NC0090000_Hearing Officer Report_20230614

Fr,STATE•,
ROY COOPERI _
Governor
ELIZABETH S.BISER � ✓
Secretary + -ow
RICHARD E.ROGERS,JR. NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
June 14, 2023
MEMORANDUM -
To: Richard E. Rogers
Director, Division of Water Re ources
From: Amy Chapman, CPM, Branch Chief vVC
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Subject: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations
Colonial Pipeline Company—2020 -L 1- SR2448
NPDES Permit NCO090000
Mecklenburg County
I served as the Hearing Officer for the subject public hearing held at Central Piedmont
Community College—Merancas Campus, Claudia Watkins Belk Center for Justice, Huntersville,
NC on March 16, 2023, at 6 pm. The purpose of this public hearing was to allow the public to
comment on the draft NPDES permit NCO090000 for Colonial Pipeline Company fuel spill in
Huntersville,NC.
In addition to listening to oral comments at the public hearing, I have reviewed all written
comments received prior,during and after the public comment period. In preparation of this report,
I have considered all the public comments and the public record.
The report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. Introduction
II. Facility Background
III. Public Record& Comments with Responses
IV. Summary of Topical Comments with Responses
V. Recommendations
VI. Abbreviations
VII. Attachments
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
Ds E Q> 512 North Salisbury Street 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,North Carolina27699-1617
taoxmrnaa_we 919.707.9000

hc: NPDES Program Files [Laserfiche]
ec: Amy Chapman, Hearing Officer [[e-mail]]
DWR MRO/Andrew Pitner [[e-mail]]
DWR MRO/Brandy F Costner [[e-mail]]
DWR MRO/Wes Bell [[e-mail]]
DWR WQPS /John Hennessy [e-mail]]
DWR WQPS /Doug Dowden [[e-mail]]
DWR/Julie Grzyb [e-mail]]
DWR WQPS /Michael J Montebello [[e-mail]]
Anna Gurney, DWR PIO [[e-mail]]
Page 2 of 36

HEARING OFFICER REPORT
for
NPDES Permit NCO090000
Colonial Pipeline Company—2020-L1- SR2448
14108 Huntersville-Concord Rd,Huntersville,NC
Mecklenburg County
This report is presented to the Director of the North Carolina Division of the Water Resources
1. INTRODUCTION
Colonial Pipeline has applied to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit(See Fact Sheet Attachment A). The
proposed permit is required for full implementation of a fuel recovery and groundwater
remediation plan that would allow the discharge of treated groundwater to North Prong Clark
Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. This facility is located at 14108 Huntersville-Concord
Rd, Huntersville,NC in Mecklenburg County. A public notice for the draft permit NPDES
Permit NCO090000 (Attachment A) was published on September 23, 2022 (Fact Sheet
Attachment D). The Division received a total twenty-five (25)written comments for the draft
permit(Attachment B).
On February 14, 2023, a notice of Public Hearing (Attachment C)was published requesting
public comment on the draft permit for the Colonial Pipeline Company Huntersville spill. The
public hearing was in response to significant public interest regarding the draft permit.
The hearing was held at Central Piedmont Community College—Merancas Campus, Claudia
Watkins Belk Center for Justice. Amy Chapman, CPM, Branch Chief with the 401 & Buffer
Transportation Permitting Branch, Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Permitting
Section served as the Hearing Officer. The permit writer, Derek Denard, Environmental Program
Consultant, gave a presentation on the draft permit (Attachment D) and posters were provided by
the Division to provide on information on the site plans (Attachment E). Around forty-five (45)
people attended the hearing, not counting Department staff. Ten(10)people spoke at the hearing
and provided comments on the permit being considered. (See Attachment F for Sign-In and
Speakers, See Attachment G with link to audio in Laserfiche). Twenty-five (25)written
comments were received before the close of the hearing comments at 5pm on Friday, March 171n,
2023 (See Attachment H). There were an additional thirteen(13) comments received after the
close of public comment for the hearing.
The proposed permit is part of enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of
Environmental Quality(DEQ) against Colonial Pipeline and outlined in a Consent Order
resulting from the August 14, 2020, fuel spill in Mecklenburg County,N.C. Cleanup efforts and
remediation have been ongoing, with oversight by DEQ's Division of Waste Management. The
Consent Order identifies Colonial Pipeline as the responsible party for the spill and subsequent
cleanup. The Consent order included a $4.75 million-dollar civil penalty.
The permit application required an engineering alternatives analysis be undertaken to ensure the
best possible alternative for cleaning up the site is selected. Possible alternatives included:
1) connection to a publicly owner treatment works (POTW),
Page 3 of 36

2)pumping and hauling the treated effluent offsite,
3) land application of treated wastewater,
4) reinjection of treated discharge back to groundwater,
5) and a surface water discharge.
Connection to Charlotte Water is prohibited by a sewer use ordinance. Pumping and hauling the
treated water would require approximately 115 trucks per day that will be operating 24 hours a
day in a residential area. The other alternatives were deemed technically infeasible due to
engineering restrictions, lack of available land, and protection of groundwater. Thus, the
identified best alternative would be a discharge to surface waters.
This Hearing Officer Report summarizes the major issues raised through the public hearing
process, as well as the Hearing Officer recommendations for the NPDES permit. The Director of
the DWR will take final action on these recommendations.
II. FACILITY BACKGROUND
The groundwater remediation system includes a recovery well system, an oil/water separator
with skimmed storage tank for recovered oil, a bag filter bank, an air stripper unit, a thermal
oxidizer unit or granular activated carbon units, liquid phase granular activated carbon vessels,
and an outfall structure.
The draft permit is crafted to protect all appropriate water quality standards by treating for
identified petroleum hydrocarbons, toxicants and chlorinated solvents present in the groundwater
post spill. Initial groundwater data reviewed for this application indicated that PFAS was not
present above practical quantitation limits. Additional data is being collected and analyzed for
PFAs contaminant prior to possible issuance of a final permit. Comments received during the
public hearing process will be incorporated into the final analysis and decision-making process.
NPDES Permit Rating: The facility rates as a major NPDES permit with a score of 80 points on
the EPA NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet. The Colonial Pipeline spill at Huntsville is a high-
profile incident that will require oversight by the EPA. (See Fact Sheet Attachment B)
Treatment Units: A 0.576 MGD (including a 0.288 MGD temporary system) groundwater
remediation system consisting of, but not limited to;
• a recovery well system
• an oil/water separator
• skimmed LNAPL storage tank
• a bag filter bank
• two (2)parallel sets of two (2) 20,000-pound liquid phase granular activated carbon
(GAC) vessels in series
• six(6) sampling ports [see Permit Condition A. (3.) Footnote 2 and Figure 1, page 6 of 20]
• a sampling port at a point designated as after final treