentration is 142 ng/L.
4.3 Low River Flow (monthly loth percentile and 7Q10 in October) and high Outfall
002 loading, with Old Outfall 002, Seeps and Outfall 002 Reductions
The second hypothetical mass loading scenario examined was the same as the second but
with additional load reductions in Outfall 002 and the four Seeps enter the river. The
results (Table 3) show the monthly maximum concentration well below the health
advisory goal set by the NC Department of Health and Human Services of 140 ng/L, with
the highest value in October at 108 ng/L.
5. CLOSING REMARKS
This memorandum details an assessment of several hypothetical HFPO-DA mass loading
scenarios to the Cape Fear River and the benefit reduction actions Chemours has
committed to implement including (i) capturing and treating to 99% removal of HFPO-
DA the dry weather flow of the Old Outfall 002, reducing by 95% PFAS mass loading
from the onsite groundwater seeps to the Cape Fear River, and a series of five actions to
reduce PFAS loading from Outfall 002 (Geosyntec, 2019b). These benefits will reduce
the mass loadings of PFAS associated with the Site to the Cape Fear River. These benefits
were estimated using a PFAS Mass Loading Model that accounts for identified PFAS
transport pathways to the Cape Fear River for PFAS originating from Site.
Figure 3 shows a bar chart comparison of the hypothetical mass loading scenarios and
their impacts on the immediate river concentration at the Site.
Further, an analysis of estimated 7Q10 low river HFPO-DA concentrations in the Cape
Fear River indicates HFPO-DA will remain below the NCDHHS Health Advisory
concentration of 140 ng/L in the Cape Fear River and will continue to be lower than 140
ng/L under the treatment of Old Outfall 002, the Seeps, and partially for Outfall 002.
Page 4 October 2019

Geosyntec
Mass Loading Low Flow Assessment Summary consultants
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
References:
Geosyntec, 2019a. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Assessment and
Paragraph 11.1 Characterization of PFAS at Intakes.
Geosyntec, 2019b. Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. 26 August 2019.
Page 5 October 2019

140
J
120
0 100
80
U
O
v 60
0
0 40
20
Modeled Concentration
0 Kings Bluff Finished Water Detected Data
O Kings Bluff Raw Water Intake Detected Data
O
080
0 0
O 0 � O
8 0
o °
®� 0 8 0
0 8
° �0°0® °� ° 0 ° O
0 0 O 0% 9 o�00 ° 0 0 O 0 0
e ° �e ° C4° ° ° 0 ° 8 0
0
®08 0 ° o ° 8 ae ° 0 0 0 00 0
0 0
° Oo®� 0 0 ° 0°°0°00 0 0
0 0 9 0 8 90 00 oo 00 0
✓�� ✓� j1 y�� 9� p�,� 1 pc� p�c I,p�c 1�d�` ��r y�� ��L ✓4� ✓4/1 y�� ,S�� p�,� 20G p�c ✓d� �b 2�a� .9a,. 2�°'L
Notes:
- Modeled HFPO-DA concentrations are calculated based on calculated and estimated mass
fluxes from off -Site and on -Site groundwater, nearby tributaries, Outfall 002.
- All water intake HFPO-DA results are detected.
- Plotted Kings Bluff Data are a combined set of publicly accessed data from downriver intakes
including Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Brunswick County, Pender County and data provided directly from Cape Fear Public
Utility Authority.
Acronyms:
- HFPO-DA: Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
- ng / L: nanograms per liter
Modeled and Empirical HFPO-DA Time Series at King's Bluff
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec°
comulta,ts Figure
[:i•rn}•„[nc 1 i.ns 1 i,,,,1, of V1'. 10f
Mu, C M5 and C Z4.i
Raleigh, NC October 2019

(3) Aerial Deposition
(4) Outfall 002 (Pipe to River) - -
Non -contact cooling water from river
Non-Chemours treated process water
Stormwater
O �h
o J
eo
0 n
ca nod
ak'pier
CC
,p A
B
1I�
l erg1 (6) Seeps
er
Zone Clay SUrficial Aquif Gro�rl, ,
!fining Unit Blau leg
ick Creek Aquife emu` fer ' , _ eFeoc
GaP
�\ O'��e _
Seep D
Seep C
.O. Huske Dam
Rain
(1) Upstream
Cape Fear River

160.0
J
non 140.0
c
0
.4-
2 120.0
4-
c
a�
U
0 100.0
U
N
80.0
Q
0
O
60.0
a�
40.0
E
w
20.0
41
0.0 —
— —
\ �
� � �°met
��a�J ��a�J air �aJ
P
�a <<e�
��e O� ore ewe
■ Old Outfall 002 99% Reduction ■ Old Outfall 002 99% Reduction,
95% Seeps Reduction, and 35% Reduction in Outfall 002
Hypothetical Monthly Maximum Mass Loading
Scenarios
Acronyms:
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
- HFPO-DA: Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid;
GeosMtecll
- ng / L: nanograms per liter
Figure
- Reductions shown are based on reductions Chemours
consultants
committed to making on August 26th Reduction Plan
3
Raleigh, NC October 2019

TABLE 1 Geosyntec Consultants of N.C. PC
MASS LOADING MODEL CALIBRATED TO HFPO-DA IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER, JUNE 2019
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Concentration
Flow
Mass Loading
Estimated Contribution to
Potential Pathway
(ng/L)
(L/s)
(µg/s)
River Concentration
Up -Stream• •
(ng/L)
Willis Creek
1
:
'
Aerial Depositionon
1 1
Outfall 11
®
.1
Onsite Groundwater•
111
••
1 •
• • Outfall 11
• 11
®
11
Offisite Groundwater• • Down River)F
• _. Branch Creek•
1
1
Estimated Mass Loading and Corresponding
�otal
River Concentration
--
33,868
1,611
i
easure cen ontration and Flow Down -River 5
Miles and Calculated Mass Loading
57
32,777
1,868
57
Notes:
-Assessment is based on the third quartile of data collected from 4 June 2019 to 7 June 2019.
r Offsite groundwater concentrations presented here are based on the estimated mass loadings (flows and concentrations) for all Offsite area groupings
-- - not calculated
NA - not available
L/s - liters per second
ng/L - nanograms per liter
µg/s - micrograms per second
October 2019

TABLE 2 Geosyntec Consultants of N.C. PC
HYPOTHETICAL MASS LOADING SCENARIOS WITH OLD OUTFALL 002 REDUCTIONS: LOW RIVER FLOW, HIGH OUTFALL 002 LOADING
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
nth
®®®®®®�®
1 � �•
� �
loth Percentile River Flow, L/s*
99th Percentile Outfall 002
Discharge, L/s
Maximum HFPO-DA Discharge Concentration, ng/L1=
=
®i
®i
®i
®i
®i==®i
Outfall 002, µg/s
Estimated Up -Stream River /Groundwater, ®®®®®®®®®®®®
Contribution to River µg/s
Other Sources, µg/s ®®®®®®®®®®®®
Hypothetical Total Estimated River Concentration 53.1
OWL)
36.1
26.3
50.8
63.3
71.7
64.2
66.8
102.0
142.1
87.9
74.5
- Assessment is based on data from 2018
* October flow is the 7Q 10 flow
r Offsite groundwater concentrations presented here are based on the estimated mass loadings (flows and concentrations) for all Offsite area groupings considered.
L/s - liters per second
ng/L - nanograms per liter
µg/s - micrograms per liter
Monthly concentrations for each source are calculated from the mass loading and monthly river flow.
Reflects 99% reduction in Old Outfall 002. Reductions shown are based on reductions Chemours committed to making on August 26th Reduction Plan
October2019

TABLE 3 Geosyntec Consultants of N.C. PC
HYPOTHETICAL MASS LOADING SCENARIOS WITH MULTIPLE* REDUCTIONS: LOW RIVER FLOW, HIGH OUTFALL 002 LOADING
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Month
®®®®®®�®
1 i � •
®®
- 10th Percentile River Flow, L/s*
99th Percentile , L/s 1002
Discharge, L/s
Maximum HFPO-DA Discharge Concentration, ng/L
' MOMutfall 002, µg/s
Estimated p-Stream River /Groundwater, ®®®®®®®®®®®®
Contribution to Rive g/a
ther Sources, µg/s ®®®®®®®®®®®®
Hypothetical Total Estimated River Concentration 40.7
(ng/L)
38.8
47.9
�
50.0
77.5
107.8
66.4
-
27.6
20.2
- Assessment is based on data from 2018
* October flow is the 7Q 10 flow
r Offsite groundwater concentrations presented here are based on the estimated mass loadings (flows and concentrations) for all Offsite area groupings considered.
L/s - liters per second
ng/L - nanograms per liter
µg/s - micrograms per liter
Monthly concentrations for each source are calculated from the mass loading and monthly river flow.
*Reflects 99% reduction in Old Outfall 002, a 35% reduction in Outfall 002 and a 95% reduction in Seeps. Reductions shown are based on reductions Chemours committed to malting on August 26th Reduction Plar
October2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F
COMPOUND AND POTENTIAL COMPOUNDS INTAKE AND
OUTFALL S
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-1
CAPE FEAR RIVER WATERSHED LOW FLOW DISCHARGES
ASSESSMENT
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F.1
CAPE FEAR RIVER WATERSHED LOW FLOW
DISCHARGES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC (Geosyntec) has prepared this assessment for the Chemours
Company FC, LLC (Chemours) for the Fayetteville Works facility (the Site) in Bladen County,
North Carolina. This assessment examines the proportion of Cape Fear River flow volumes going
past the Site at low flows that may be associated with discharges from upstream permitted
municipal and industrial facilities.
The assessment was performed by first downloading municipal and industrial permitted discharges
data from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) GIS online
database. This data included design flows for the facilities but not average annual flows. Based on
GIS spatial analysis, data were segregated to identify data upstream of study site in the Cape Fear
River Watershed. The design discharges were plotted (see attached figure) and tabulated to
prepare the analysis described below and are summarized in the table on the following page.
Analysis of the tabulated data indicated there are 44 permitted discharges upstream of the Site in
the Cape Fear River watershed. The design flows of these permitted discharges total 328 million
gallons per day (MGD), or 610 cubic feet per second (cfs). In comparison, the Cape Fear River
7Q 10 value, the lowest seven-day average flow expected in a ten-year period, is 251 MGD, or 467
cfs. This assessment suggests that the total permitted discharge volume is 1.3 times as high the
river 7Q10 value; note some upstream discharges will be cycled through downstream river water
users with subsequent discharge. Also, permitted discharges may be discharging at flows less than
the design flows.
Therefore, under low flow conditions a significant portion of the Cape Fear River water passing
the Site was at a prior point in time effluent from a permitted industrial or municipal facility. At
these low flows, additional compounds previously not detected from upstream facilities may be
present in the Cape Fear River water. These chemicals would then also be potentially present in
the intake water used as non -contact cooling water that Chemours subsequently discharges through
Outfall 002.
July 2019

Municipal and Industrial Discharges (Design Flows) Upstream of Chemours
Fayetteville Works
Municipal (Major 75.3 (5) EL31.0 (21) _ 306.3 (26)
Municipal (Minor) - 2.9(7) 2.9(7)
Industrial 17.9 (i 1912 (11)
Total 76.6(6) 251.8(38) 328 (44)
River Flow at 7Q10 (467 cfs)
Percent of River at 7Q 10 131 %
2 July 2019

ei ffle N
1
homasvill
Uwharrie
National
Forest
Troy
50
0 Miles
No e
Carol na
•
Little River
ur
a�
Bulher/
• _ .__ Hillsborough
4
•
i
Cary alel
pax
Garn
y Springs
, -----—
•
"10.
c.
N { Dk.nl
•
William 0 Htu,ske
�ii Y
41T
South
Carolina
Chemours
E'sri, Garmin,)GEBCO,
another contributors
NOAA NGDC,
Red Sprif ayettevl I I,eSt P3iils
-•Ulli�.sf]III�
Works. `
S
Laurin6urg
Legend
10 s 0 10
Municipal WWTP
Industrial WWTP
Cape Fear River Watershed
Miles
(Design Flow MGD)
(Design Flow MGD)
Upper Basin
Permitted Municipal and Industrial
• 0-2
0-2
Design Flow Discharges Upstream of Site
Middle Basin
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
3-6
I 3-6
Lower Basin
Geosyntec u
• 7 - 12
' 7 - 12
Watershed Upstream of Site
consultants
MGD - millions of gallons per day
G,my mcconeu1— ofNc.vc
NC. 13--Nex r.-acnn Awn r,-vWl
13 - 21
'
13 - 21
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, NC
June 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-2
FUTURE ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F.2
FUTURE ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES
At present discharges, stormwater, groundwater and other media at the Site can be analyzed for
analytical test methods which currently exist. For per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
compounds this includes EPA Method 537.1 Mod and Table 3+. During the time of Chemours
proposed NPDES permit term, additional analytical capabilities for non-PFAS compounds may
continue to expand, including additional test methods which become available and more sensitive
laboratory methodologies. For PFAS, the number of analytes quantitated by PFAS analytical
methods may continue to expand as new PFAS compounds are identified. Additionally, the
analytical detection limits for these compounds may also become more sensitive as laboratories
improve methodologies and appropriate analytical standards are synthesized.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-3
LIST OF PFAS COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN OUTFALL 002
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.3 List of PFAS Compounds Detected in Outfall 002
The following PFAS compounds have been detected in the in Outfall 002. The calculation for the maximum values only includes detected
values. If all samples showed non -detects, the maximum of all the non -detects are listed. The calculation for the median values only includes
detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the median of the non -detects are listed. The minimum concentration is calculated as
follows: a) if the lowest detect value is lower than the lowest non -detect value, then the minimum detect concentration is listed, b) if the
lowest detect value is higher than the lowest non -detect value, then the minimum non -detect value is listed, c) if there are only non -detect
values, then the minimum non -detect value is listed, d) if there are only detect values, then the minimum detected concentration is listed.
Category
Abbreviation
CAS Number
Outfall 002
Sample Date
Start
Sample
Date End
Total Sample
Count
Median
(ng/L)
Minimum
(ng/L)
Maximum
(ng/L)
HFPO-DA*
13252-13-6
1/2/2018
5/17/2019
140
115
24
1,500
PEPA
267239-61-2
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
110
<20
1,200
PFECA-G
801212-59-9
5/3/2018
1 5/20/2019
44
<41
<2.0
<200
PFMOAA
674-13-5
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
325
70
1,300
PF02HxA
39492-88-1
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
100
25
660
PF030A
39492-89-2
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
38
6.3
190
PF04DA
39492-90-5
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
9.3
4.0
130
P M PA
13140-29-9
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
680
27
3,600
Hydro -EVE Acid
773804-62-9
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
<28
<28
<28
06
m
v
n
EVE Acid
69087-46-3
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
<24
<24
<24
PFECA B
151772-58-6
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
<60
<60
<60
r
R-EVE
EVS1428
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
<70
<70
<70
PF05DA
39492-91-6
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
56
2.4
130
Byproduct
EVS1429
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
200
<160
200
Byproducts
EVS1430
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
93
<58
93
Byproduct
EVS1431
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
<15
<15
<15
NVHOS
1132933-86-8
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
<54
<54
<54
PES
113507-82-7
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
8
<46
<46
<46
PFESA-BP1
29311-67-9
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
130
6.3
1,300
PFESA-BP2
749836-20-2
5/3/2018
5/20/2019
44
40
7.4
480
July 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.3 List of PFAS Compounds Detected in Outfall 002
The following PFAS compounds have been detected in the in Outfall 002. The calculation for the maximum values only includes detected
values. If all samples showed non -detects, the maximum of all the non -detects are listed. The calculation for the median values only includes
detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the median of the non -detects are listed. The minimum concentration is calculated as
follows: a) if the lowest detect value is lower than the lowest non -detect value, then the minimum detect concentration is listed, b) if the
lowest detect value is higher than the lowest non -detect value, then the minimum non -detect value is listed, c) if there are only non -detect
values, then the minimum non -detect value is listed, d) if there are only detect values, then the minimum detected concentration is listed.
Category
Abbreviation
CAS Number
Outfall 002
Sample Date
Start
Sample
Date End
Total Sample
Count
Median
(ng/L)
Minimum
(ng/L)
Maximum
(ng/L)
PFBA
375-22-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
7.6
4.6
240
PFDA
335-76-2
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFDoA
307-55-1
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHpA
375-85-9
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
4.7
2.1
19
PFNA
375-95-1
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
2.1
<2.0
2.1
PFOA
335-67-1
1/24/2018
5/16/2019
20
9.9
3.6
20
PFHxA
307-24-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
5.4
3.4
27
PFPeA
2706-90-3
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
5.7
4.8
21
PFTeA
376-06-7
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFTriA
72629-94-8
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFUnA
2058-94-8
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFBS
375-73-5
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
2.7
<2.0
3.4
PFDS
335-77-3
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHpS
375-92-8
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHxS
355-46-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
3.0
2.0
4.9
PFNS
68259-12-1
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
M
PFOS
1763-23-1
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
7.6
3.6
12
un
o
PFPeS
2706-91-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
v
10:2 FTS
120226-60-0
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
w
4:2 FTS
757124-72-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<20
<20
<20
6:2 FTS
27619-97-2
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<20
<20
<20
8:2 FTS
39108-34-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<20
<20
<20
NEtFOSAA
2991-50-6
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<20
<20
<20
NEtPFOSA
4151-50-2
11/20/2018
5/20/2019
3
<37
<37
<200
NEtPFOSAE
1691-99-2
11/20/2018
5/20/2019
3
<60
<60
<200
N M eFOSAA
2355-31-9
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<20
<20
<20
N M ePFOSA
31506-32-8
11/20/2018
5/20/2019
3
<35
<35
<200
N M ePFOSAE
24448-09-7
11/20/2018
5/20/2019
3
<110
<110
<200
PFDOS
79780-39-5
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHxDA
67905-19-5
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFO DA
16517-11-6
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFOSA
754-91-6
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
F-53B Major
73606-19-6
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
F-53B Minor
83329-89-9
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
ADO NA
958445-44-8
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.1
<2.1
<2.1
NaDONA
EVS1361
11/20/2018
4/8/2019
2
<2.1
<2.1
<2.1
DONA
919005-14-4
NA
NA
0
EPA -Environmental Protection Agency
ng/L - nanograms per liter
*Depending on the laboratory, HFPO-DA may also appear on the EPA Method 537 Mod analyte list
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-4
LIST OF PFAS COMPOUNDS
November 2019

Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.4 List of HAS Compounds
This list of compounds represents the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
IIIIIIIIIS
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SIDS Number
IXM
Monomers
2,2-DIFLUORO-2-(FLUOROSULFONYL)ACETIC ACID
1717-59-5
130000134179
X
2,3,3-trifluoro-3-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy)propanoic acid
z
Note 1
C6H2F1003
919005-19-9
31"a`
X
2-Bromotetrafluoropropionyl fluoride
Hexafluoropropylene oxide -Br
6129-62-0
X
A/F Col Unkn, Pentanoic acid, 2,2,4,5,5,5-hexafluoro-3-oxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-, methyl
143582-67-6
X
Methyl perfluoro-3-OXO-4-methyl pentanoate
Acetic acid, 2-(2-(difluoro(trifluoromethoxy)methoxy]-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-2-fluor
o-
Note 1
C6H2F10O5
919005-07-5
20NOr"
X
BMTK
BIS (2-METHOXYTETRAFLUOROETHYL) KETONE
1422-71-5
X
Butanoic acid, 2,2,3,4,4-pentafluoro-4-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxv) "°
C7H2F12O3
919005-26-8
32—
Note 1
C3H2F6O4S" 1
905363-45-3
2'"
Note 1
C51-12F1004S"Or"
935443-55-3
27"°'
Note 1
C5H2F803Note 1
919005-00-8 or 919005-13-3
30a"
Note 1
C51-12F806S"Or"
790642-73-8
19NO
Note 1
C5HF11O4S"Or"
NA
15"Or"
Note 1
061-12F1205S"°"'
NA
33"a"
Note 1
C6HF1104""'
NA
8"Or"
Note 1
C6HF1105""'
NA
9"a"
Note 1
C7H3F1308S2"a"
916340-65-3
24
Note 1
C7HF1305""'
NA
12
Note 1
031-12F1404S"Or"
NA
29"a"
Note 1
C8H2F34O7""'
NA
37"a"
Note
C8H2F14O75Note 1
1235024-21-1
23"a"
Note 1
CSHF1505S"Or"
NA
17"Or"
Note 1
C91-12F1606S"Or"
NA
35"Or"
Note 1
DuPont MSDS
Carbonyl fluoride
Carbonic difluoride
353-50-4
22310214
X
C5, Cyclic Sulfone
26954-17-6
X
November 2019

Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.4 List of PFAS Compounds
This list of compounds represents the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)Irl
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SDS Number
IXM
Monomers
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-[1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-[1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-
DA, Diadduct
(fluorosulphonyl)ethoxy]propozy]propionyl fluoride
4089-58-1
X
DFSA
Difluoro-sulfo-acetic acid
422-67-3
X
X
Diadduct Ester
Methyl Perfluoro(8-(Fluoroformyl)-S-Methyl-4,7-Diozanonanoate)
69116-73-0
22310189
X
Diadduct FS Ketone
82761-27-1
X
PEROXIDE, BIS[2,3,3,3-TETRAFLUORO-2- (HEPTAFLUOROPROPDXY)-1-
DP, Dinner Peroxide
OXOPROPYL]
56347-79-6
X
E-1
Ether, heptafluoropropyl 1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl
3330-15-2
X
E-2
2H-PERFLUORO(5-METHYL-3,6-DIOXANONANE)
3330-14-1
DuPont MSDS
X
X
22310545
E-3
2H-PERFLUORO(5,8-DIMETHYL-3,6,9-TRIOXADODECANE
3330-16-3
DuPont MSDS
X
22310733
Ethozy Dinner
2479-72-3
X
EVE Acid
Perflouroethoxypropionic acid
69087-46-3
X
Methyl 3-[I-[difluoro[(trifluorovinyl)oxy]methyl]-1,2,2,2-
EVE, Ester Vinyl Ether
tetrafluoroethozy]-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropionate
63863-43-4
130000015621
X
X
EVE, Rearranged
87483-35-0
X
X
Fluoroform
Trifluoromethane
75-46-7
75-46-7
X
X
3107-39-9 not reported in
Fluoromalonate
monopotassium salt, Propanedioic acid, 2-fluoro-, potassium salt (1:1)
CAS Registry File
X
SIDS ldentcode
FRD901, FRD901P
HFPO Oligomer, carboxylic acid
not in EDL, trade secret
130000051645,
X
SDS# 1336938-
00035
FRD902RECDW
62037-80-3
X
GX905C SDS
ldentcode
GX905(D&C)
ammonium salt of HFPO Oligomer and HFPO DA
not in EDL
130000118094,
X
SDS# 1340163-
Hexafluoroacetone
Hexafluoroacetone, HFA
684-16-2
X
Hexafluoroacetone Hydrate
Hexafluoroacetone Hydrate, HFA Hydrate
10543-95-0
X
Hexafluoropropylene
Hexafluoropropylene, HFP
116-15-4
130000016206
X
Hexafluoropropylene oxide Dimer Methyl Ester
13140-34-6
X
Hexafluoropropylene oxide Pentamer
34761-47-2
X
Hexafluoropropylene oxide Tetramer
27639-98-1
X
X
Hexafluoropropylene oxide Tetramer Salt
27639-98-1 Salt
X
November 2019

Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment FA List of PFAS Compounds
This list of compounds represents the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)17
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SIDS Number
IXM
Monomers
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-[1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-
Hexafluoropropylene oxide Trimer
(heptafluoropropoxy)propozy]propionyl Fluoride
2641-34-1
130000016004
X
X
Hexafluoropropylene oxide Trimer Salt
2641-34-1 salt
X
HFPO Adduct, n=1 or Propanoyl fluoride, 2-[2-
[difluoro(trifluoromethoxy)methoxy]-
HFPOAdduct,n=1
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethmy]-2,3,3,3-
39654-38-1
130000034155
X
tetrafluoro
HFPO Dinner, Acid Fluoride
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionyl Fluoride
2062-98-8
130000016230
X
X
HFPO, Hexafluoropropylene oxide
Hexafluoropropylene oxide, HFPO
428-59-1
130000015997
X
13252-13-6,
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropoxy) propionic
(67118-55-2,K+),
HFPO-DA, AKA: FRD903, C3DA, C3 Dimer Acid (+K+, NH4+salts)
acid, Hexafluoropropylene oxide dinner acid
(62037-80-3, NH4+)
X
X
Note 3
Hydro -EVE
Methyl Perfloro-5-methyl-4.7-dioxanon-8-hydroaneoate
87483-34-9
-
X
Hydro -EVE Acid
Perfluoroethoxsypropanoic acid
773804-62-9
X
X
Hydro-PEVE
Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-2-(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)-
360796-50-5
X
Hydro-PMVE
Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-2-(trifluoromethozy)-
2356-62-9
X
Hydro-PPVE
-
3330-15-2
X
Potassium salt SIDS
Identicode
Hydro-PSEPVE Acid (PFESA 2) (+salt forms)
-
acid not in EDL
130000144581,
X
SDS# 2657935-
not reported in CAS Registry
Iso-DAE
File
X
Iso-Diadduct
71371-34-1
X
Iso-EVE
Methyl Perfluoro-6-Methyl-4,7-Dioxanon-8 Eneoate
73122-14-2
-
X
X
l—HFPO Dimer
10372-97-1
X
not reported in CAS Registry
Iso-Monoadduct
File
X
not reported in CAS Registry
Iso-Monoadduct Ester
File
X
not reported in CAS Registry
Iso-PEPF
File
X
not reported in CAS Registry
Iso-PMPF
File
X
Iso-PPVE
-
10372-98-2
X
iso-PSEPVE
-
34805-58-8
X
SIDS ldentcode
Krytox K794
A brand name
51798-33-5
130000000453,
X
SDS# 1326217-
00034
Methoxy Dimer
2479-75-6
X
November 2019

Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.4 List of PFAS Compounds
This list of compounds represents the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)77
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SIDS Number
IXM
Monomers
METHYL FLUORIDE
METHANE, FLUORO-
593-53-3
X
Methyl Malonyl Fluoride
Propanoic Acid,2,2,3-Trifluoro-3-oxo, Methyl Ester, MMF
69116-71-8
130000143027
X
X
Methyl tetrafluoroethyl ether
1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethyl methyl ether, MTFE
425-88-7
X
Methyl trifluoro vinyl ether
Ethene, 1,1,2-trifluoro-2-methoxy-, MTVE
3823-94-7?
X
MMF
Difluoromalonic acid
1514-85-8
X
X
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-[1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-
Monoadduct
(fluorosulfonyl)ethmy]propanoyl fluoride
4089-57-0
X
X
Methyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-3-[(1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoro-3-oxopropan-2-
Monoadduct Ester
yl)mcy)propanoate
69116-72-9
-
X
Monoadduct Methyl Ester
63474-35-1
X
MTP
METHYL-3METHOXY-TETRAFLUOROPROPIONATE
755-73-7
X
MTP Acid
Propanoic acid, 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-3-methoxy-
93449-21-9
X
Nafion Byproduct
PFESA-BP1
29311-67-9
X
X
Naflon Byproduct
Nafion Byproduct
749836-20-2
X
X
not reported in CAS Registry
Naflon Byproduct 4
Nafion Byproduct 4
File
X
X
not reported in CAS Registry
Naflon Byproduct 5
Nafion Byproduct 5
File
X
X
not reported in CAS Registry
Naflon Byproduct 6
Nafion Byproduct 6
File
X
X
Nafion Sulfonyl
Co -polymer of TFE and PSEPVE
26654-97-7
130000034150
X
NVHOS
Perflouroethoxysulfonic acid
1132933-86-8
X
2-Methyl-4-Fluoromethyl-Fluoro O—ole, O—ole, 4,5,5-trifluoro-4,5-
O—ole, AN —ole
di hyd ro-2-methyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)-
1735-46-2
X
PEPA
Perfluoroethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
267239-61-2
X
PEPF
1682-78-6
X
Perfluoroacetyl fluoride
Trifluoroacetyfluoride, TFAF
354-34-7
DuPont MSDS
X
X
22310359
n=1 VE or Ethene or 1-[2-
[difluoro(trifluoromethoxy)methoxy]-
Perfluoroalkyl Vinyl Ether (n=1)
1,1,2,2-
39654-39-2
X
tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,2,2-trifluoro-
Perfluoroalkyl Vinyl Ether n=2, Research Sample
n=2VE
191018-25-4
130000034158
Perfluorobutanoyl Fluoride
335-42-2
X
November 2019

Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment FA List of HAS Compounds
This list of compounds represents the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)77
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SIDS Number
IXM
Monomers
n=1 VE or Ethene or 1-i2-
[difluaro(trifluoromethoxy)methoxy]-
Perfluorobutene-1
1,1,2,2-
680-54-6
x
tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,2,2-trifluoro-
Perfluorobutene-2
(E)-Perfluoro-2-butene
360-89-4
x
perfluoroethyl isopropyl ketone
perfluoroethyl isopropyl ketone, PEIPK
756-13-8
x
Perfluorohexane
355-42-0
x
Perfluoroisobutylene, PFIB
Perfluoroisobutylene
382-21-8
130000134396
x
1187-93-5
Perfluoromethyl Vinyl Ether, PMVE
PMVE
Note 3
x
Perfluoromethylcyclopropane, PMCP
Perfluoro(methylcyclopentane)
1805-22-7
x
Perfluoropentanoyl fluoride
375-62-2
x
Perfluoropropionyl fluoride, PPF
PPF
422-61-7
x
x
Perfluoropropyl Vinyl Ether, PPVE
PPVE
1623-05-8
130000017112
x
PES
Perfluoroethoxyethanesulfonic acid
113507-82-7
x
10493-43-3
PEVE, Perfluoroethyl vinyl ether
Note 3
x
PFOA
Perfluorooctanoic acid
335-67-1
x
not
not FW
PFECA B
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid
151772-58-6
or
not a FW product
byproduct
or byproduct
not a FW
PFECA-G
Perfuoro-4-isopropoxybu[anoic acid
801212-59-9
product or
not a FW product
byproduct
or byproduct
DuPont MSDS
PFIBO
707-13-1
22310217
x
PFMOAA
Perfluoro-2-methoxyaceticacid
674-13-5
x
PFO2HxA
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
39492-88-1
x
PFO3OA
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trimaoctanoic) acid
39492-89-2
x
PFO4DA
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid
39492-90-5
x
PFO5DA
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid
39492-91-6
x
PMPA
Perfluoromethoxypropyl carboxylic acid
13140-29-9
x
PMPF
2927-83-5
x
PPF Acid
Pentafluoropentionic acid
422-64-0
x
November 2019

Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.4 List of HAS Compounds
This list of compounds represents the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)77
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
SIDS Number
IXM
Monomers
2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-4-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-
not reported in CAS Registry
PSEPVE Acid, Rearranged (PFESA 3)
(fluorosulfonyl)e[hoxy)pen[anoicscid
File
X
X
2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-4-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-
not reported in CAS Registry
PSEPVE SUlfonic Acid, Rearranged (PFESA 4)
sulfoethoxy)pentanoic acid
File
X
PSEPVE, (PFESA 1)
Perfluoro-2-(2-Fluorosulfonylethoxy) Propyl Vinyl Ether
16090-14-5
130000015611
X
X
R-EVE
R-EVE
NA
X
R-PSEPVE Methyl Ester
Cnum 166755C, CAS Nr. not
X
reproted in Registry File
RSU
Difluoro(fluorosulfonyl)acetyl Fluoride
677-67-8
130000015622
X
X
RSU.SO3
FLUORODISULFURYL-DIFLUOROACETYLFLUORIDE
16798-71-3
X
SU.S03(2-Hydroxytetrafluoroethane SUlfonic Acid Pyrosultone)
1,3,2,4-Dioxadithiane, 5,5,6,6-tetrafluoro-, 2,2,4,4-tetraoxide
1858-59-9
X
TAF Acid(. salt forms), n=2
PERFLUORO-3,5,7-PROPAOXAOCTANOIC ACID
39492-89-2
X
DuPont MSDS
TAF Acid(+salt forms), n=0
Difluoro(trifluoromethoxy)-Acetic Acid
674-13-15
22310202 for K+
X
salt
TAF Acid(+salt forms), n=1
2-(difluoro(trifluoromethoxy)methoxy)-2,2-difluoroacetic acid
39492-88-1
X
TAF n=0, PMAF
2,2-difluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy)acetyl fluoride
690-43-7
130000134863
X
TAF n=1
Perfluoro-3,54oxahexanoyl fluoride
21703-43-5
130000143854
X
X
TAF n=2
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoyl fluoride
21703-43-7
DuPont MSDS
X
X
22310677
1,1,1,3,3,5,5,7,7,9,9-undecafluoro-2,4,6,8-tetraoxadecan-10-oyl
TAF n=3
fluoride
21703-47-9
X
X
TAF n=4
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoyl fluoride
21703-49-1
X
TAVE
Triadduct Vinyl Ether
16218-75-0
X
3,6,9,12-Tetraoxatetradecanoyl fluoride;
Tetra -adduct
2,4,4,5,7,7,8,10,10,11,13,13,14,14-tetradecafluoro-14-(fluorosulfonyl)-
87166-75-4
X
2,5,8,11-tetra kis(trifl uoromethyl )-
not reported in CAS Registry
Tetra -adduct Ester
File
X
TFE
tetrafluoroethylene & Carbon Dioxide mixture
116-14-3
X
X
TFE SULTONE(2-HYDROXYTETRAFLUOROETHANE SULFONIC ACID)
1,2-Oxathietane,3,3,4,4-tetrafluoro-, 2,2-dioxide
697-18-7
X
TIFF n=0, PMFF, COF2-dimer
Trifluoromethyl ester Carbonofluoridic acid
3299-24-9
X
TIFF n=1, Telomaeric FluoroFormates
Carbonofluoridic acid,difluoro(trifluoromethoxy)methyl ester
21703-41-3
X
Carbonofluoridic acid,
TIFF n=2, Telomaeric FluoroFormates
(difluoro(trifluoromethoxy)methoxy)difluoromethyl ester
21703-44-6
X
November 2019

Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.4 List of HAS Compounds
This list of compounds represents the known PFAS compounds that could be present at Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SIDS Number
IXM
Monomers
TIFF n=3, Telomaeric FluoroFormates
Curb onofluoridic acid,
[[difluoro(trifluoromethaxy)methoxy]difluoromethoxy]difluoromethyl
ester
21703-46-8
X
TIFF n=4, Telomaeric FluoroFormates
21703-48-0
X
Triadduct
TA
4628-44-8
X
Trladduct Ester
-
69116-67-2
X
Triadduct Ester Vinyl Ether
TAEVE
69116-70-7
X
Trifluoroacetic acid
Trifluoroacetic acid (& K. salt), TFA
72
(2923-16-2, K+sal[)
X
Trifluoropyruvic acid hydrate
10321-14-9
X
Trimer Vinyl Ether
1644-11-7
X
Notes
NA CAS# not available.
These compounds were identified by non -targeted analysis conducted by researchers McCord and Strynar (2019). Their compound structures have not
been fully determined. These compounds were identified in a 2017 collected water sample from the Cape Fear River at the discharge of Dutfall 002 at a
time before all PFAS process wastewaters were diverted to offsite disposal. They are not specifically utilized or deliberately produced in the manufacturing
process located at the Fayetteville Works facility, however, they have been detected in the receiving water. As methods for these compounds are further
Note 1 developed and their presence at the site substantiated additional information will be provided pursuant to the consent decree.
Note 2 McCord and Strynar (2019) Compound ID.
Chemours continues effort to identify and label compounds suspected onsite. Identifying CAS numbers is a work in progress. Approximately 50 CAS
umbers have been incorperated herein, since the July submittal. This includes for CAS numbers originally provided to NCDEQ on July 27, 2017. CAS
Note #13252-13-6, #67118-55-2, #10493-43-3, #1187-93-5.
References Strynar M. and McCord J. (2019). "Identification of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Cape Fear River by High Resolution Mass Spectrometry and
Nontargeted Screening' Environmental Science & Technology.
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-5
LIST OF MANUFACTURING CHEMICALS
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.5 List of Manufacturing Chemicals
This list of compounds represents the manufacturing compounds that could be present at Chemou rs - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SDS Number
VIA
Monomers
Maintenance
Labs
(S)-2-Oxiranylanisole
71031-03-3
130000134178
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
1,2-Dichloroethane
ETHANE, 1,2-DICHLORO-
107-06-2
X
1,2-Epoxy-3-Phenoxypropane
122-60-1
130000142867
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
1-Propanol
71-23-8
130000143019
X
2-Propanol
67-63-0
130000143020
X
ABR Agents
One ABR agent which is confidential business information.
NA
X
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
64-19-7
X
X
Acetic acid, potassium salt
Acetic acid, potassium salt
127-08-2
X
X
Acetone
67-64-1
X
Aeroshell Fluid 4
viauiie� alYeu uieuu,l, uyu,uu ce,cu
light naphthenic CAS# 64742-53.6, distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated
middle CAS#64742-46-7, Distillates (petroleum), hyd rotreated
light CAS# 64742-47-81Phenol, isobutylenated, phosphate (3:1) CAS# 68937-40-6,
NA
SDSB0000103005
8
X
X
Airl Diesel Exhaust Fluid
Urea CAS# 57-13-6 (32.5%), Water CAS3 7732-18-5 (67.5%)
NA
SDS000069553
X
Aluminum Sulfate, Solution
10043-01-3
Ammonia
Ammonia
7664-41-7
X
X
Antimony Pentafluoride
Antimony (V) Fluoride
7783-70-2
X
Bamberko 9016
Methyl Methacrylate
NA
130000142863
X
Benzene GR ACS
71-43-2
130000142846
X
Buffer Solution PH 4.0
Water CAS# 7732-18-5 (98.94%), Potassium Hydrogen Phthalate CAS# 877-24-7 (1.02%),
Formaldehyde CAS# 50-00-0 (0.04%)
NA
SDS000095651
X
X
Buffer Solution pH 7, Phosphate
Buffer
Water CAS# 7732-18-5 (99.24%),
Potassium Phosphate-Monobasic CAS# 7778-77-0 (0.68%),
Sodium Hydroxide CAS# 1310-73-2 (0.08%)
NA
SDS000095652
X
X
Buffer Solution, pH 10.00, Color-
Coded Blue
Disodium ethylenediammetetraacetate1dihydrate CAS#6381-92-6(1.0%),
Potassium carbonate CAS# 584-08-7 (0.6%),
Potassium borate CAS# 1332-77-0 (0.4%),
NA
SDS000095653
X
Calcium carbonate
471-34-1
X
Calcium Chloride
10043-52-4
SDS000095655
X
Calcium Fluoride
7789-75-5
X
Calcium sulfate
Calcium sulfate
7778-18-9
X
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.5 List of Manufacturing Chemicals
This list of compounds represents the manufacturing compounds that could be present at Chemou rs - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SOS Number
VIA
Monomers
Maintenance
Labs
Carbowax Methoxypolyethylene
Glycol 550
9004-74-4
SD5000095656
X
CGFE1
Nitric Acid CAS# 7697-37-2 (1-3%)
NA
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Chlorate ion
Chlorate
14866-68-3
X
X
Chlorine, C12
Chlorine
7782-50-5
X
X
Citric Acid, 50%Liquid
Citric Acid CAS#77-92-9 (48-52%),
Water CAS# 7732-18-5 (48-52%)
NA
130000134303
X
Coating Solution
Ethanol CAS# 64-17-5 (80-90%), Propan-2-ol CAS# 67-63-010-20%, Methanol CAS# 67-
56-1(5-10%)
NA
X
Common Salt without Additives
NA
130000142870
X
CR Polymer
NA
X
Cubed Salt with Red -Out
Sodium Chloride CAS# 7647-14-5 (99.65%),
Citric acid CAS# 77-92-9 (0.35%)
NA
130000143024
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Diethylcyclohexylamine(Different
Strength)
91-65-6
SD5000031821
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Diethylene glycol (Different Strength)
Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-
111-46-6
X
X
Dimethyl Carbonate
Carbonic acid, dimethyl ester
616-38-6
X
Dimethyl Oxalate
Dimethyl Oxalate
553-90-2
X
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
X
Dimethyl sulfoxide
Dimethyl sulfoxide
67-68-5
X
X
d-Limonene Food Grade
5989-27-5
SDS000027704
X
DMDFMAL (Dimethyl
difluoromalonate)
Difluoromalome acid dimethyl ester
379-95-3
X
X
DMM, Dimethoxymethane
Dimethoxymethane
109-87-5
X
X
DRIERITE
7778-18-9
X
EMPICOL03031VA
d-limonene, food grade d-limonene
8028-48-6
SDS000054442
X
Ethanol
Ethanol
64-17-5
X
X
Ethanol SDA 29h 200 Proof
Ethanol CAS# 64-17-5 (99%),
Ethyl methacrylate CAS# 97-63-2 (1%)
NA
130000000349
X
Ethylene Glycol Butyl Ether
111-76-2
130000024323
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.5 List of Manufacturing Chemicals
This list of compounds represents the manufacturing compounds that could be present at Chemou rs - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SOS Number
IXM
Monomers
Maintenance
Labs
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid,
EDTA
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
6381-92-6
130000144287
X
Exxon mobile IPA
67-63-0
130000031356
X
Ferric Ammonium Citrate
1185-57-5
130000134170
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Fluorosulfonic Anhydride
FSA
7789-21-1
X
X
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
X
Freon" 134a (HFC-134a) Refrigerant -
911-97-2
130000016230
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Propellant
Freon- 22 (R-22) Refrigerant
75-45-6
130000134183
X
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane�CAS# 811-97-2,
Freon' M099 (R-438A) refrigerant
Difluoromethane CAS# 75-10-5,
NA
130000134188
X
Butane CAS# 106-97-8,
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethanol CAS# 111-90-0 (>=50.00 <70.00 %), Iodine CAS# 7553-56-(2
>=5.00-<10.00%), Imidazole 288-32-4 (-5.00 - <10.00 %), Sulphur dioxide CAS# 7446-
Hydranal Composite 5
09-5 (-5.00 - <10.00 %), 1H-Imidazole monohydriodide CA5# 68007-08-9 (-5.00 -
NA
SDS000001423
X
<10.00 %), 2-Methylimidazole CAS# 693-98-1(>=5.00 - <10.00 %)
Hydrocarbon
64742-82-1
SDS000091448
X
Hydrocarbon Oil Waste
NA
SDS000001424
X
Hydrochloric Acid, (Different
Strength)
7647-03-0
%
Hydrofluoric acid
Hydrofluoric acid
7664-39-3
X
X
X
Hydrogen Peroxide (Different
Strength)
Hydrogen peroxide
7722-84-1
X
Hypochlorite ion
Chlorine Monoxide
7791-21-1
X
Hypochlorous acid
Hypochlorous acid
7790-92-3
X
Iron oxide
Iron(III) Oxide
1309-37-1
X
Isoamyl Methyl Ketone
110-12-3
130000142895
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Isopropanol
2-Propanol
67-63-0
X
X
Magnesium Acetate
142-72-3
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Magnesium Fluoride
7783-40-6
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
No. 2 Diesel Fuel CAS# 68476-34-6 (49-98%), Kerosine CAS# 8008-20-6 (0-49%), DIESEL
Marathon No. 2 Ultra Low Sulfur
cas# 1159170-26-9 (0-5%), Biodiesel (0-5%) CAS#: 61788-61-2, 67784-80-9,73891-99-3,
NA
Diesel 15 ppm Sulfur Max
68937-84-8, 129882-16-6, 928771-01-1, Naphthalene CAS# 91-20-3 (0.01-0.5%)
Methanol
Methanol
67-56-1
X
X
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.5 List of Manufacturing Chemicals
This list of compounds represents the manufacturing compounds that could be present at Chemou rs - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SIDS Number
IXM
Monomers
Maintenance
Labs
Methylene Chloride
75-09-2
SDS000048208
X
Mixed Scrubber Intermediates
N,N-Diisopropylethylamine
7087-68-5
SDS000023632
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
MultTherm PSC PLUS
Base Oil Severely Refined (petroleum) CAS# 64742-65-0 (52.0%)
NA
130000034154
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
N,N-Diisopropylethylamine
7087-68-5
130000034156
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
NALCO 1720
Sodium Bisulfite CAS# 7631-90-5 (10.0 - 30.0%), Potassium Bisulf to CAS 7773-03-7 (1.0-
5.0%), Cobalt Sulfate CA5# 10124-43-3 (<0.1%)
NA
130000143016
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Nalco 2895 Plus
Sodium bisulfite
NA
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
NexGuard Nalco 22310
Sodium sulfate
NA
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
Nitric Acid (Different Strength)
Nitric Acid
7697-37-2
X
X
NIPS
Phosphoric acid,>_85 wt.%
7664-38-2
SDS000219838
X
PEG 550
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),.alpha: methyl -.omega: hydroxy-
9004-74-4
X
Petroleum Oil
NA
130000142854
X
Phosphoric Acid (Different Strength)
7664-38-2
130000142873
X
Polymerizer - SR
NA
130000143125
X
Polymerizer(CR)
NA
130000143126
X
Polypropylene film
1-Propene, homopolymer
9003-07-0
X
Potassium Acetate
127-08-2
X
Potassium bicarbonate (Different
Strength)
Potassium bicarbonate
298-14-6
X
X
Potassium carbonate
Potassium Carbonate
584-08-7
X
X
Potassium Chloride
Potassium Chloride
7447-40-7
X
X
Potassium difluoride
Potassium difluoride
7789-29-9
X
Potassium fluoride (different
strength)
Potassium Fluoride
7789-23-3
X
X
X
Potassium fluorosulfate
Potassium fluorosulfate
13455-22-6
X
X
Potassium hydroxide
Potassium Hydroxide
1310-58-3
X
X
X
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.5 List of Manufacturing Chemicals
This list of compounds represents the manufacturing compounds that could be present at Chemou rs - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SDS Number
IXM
Monomers
Maintenance
Labs
Potassium hypochlorite
Potassium hypochlorite
7778-66-7
x
Potassium Oxalate
Potassium oxalate
6487-48-5
X
Potassium sulfate
Potassium sulfate
7778-80-5
x
X
Propane Odorized
Propane CAS# 74-98-6 (90 -100 %), propylene CAS# 115-07-1 (1-5 %), butane CAS# 106-
97-8 (1-5 %), ethane CAS# 74-84-0 (1-2.5 %)
NA
130000134143
X
Propyl Propionate
106-36-5
130000142987
X
Propylene Glycol
57-55-6
130000134185
X
Reaction Catalysts
Three reaction catalysts which are confidential business information.
NA
X
x
Soda Ash
Sodium carbonate
497-19-8
130000142852
X
Sodium Acetate
127-09-3
130000134192
X
Sodium bicarbonate
Sodium Bicarbonate
144-55-8
x
X
Sodium Bisulfate
Sodium Bisulfate
7681-38-1
X
X
Sodium Carbonate
Sodium Carbonate
497.19.8
130000134302
X
X
X
Sodium Chloride
Sodium Chloride
7647-14-5
x
X
Sodium Fluoride
Sodium fluoride
7681-49-4
X
X
Sodium Hydroxide (Different
Strength)
Sodium Hydroxide
1310-73-2
x
X
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium hypochlorite
7681-52-9
x
X
Sodium Methoxide
Sodium Methoxide
124-41-4
x
Sodium Nitrite
NITROUS ACID, SODIUM SALT
7632-00-0
x
X
Sodium Sulfate
Sodium Sulfate
7757-82-6
X
X
Sodium Sulfite (Different Strength)
Sodium Sulfite
7757-83-7
X
X
X
Solvents
Five solvents which are confidential business information.
NA
Stabilizing Agents
One stabilizing agent which is confidential business information.
NA
Sudan Yellow 146
4314-14-1
SDS000010508
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.5 List of Manufacturing Chemicals
This list of compounds represents the manufacturing compounds that could be present at Chemou rs - Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the facility.
Location in Facility
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SDS Number
VIA
Monomers
Maintenance
Labs
Sulfur oxide
Sulfur Dioxide
7446-09-5
X
X
Sulfur Trioxide
SULFURTRIOXIDE
7446-11-9
X
Sulfuric Acid (Different Strength)
SULFURIC ACID
7664-93-9
X
X
X
Surfonic DOS-75PG
577-11-7
This compound may have historically been used at the site.
TEA, Triethylamine
ETHANAMINE, N,N-DIETHYL-
121-44-8
X
Thermino166
terphenyl hydrogenated CAS# 61788-32-7 (74 - 87%), quaterphenyls and higher
polyphenyls partially hydrogenated CAS# 68956-74-1 (10 - 18%), Terphenyl CAS#26140-
60-3 (3 - 8%)
NA
130000134855
Therminol LT
diethylbenzene CAS#25340-17-4(>96.5%)
NA
130000134167
Toluene
Methyl Benzene
108-88-3
00009514(Nexeo
solutions)
X
X
Triton X100
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), .alpha: [(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenyl]-.omega: hydroxy-
9036-19-5
X
X
Versene 220 Crystals Chelating Agent
Tetrasodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate Tetrahydrate CAS# 13235-36-4 (99.9%)
NA
130000143394
Water
Water
7732-18-5
X
Xceltherm 600 Heat Transfer Fluid
White mineral oil (petroleum) CAS# 8042-47-5 232-455-8 (100%)
NA
X
Zirconium oxide
Zirconium oxide
1314-23-4
X
Note
NA CAS# not available.
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-6
LIST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS
November 2019

Chemours Company- Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.6 List of Wastewater Treatment Chemicals
The following compounds are used in the wastewater treatment process at the Chemours Fayetteville works site and could potentially be detected in the
effluent from Chemours - Fayetteville Works.
Compound Common Name(s)
M CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
SIDS Number
Ammonium Hydroxide (10-30%)
Ammonium Hydroxide Solutions 10-30%
1336-21-6
CAUSTIC POTASH
Potassium Hydroxide CAS# 1310-58-3 (10-51%)
1310-58-3
100000081
Core SHELL .M 71300
Kerosene CAS# 64742-47-8 (10-30%), Ethoxylated Sorbitan Monostearate CAS# 9005-67
8 (1-5%), and Alcohols CAS# 68002-97-1 (1-5%)
NA
Core SHELL.M 71306
Hydrotreated Light Distillate CAS# 64742-47-8 (10-30%), Ethoxylated Sorbitan
Monostearate CAS# 9005-67-8 (1-5%), and Oxyalkylated alcohol (1-5%)
NA
Folic Acid
Vitamin B9, Pteroyl glutamic acid
59-30-3
NALCO .M 7469
NA
NALCOLYTE Tm 8100
Sodium Chloride CAS# 7647-14-5 (1-5%)
NA
Ultimer `m 7752
Ammonium Chloride CAS# 12125-02-9 (1-5%)
NA
Note
NA CAS# not available.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-7
LIST OF WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS (WATER
TREATMENT AND COOLING TOWERS CHEMICALS)
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.7 List of Water Treatment Chemicals (Water Treatment and Cooling Tower Chemicals)
The following compounds are used to condition cooling/intake water and could potentially be detected in final effluent from Chemours -
Fayetteville Works.
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
Phosphoric Acid CAS# 7664-38-2 (5-10%), Sulfuric Acid CAS# 7664-93-9 (1-5%) ,
3D TRASAR'^" 3DT128
Benzotriazole CAS# 95-14-7 (1-5%)
NA
Sodium Bromide CAS# 7647-15-6 (9.23%), Sodium Hypochlorite CAS# 7681-52-9
NALCO STABREX® ST70
(6.36%), Sodium Chloride CAS# 7647-14-5 (1-5%), and Sodium Hydroxide CAS# 1310-73
NA
2 (1-5%)
NALCO® 73801WR
Substituted aromatic amine (30-50%), Alkyl amine diol (1-5%), Sodium Chloride CAS#
NA
7647-14-5 (1-5%)
NALPREP'" IV
Sodium Hydroxide CAS# 1310-73-2 (1-5%)
NA
Note
NA CAS# not available.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-8
LIST OF HERBICIDED AND PESTICIDES COMPOUNDS
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.8 List of Compounds used as Herbicides and Pesticides
The following herbicides and pesticides are periodically applied at the facility and could potentially be detected in final effluent from
Chemours - Fayetteville Works.
Compound Common Name(s)
CAS Chemical Name/ Main Composition
CAS#
AMDRO° Fire Ant Bait
Hydramethylnon CAS# 67485-29-4 (73%)
67485-29-4
CY-KICK'"
Cyfluthrin CAS# 68359-37-5 (0.1%) and petroleum Distillate CAS# 64742-47-8
NA
DEMAND CS
Lambda-Cyhalothrin CAS# 91465-08-6 (9.7%)
91465-08-6
DEMON MAX
Cypermethrin CAS# 52315-07-8 (25.3%)
52315-07-08
DIURON 80 DF
(3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea) CAS# 330-54-1 (80%), and Talc CAS# 14807-
96-9 (11.3%)
NA
Ficam W Insecticide
Bendiocarb CAS# 22781-23-3 (80%), Napthalenesulfonic acid, butyl-, Me derivs, sodium
salts (>1 - <5%), Napthalene and alkyl napthalene sulphonic acids formaldehyde
condensate, sodium salt (>1- <5%)
22781-23-3
Logic° Fire Ant Bait
Fenoxycarb: (Ethyl [2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy) ethyl] carbamate (1%)
NA
Maxforce FC SELECT Professional
Insect Control Roach Kiler Bait Gel
Fipronil CAS# 120068-37-3 (0.01%)
NA
Quali-Pro Glyphosate T&O and GLY
Star Plus
Iso ro lamine Salt of GI osate -9-0 41%
p pY yphCAS# 386414 ( )
38641 94 0
Roundup Original MAX' Herbicides
Potassium salt of glyphosate CAS# 70901-12-1 (49%)
NA
SHOCKWAVE'" Fogging Concentrate
Pyrethrins CAS# 008003-34-7 (1%), Piperonyl Butoxide CAS# 00005-03-6 (2%), MGK°-
264 CAS# 000113-48-4 (3%), nylar° CAS# 095737-68-1 (0.1%), Esfenvalerate CAS#
066230-04-4 (0.2%), Petroleum Distillates CAS# 64742-47-8 (80-90%)
NA
Signal"
NA
SURF AC 820
Alcohol ethoxylate CAS# 68002-97-1 (80%), alkylphenol ethoxylate CAS# 9016-45-9
NA
SUSPEND® SC INSECTICIDE
Deltamethrin CAS# 52918-63-5 (4.75%) and 1,2-propanediol CAS# 57-55-6 (15.20%)
NA
Note
NA CAS# not available.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-9
LIST OF COMPOUNDS THAT MAY BE IN THE WATER INTAKE
1. LIST OF PFAS COMPOIMDS DECTED IN THE INTAKE
2. LIST OF UPSTREAM PFAS COMPOUNDS
3. LIST OF COMPOUNDS THAT MAYBE PRESENT IN WATER
INTAKE
4. LIST OF HERBICIDES THAT MAYBE PRESENT IN WATER
INTAKE
November 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.9.1 List of PFAS Compounds Detected in the Intake
The following PFAS compounds have been detected in the River Intake (including the Excess River Water). The calculation for the
maximum values only includes detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the maximum of all the non -detects are listed. The
calculation for the median values only includes detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the median of the non -detects are
listed. The minimum concentration is calculated as follows: a) if the lowest detect value is lower than the lowest non -detect value, then
the minimum detect concentration is listed, b) if the lowest detect value is higher than the lowest non -detect value, then the minimum
non -detect value is listed, c) if there are only non -detect values, then the minimum non -detect value is listed, d) if there are only detect
values, then the minimum detected concentration is listed.
Category
Abbreviation
CAS Number
River Intake and Excess River Water
Sample Date
Start
Sample
Date End
Total Sample
Count
Median
(ng/L)
Minimum
(ng/L)
Maximum
(ng/L)
rn
°z
M
r
HFPO-DA*
13252-13-6
1/5/2018
5/16/2019
78
20
<4.0
160
PEPA
267239-61-2
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
200
<20
200
PFECA-G
801212-59-9
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
<41
<2.0
<200
PFMOAA
674-13-5
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
9.5
9.5
9.5
PFO2HxA
39492-88-1
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
6.1
6.1
6.1
PFO3OA
39492-89-2
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
<58
<2.0
<200
PFO4DA
39492-90-5
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
<79
<2.0
<200
P M PA
13140-29-9
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
680
13
1,100
Hydro -EVE Acid
773804-62-9
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<28
<28
<28
EVE Acid
69087-46-3
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<24
<24
<24
PFECA B
151772-58-6
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<60
<60
<60
R-EVE
EVS1428
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<70
<70
<70
PFO5DA
39492-91-6
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
37
<2.0
37
Byproduct
EVS1429
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<160
<160
<160
Byproduct
EVS1430
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<58
<58
<58
Byproduct
EVS1431
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<15
<15
<15
NVHOS
1132933-86-8
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<54
<54
<54
PES
113507-82-7
4/8/2019
5/20/2019
6
<46
<46
<46
PFESA-BP1
29311-67-9
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
<27
<2.0
<200
PFESA-BP2
749836-20-2
5/9/2018
5/20/2019
21
<30
<2.0
<200
rn
Ln
o
v
a
w
PFBA
375-22-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
6.6
<2.0
8.3
PFDA
335-76-2
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
2.2
<2.0
2.2
PFDoA
307-55-1
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHpA
375-85-9
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
9.5
2.0
18
PFNA
375-95-1
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
2.8
<2.0
3.2
PFOA
335-67-1
1/24/2018
5/16/2019
22
8.4
3.4
15
PFHxA
307-24-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
7.4
2.9
27
PFPeA
2706-90-3
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
5.3
2.6
20
PFTeA
376-06-7
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFTriA
72629-94-8
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFUnA
2058-94-8
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFBS
375-73-5
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
3.6
<2.0
3.9
PFDS
335-77-3
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHpS
375-92-8
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHxS
355-46-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
3.0
2.0
6.5
PFNS
68259-12-1
6/20/2018
4/8/2019
4
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFOS
1763-23-1
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
8.4
5.1
14
PFPeS
2706-91-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
10:2 FTS
120226-60-0
11/19/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
4:2FTS
757124-72-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<20
<20
<20
6:2FTS
27619-97-2
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<20
<20
<20
8:2FTS
39108-34-4
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<20
<20
<20
NEtFOSAA
2991-50-6
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<20
<20
<20
July 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.9.1 List of PFAS Compounds Detected in the Intake
The following PFAS compounds have been detected in the River Intake (including the Excess River Water). The calculation for the
maximum values only includes detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the maximum of all the non -detects are listed. The
calculation for the median values only includes detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the median of the non -detects are
listed. The minimum concentration is calculated as follows: a) if the lowest detect value is lower than the lowest non -detect value, then
the minimum detect concentration is listed, b) if the lowest detect value is higher than the lowest non -detect value, then the minimum
non -detect value is listed, c) if there are only non -detect values, then the minimum non -detect value is listed, d) if there are only detect
values, then the minimum detected concentration is listed.
Category
Abbreviation
CAS Number
River Intake and Excess River Water
Sample Date
Start
Sample
Date End
Total Sample
Count
Median
(ng/L)
Minimum
(ngA)
Maximum
(ng/L)
NEtPFOSA
4151-50-2
11/19/2018
5/20/2019
4
<37
<37
<200
NEtPFOSAE
1691-99-2
11/19/2018
5/20/2019
4
<60
<60
<200
NMeFOSAA
2355-31-9
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<20
<20
<20
NMePFOSA
31506-32-8
11/19/2018
5/20/2019
4
<35
<35
<200
NMePFOSAE
24448-09-7
11/19/2018
5/20/2019
4
<110
<110
<200
PFDOS
79780-39-5
11/19/2018
4/8/2019
3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFHxDA
67905-19-5
6/20/2018
4/8/2019
4
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFODA
16517-11-6
6/20/2018
4/8/2019
4
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
PFOSA
754-91-6
5/9/2018
4/8/2019
5
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
F-53B Major
73606-19-6
6/20/2018
4/8/2019
4
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
F-53B Minor
83329-89-9
6/20/2018
4/8/2019
4
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
ADONA
958445-44-8
6/20/2018
4/8/2019
4
<2.1
<2.1
<2.1
NaDONA
EVS1361
6/20/2018
4/8/2019
4
<2.1
<2.1
<2.1
DONA
919005-14-4
NA
NA
0
July 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.9.1 List of PFAS Compounds Detected in the Intake
The following PFAS compounds have been detected in the River Intake (including the Excess River Water). The calculation for the
maximum values only includes detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the maximum of all the non -detects are listed. The
calculation for the median values only includes detected values. If all samples showed non -detects, the median of the non -detects are
listed. The minimum concentration is calculated as follows: a) if the lowest detect value is lower than the lowest non -detect value, then
the minimum detect concentration is listed, b) if the lowest detect value is higher than the lowest non -detect value, then the minimum
non -detect value is listed, c) if there are only non -detect values, then the minimum non -detect value is listed, d) if there are only detect
values, then the minimum detected concentration is listed.
River Intake and Excess River Water
Category Abbreviation CAS Number Sample Date Sample Total Sample Median Minimum Maximum
Start Date End I Count I (ng/L) I (ng/L) I (ng/L)
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
ng/L - nanograms per liter
*Depending on the laboratory, HFPO-DA may also appear on the EPA Method 537 Mod analyte list
July 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.9.2 List of Upstream PFAS Compounds
These PFAS compounds have been analyzed in the Cape Fear River, upstream of Chemours - Fayetteville Works and have the potential to be in the intake water
used at the facility. Any chemical or compound present in the intake, has the potential to be detected in the effluent. As laboratory detection limits improve
additional compounds may be detected and added to this list.
On June 6, 2018, a sample was collected 8 miles upstream, at CFR RM 76. The following 8 PFAS compounds were detected:
The following 8 compounds were detected:
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
PFOA
PFOS
The sample was also analyzed for the following 27 compounds; however, they were not detected. As detection limits improve these and other compounds
have the potential to be detected in the intake water:
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate (8:2 FTS)
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate (4:2 FTS)
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
Hfpo Dimer Acid
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid
PEPA
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
Perfluorononanesulfonate
Perfluorononanoic Acid
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFECA-G
PFESA-BP1
PFESA-BP2
PFMOAA
PFO2HxA
PFO3OA
PFO4DA
PFO5DA
PMPA
July 2019

Chemours Company- Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.9.3 List of Compounds that may be Present in Water Intake
The USEPA Water Quality Portal (WQP) was accessed on May 16, 2019, to evaluate compounds that have been detected in the Cape Fear River Basin during
the past decade. The following list represents all compounds reported to the WQP that have been detected in the basin since 2010. These compounds
could potentially be found in the intake water utilized by Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore could potentially be detected in the effluent.
Cape Fear River Basi
.beta.-Sitosterol Coprosterol Molybdenum
1-(3,4-dichIorophenyl)-3-methyl urea
Cotinine
Morphinan-6-one,4,5-epoxy-l4-hydroxy-3-
methoxy-17-methyl-, (5.alpha.)-
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Cyanazine
Myclobutanil
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dechlorometolachlor
N,N-Diethyl-m-toluamide
1,1-Dimethylbiguanide
Desisopropyl atrazine
Nickel
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Desmethyldiltiazem
Nicotine
1,4-Dioxane
Desmethylnorflurazon
Nitrate
1,7-Dimethylxanthine
Desmethylvenlafaxine
Nitrite
1H-1,2,4-Triazole
Desulfinylfipronil amide
Nitrogen, mixed forms (NH3), (NH4), organic, (NO2)
and (NO3)
1H-Pyrazole-3-carbonitrile, 5-amino-l-[2,6-dichloro-
4-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]-4-(trifluoromethyl)-
Dextromethorphan
Organic carbon
1H-Pyrazole-3-carboxamide, 5-amino-l-[2,6-
dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-
[(trifluoromethyl)sulfinyl]-
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Organic Nitrogen
2,4-D
Diazepam
Orthophosphate
2-Aminobenzimidazole
Diazinon
Oryzalin
2-Chloro-4,6-diamino-s-triazine
Dicamba
Oseltamivir
2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine
Dichlorobromomethane
Oxydisulfoton
2-Chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)acetamide
Didemethyl tebuthiuron
p-Cresol
2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine
Diethyl phthalate
p-Cymene
2-Hydroxy-6-ethylamino-4-amino-s-triazine
Diflubenzuron
p-Dichlorobenzene
2-Hydroxyatrazine
Diltiazem
Pendimethalin
2-Isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinol
Dimethenamid
Pentachlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethenamid sulfinylacetic acid
Pentanal
3,4-Dichlorophenylurea
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Pentane
3-Methylindole
Dissolved oxygen saturation
Phenanthrene
4-Hydroxychlorothalonil
Diuron
Phenol
4-Nonylphenol diethoxylates
Ethanamine, 2-(diphenylmethoxy)-N,N-dimethyl-
Phosphorus
4-Nonylphenols
Ethanol, 2-(4-nonylphenoxy)-
Piperonyl butoxide
5-Amino-l-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-
4-[(trifluoromethyl)thio]pyrazole-3-carbonitrile
Famotidine
Potassium
Abacavir
Fexofenadine
Prednisolone
Acephate
Fipronil
Profenofos
Acetamide, 2-(diethylamino)-N-(2,6-
dimethylphenyl)-
Fipronil Sulfone
Prometon
Acetaminophen
Flubendiamide
Propazine
Acetochlor
Fluconazole
Propiconazole
Acetophenone
Fluoride
Propoxur
Acyclovir
Fluoxetine
Propranol
Aluminum
Fonofos
Ranitidine
Aminomethylphosphonic acid
Glufosinate
Selenium
Ammonia
Glyphosate
Sertraline
Ammonia and ammonium
Gran acid neutralizing capacity
Siduron
Ammonia -nitrogen
Halosulfuron-methyl
Silica
Arsenic
Hardness, Ca, Mg
Silver
Atenolol
Hardness, carbonate
Simazine
Atrazine
Hardness, non -carbonate
Sitagliptin
July 2019

Chemours Company- Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.9.3 List of Compounds that may be Present in Water Intake
The USEPA Water Quality Portal (WQP) was accessed on May 16, 2019, to evaluate compounds that have been detected in the Cape Fear River Basin during
the past decade. The following list represents all compounds reported to the WQP that have been detected in the basin since 2010. These compounds
could potentially be found in the intake water utilized by Chemours - Fayetteville Works and therefore could potentially be detected in the effluent.
Cape Fear River Basin
Azithromycin Hexazinone Sodium
Azoxystrobin
Hydrocodone
Stigmastan-3.beta.-ol
Barium
Hydrogen ion
Strontium
Bentazon
Hydroxymetolachlor
Styrene
Benzoic acid
Hydroxysimazine
Sulfamethoxazole
Beryllium
Imazaquin
Sulfate
Bicarbonate
Imidacloprid
Sulfentrazone
Bromacil
Indole
Sulfometuron methyl
Bromide
Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)
Tebuconazole
Bupropion
Iron
Tebuthiuron
Butyraldehyde
Isoborneol
Temazepam
Cadmium
Isophorone
Terbufos oxon sulfoxide
Caffeine
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Terbuthylazine
Calcium
Lead
tert-Butanol
Camphor
Loratadine
Tetrachloroethene
Carbamazepine
Magnesium
Thiabendazole
Carbaryl
Malathion
Titanium
Carbendazim
Manganese
Toluene
Carbon dioxide
MCPA
Tolyl triazole
Carbonate
Meprobamate
Total dissolved solids
Carisoprodol
Mercury
Total suspended solids
Chloride
Metalaxyl
Triamterene
Chloroform
Metaxalone
Tributyl phosphate
Chloromethane
Methadone
Trichloroethene (TCE) (aka trichloroethene)
Chlorphenira mine
Methamidophos
Triclopyr
Cholesterol
Methocarbamol
Triclosan
Chromium
Methomyl
Trihalomethanes
Chromium(VI)
Methoxyfenozide
Trimethoprim
Cimetidine
Methyl salicylate
Triphenyl phosphate
cis-(-)-2-[(Dimethylamino)methyl]-1[3-
methoxyphenyl]-cyclohexanol
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Methylmercury(1+)
Turbidity
Citalopram
Metolachlor
UV 254
Cobalt
Metolachlor ESA
Venlafaxine
Codeine
Metolachlor OA
Verapamil
Copper
Metoprolol
Warfarin
Zinc
July 2019

Chemours Company - Fayetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Attachment F.9.4 List of Herbicides that may be Present in Water Intake
These compounds represent the herbicides known to be applied in the watershed draining directly to the Cape Fear River or to the Cape Fear
River Basin. These and other agriculturally applied compounds have the potential to be in the intake water utilized at the Chemours -
Fayetteville Works facility and could also be detected in the effluent.
Cape Fear River Basin
Mesotrione
Flumioxazin
Imazapic-ammonium
Formesafen sodium
Cape Fear River
Mesotrione
Glyphosate
Acetechlor
Flumiozazin
Pendimethalin
2,4-D
Imazapic
Sulfentrazone
Foresafen sodium
Diuron
Glufosinate
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-10
KURARAY CHEMCIAL INVENTORY
November 2019

Attachment F.10 Kuraray Chemical Inventory
This list of Compounds represents the
manufacturing compounds that could be present
at the Kuraray Manufacturing Operations and
therefore potentially detected in the effluent
Production
Area
Acetates
Trosifol'"
Acetic Acid
Trosifol'"
Acid
Trosifol"
Addtive
Trosifol"
Chelating Agents
Trosifol'"
Chlorine tablets (from LOWES)
Trosifol'"
Copolymer Resins
SentryGlas°
Dichem
Trosifol'"
Ethylene Glycol
All areas
Light Stablizer
Trosifoll"
Liquid chlorox (bought over the counter)
Trosifol'"
Methanol (obtained from the lab on site)
Trosifol'"
Organic Acids
Trosifol"
Plasticizer
Trosifol'"
Polyvinyl Butyral Resin (Resin)
Trosifol'"
SentryGlas® lonoplast interlayer
SentryGlas®
SentryGlas® XtraTM (SG 6000)
SentryGlas®
Silane
SentryGlas®
Simple Green Industrial Cleaner
All areas
Sodium Bicarbonate
Trosifol"
Sodium Hydroxide
Trosifol"
Stablizers
Trosifol
Surfactants
Trosifol'"
Anti -foam agent
Trosifol'"
Trosifol" Polyvinyl Butyral Interlayer Sheeting
Trosifol'"
Trosifol'" Sheeting Waste
Trosifol"
UV Absorbers
All areas
Weak Acid
Trosifol"
This list of Compounds represents the
laboratory chemicals that could be present at
the Kuraray Manufacturing Operations and
therefore potentially detected in the effluent
Laboratory Chemicals
2-Ethyl 1-2-hexanal
Acetic acid
Benzyl alcohol 99+% A.C.S. reagent
Buffer solution, pH 10.0
Buffer Solution, pH 2.0
Buffer solution, pH 4.0
Buffer Solution, pH 4.0 (3.99 - 4.01)
Buffer solution, pH 7.0
Calcium chloride dihydrate, 99%
Cyclohexane
Dessicant anhydrous calcium sulfate
Dichloromethane anhydrous
DIETRITE Dessicant Anhydrous
Dimethylsufoxide
EDTA
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acetate
Hardness Indicator
Hydranal - Methanol Rapid
Hydranal Coulumat AG -Oven
Hydrochloric Acid IN Solution
Hydrochloric Acid Solution 1M Hcl (1N)
Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate
Methanesulforic acid >_ 99.5%
Methanol
Molecular Sieve (0.3m)
Molecular Sieve, Type 4A 1/16" Pellets
Pentane
pH Electrode Storage Solution (Orion 910001)
Potassium chloride
Reference electrode filling solution
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide solution
Sodium hydroxide solution
Sodium hydroxide solution 50% w/w
Tetrahydrofuran anhydrous
Tetrahydrofuran ChromaSoly
Toluene
Universal hardness buffer solution
Windex
Expired and no longer used lab chemicals are disposed of in a lab pack annually by Clean Harbors, The Waste
Methanol that the Lab uses is collected in a drum, which is incinerated monthly by Cycle Chem.
Kurary has a lab waste disposal procedure (attached), which allows for small amounts of specific chemical to be
poured down the drain (does include methanol), which goes to WWTP.
November 2019

Attachment F.10 Kuraray Chemical Inventory
This list of Compounds represents the maintenance compounds that could be present at the Kuraray Facility and therefore
potentially detected in the effluet
Maintanance
7M Citrus Base Cleaner (Aerosol)
ACE EVAP-Klean Plus
Acetylene, Dissolved
Acryli-Quik K0181307 OSHA Safety Yellow (Daisy Yellow)
Aeroshell Fluid 4 (NA) I (US)
Aervoe Toolmaker's Ink Remover 6095 Spray
Alkyl Ultradeep Base Paint
Argon, Compressed
Autosatic FC 6 Ceramic Adhesive (ROCKSETT: HIGH TEMPERATURE ADHESIVE)
Bare Ground Solution Anti Snow De -leer
Behr Premium Plus Ultra Satin -Blocking Paint+ Primer in One White
Benzomatic Propane Hand Torch Cylinder
Bernzomatic Propane Cylinder (14.1oz Blue)
Black Jack All -Weather Roof Cement
BOSTIK NEVER-SEEZ Regular Grade
Ceilcote # 9 Hardner Part B
Ceilcote # 9 Hardner Part B
Chesterton 390 Cutting Oil
Chesterton 610 Plus Synthetic Lubricating Fluid
CHESTERTON 620 Synthetic Lubricating Fluid
Chesterton 783 ACR: Anti -Seize, Corrosion -Resistant
Corlar 2.1 ST
Corlar 2.1 VF-525
CRC 2-26 Electrical Grade Precision Lubricant
Deck-O-Seal Gun Grade
Direct Drive Mechanical Vacuum Pump Fluid (Alcatel 100)
Dow Corning 220 Fluid 50 CTS
DOW MOLYKOE Z Powder
Drylok Latex Binding Agent
DU LUX Alkyd Enamel 30 P
Dupli Color Sandable DAP 1698 Black Primer
DuPont Industrial Tufcote 3,5 HG-D
DUPONT KRYTOX GPL 225
DUPONT KRYTOX High Performance Lubricant
Dymon The End Wasp & Hornet Killer
EP 90W (Star Five)
Extra Duty Gear Oil 150
Extra Duty Gear Oil 220
Extra Gear Oil 68
Flux- ESAB Welding & Cutting Products (Duzall Flux Soft Soldering)
Formula Shell Mercon/Dexron III Automatic Transmission Fluid (Shell Formula Shell Automatic Transmission Fluid)
Gear Flow Hydraulic oil 68
Gear oil 100
Gear Oil 150
Gear Oil460
HDC-1 Heavy Duty Coil Cleaner (HEAVY DUTY COIL CLEANER HDC-1)
Henry Aluminum Roof Coating
High Temperature Synthetic Lubricant Oil VG-220 (Blower Lubricant)
Homax ceiling texture
IDEAL Yellow 77 Wire Pulling Lubricant
Industrial Maintenance Coatings Safety Yellow
IPS Weld -On PC-65
IPS Weld -On PVC 711
November 2019

Attachment F.10 Kuraray Chemical Inventory
Kano sili kroii
Klean Strip Green Safer Paint Thinner
KRYLON Industrial Paint
Krylon Tough Coat Primer 341 Light Gray Sandable Primer
Lacquer Thinner
Liquified Petroleum Gas, Compressed
LOCTITE Freeze & Release
LOCTITE 262
LOCTITE 567 Thread Sealant
LOCTITE 7649
LOCTITE Aviation Gasket Sealant
LOCTITE Clover Compound (1 lb. Silicon Carbide Grease Mix, Gray)
LOCTITE SF 7649 PRIMER
LPS HDX Heavy Duty Degreaser
LPS Heavy -Duty Rust Inhibitor (LPS 3® (Bulk))
LUBRIPLATE
Lubriplate Super Lubrication No. 930-AA
MAJIC 8-1037-1 EASY SPREAD INTERIOR LATEX FLAT WALL PAINT
Megaflow AW Hydraulic Oil 46
Megaflow AW Hydraulic Oil 46
Milton Roy Pump Drive Lubricant (E P LUBE #95)
Miracal Spray Enamel Paint
Mobil Glygogyl 460
Mobil Grease 28 Synthetic Grease
Mobil Grease 28 Synthetic Grease
Mobil SHC 525
MobilGear 627 (Industrial Gear Oil)
MobilGrease 28
MobilmetTM S-122 Multipurpose Water Soluble Cutting Oil
Multiplepurpose R&O Oil 100
Multiplepurpose R&O Oil 220
Multipurpose R&O Oil 100
NAPA Brake Fluid
NAPA Premium Heavy Duty Hydrolic & Transmission Fluid
NAPA Premium Performance SAE 15W-40 Motor Oil
Nitrogen, Compressed
November 2019

Attachment F.10 Kuraray Chemical Inventory
Oatey All Purpose Solvent Cement
Oatey Heavy Duty Clear PVC Cement
01 mplc Assure Paint+ Primer
Olympic One Paint Primer
Omala Oil 460
Oxygen, Compressed
Painter's Touch 2X Ultra Cover Spray Paint
PB 10 Rustlick
Petroleum Gases, Liquified
Pfaudler Gear Lube Synthetic Hydrocarbon Fluid
PLIOBOND Oindustrial Adhesive
PowerfIDW AW Hydraulic Oil 32
Pro Industrial DTM Acrylic Primer/Finish White
Pro Industrial DTM Semi -Gloss Acrylic Extra White
ProBlock Interior oil -Based Primer White
Promar 200
Protective & Marine Coatings Industrial Enamel Alkyd Safety Yellow (Industrial Enamel Safety Yellow)
Rapid Tap HeayV Duty CutUng Fluid
Rectorseal Low VOC PVC Solvent Cement
RECTORSEAL PVC Solvent Cement
Reducer No. 9 Acetone
RIDGID Premium Dark Thread Cutting Oil
Roberts 2310 Resilient Flooring Adhesive
Rohinair Premium High Vacuum Pump Oil
Rust Oleum High Performance Fluorescent Enamel Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum 206304 Safety Red Alkyd Enamel Paint
Rust-Oleum High Heat Ultra Semi -Gloss Silver Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum High Performance Enamel Paint
Rust-Oleum Painters Touch 2X Ultra Cover Stain Wild Flower Blue
Rust-Oleum Specialty Metallic Gold Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum Stainless Steel High Performance Spray, Paint
Seal krete Showroom Finish Clear
Shell Tellus S2M68
Shell Turbo T32
Special Purpose KRYLON OSHA
S is & Span Disinfecting All -Purpose Spray & Glass Cleaner
Spic and Span 3-in-1 All -Purpose Glass Cleaner
Spray Nine Heavy Duty Cleaner/Degreaser/Disinfectant
S ra Touch-U (Safety Orange) Paint
S ra on Molly Chain Lubricant
Sprayon 500859 Hit Squad Industrial Insecticide SP 959
S ra on" SP857 Slast'Em Wasp and Hornet Killer
Stop Rust Glass Protective Enamel Spfay Paint
Stops rust crystal clear enamels ray Paint
STP Oil Treatment
Su erdeckStain 6509-30753 Extra White
SYNCON &0 Oil 150
SYNCON AW Hydraulic Oil 46
SYNCON EP Plus Gear Oil
SYNCON EP Plus Gear Oil 220
SYNCON EP Plus Gear Oil 320
SYNCON R&O Oil 100
SYNCON R&O Oil 150
SYNCON R&O Oil 150
SYNCON R&O Oil 460
5YNCON R&O Oil 68
Techspray Blue Shower II
Thompson's Original Water Seal
Tri-S nthetic Formula 10W-30 Motor Oil
Tufcote 3.5 HG-D Paint
Tufcote' 3.5 HG-D- High Gloss Alkyd DTM White
Tuff Bond Hanger Adhesive
Turbine Oil 32
Ultra Premium Interior Ceiling Paint Flat White
Universal Heavy -Duty Tractor Hydraulic & Transmission Fluid (Universal Heavy Duty Tractor Hydraulic Fluid)
Valspar Duramax Paint Flex Shield 365
Vals ar Paint jineligible label due to spill on gallon)
Valvoline Multi-Pur ose 2 Cycle Engine Oil
Weld -On 714 CPVC
Weld -On 782 PVC Plumbin Heavy (782 PVC Heavy Bodied Plumbing cement, Clear)
Weld -On Actylic
Weld -On C-65 Cleaner
Weld -On C-65 Cleaner
Weld -On P-63 Primer
Weld -On P-70 Primer
Weld -On Plumbing Primer
White Pigmented KILZ Original Primer
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-10-1
KURARAY SALINE REQUEST
November 2019

kuraray
June 28, 2019
Mrs. Christel Compton
Chemours
22828 NC HWY 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306-7332
Re: NPDES Permit No. NC0003573 - Request for Approval to Add de minimis
Amounts of Silane to Kuraray America, Inc. Process
Dear Mrs. Compton:
As you know, Kuraray America, Inc. ("Kuraray") currently sends process wastewater to
the wastewater treatment plant ("WWTP") operated by The Chemours Company (as successor to
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company) ("Chemours"). We operate this WWTP under a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit No. NC0003573 (the "Pen -nit").
Specifically, this WWTP treats sanitary wastes and process wastewaters, and discharges treated
wastewaters through NPDES permitted Outfall 001 to the Cape Fear River.
As you know from previous discussions with Kuraray, as well as from its own prior written
request, Kuraray wishes to add trace quantities of silane, an inorganic compound, to its process
wastewater discharge process. The Permit already allows for the discharge of certain treated
process wastewaters derived from various industrial products, including SentryGlas the proposed
operational change involves a next generation SentryGlas® product (SentryGlas% Xtrem). The
new product is based on the same ethylene copolymer chemistry as the previous SentryGlas,
with the addition of low levels of silane.
The proposed levels of silane in question are de minimis within the scope of overall
production and discharges from the facility in question. We also note that regulatory scrutiny of
this facility, as well as the waters into which treated wastewaters are discharged from this facility,
is of a scope and nature which more than ensures sufficient agency oversight of these processes.
For this reason, we request that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
through its Division of Water Resources ("DWR" or the "Division") exercise its proper agency
discretion to allow Kuraray to add silane to its operations at this facility without the need for a
formal modification of the Permit. Towards this end, we submit the calculations and projections
regarding the use, and ultimate discharge, of silane at this facility which are attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein.
# Ur To Julie Grcyb (NCDEQ) - To Be Sent on Chemours Letterhead Final. Doex
KURARAY AMERICA, INC. 1~ Ross CrCws jr. 22328 NC Hwy 87We-,r, lay4cr<ssllcNNC', rl�b19

kuraray
Mrs. Christel Compton
June 28, 2019
Page 2
Analysis of SentryGlas6000 water waste stream
Sample: SentryGlas6000 water waste stream (bottle 0, 02 )
Preparation: Diluted to ten times with pure water, then filtered with hydrophilic PTFE filter (0.4Sµm)
Original waste water is also filtered with hydrophilic PTFE filter (0.45µm)
Results: Concentration of each element (µg/mL)

KUNARAY AMERICA, INC. E koss Crews Jr. 22828 NC Hwy 87 Wesr, FayettevilleNNC
e2g30 019

kuraray
Mrs. Christel Campton
June 28, 2019
Page 3
High level calculation on dilution
(without treatment factor, settling out, or any other treatment assumptions)
actual flow of this waste stream, based on August production trial
5185 gal
76 hr
4560 min
1.1370614 gal/min
with a safety factor of —2.2, theoretical worst case flow of SG6000 waste stream (gal/min)
2.5 gal/min
For Outfall 1 dilution (Process waste from WWTP)
All calculations below based on 2.5 gal/min flow from SG for waste water stream containing Silane.
Safe limit threshold determined by the State to be 200 micrograms per liter
Outfall 1
best case for total flow in WWTP 1,045,000 gal/day
average case for total flow in WWTP 719,750 gal/day
worst case for total flow in WWTP 287,000 gal/day
for worst case for total flow in WWTP:
200 µg/L
limit
dilution factor 0.2000 mg/L
limit
0.01254355 0.0439024 mg/L
actual
43.902439 µg/L
actual
For Outfall 2 dilution (Storm, Rain, and Ditch water; strictly non -process)
All calculations below based on 2.5 gal/min flow from SG for waste water stream containing Silane.
Safe limit threshold determined by the State to be 200 micrograms per liter.
Outfall 2
best case for total flow in WWTP
average case for total flow in WWTP
worst case for total flow in WWTP
Outfall 2 - Outfall 1 = Remaining storm, rain, and ditch water
Outfall 2 (worst c Outfall 1 (average) Remaining storm water
10,565,000 719,750 9,845,250
worst case for total flow in WWTP
dilution factor 200 µg/L limit
0.06812589 2.9908926 µg/L actual
26,705,950 gal/day
19,626,625 gal/day
10,565,000 ga,/day
KURARAY AMERICA, INC. E Ross Crews Jr. 221128 N(' Hwy 87 Wcst, I ayc[tcvillc, �'i: 27;3OG
November 2019

kuraray
Mrs. Christel Compton
June 28, 2019
Page 4
Note that these projections are based on extensive production trials and testing of
SentryGlas® XtraTM. In the attached Exhibit "A" calculations and projections, you will also note
that there are only very slight modifications (in terms of laboratory testing results) to the existing
wastewater stream when the previous, approved SentryGlas--'I� waste stream is compared to the
proposed SentryGlas® XtraTM stream. With respect specifically to the proposed new additive,
silane, test results reveal only very minimal levels, of 3.5ug/l, at a detection limit of 0.01 Oug/l.
You will also see in the attached Exhibit "A" that Kuraray has performed extensive studies
to determine its existing and projected wastewater flows. Note that their discharge rate, over
several studies and by evaluating two different extrusion throughputs, indicated a range of 1.02
1.14 gallons per minute. Notwithstanding this, in conducting its dilution analysis, Kuraray
employed an extremely conservative rate of 2.5 gallons per minute (i.e., close to 2.2x as a safety
factor). Kuraray also analyzed Chemours' flow data for both permitted Outfalls in question, to
understand and factor in "worst case" scenarios to apply in its dilution analysis.
Integrating these various factors into its analysis, Kuraray found that by employing an
extremely conservative, "worst case" theoretical flow rate of 2.5 gallons per minute for
SentryGlas® XtraTM wastewater, and by applying the above dilution analysis, Kuraray ends up
with an actual projected silane level of 43.9ug/l for Chemours Outfall 001. Kuraray also derives
an actual projected silane level of 2.99ug/l for Chemours Outfall 002.
As you know, although North Carolina has not issued formal, permissible screening or
exposure levels for silane, Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act provides that individual states
are primarily responsible for developing water quality standards applicable to state waters. As
such, here, we understand that DWR's Standards Unit has conducted a detailed examination of
applicable agency and academic toxicity information regarding silane. We understand that, based
on this analysis, DWR has concluded that an appropriate level for silane under these circumstances
will be 200ug/l. As you can see from the above and from the detailed analyses reflected in Exhibit
"A," even when factoring in extremely conservative, "worst case" theoretical conditions,
Kuraray's projected operations will not nearly ever approach such levels.
Kuraray is confident, and has committed to us, that treated wastewater sent to the WWTP
will never contain silane at greater than de minimis levels, and will remain within the screening
values for silane set by DWR's Standards Unit. This is true even though its production of
SentryGlas® XtraTM may (or may not) increase over the short term. The only time silane will be
in the waste stream is during production runs of this new SentryGlas--t XtraTM product. Kuraray's
studies have shown that different throughput rates do not affect waste water flow rates to
Chemours' waste treatment. Subsequently, there is no significant impact to the dilution factor
from increased throughput. The de minimis discussion is in relation to aquatic acute toxicity,
which concerns instantaneous concentrations of silane levels. Even as production of this new
product may increase over time, there is no expectation of exceeding instantaneous concentration
levels of 2.99ug/1 at Outfall 002.
KURARAY AMERICA, INC. E Ross Crews Jr. 22828 NC Hwy 8- West, Paferrevillc, 1C` 29306
November 2019

kuraray
Mrs. Christel Compton
June 28, 2019
Page 5
Furthermore, Kuraray fully understands that, should projected levels of silane ever exceed
such levels, it must communicate any such projections to Chemours and to DWR, and that any
such increases may require a formal permit modification. But in light of the overall, regulated
processes at this facility, together with such de minimis levels of the proposed new additive, we
believe approval of this request to be reasonable and well within the Division's authority.
We will be happy to entertain any additional commitments deemed necessary in order to
proceed with the proposed operations at this facility without the need for a formal permit
modification.
We appreciate the Chemours review and consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Ross Crews
Plant Manager
Kuraray Fayetteville
KURARAY AMERICA, INC. E Koss Crcws Jr. 22828 NC Hwy 87 West, Naverceville, NC 28396
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT F-11
DUPONT CHEMCIAL INVENTORY
November 2019

FAYETTEVILLE WORKS PVF AREA INDEX
04/03/16
SAFETY DATA SHEETS
PAGE
1 of 3
Chemical Name Area SDS Used
MSDS Rev Date
Attachment F.11 DuPont Chemical Inventory
Acetate Buffer Solution pH 4.6
02/22/97
Acetic Acid, Technical Grade
05/96
Acetone
Misc.
02/27/97
Acetone, 99.5% ACS Spectrophotometric grd
02/13/98
Activated Carbon Granules (for Di
PVF
03/12/02
Amberlite IRA-400 Resin
Site
01/01/06
Amdro Fire Ant Insecticide
Mech/Misc/Const
11/14/95
Amino Acid Reagent for Phosphate/Silica
02/24/98
Ammonium Fluoride 97% ASC Reagent
10/15/96
Ansul Plus -Fifty C (Fire Suppressant
PVF
02/02
Material)
Anthratic Filter Media (Di water system)
PVF
03/01/06
Aquastar Anhydrous Methanol
PVF
Aquastar Composite 5
PVF
04/02/07
Aquastar (R)Composite 5
10/09/98
Argon
Mech./Misc., Nafion
06/28/07
Azobia Propane Dihydrochloride(VA - 044)
PVF
10/28/98
C-211 Ion Exchange Resin (Di water system)PVF
09/19/94
C-5A Antiseize, Lubricant
10/15/98
Cerenol® Poly -Glycol Oil
PVF
08/03/07
Clorox®Bleach
Misc
DEFA Plus - Sodium Alpha Olefin Sulfonate
PVF
(Dust Encapsulating Foaming Agen
Dow Corning 200 Fluid 50 CS
PVF
10/18/99
08/26/03
Dowfrost Heat Transfer Fluid (Dow Chem)
PVF
05/21/04
02/20/03
Exxon Mobil Polyrex EM Grease
Site
02/10/11
Ficam Insecticide
Misc
10/18/96
Freon 22
Mech./Misc
10/05/96
Garnet Sand (Di water system -see
PVF
05/05/02
MSDS for sand or gravel)
Gasoline, Premium Unleaded
12/30/97
Gasoline, Regular Standard
12/30/97
Gasoline, Unleaded Plus
12/30/97
Gauge Oil, Red
Mech./Misc.
10/29/85
GCI Ethylene Glycol Antifreeze
11/10/95
Gear Oil 68,100,150,220,320,460
Mech.
02/18/99
Gear Oil GX 8OW-90
01/24/97
Gel -Chem #570 Primer H
03/01/96
HCFC-123 (See SUVA 123)
05/18/02
Helium
PVF
01/03
Hydro Sand (Di water system -see
PVF
05/05/02
MSDS for sand or gravel)
Hydrogen
PVF
01/04
100-1000 PPM Isobutylene in Air
PVF
05/15/08
Isopropyl Alcohol
Misc.
10/23/97
Kerosene
10/30/96
Kerosene, Low Odor
02/16/98
November 2019

FAYETTEVILLE WORKS PVF AREA INDEX
04/03/16
SAFETY DATA SHEETS
PAGE
2 of 3
Chemical Name Area SDS Used
MSDS Rev Date
Krytox GPL-20X Fluorinated Grease
02/25/08
Krytox GPL-205 Fluorinated Grease New
09/28/94
Liquid Nitrogen
Misc
09/04/97
Locquic Primer T
Mech./Misc.
10/12/96
Loctite PST Pipe Sealant 567
Mech./Misc.
09/12/97
Logic Fire Ant Bait
08/23/90
Lubecon Series I Lubricant
Misc.
10/09/96
Lysol ® Brand Hard Water Stain Cleaner
08/23/94
Lysol ® Spray disinfectant
Misc.
Methanol
All areas
11/12/07
Methyl Alcohol (See Methanol)
11/12/07
Mobil EAL Arctic 22A Compressor Oil
Mech/Misc
12/30/92
Never-Seez Pure Nickel
Mech./Misc.
02/19/86
01/98
Nitrogen
PVF
07/15/97
Nitrogen, Compressed Gas
Misc.
01/10/96
gas for HCI sensors/transmitters
No. 2 Dielsel Fuel Oil
09/03/98
Oakite 131
PVF
05/26/99
Oxygen (02)
Mech./Misc.
Paint DuPont Acrylic Spray Enamel 900P
Mech./Misc./Const.
10/05/91
Paint DuPont Acrylic Spray Enamel 901P
Mech./Misc./Const.
10/05/91
Paint DuPont Acrylic Spray Enamel 905P
Mech./Misc./Const.
10/05/91
PEAK® 30,Premium Windshield Deicer & Cleaner
Site
09/10/07
Pluronic 31R1
PVF
05/25/06
Polyvinyl Fluoride (Tedlar(D)
PVF
05/14/05
01668 Preservative Oil SAE 30
02/27/86
Propylene
PVF
Propylene Carbonate, 99.7% HPLC Grade
PVF
05/07/07
Propylene Glycol(see Dow Frost Heat
PVF
05/21/04
Transfer Fluid)
Quartz Gravel (Di water system - see
PVF
05/05/02
SDS for Sand or Gravel)
Real Cool Snoop
PVF
01/03
Reconstituted Breathing Air
06/07/96
00702 Regal Oil R&O 68
12/06/97
00704 Regal Oil R&O N-68
01/20/86
Regular Leaded Gasoline - Petrol (Shell)
06/30/94
Roundup Herbicide
Mech./Misc.
01/94
RTV Silicone Adhesive
11/07/94
Safety Solvent (Aerosol)
Mech./Misc.
10/28/82
Safety-Kleen Premium Solvent
Mech./Misc./Const.
07/08/93
Safranin Solution 1%
07/10/95
"SAJ" Lotion
Mech./Misc./Const.
05/05/93
Sand or Gravel (Di water system)
PVF
05/05/02
SBS-40 Medicated Skin Cream
Misc.
01/08/93
Silicone Grease
Mech./Misc.
No Date
SiLibeads - Ceramic -Beads type Z
PVF Lab
02/01/08
Silicone Rubber Compound
02/12/93
November 2019

FAYETTEVILLE WORKS PVF AREA INDEX
04/03/16
SAFETY DATA SHEETS
PAGE
3 of 3
Chemical Name Area SDS Used
MSDS Rev Date
Silicone Spray
Misc.
Silicone Transformer Liquid
Mech./Misc.
09/25/85
Silikroil
Mech./Misc.
No Date
Silver Goop
Mech./Misc.
11/22/85
Simple Green Ind'1 Cleaner & Degreaser
Mech./Misc./Const.
02/24/94
Snoop
Misc.
12/03/91
Sodium Carbonate
12/12/97
Sodium Chloride
PVF
07/15/03
12/06/97
Spray Cleaner Degreaser
Const.
06/24/91
Staurolite Products
Mech./Misc./Const.
03/13/04
Steel Putty Plus 810 Part B
10/18/96
SPADNS Reagent for Fluoride
06/27/94
SUVA 123 (HCFC 123)
05/18/02
SUVA 134a
PVF
04/18/07
SUVA 410A
"Suva" Centri-LP,
03/12/94
"Suva" Centri-LP 134a
03/23/99
Tedlar (PVF) Resins (PV 16)
PVF
05/14/05
Tide Laundry Detergent
Misc.
Toner 6113/6213/6413/6514 Black Toner
Misc
06/06/91
Toner 825 (For IBM Copiers)
Mech./Misc.
06/12/87
Toner Kit -Toner Cartridge (Ricoh Copiers)
Mech./Misc
12/10/96
Toolmakers Ink Remover 7001
02/12/87
Trane Oil 22 (Trane)
11/06/95
Triethylene Glycol
Site
04/24/08
07/18/95
Universal Plus 3% 6%
Mech/Misc/ Const.
08/21/95
VA-044 (Azobia Propane Dihydrochloride)
PVF
10/28/98
Vinyl Fluoride
PVF
01/12/03
VSI® Circulating Oil 32 (Hydraulic Oil)
PVF
07/03/08
Waste Streams - Spent TSP
06/24/87
WD-40 (Aerosol)
Mech/Misc
10/93
Copiers
Xerox
5760/5765
Black Developer
Mech./Misc./Const.
02/15/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Black Toner
Mech./Misc./Const.
02/01/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Cyan Developer
02/15/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Cyan Toner
02/01/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Fuser Oil
Mech./Misc./Const.
02/01/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Magenta Developer
02/15/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Mitoner
02/15/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Photoreceptor
02/15/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Yellow Developer
02/15/93
Xerox
5760/5765
Yellow Toner
02/01/93
XcelTherm® 600
Heat Transfer Fluid
PVF
09/13/02
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT G
316(B) WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT G-1
ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION SCHEDULE FOR 316 (b)
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT G.1
ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION SCHEDULE FOR 316(B) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
RENEWAL PERMIT APPLICATION JULY 2019
Final regulations implementing 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, which established requirements
for cooling water intake structures (CWIS) at existing facilities, were published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2014 with an effective date of October 14, 2014.
The Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works ("Chemours") operates a cooling water intake
structure on the Cape Fear River that is subject to this new Federal Cooling Water Intake Structure
Rule ("the Rule") as codified in 40 CFR Part 125.
The rule requires the owner or operator of a facility subject to Subpart J whose currently effective
permit expires after July 14, 2018, to submit to the Director the information required in the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 122.21(r) when apply for a subsequent permit.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 125.95(a)(2), the owner or operator of a facility subject to Part 125 Subpart J,
"Requirements Applicable to the Cooling Water Intake Structure for Existing Facilities Under
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, whose currently effective permit expires prior to July 14,
2018, may request the Director to establish an alternative schedule for the submission of the
information required on 40 CFR 122.21(r) when applying for a subsequent (renewed) permit.
On October 20, 2015, a letter was sent from Michael E. Johnson, Environmental Manager,
Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works, to Dr Sergi Chernikov, NCDEQ Division of Water
Resources NPDES Complex Permit Unit, requesting an alternative schedule whereby all materials
required by the Rule will be submitted with the 2021 renewal application.
On February 26, 2016, a letter was sent from S. Jay Zimmerman, Director, NCDEQ Division of
Water Resources, to Michael E. Johnson, Environmental Manager, Chemours Company —
Fayetteville Works, wherein the requested alternative schedule for submission of required CWIS
information with the next permit renewal in 2021 was approved. A copy of Mr. Zimmerman's
letter is included as an attachment. Chemours intends to submit a permit application in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.21(r) by January 2021 or earlier.
July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT G-2
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY 316(B) LETTER
November 2019

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
February 26, 2016
Mr. Michael E. Johnson, P.E.
Environmental Manager
Chemours Company
22828 NC Highway 87 West
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306-7332
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Subject• Alternate CWA 3 ] G(b) Application Schedule
NPDES Permit NC0003573
Fayetteville Works
Bladen County
Dear iVli•. Johnson:
The Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) Final Rule outlines
regulations and standards for the design and operation of cooling water intake structures under the
NPDES program. Your current permit expires October 31, 2016, with renewal application due by May 4,
2016. Since your permit expires prior to July 14, 2018, under 40 CFR 125.95(a)(2), you have requested
an alternative schedule for submission of CWIS permit application information required in 40 CFR Part
122.21( r). Based on Division review, an alternate schedule for submission of required CWIS information
with the next permit renewal in 2021 is approved. This schedule date will be established in the 2016
permit renewal as well.
Please note that facilities should begin to adapt their systems to comply with CWA Section 316(b)
requirements. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Bernick with the NPDES Permitting Unit at
919-807-6390 or via email: tom.belnickamcdenn2ov
Sinc rely,
S.Jay Zinunermfln,P.G.
e% Director, Division of Water Resources
Cc: NPDES File
Central File
Ec: US EPA Region 4
USFWS
NC WRC
NC DWR/Fayetteville Region
state ofNoNL Cnrolinn � Grcironmenlnl Qnnlily � Wnler Resources
1617 Mail 5endce Center � RnIei6L, North Cnrolinn 27099-1GI7
919 707 9000

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT H
STORMWATER ONLY ASSESSMENT
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT H-1
STORMWATER DRAINAGE MAPS AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1. BLOWER DRAINAGE AREA
2. LAYDOWN DRAINAGE AREA
November 2019

Oil
4
o.
a_
• s ' �• 9' AAL
� ,'•' M. , 1 t a
M Aif
Ilk
M& r 744,
^' -
t
j V-draina-ge
area
•
�. +r Blower from semiworks
Legend
Stormwater sampling ,
location , , 1 . k
Stormwater drainage
area
1 i
Impervious area* s n ;T► s , '
Observed See •
p INA
Cape Fear River _ Blower Drainage Area
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Nearby Tributary
146'
Drainage Network Geosyntec®
consultants Figure
LIDAR Contours '~' "/'� 40 20 0 40 Feet
c.o�,eccon,w,anu orrvc, rc
*Within stormwater drainage area AL r j/�- Raleigh July 2019

Legend
Stormwater sampling
40
location
Stormwater drainage
area
Industrial area*
Impervious area*
— —
Observed Seep
Cape Fear River
Nearby Tributary
Drainage Network
LIDAR Contours
Approximate surface
water flow line
*Within stormwater drainage area
r,j t- NAN 1983 SWPl— North Gar 1— UPS 3200 Feel Units In Foot US
'46,
WOOM11 1
M
11 �6i
00. N--l-4
Laydo\n
M
N
7
'1 Laydown Drainage Area
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Geosyntec°
consultants Figure
90 45 0 90 Feet onryn[ec GonsWianis of NC. C
- - 3
Raleigh July 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT H-2
STORMWATER SAMPLING DATA SUBMITTAL AND RESULTS
November 2019

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT H.2
STORMWATER DATA SUBMITTAL
Stormwater grab samples were collected from both the Laydown Drainage Area and the Blower Drainage
Area on July 23, 2019. Composite samples were not collected during this storm event due to auto -sampler
malfunction. A composite sample was collected at the Laydown Drainage Area on August 2, 2019, and a
composite sample was collected at the Blower Drainage Area on September 5, 2019. Results for the
composite sample at the Blowdown Drainage Area will be submitted when available.
Available sample results are presented herein. An additional composite sample is planned to be collected
at each location, during the next applicable rain event. The samples were analyzed by the laboratories
shown below.
TestAmerica West Sacramento
880 Riverside Pkwy
West Sacramento, CA 95605
[phone]
TestAmerica Denver
4955 Yarrow St
Arvada, CO 80002
[phone]
Maps showing the overall site and both the Laydown Drainage Area and Blower Drainage Area are
shown in Appendix 1. Information for the sampled rain events is shown below.
Number of Hours
Duration of Storm
Total Rainfall
Between Beginning of
Date of Storm Event
Event (hours)
During Storm Event
Storm Measured and
(inches)
End of Previous
Measurable Rain Event
7/23/2019
6.2
0.48
274
8/1/2019 — 8/2/2019 (sample
collected on 8/2/2019)
24
0.44
214
November 2019

Chemours Company - Faetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Outfall
Parameter
Units
Grab
Sample
Composite
Sample
Number of
Storm Events
Sampled
Blower Drainage Area
Oil and Grease
mg/L
<1.7
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Chromium
mg/L
0.0046
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Copper
mg/L
0.016
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Lead
mg/L
0.011
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Manganese
mg/L
0.22
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Nickel
mg/L
0.0078 B
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Zinc
mg/L
0.36 B
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
36 J
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Fluoride
mg/L
0.52
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Sulfate
mg/L
13
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/L
<0.69
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen
mg/L
0.95 B
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Nitrogen, Total
mg/L
0.95
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Phosphorus
mg/L
0.098
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/L
11 J
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - 5
Y
mg/L
9.7 b
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-l-
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
ng/L
<60
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-I-
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
ng/L
<110
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Byproduct 4
ng/L
4,100
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Byproduct 5
ng/L
33,000
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Byproduct 6
ng/L
61
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
EVE Acid
ng/L
1,700
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Hydro -EVE Acid
ng/L
590 F 1
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
N-ethylperfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide
ng/L
<37
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
N-methyl perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide
ng/L
<35
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
NVHOS
ng/L
1,600
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PEPA
ng/L
1,400
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PES
ng/L
<46
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PFECA B
ng/L
<60
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PFECA-G
ng/L
<41
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PFESA-BPI
ng/L
7,700
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PFESA-BP2
ng/L
1,800
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PFMOAA
ng/L
2,500
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PF02HxA
ng/L
2,700
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PF030A
ng/L
470
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PF04DA
ng/L
310
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PF05DA
ng/L
310
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PMPA
ng/L
3,900
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
R-EVE
ng/L
1,800
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
ng/L
<2
-
1

Chemours Company - Faetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Outfall
Parameter
Units
Grab
Sample
Composite
Sample
Number of
Storm Events
Sampled
Blower Drainage Area
l lC1-PF3OUdS
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate
(8:2 FTS)
ng/L
<20
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate
(4:2 FTS)
ng/L
<20
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
ng/L
<20
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
9C1-PF30NS
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
ADONA
ng/L
<2.1
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Hfpo Dimer Acid
ng/L
25,000
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
NaDONA
ng/L
<2.1
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic
acid
ng/L
<20
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
N-methyl perfluorooctane
sulfonamidoacetic acid
ng/L
<20
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
ng/L
86
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
ng/L
5.9
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
ng/L
3.4
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
ng/L
14
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
ng/L
14
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorononanoic Acid
ng/L
6.3
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
ng/L
65
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
ng/L
2.3
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
ng/L
<2
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
ng/L
2.7
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PFOA
ng/L
30
-
1
Blower Drainage Area
PFOS
ng/L
2.5
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Oil and Grease
mg/L
<1.7
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Aluminum
mg/L
-
0.69
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Iron
mg/L
-
0.51
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Magnesium
mg/L
-
0.5
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Chromium
mg/L
0.0084
0.0034
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Copper
mg/L
0.011
0.017
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Lead
mg/L
0.026
0.0058
2

Chemours Company - Faetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Outfall
Parameter
Units
Grab
Sample
Composite
Sample
Number of
Storm Events
Sampled
Laydown Drainage Area
Manganese
mg/L
0.11
0.49
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Nickel
mg/L
0.0036 B
0.012 B
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Zinc
mg/L
0.09 B
1.1 B
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
190 J
9.6
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Fluoride
mg/L
<0.17
0.75
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Sulfate
mg/L
6.4
30
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/L
0.74 J
1
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen
mg/L
0.34 B
1.4
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Nitrogen, Total
mg/L
1.1
2.4
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Phosphorus
mg/L
0.12
0.56 J
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/L
14 J
31
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Biochemical
a chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - 5
Y
mg/L
5 b
4.4 J
2
Laydown Drainage Area
2-(N-ethyl perfluoro-l-
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
ng/L
<2
<60
2
Laydown Drainage Area
2-(N-methyl perfluoro-I-
octanesulfonamido)-ethanol
ng/L
<2
<110
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Byproduct 4
ng/L
280 J
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Byproduct 5
ng/L
120 J
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Byproduct 6
ng/L
1 1
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
EVE Acid
ng/L
<2
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
Hydro -EVE Acid
ng/L
7.7
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
N-ethylperfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide
ng/L
<2
<37
2
Laydown Drainage Area
N-methyl perfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide
ng/L
<2
<35
2
Laydown Drainage Area
NVHOS
ng/L
19
-
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PEPA
ng/L
55
2,700
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PES
ng/L
<2
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
PFECA B
ng/L
<2
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
PFECA-G
ng/L
<2
<41
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PFESA-BPI
ng/L
9.5
6,700
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PFESA-BP2
ng/L
100
1,900
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PFMOAA
ng/L
84
5,200
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PF02HxA
ng/L
63
5,500
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PF030A
ng/L
12
860
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PF04DA
ng/L
26
500
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PF05DA
ng/L
110
670 J
2
Laydown Drainage Area
PMPA
ng/L
210
7,600
2
Laydown Drainage Area
R-EVE
ng/L
24 J
-
1
Laydown Drainage Area
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
ng/L
<2
<2
2
Laydown Drainage Area
l lCl-PF30UdS
ng/L
<2
<3.1
2
Laydown Drainage Area
1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecanesulfonate
(8:2 FTS)
ng/L
<20
<20
2

Chemours Company - Faetteville Works
NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
Outfall
Parameter
Units
Grab
Sample
Composite
Sample
Number of
Storm Events
Sampled
Laydown Drainage Area
1H,1H12H,2H-perfluorohexanesulfonate
(4:2 FTS)
ng/L
<20
<50
2
Laydown Drainage Area
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
ng/L
<20
<20
2
Laydown Drainage Area
9C1-PF30NS
ng/L
<2
<2.3
2
Laydown Drainage Area
ADONA
ng/L
<2.1
<2.1
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Hfpo Dimer Acid
ng/L
250
24,000
2
Laydown Drainage Area
NaDONA
ng/L
<2.1
<2.1
2
Laydown Drainage Area
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic
acid
ng/L
<20
<20
2
Laydown Drainage Area
N-methyl perfluorooctane
sulfonamidoacetic acid
ng/L
<20
<30
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
ng/L
<2
<2
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
ng/L
20
210
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
ng/L
<2
<3.1
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
ng/L
4.5
5.8
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS)
ng/L
<2
<4.4
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
ng/L
2.5
<5.3
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
ng/L
<2
<2
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
ng/L
3.9
17
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
ng/L
<2
<8.6
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
ng/L
<2
<2
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
ng/L
<2
21
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
ng/L
<2
<2
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorononanoic Acid
ng/L
4.5
9.3
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
ng/L
<2
<4.5
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
ng/L
<2
<3.4
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
ng/L
<2
<2.9
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
ng/L
12
99
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
ng/L
<2
<2.8
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
ng/L
<2
<13
2
Laydown Drainage Area
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
ng/L
4.5
<11
2
Laydown Drainage Area
JPFOA
ng/L
23
1 48
1 2
Laydown Drainage Area
JPFOS
ng/L
7.7
1 <5.2
1 2
Notes:
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ng/L - nanograms per liter
- - not reported

Chemours Company — Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit No. NC0003573
ATTACHMENT I
CONSENT ORDER
November 2019

r
c t ;. li.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,'; . ' , ` SIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF BLADEN 17 CVS 580
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel.,
MICHAEL S. REGAN, SECRETARY,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
Plaintiff,
CONSENT ORDER
CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH,
Plaintiff -Intervenor,
V.
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
Defendant.
WHEREAS, since July 1, 2015, Defendant The Chemours Company FC, LLC
("Chemours") has owned and operated a chemical manufacturing facility called the Fayetteville
Works ("Facility") in Bladen County, North Carolina, which, prior to July 1, 2015, was owned
and operated by E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. ("DuPont")
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2017, Plaintiff, the State of North Carolina, by and through
Michael S. Regan, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
("DEQ"), filed a Complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order in this Court against
Chemours, seeking various forms of relief relating to alleged violations by Chemours and DuPont
1

of North Carolina water duality laws and regulations arising out of the discharge of certain per -
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including a compound often referred to by the trade
name "GenX," into surface water and groundwater;
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2017, the Court entered a partial consent order resolving
DEQ's motion for a temporary restraining order;
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Chemours
that, among other things, sought further relief, including relating to alleged violations by Chemours
and DuPont of North Carolina water duality laws and regulations arising out of the discharge or
release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances into surface water, groundwater and the air;
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, Chemours filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint
denying the allegations that Chemours had violated State laws or regulations and setting forth
multiple affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs claims;
WHEREAS, DEQ has issued Notices of Violation to Chemours dated September 6, 2017,
November 13, 2017, February 12, 2018, and June 1, 2018 (collectively, "the NOVs"), relating to
the alleged violations set forth in the Complaint and/or Amended Complaint, and Chemours
responded to the NOVs;
WHEREAS, since the filing of the Complaint, the Parties have conducted good -faith
discussions to develop comprehensive and effective solutions to the environmental concerns that
have been raised concerning the Facility's operations, including those underlying the allegations
of the Amended Complaint and the NOVs;
WHEREAS, the Parties havI negotiated this Consent Order that the Parties believe w� I1
2

provide such solutions;
WHEREAS, pursuant to this Consent Order, and in consideration of the release of claims
and the other relief set forth herein, Chemours will, among other things:
(i) install abatement technology at the Facility (including a thermal oxidizer) that,
once fully operational, will permanently reduce annual air emissions of GenX Compounds and
other PFAS (as those terms are defined below) by at least 99% from baseline levels and control all
PFAS emissions from process streams routed to the thermal oxidizer at an efficiency of 99.99%;
(ii) on an interim basis, reduce annual air emissions of GenX Compounds (as
defined below) by at least 82% beginning as of October 6, 2018 and by at least 92% beginning as
of December 31, 2018;
(iii) continue to capture for off -site disposal all process wastewater from its
operations at the Facility unless or until an NPDES Permit is issued authorizing the discharge of
process wastewater;
(iv) undertake the measures specified below with respect to abatement and
remediation of groundwater contamination and provision of alternative drinking water supplies;
and
(v) agree to the measures specified below to verify and ensure compliance with the
foregoing commitments and the requirements of this Consent Order;
WHEREAS, Chemours denies any violation of any law, regulation or permit, including the
claims of any such violation made in the Amended Complaint or the NOVs, and has agreed to this
Consent Order solely t� avoid the expense, burden and uncertainty of litigation land to address
I

community concerns about the Facility;
WHEREAS, Chemours and DEQ have consented to the intervention of Cape Fear River
Watch in this matter for the purpose of entering into this Consent Order and resolving Cape Fear
River Watch's pending actions in Cape Fear River Watch v. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, 18 CVS 2462 (New Hanover Cty. Sup. Ct.) and Cape Fear River Watch
v. Chemours Company FC, LLC, No. 7:18-cv-00159 (E.D.N.C.);
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree, and the Court orders, as follows:
A. DEFINITIONS
"Amended Complaint" means the amended complaint filed by the Plaintiff in this matter
on April 10, 2018.
2018.
"Complaint" means the complaint filed by the Plaintiff in this matter on September 7,
"Defendant" or "Chemours" means The Chemours Company FC, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company registered and doing business in North Carolina.
"DEQ" means the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, including all its
divisions.
"DAQ" means the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, a division of DEQ.
"DWM" means the North Carolina Division of Waste Management, a division of DEQ.
"DWR" means the North Carolina Division of Water Resources, a division of DEQ.
"Facility" means Chemours' Fayetteville Works Facility located at 22828 NC Highway
87 W, Fayetteville, Bladen County, North Carolina, which Facility iI owned by, and operated in
j I
11

part by, Chemours.
"GenX" means the chemical C3 Dimer Acid (also known as HFPO Dimer Acid), which
has a CAS number of 13252-13-6.
"GenX Compounds" means 0 Dimer Acid (also known as HFPO Dimer Acid), CAS
No. 13252-13-6, C3 Dimer Acid Fluoride (also known as HFPO Dimer Acid Fluoride), CAS No.
2062-98-8, and C3 Dimer Acid Ammonium Salt (also known as HFPO Dimer Acid Ammonium
Salt), CAS No. 62037-80-3
"NOVs" means the Notices of Violation issued by DEQ to Chemours dated September 6,
2017, November 13, 2017, February 12, 2018, and June 1, 2018. "NOVs" also includes the
anticipated notice of violation for the truck spill that occurred during Hurricane Florence on
September 18, 2018.
"PFAS" means perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
"Plaintiff" means the sovereign State of North Carolina on behalf of DEQ.
"2017 Total Reported Emissions" means total facility -wide estimated emissions of GenX
Compounds in the amount of 2302.7 lbs as reported by Chemours to DAQ in Chemours' Letter of
April 27, 2018 and the document, "HFPO-DA Baseline Emission Estimates," attached thereto as
Exhibit 2.
B. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiff is the sovereign State of North Carolina. This action was brought on the
relation of Michael S. Regan, Secretary of DEQ, the State agency established pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 143B-279.1 et seq., and vested with the statutory authority to enforce the State's
5

environmental protection laws, including laws enacted to protect the water and air quality of the
State.
2. Plaintiff -Intervenor Cape Fear River Watch is a § 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest
organization headquartered in Wilmington, North Carolina that engages residents of the Cape Fear
watershed through programs to preserve and safeguard the river. The organization has 1,100
members, including members who live near, drink water from, and fish, swim, and boat on the
Cape Fear River downstream of Chemours' Fayetteville Works Facility. Cape Fear River Watch's
mission is "to protect and improve the water quality of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin through
education, advocacy and action."
3. Defendant Chemours is a Delaware limited liability company registered and doing
business in North Carolina. Chemours owns the Fayetteville Works facility located at 22828 NC
Highway 87 W, Fayetteville, Bladen County, North Carolina and operates a portion of that facility.
4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C, N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 143-114C, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-245(a)(2) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-493.
5. Bladen County, North Carolina is a proper venue because portions of the
Fayetteville Works facility are located in Bladen County and the Amended Complaint alleges
violations occurring in Bladen County. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6C; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
II4C.
6. The Honorable Douglas B. Sasser, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, presides
over this matter by designation pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the General Rules of Practice.
C. COMPLIANCE MEASURES — AIR EMISSIONS

7. Control Technology Improvements:
a. Second Phase Scrubber. Chemours completed installation of a packed bed
scrubber ("Second Phase Scrubber") to control emissions from the Division
Waste Gas Scrubber on November 7, 2018.
b. Vinyl Ethers North Carbon Adsorber Project: Chemours has made
improvements to allow for the control of emissions from the Second Phase
Scrubber by the Vinyl Ethers North Carbon Adsorber Unit ("Vinyl Ethers
North Carbon Adsorber Project") in accordance with the following schedule
and conditions:
i. On October 19, 2018, Chemours submitted to DAQ a process hazard
assessment pertaining to the Vinyl Ethers North Carbon Adsorber
Project.
ii. On December 26, 2018, Chemours completed construction of the Vinyl
Ethers North Carbon Adsorber Project. All emissions from the Second
Phase Scrubber are controlled by the Vinyl Ethers North Carbon
Adsorber Unit subject to such unit downtime as may be required by the
process hazard assessment or as necessary for maintenance of the unit.
Chemours will use its best efforts consistent with safe operations to
minimize unit downtime.
iii. Within ninety (90) days of installation, Chemours shall submit a report
to DAQ demonstrating that the Vinyl Ethers North Carbon Adsorber
%I

Unit operates with a minimum control efficiency of 93% for GenX
Compounds.
c. Thermal Oxidizer. By December 31, 2019, Chemours shall install a thermal
oxidizer to control all PFAS in process streams from the HFPO Process, the
Vinyl Ethers North Process, the Vinyl Ethers South Process, the RSU Process,
the TFE Process, the MMF Process, and the Polymers Process. Within ninety
(90) days of installation, Chemours shall demonstrate that the thermal oxidizer
controls all PFAS at an efficiency of 99.99%.
8. GenX Emissions Reduction Milestones: Chemours shall achieve the overall
emissions reductions of GenX Compounds in accordance with the following schedule.
a. By October 6, 2018 and for the twelve-month period beginning on that date,
Chemours shall reduce Facility -wide air emissions of GenX Compounds on an
annualized basis by at least 82% from 2017 Total Reported Emissions. To
demonstrate compliance with this paragraph, Chemours shall follow the
procedure in paragraph (b) below, except the demonstration year shall run from
October 6, 2018 through October 5, 2019 (rather than Calendar Year 2019) and
the final report demonstrating compliance shall be due on or before December
5, 2019 (rather than February 28, 2020).
b. By December')], 2018 and for the twelve-month period beginning on that date,
Chemours shall reduce Facility -wide air emissions of GenX Compounds on an
annualized basis by at least 92% from 2017 Total Reported Emissions. To

demonstrate compliance with this paragraph, Chemours shall:
i. Conduct emissions testing for GenX Compounds emissions sources to
determine GenX Compounds emission rates for each product
campaign. Emissions testing shall be conducted during the first
campaign of that product of the Calendar Year 2019. Control device
operating parameters must be recorded during the testing. Emissions
test reports shall be submitted to DAQ within forty-five days of
completion of the emissions test; and
ii. Submit a report demonstrating compliance to DAQ by February 28,
2020. This report shall include GenX Compounds emissions in pounds
per year based on test data or established emission factors where test
data are not available, hours of operation for each campaign,
and production data. The report shall quantify any other emissions
including but not limited to fugitive, maintenance, malfunction and
accidental emissions. The report shall also include a summary of
control device operating parameters throughout the year.
c. By December 31, 2019 and for each consecutive twelve-month period
following that date, Chemours shall reduce Facility -wide annual air emissions
of GenX Compounds by at least 99% from 2017 Total Reported Emissions. To
demonstrate compliance with this paragraph, Chemours shall:
i. Conduct emissions testing for the thermal oxidizer to determine the

emissions rate of GenX Compounds. Emissions testing shall be
completed by March 31, 2020. Emissions test reports shall be submitted
to DAQ within forty-five days of completion of the emissions test; and
ii. Submit a report demonstrating compliance to DAQ by February 28,
2021. This report shall include GenX Compounds emissions in pounds
per year based on test data, or established emission factors where test
data are not available, hours of operation, and production data. The
report shall quantify any other emissions including but not limited to
fugitive, maintenance, malfunction and accidental emissions. The report
shall also include a summary of control device operating parameters
throughout the year.
iii. Chemours shall repeat this compliance demonstration for each
subsequent calendar year unless and until DAQ issues a modified Air
Quality Permit to Chemours, incorporating a 99% or greater reduction
requirement.
d. To provide ongoing assurance of compliance with the interim emissions
reductions required under subparagraphs (a) and (b), Chemours shall submit an
inventory of emissions of GenX Compounds from all sources on a monthly
basis within 21 days of the end of each month. This inventory shall include (1)
a detailed summary of emissions during the previous calendar month; (2)
cumulative emissions to date during the relevant annual compliance period; and
U

(3) projected emissions during the relevant annual compliance period.
9. Disclosure of PFAS emissions: Chemours shall have an ongoing duty to disclose
to DAQ (i) any identified previously undisclosed PFAS and emissions rates for those PFAS, and
(ii) any new process or production that may lead to the addition of any previously undisclosed
PFAS in the Facility's air emissions. For any such PFAS, Chemours shall provide DAQ with any
available analytical test methods and lab standards. Chemours shall provide DAQ with all known
test methods and lab standards for PFAS in air emissions at the facility by December 31, 2018.
D. COMPLIANCE MEASURES — SURFACE WATER
10. No Discharge of Process Wastewater from Chemours' Manufacturing Areas:
Chemours shall not discharge process wastewater from Chemours' manufacturing areas until
issuance of an NPDES Permit issued under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1 and 15A NCAC 2B
("NPDES Permit") expressly authorizing the discharge of such process wastewater and with such
limits as DEQ reasonably deems necessary and appropriate to control the discharge of GenX
Compounds and other PFAS. In accordance with applicable law, in setting such limits, DEQ shall
take into account available health information including any information produced pursuant to this
Consent Order.
11. Characterization of PFAS in Process and Non -process Wastewater and Stormwater
at the Facility:
a. Test methods and lab standards: By January 31, 2019, Chemours shall (a)
provide DWR with all known analytical test methods and lab standards for all
PFAS in all process and non -process wastewater and stormwater at the Facility,
11

including but not limited to all process and non -process wastewater and
stormwater discharged through Outfall 002, and (b) submit a plan and schedule
for conducting non -targeted analysis of all process and non -process wastewater
and stormwater streams to identify any additional PFAS and developing test
methods and lab standards for such compounds. Chemours shall commence
implementation of such plan within thirty (30) days of approval by DEQ.
Chemours shall follow the EPA's Protocol for Review and Validation of New
Methods for Regulated Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater under
EPA's Alternate Test Procedure Program, see
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/chemical-new-
method-protocol_feb-2016.pdf, and shall write each test procedure in the
standard EPA format.
b. Samplingplan: By December 31, 2018, Chemours shall submit a sampling plan
to DWR for approval. This sampling plan shall include proposed locations for
the sampling to carry out the initial characterization of all PFAS described in
subparagraph (c).
c. Initial characterization: Within thirty (30) days of approval of the sampling
plan, Chemours shall commence submission of quarterly reports to DEQ
identifying PFAS constituents and initial concentrations at any level above the
practical quantitation limit in all process and non -process wastewater and
stormwater at the Facility, including, but not limited to, all process and non-
12

process wastewater and stormwater discharged through Outfall 002. As part of
these reports, process and non -process wastewater and stormwater shall be
characterized from each of Chemours' manufacturing areas as well as from the
manufacturing areas of Chemours' tenants, Kuraray and DuPont. Similar
testing for HAS constituents in the raw water intake shall be performed in
conjunction with other sampling in order to assess background concentrations.
The final quarterly report shall be submitted, and initial characterization of all
PFAS completed, no later than eighteen (18) months after approval of the
sampling plan.
d. Ongoing sampling: For all HAS for which test methods and lab standards have
been developed Chemours, at least every two months, shall sample for each
such PFAS at approved locations and report the results to DWR. Approved
locations shall, at a minimum, include the locations described in subparagraph
11(c), unless Chemours has demonstrated through its initial characterization
that a manufacturing area does not contribute to PFAS loading. After two years
of such sampling, Chemours may request that DWR agree to a reduced
sampling frequency.
e. Ongoing duty to disclose: Chemours shall have an ongoing duty to disclose (i)
any previously undisclosed PFAS and concentrations of any previously
undisclosed PFAS in all process and non -process wastewater and stormwater at
the Facility, and (ii) any new process or production that may lead to the addition
13

of any previously undisclosed HAS in process and non -process wastewater and
stormwater at the Facility. For any such PFAS, Chemours shall provide DWR
with available test methods and lab standards as specified in subparagraph (a)
above.
11.1 Characterization of PFAS Contamination in Downstream Raw Water Intakes:
Within six months of entry of this Order, Chemours shall submit an analysis to DEQ reporting
contributions of PFAS (including identification and mass loading of each PFAS) from the Facility
to the raw water intakes of downstream public water utilities.
11.2 Characterization of HAS Contamination in River Sediment: Within six months of
entry of this Order, Chemours shall develop a plan for assessing the nature and extent of PFAS
sediment contamination in the Cape Fear River originating from the Facility, and submit the plan
and a schedule for implementation to DWR for approval. Within thirty (30) days of DEQ's
approval of the plan and schedule by DWR, Chemours shall commence implementation of the
plan. Upon completion, Chemours shall summarize its findings in a report to be submitted to
DEQ, Cape Fear River Watch, and to downstream water utilities.
12. Accelerated Reduction of PFAS Contamination in the Cape Fear River and
Downstream Water Intakes:
a. In order to reduce HAS contamination in the Cape Fear River and in the raw
water intakes of downstream public water utilities on an accelerated basis,
within six months of entry of this Order, Chemours shall submit to DEQ and
Cape Fear River Watch a plan demonstrating the maximum reductions in HAS
14

loading from the Facility (including loading from contaminated stormwater,
non -process wastewater, and groundwater) to surface waters, including Old
Outfall 002, that are economically and technologically feasible, and can be
achieved within a two-year period ("PFAS reduction targets"). The plan shall
be supported by interim benchmarks to ensure continuous progress in reduction
of HAS loading. If significantly greater reductions can be achieved in a longer
implementation period, Chemours may propose, in addition, an implementation
period of up to five years supported by interim benchmarks to ensure
continuous progress in reduction of PFAS loading. In demonstrating maximum
reductions in HAS loading to the Cape Fear River, Chemours may take into
account the PFAS loading reductions to be achieved pursuant to subparagraph
12(e). Subject to approval by DEQ, the plan may include actions to be
undertaken by other entities that have contributed to the need for such
remediation. Chemours shall simultaneously transmit the plan to downstream
public water utilities. DEQ will make DEQ staff available to meet with
downstream public water utilities to receive input on the plan.
b. The plan shall include a model accounting for all sources of HAS (including
identification and mass loading of all PFAS) from the Facility contributing to
the loading of PFAS into the Cape Fear River, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch,
and Old Outfall 002.
15

c. The model shall be prepared by a third party approved by DEQ after
consultation with Cape Fear River Watch. Prior to conducting the modeling
analysis, the third party shall submit to DEQ for approval a scope of work
describing the modeling analysis. DEQ shall consider all timely comments
received from Cape Fear River Watch prior to agency approval of any such
document.
d. DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch shall review the plan developed by Chemours,
and the Parties shall work together in good faith to determine if the PFAS
reduction targets identified by Chemours represent the maximum reductions
that are economically and technologically feasible, and can be implemented
over a two-year period (or longer as proposed in an alternate plan), or whether
the Parties can identify and agree upon further reductions. The burden is on
Chemours to demonstrate that the concentrations of GenX and perfluoro-l-
methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) detected in Outfall 002 cannot be reduced by
at least 80% from baseline levels, including after measurable storm events, as
defined in 40 C.F.R. 122.21(g)(7)(ii), within 2 years.
e. By September 30, 2019, Chemours shall complete, at a minimum, monthly
surface water sampling in Old Outfall 002 (beginning no later than March 2019)
at the locations marked A (mouth of stream), A (seep), B, C, D, E, Option B
(proposed dam), and Creek A2 in Attachment A for any PFAS for which test
methods and laboratory standards have been developed as of the date of entry
16

of the Consent Order. Also by September 30, 2019, Chemours shall complete
pilot scale testing of treatment equipment to determine its control efficiency for
all HAS identified in Old Outfall 002. The results of this pilot testing shall be
supported by at least three (3) months of sampling data, and submitted to DWR
for review and approval. In addition, within ninety (90) days of entry of this
Consent Order, Chemours shall submit a plan analyzing the options below and
implement one of them upon approval by DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch:
i. Provided that DEQ issues any necessary permits authorizing such
discharge and subject to any conditions imposed by such permits, and
provided that any other permitting authority with jurisdiction over the
project issues any other necessary permits, by September 30, 2020, at or
near the Option B location (proposed dam) depicted in Attachment A,
Chemours shall implement a system to capture the dry weather flow at
that location and treat such water prior to discharge pursuant to such
permits or authorizations as DEQ may issue. Chemours shall submit
timely and complete applications and take all other actions necessary to
obtain any necessary permits or authorizations to carry out the
requirements of this paragraph. The treatment system shall meet such
discharge standards as shall be set by DEQ, and shall, in addition and at
a minimum, be at least 99% effective in controlling indicator
parameters, GenX and PFMOAA;
17

ii. By September 30, 2020, Chemours shall implement such measures to
reduce PFAS loading from Old Outfall 002 to the Cape Fear River that
will achieve results that are demonstrated to be equivalent to or greater
than the reductions that would be obtained under subparagraph (i)
above.
Following the completion of the groundwater remediation set forth in Paragraph
16, Chemours shall remove any dam(s) placed within Old Outfall 002 and restore
the channel to its condition prior to the installation of the dam.
f. Provided that the Parties come to an agreement regarding additional PFAS
reductions, within eight months after entry of this Order, DEQ, Cape Fear River
Watch and Chemours shall jointly move to amend this Consent Order to
incorporate any agreed upon reductions as enforceable requirements of this
Consent Order as well as stipulated penalties for non-compliance. If DEQ,
Cape Fear River Watch, and Chemours are unable to mutually agree upon
additional PFAS reductions within eight months after entry of this Order: (i) the
Parties may jointly stipulate to additional time in which to submit a joint motion
to amend, or (ii) Cape Fear River Watch, DEQ, and Chemours may bring any
dispute regarding the additional reductions before the Court for resolution. In
resolving any such dispute, the Court shall, in addition to considering testimony
by qualified experts presented by the parties, give due regard to the
demonstrated knowledge and expertise of DEQ with respect to the evaluation

of the economic and technological feasibility of environmental remediation and
the application of that knowledge and expertise to other remediation projects.
After the Court amends this Consent Order or otherwise resolves this issue,
Chemours shall commence implementation within thirty days of such an
amendment or other resolution of the issue, and comply with the reduction
targets mandated.
g. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit Chemours' obligations to
submit and implement a complete Corrective Action Plan pursuant to paragraph
16, but Chemours may propose such a Corrective Action Plan that integrates
the requirements of this paragraph.
13. Facility Site Visit: By February 28, 2019, Chemours shall provide DEQ and Cape
Fear River Watch with a tour of the exterior grounds of the Facility, including Old Outfall 002,
Outfall 002, the terracotta pipe (which formerly carried industrial process wastewater), discharge
locations to surface waters, and the proposed sampling locations contemplated by paragraph 11(b).
14. Toxicity Studies: Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Consent Order, Chemours
shall submit a plan and proposed schedule for review and approval by DEQ for funding and
facilitating the conducting of an initial set of toxicity studies by a qualified third party approved
by DEQ relating to both toxicity assays informative to human health and aquatic life sufficient to
aid in development of surface water and groundwater regulatory standards for up to five HAS as
determined by DEQ. The plan shall provide for the studies and parameters identified in
Attachment B as well as technologically feasible dosing parameters to be agreed upon by
19

Chemours and DEQ. Chemours shall implement the measures set forth in the approved plan. DEQ
reserves the right to seek additional toxicity studies or additional health, chemical persistence and
environmental fate information beyond the scope of the initial set of studies required by this
paragraph. DEQ shall consider public comments in determining what additional toxicity studies
or additional health, chemical persistence and environmental fate information are needed.
Chemours reserves the right to contest any efforts by DEQ to seek additional toxicity studies or
additional health, chemical persistence and environmental fate information from Chemours
beyond the scope of the initial set of studies required by this paragraph. Additionally, modification
of toxicity study(ies) specified in Attachment B shall permitted, upon agreement between DEQ
and Chemours, only if DEQ determines that such modification will provide substantially better
information. Any dispute with respect to this paragraph that the parties are unable to resolve after
good faith negotiations shall be resolved by the Court, which shall determine whether the disputed
activity is reasonably necessary to achieve the objectives of this paragraph.
15. Notice to and Coordination With Water Utilities: In the event of an upset or other
operating condition at the Facility that has the potential to cause (i) a discharge of GenX
Compounds or any PFAS for which analytical test methods and lab standards have been developed
into the Cape Fear River through Outfall 002 at concentrations exceeding 140 ng/L, or any
applicable health advisory, whichever is lower, or (ii) a material increase in the concentration of
any HAS in effluent being discharged into the Cape Fear River through Outfall 002 or any future
permitted discharge, Chemours shall provide notice to downstream public water utilities, DEQ,
and Cape Fear River Watch within one (1) hour of knowledge of the condition. Chemours shall
WE

maintain a list of appropriate contacts of downstream public water utilities, which Chemours shall
routinely update by requesting contact information from DEQ. Chemours shall also post a
description of the condition including any estimated quantity of the release on a publicly available
website within twenty-four (24) hours of knowledge of the condition.
E. COMPLIANCE MEASURES — GROUNDWATER
16. Groundwater Remediation:
a. By December 31, 2019, Chemours shall submit for approval by DEQ a
complete Corrective Action Plan that complies with the requirements of the 2L
Rules and guidance provided by DEQ. DEQ shall put the draft Corrective
Action Plan to public notice and provide at least 30 days thereafter in which to
provide written comments. DEQ shall consider any written comments received
prior to approving the Corrective Action Plan.
b. Chemours shall implement the Corrective Action Plan in accordance with a
schedule approved by DEQ. Except as otherwise allowed in or provided under
the 2L Rules, the Corrective Action Plan must provide, upon full
implementation, for the remediation of groundwater to the standards set forth
in 15A NCAC 2L.0202. Subject to approval by DEQ, the Corrective Action
Plan may include actions to be undertaken by other entities that have
contributed to the need for such remediation.
c. The Corrective Action Plan shall include the installation of groundwater
monitoring wells along Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch, and the
21

Cape Fear River in sufficient number and in locations adequate for monitoring
the quality of groundwater entering surface waters, and include the collection
and reporting of accurate baseline concentrations for all PFAS for which test
methods and lab standards have been developed within each groundwater
monitoring well installed pursuant to this paragraph, in addition to existing
long-term wells (LTWs) along the Cape Fear River. As test methods and lab
standards are developed for additional PFAS, the Corrective Action Plan shall
be amended to address those PFAS.
d. At a minimum, in addition to any measures that might be otherwise required to
comply with the 2L Rules, and notwithstanding any provisions of the 2L rules
or other exceptions that might apply to corrective action plans, the Corrective
Action Plan must require Chemours to reduce the PFAS loading to surface
water (Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch, and the Cape Fear
River), for the PFAS for which test methods and lab standards have been
developed, by at least 75% from baseline. The baseline will be established
using the average of the concentrations of the PFAS in the groundwater
monitoring wells for each surface water and LTWs along the Cape Fear River
over the first four (4) quarters of sampling. To demonstrate compliance, mass
loading to surface water (Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch, and
the Cape Fear River), must be reduced by at least 75% from baseline for at least
22

eight (8) consecutive quarters and determined using measured concentrations
in groundwater monitoring wells and LTW wells.
17. Lining ofNafion Ditch and Sedimentation Ponds: Chemours completed permanent
lining of the Nafion Ditch by November 7, 2018 and permanent lining of the south sedimentation
pond by November 8, 2018. Chemours completed permanent lining of the north sedimentation
pond by December 31, 2018.
18. On and Offsite Assessment: Chemours shall fund a third party contractor(s),
approved by DEQ after consultation with Cape Fear River Watch, to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of on and offsite groundwater contamination that complies with the requirements of
the 2L Rules. This assessment shall include an analysis of: (i) the source and cause of
contamination; (ii) any imminent hazards to public health and safety and any actions taken to
mitigate them; (iii) all receptors (to include as potential receptors drinking water wells and surface
waters) and significant exposure pathways; (iv) the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and
groundwater contamination and all significant factors affecting contaminant transport; and (v)
geological and hydrogeological features influencing the movement, chemical, and physical
character of the contaminants. This assessment shall also identify any groundwater seeps
contributing to surface water contamination at the site and areas with significantly contaminated
sediment. The assessment shall be submitted to DWM and Cape Fear River Watch by September
30, 2019.
F. COMPLIANCE MEASURES —
REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
23

19. Provision of Public Water Supplies or Whole Building Filtration Systems:
Chemours shall establish and properly maintain permanent replacement drinking water supplies in
the form of public water or a whole building filtration system for any party (i.e., household,
business, school, or public building) with a private drinking water well that has been found through
testing validated by DEQ to be contaminated by concentrations ofGenX compounds in exceedance
of 140 ng/L, or any applicable health advisory, whichever is lower. Under this provision,
permanent replacement water supplies shall be established by connection to a public water supply,
except that:
a. in lieu of a connection to public water supply, an affected party may elect to
receive either a whole building filtration system approved by DEQ or under
sink reverse osmosis systems (installed at every kitchen and bathroom sink at
the election of the affected party) approved by DEQ, in which case Chemours
shall install and properly maintain such filtration systems;
b. an affected party may elect to decline any permanent replacement drinking
water supply;
c. if DEQ determines that connection to a public water supply to a an affected
party would be cost -prohibitive (i.e., greater than $75,000) or unsafe, DEQ may
authorize provision of a permanent replacement water supply to that affected
party through installation and ongoing maintenance of either a whole building
filtration system approved by DEQ or reverse osmosis systems approved by
WE

DEQ installed at every kitchen and bathroom sink (at the election of the affected
party).
Permanent replacement drinking water supplies established pursuant to this paragraph shall be
installed no later than: (i) nine (9) months from the date Chemours becomes aware that the affected
party qualifies for replacement drinking water; or (ii) if Chemours is aware that an affected party
qualifies for replacement drinking water at the time this Consent Order is entered, nine (9) months
from the date of entry of this Consent Order. For affected parties, Chemours shall be liable to pay
for any water bills from public utilities for a period of twenty (20) years up to $75/month/affected
party, provided that the monthly cap on public utility bills may be reevaluated by DEQ every two
(2) years and adjusted by the average percentage increase or decrease in utility rates a given county.
20. Provision of Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Systems: Chemours shall provide
for and properly maintain permanent replacement water supplies through the installation of three
under sink reverse osmosis drinking water systems approved by DEQ for any party (i.e.,
household, business, school, or public building) that does not qualify for permanent replacement
of a private drinking water supply pursuant to paragraph 19 with a drinking water supply well
contaminated by:
a. combined quantifiable concentrations of PFAS listed in Attachment C in
exceedance of 70 ng/L; or
b. quantifiable concentrations of any individual PFAS listed in Attachment C in
exceedance of 10 ng/L.
25

In the event that the water from more than one sink may be filtered using a single reverse osmosis
system with the same or better results for finished water, Chemours may request approval from
DEQ to implement such a system in lieu of a reverse osmosis system under each sink. For any
public building (e.g., schools or government buildings) that qualifies for permanent replacement
drinking water pursuant to this paragraph, Chemours shall either (i) provide and properly maintain
under sink reverse osmosis drinking water systems approved by DEQ at each drinking fountain
and at each sink that is used for drinking water, or (ii) provide, after consultation between DEQ,
Chemours, and the management of the school or building, and subject to DEQ's approval, another
effective system or equipment (such as, without limitation, construction of a deeper well,
installation of a whole building filtration system, provision and supply of drinking water coolers).
Permanent replacement drinking water supplies established pursuant to this paragraph shall be
installed by Chemours by no later than: (i) six (6) months from the date Chemours becomes aware
that an affected party qualifies for replacement drinking water; or (ii) if Chemours is aware that an
affected party qualifies for replacement of drinking water at the time this Consent Order is entered,
six (6) months from the date of entry of this Consent Order.
21. Private Well Testing: Chemours shall find sampling by a third party laboratory
approved by DEQ of drinking water wells for a distance of at least one -quarter (1/4) mile beyond
the nearest well with test results showing a quantifiable level of any HAS listed in Attachment
C above 10 ng/L. Such testing shall be completed within eighteen (18) months of entry of this
Order. Additionally, by December 31, 2018, Chemours shall fund re -analysis by a third party
laboratory approved by DEQ for all PFAS listed in Attachment C of any previously collected
26

groundwater samples that were analyzed only for GenX, GenX Compounds, or a subset of the
PFAS listed in Attachment C. Chemours shall retest annually to determine the extent of HAS
contamination. Chemours shall request incorporation of a plan to carry out this requirement in its
Corrective Action Plan.
22. Provision of Sampling Results: On an ongoing basis and within seven (7) days of
receiving any groundwater or finished water sampling results, Chemours shall provide these results
to DEQ, with samples identified by both address and sample ID. Within seven (7) days of
receiving test results, Chemours shall also provide sampling results to parties who have had their
wells or finished water tested. For parties whose wells were tested prior to the lodging of this
Consent Order, Chemours shall ensure that they have received sampling results within seven (7)
days of the lodging of this Consent Order.
23. interim Replacement of Private Drinking Water Supplies: Within three (3) days of
Chemours becoming aware that a party qualifies for permanent replacement of private drinking
water pursuant to paragraph 19 or 20 (or, for parties whose wells were previously tested and found
to qualify for permanent replacement water pursuant to paragraph 19 or 20, as soon as practicable
and no later than thirty (30) days after entry of this Consent Order), Chemours shall offer
temporary replacement water supplies (i.e., bottled water) until such time as permanent
replacement water supplies have been provided. For any party that is eligible for permanent
replacement water supplies pursuant to paragraph 19 or 20 but declines to receive such permanent
replacement water supplies, Chemours shall provide bottled water for at least three (3) months
27

after receiving written confirmation that an affected party declines to receive permanent
replacement water supplies.
24. Drinking Water Compliance Plan:
a. By no later than sixty (60) days after entry of this Order, Chemours shall submit
a plan for compliance with paragraphs 19-23 to DEQ for approval. This plan
shall include a detailed schedule with milestones for Chemours to fund a third
party to (1) sample private drinking water wells, (2) flush the drinking water
supply plumbing (including flushing hot water heaters to remove solids) and
replace, when deemed necessary by DEQ, previously installed water treatment
systems (such as water softeners or filters) for any building receiving permanent
replacement drinking water supplies under paragraph 19, (3) implement a
testing program of finished water, as acceptable to DEQ, to demonstrate the
effectiveness of filter systems, and (4) maintain filtration systems installed
pursuant to paragraph 19 or 20 for a minimum of 20 years or until such a time
as testing of groundwater demonstrates that each HAS listed in Attachment
C is below any applicable health advisory, whichever is longer.
b. DEQ shall establish a process for addressing citizen complaints related to
implementation of the plan.
c. In the event that a filtration system does not function properly or effectively as
determined by DEQ, Chemours shall, within 30 days, submit a plan and
28

schedule to DEQ for providing an alternative source of drinking water.
Chemours shall implement the plan upon approval by DEQ.
25. Extension of Deadlines: For good cause shown, Chemours may submit to DEQ one
or more requests for extensions of up three months each for any deadline specified in paragraphs
f L051
G. OTHER COMPLIANCE MEASURES
25.1 flit Samples: Whenever Chemours collects any water sample pursuant to this
Consent Order, it shall, if DEQ so requests for that sample, send a split sample to DEQ at a location
to be specified by DEQ in its request, for additional analysis. DEQ retains its authority to take
independent samples and to observe any sampling taken by Chemours or Chemours' contractor(s).
26. Total Organic Fluorine: Chemours shall fund development by a third party
contractor(s) of a sampling and analytical methodology for the measurement of Total Organic
Fluorine in its process air emissions and process wastewater. Chemours' contractor(s) shall (1) be
approved by DEQ, (ii) submit quarterly reports to DEQ, and (iii) submit the completed
methodology to DEQ for review by December 31, 2020.
27. Fate and Transport: Chemours shall fund development by a third party
contractor(s) of a study, based on the best available data and information, analyzing the fate and
transport of identified PFAS originating from the Facility in air, surface water and groundwater.
Chemours' contractor(s) shall (1) be approved by DEQ, and (ii) submit the completed study to
29

DEQ for review by June 30, 2019. This study may be done as part of another study required by
this Order.
28. Reporting_ Chemours shall submit quarterly progress reports to DEQ detailing the
work and activities undertaken and completed pursuant to the requirements set forth in this Order.
The quarterly reports are due no later than the thirtieth (30th) day of January, April, July, and
October for the duration of this Order.
H. COMPLIANCE MEASURES -PUBLIC INFORMATION
29. Whenever Chemours proposes to make a change to its facility operations that would
result in (i) the use, production, or release into the environment of a previously undisclosed HAS
or (ii) the material increase in the release to the environment of a previously disclosed PFAS,
Chemours shall conduct at least one public meeting in Bladen County or, at the request of DEQ,
two public meetings —one in Bladen County and one in another county down river from the
Facility —and, at least four weeks prior to the meetings, notify DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch
when and where the meetings will occur. Chemours shall notify the public at least two weeks
before the public hearing by issuing a press release and posting the release on a publicly available
website. Any meeting shall be held prior to permit applications for the change, if any, being
submitted to DEQ.
30. Chemours shall post all submissions made by Chemours to DEQ pursuant to this
Order, other than any submissions containing (i) confidential business information of Chemours,
(ii) information concerning specific residents or other individuals, or (iii) other information that
Kil

DEQ determines would be exempt from disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act
and should not be posted, to a publicly accessible website within 30 days of submission.
I. PENALTIES AND INVESTIGATIVE COSTS
31. Stipulated Penalties: Unless excused under paragraph 32, Chemours shall pay, by
certified check payable to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, stipulated
penalties according to the following schedule for failure to perform activities described in
paragraphs 7-30.
Failure to meet 82% emissions
$200,000
reduction milestone in paragraph 8
Failure to meet 92% emissions
$350,000
reduction milestone in paragraph 8
Failure to meet 99% emissions
$1,000,000
reduction milestone in paragraph 8
Failure to meet technology milestone
$5,000/day for first 14 days;
in paragraph 7 (not including control
$30,000/day thereafter
efficiency requirements).
$50,000 for the first failed
test.
Failure to meet any control efficiency
$25,000/week thereafter until
requirements in paragraph 7.
the date of testing showing
compliance.
Failure to meet PFAS loading
To be incorporated in
reductions incorporated pursuant to paragraph
amended Order pursuant to
12.
paragraph 12
Failure to meet any other deadline in
$1,000/day for first 7 days;
this Consent Order to which no other
$2,000/day thereafter
stipulated penalties are applicable.
32. Force Majeure: The stipulated penalties specified in paragraph 31 are not due if
Chemours satisfies DEQ that noncompliance was caused solely by:
31

a. An act of God;
b. An act of war;
c. An intentional act or omission of a third party, but this defense shall not be
available if the act or omission is that of an employee or agent of Chemours or
if the act or omission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship with
Chemours;
d. An extraordinary event beyond the Chemours' control, specifically including
any court order staying the effectiveness of any necessary permit or approval.
Contractor delays or failure to obtain funding will not be considered as events
beyond Chemours' control; or
e. Any combination of the above causes.
33. Civil Penalty and Investigative Costs: By no later than thirty (30) days following
entry of this Order, Chemours shall pay, by certified check payable to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, a civil penalty in the amount of $12,000,000 and
investigative costs in the amount of $1,000,000.
J. RELEASE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
34. Subject to paragraph 35, this Consent Order releases and resolves civil and
administrative claims for injunctive relief and civil penalties by Plaintiff against Chemours relating
to the release of PFAS from the Facility that have been or could have been brought based on
information known to DEQ prior to the lodging of the original Proposed Consent Order on
November 28, 2018 for past and continuing violations of the following statutes and regulations:
32

the Clean Water Act and regulations promulgated thereunder; the Clean Air Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder; and the North Carolina statutes and regulations referenced in the
Complaint, the Amended Complaint and the NOVs (collectively, the "Subject Statutes and
Regulations"). Furthermore, DEQ agrees that, based on information known to DEQ prior to the
lodging of the original Proposed Consent Order on November 28, 2018, this Consent Order
addresses and resolves any violation or condition at the Facility insofar as it could serve as the
basis for a claim, proceeding, or action pursuant to Section 13.1(a) or (c) of North Carolina Session
Law 2018-5.
35. Plaintiff reserves all legal and equitable remedies available to enforce the
provisions of this Consent Order, including requesting the Court to exercise its contempt powers,
provided that the stipulated penalties set forth in paragraph 31 shall be the exclusive monetary
remedy for any violation of this Consent Order to which they apply. Plaintiff retains all legal and
equitable remedies to address any imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or
welfare or the environment arising as a result of activities at the Facility whether related to the
violations addressed in this Consent Order or otherwise. Nothing in this Order shall prevent
Plaintiff, acting pursuant to applicable law, from requiring Chemours to take further interim
measures to reduce air emissions of PFAS other than GenX Compounds prior to installation of the
thermal oxidizer. Nothing in this Consent Order shall restrict the right of DEQ to inspect or take
enforcement action against Chemours for any new or subsequent violations (violations not
addressed in paragraph 34) of the Subject Statutes and Regulations, or the right of Chemours to
33

contest any subsequent enforcement action based on allegations of new, subsequent or repeated
violations, to the extent provided by law.
35.1 Nothing in this Consent Order releases any other entity, including DuPont, from
any liability they may have resulting from their actions.
36. Nothing in this Consent Order releases Chemours from any liability it may have to
any third parties arising from Chemours' actions or releases any claims by any third party,
including the claims in: (a) Nix v. The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, No. 7:17-CV-0189-D (E.D.N.C.);
(b) Cape Fear Public Utility Authority v. The Chemours Co. FC, LLC, No. 7:17-CV-00195-D
(E.D.N.C.); (c) Morton v. The Chemours Co., No. 7:17-CV-00197-D (E.D.N.C.); (d) Carey v. E.I.
du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 7:17-CV-00201-D (E.D.N.C.); (d) Brunswick Co. v. DowDuPont,
Inc., No. 7:17-CV-00209-D (E.D.N.C.) (including the claims asserted by Town of Wrightsville
Beach and Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority in the Master Complaint of Public Water
Suppliers filed January 31, 2018); and (e) Dew v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 7:18-cv-
00073-D (E.D.N.C.).
K. INTERVENTION OF CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH
37. For the purpose of entering into this Consent Order and resolving Cape Fear River
Watch's pending actions in Cape Fear River Watch v. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, 18 CVS 2462 (New Hanover Cty. Sup. Ct.) and Cape Fear River Watch
v. Chemours Company FC, LLC, No. 7:18-cv-00159 (E.D.N.C.), Plaintiff and Chemours consent
to the intervention of Cape Fear River Watch as a Plaintiff in this matter.

38. Plaintiff shall have sole authority to enforce of the requirements of this Consent
Order in this Court against Chemours, except that Cape Fear River Watch shall also have authority
to enforce paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 12, 15, 16(d), 29, 40, and 46, provided that Cape
Fear River Watch's authority to enforce a requirement under paragraph 7 or 8 shall cease upon
incorporation of that requirement into the Facility's air permit, and further provided that Cape Fear
River Watch shall provide Chemours and DEQ with at least 14 days advance notice of any
compliance concern that could result in an enforcement action, and the parties shall confer in an
effort to resolve any dispute prior to its presentation to the Court. Furthermore, Cape Fear River
Watch shall have the right to be heard in any proceeding before this Court in which Plaintiff is
seeking to have the terms of this Consent Order enforced.
39. Within fifteen (15) days of entry of this Consent Order, Cape Fear River Watch
agrees to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice its Petition for Judicial Review in Cape Fear River
Watch v. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 18 CVS 2462 (New Hanover Cty.
Sup. Ct.). Within sixty (60) days of entry of this Consent Order, Cape Fear River Watch agrees
to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice its action in Cape Fear River Watch v. Chemours Company
FC, LLC, No. 7:18-cv-00159 (E.D.N.C.) for Chemours' alleged violations of the Clean Water Act
and the Toxic Substances Control Act alleged by the Cape Fear River Watch prior to the date of
entry of this Order.
40. Chemours shall provide quarterly progress reports submitted to DEQ concurrently
to Cape Fear River Watch. Within thirty (30) days of receiving those reports, DEQ shall make
relevant staff available for an in person meeting with Cape Fear River Watch to discuss the status
35

of Chemours' performance of its obligations under the Consent Order and DEQ's review of any
relevant submissions.
L. MISCELLANEOUS
41. Effect of this Order: This Consent Order (a) shall be binding on the parties as an
order of the Court, (b) is not, and shall not be construed to be, a permit issued pursuant to any
federal or state statute or regulation, and (c) is not, and shall not be construed to be, a determination
on the merits of any of the factual allegations or legal claims advanced by any party in this action,
including in DEQ's Complaint or Amended Complaint, Chemours' Answer, any Notices of
Violation, or the proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law filed by DEQ in connection with
prior motions or status reports. Nothing in this Consent Order limits Chemours' obligations to
comply with the requirements of all applicable state and federal laws and regulations, provided
that nothing in this sentence limits the scope of the release under paragraph 34.
42. No Admission: By agreeing to entry of this Consent Order, Chemours makes no
admission of law or fact with respect to the allegations in the Complaint or Amended Complaint,
any Notices of Violation, or the proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law filed by DEQ in
connection with prior motions or status reports, and does not admit to any other factual or legal
determination, and denies any non-compliance or violation of any law, regulation or permit
referenced therein or in this Consent Order. In particular, and without limiting the foregoing,
Chemours does not admit that any concentration -based standard referenced herein for GenX
compounds or other PFAS is scientifically supported or legally or factually appropriate.
36

43. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: The Parties waive any requirement for
formal findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that this Consent Order shall be binding
upon them the same as if entered by a Superior Court Judge after a hearing on the merits of all
matters now pending.
44. Carbon Filtration Systems: DEQ and Chemours have cooperated to develop and
implement a program for testing the efficacy of granular activated carbon filtration systems in
removing GenX and PFAS compounds from drinking water. Under test conditions, PFAS tested
in post -treatment water were either not detected at all or detected at concentrations below 10 ng/L
and near the reporting limit.
45. Cooperation: The Parties acknowledge that this Consent Order is the product of
good faith efforts and discussions since the filing of the draft Proposed Order, and that Chemours
has cooperated with DEQ in responding to issues and requests raised by DEQ and in voluntarily
undertaking significant corrective and remedial measures while these discussions were ongoing.
46. Notices and Submissions:
a. Whenever notice is required to be given or a document is required to be sent by
one Party to another under the terms of this Consent Order, it shall be provided
to all parties, directed to the individuals at the addresses specified below, unless
those individuals or their successors give notice of a change to the other Parties
in writing. Notice or submission by electronic mail is acceptable.
As to DEQ:
Sheila Holman
37

Assistant Secretary for the Environment
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
[e-mail]
Cc: William F. Lane
General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
[e-mail]
Francisco Benzoni
Special Deputy Attorney General
PO Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
[e-mail]
As to DAQ:
Michael Abraczinskas
Director, Division of Air Quality
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1641
[e-mail]
As to DWM:
Michael Scott
Director, Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
[e-mail]
A trn TiVVR'
Linda Culpepper
Interim Director, Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
As to Chemours:
38

David C. Shelton, Esq.
Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary
The Chemours Company
1007 Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19898
[phone]
[e-mail]
Cc: John F. Savarese, Esq.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52" d Street
New York, NY 10019
[phone]
[e-mail]
As to Cape Fear River Watch:
Kemp Burdette
Cape Fear River Watch
617 Surry Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
[phone]
[e-mail]
cc: Geoff Gisler
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2356
[phone]
[e-mail]
b. Chemours shall provide all submissions and notices made by Chemours to
DEQ, DAQ, DWM, DWR pursuant to this Order concurrently to Cape Fear
River Watch, redacting confidential business information of Chemours, and
information concerning specific residents or other individuals. DEQ shall
39

consider all timely comments received from Cape Fear River Watch prior to
agency approval of any such document.
47. Permits: In accordance with applicable law, DEQ agrees to review and act timely
on all applications by Chemours for permits necessary for Chemours to undertake the actions
required under this Consent Order, including without limitation all permits necessary for
Chemours to construct, install and operate the thermal oxidizer system. In accordance with
applicable law, DEQ agrees (i) to review and act timely on an application by Chemours for a new
NPDES permit; (ii) to meet monthly with Chemours and work in good faith with Chemours to
identify, review and discuss information necessary for Chemours to complete its application; and
(iii) to review and act on Chemours' application in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act
and associated regulations as well as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1 and associated regulations,
practices, and procedures for permitting the discharge of industrial process wastewater with
conditions and limitations necessary to protect public health and the environment.
48. Public Participation: The original Proposed Consent Order was previously released
for public notice and comment by DEQ for a period of forty seven (47) days. DEQ reserved the
right to withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding the Consent Order disclosed
facts or considerations indicating that the Consent Order is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or required modification. Following the close of that comment period and DEQ's consideration of
comments received, (i) DEQ fully addressed the comments it received, (ii) the Parties agreed to
the modifications that are reflected in this Consent Order in response to public comment, and (iii)
the Parties support and will seek the entry of this Consent Order by the Court. The Parties consent
M

to entry of this Consent Order and agree not to withdraw from or oppose entry of this Consent
Order by the Court or to challenge any provision of the Consent Order.
49. Successors and Assigns: This Consent Order shall be binding upon, and inure to
the benefit of, the Parties and their respective successors and assigns (who shall not be considered
third parties). No third party shall be deemed the beneficiary of, or as having the right to enforce,
this Consent Order.
50. Effective Date: This Consent Order shall become effective on the date that it is
entered by the Court. In the event that deadlines for any obligations under this Consent Order arise
prior to its entry by the Court, such obligations shall take effect upon such entry by the Court.
51. Duration: This Court retains jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this
Consent Order and the Parties for the duration of the performance of the terms and provisions of
this Consent Order to effectuate or enforce compliance with the terms of this Consent Order,
provided that after January 1, 2023, any provision of this Consent Order may be terminated under
the following circumstances:
a. (i) Chemours has discharged the obligations set forth in the provision and six
months have elapsed since the date on which Chemours discharged its
obligations; or (ii) If the requirements of the provision have not been fully
discharged, requirements at least as stringent have been incorporated into a
permit, Corrective Action Plan, or other regulatory instrument enforceable by
DEQ; and
m

b. (i) The Parties stipulate that the above conditions have been met and file a notice
of full or partial termination with the Court; or (ii) After all parties have been
heard, Chemours demonstrates to the Court that the conditions specified in
subparagraph (a) above have been met.
52. This Consent Order may be signed out -of -court, out -of -term, and out -of -county.
This the2�daayl of F a.y 2019.
Douglas B. Yasser
Superior Court Judge
42

CONSEATEDTO BY:
NORTH CAJ� 1 I'A E ARTM N`I' OF If1N IRONNIEWAL QUALITY
By: ° —� Date:
1i0rchael Regan
Secretary
By:
F"rarlcisco Denzoni, as to fornl oifly
Special Deputy Attorney General
TIIIs CHEi1! OURS COA ANY LC, L,L C
By: Date: V4 4,
Davic , licit 1
Sellicow,VL&II resident, krellieral Counsel, and Cor}lmom Secretary
fly: ---_ -' Date: 7 r
/ orl[1 ISV, C _
CoLule I r�`r Chemori s
�. _
C ATT"FEAR RIVER WATCH f:
II �y
t r, >
a
Kemp Burette —
Cape Fear Riverkecper
v�
y Date:
Gc
0�{� �'ttSl�r
Counsel for Cape Fear River Watch
43

C)
� m
c
o�
o
LO
n O
E a c
LL
cn x a
o
Of
o
040

ATTACHMENT B
Chemours' proposed plan to conduct toxicity studies pursuant to paragraph 14 shall
include:
(i) Testing of the following PFAS compounds:*
Common Name
Chemical Name
CASN
Chemical
Formula
PFMOAA
Perfluoro- 2-methoxyacetic acid
674-13-5
C3HF503
PMPA
PFMOPrA
Perfluoro-2-
Perfluoro-3-
13140-29-
377-
C4HF703
methoxypropanoic
methoxypropanoi
9
73-1
acid
c acid
PF02HXA
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
39492-88-1
C4HF704
PEPA
PFMOBA
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-
Perfluoro-4-
267239-
8630
C51-IF903
2-
methoxybutanoic
61-2
90-
(pentafluoroethoxy)
acid
89-5
propanoic acid
PFESA-BP2 / Nafion BP
Nafion Byproduct 2
749836-20-2
C7H2F1405S
#2
* For clarification, compounds identified with two common names in Attachment B or C shall be
tested using a single CASN, to be proposed by Chemours and approved by DEQ.
(ii) The following studies, which shall be conducted following applicable USEPA,
OECD protocols as defined in the USEPA TSCA, OPPT or other appropriate
programs as determined by DEQ:
a. Toxicity Studies:
• 28-day oral immunotoxicity study in rats
• 28-day oral immunotoxicity study in mice
• 90-day repeated dose oral toxicity study in rats
• 90-day repeated dose oral toxicity study in mice
b. Ecological Toxicity Studies:
• Algal acute (72-hour growth) toxicity study
• Daphnid acute toxicity study
• Daphnid chronic (reproduction) toxicity study
• Fish acute toxicity study
• Sediment 10-day freshwater invertebrates toxicity test
(iii) A detailed proposed schedule of work.

ATTACHMENT C
For purposes of paragraphs 19-21 and 24 "PFAS" shall mean the following compounds, unless
Chemours demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of DEQ that the PFAS in a given well did
not originate from the Facility:
Common Name
Chemical Name
CASN
Chemical
Formula
PFMOAA
Perfluoro- 2-methoxyacetic acid
674-13-5
C3HF503
PMPA
PFMOPrA
Perfluoro-2-
Perfluoro-3-
13140-29-
377-
C4HF703
methoxypropanoic
methoxypropanoi
9
73-1
acid
c acid
PF02HXA
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic) acid
39492-88-1
C4HF704
PEPA
PFMOBA
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-
Perfluoro-4-
267239-
8630
C51-IF903
2-
methoxybutanoic
61-2
90-
(pentafluoroethoxy)
acid
89-5
propanoic acid
PF030A
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid
39492-89-2
C51-IF905
PF04DA
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid
39492-90-5
C6HF1106
PFESA-BPI / Nafon BP
Nation Byproduct 1
66796-30-3;
C7HF1305S
41
29311-67-9
PFESA-BP2 / Nation BP
Nation Byproduct 2
749836-20-2
C71-12F1405S
92
PFECA-G
Hexanoic acid ,3,3, -
decafluoro-6-
174767-10-3;
C7HF1303
(trifluoromethoxy)-; Butanoic acid,
801212-59 9
2,2,3,3,4,4- hexafluoro-4-[1,2,2,2-
tetraflllOrO-I - (trifluoromethyl)ethoxy]-
TAFN4 / PF05DA
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9,11-pentadodecanoic)
39492-91-6
C7HF1307
acid
PFHpA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
375-85-9
C71-IF1302
HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA /
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2 (1,1,2,2,3,3,3-
13252-13-6
C6HF1103
"GenX"
heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoic acid)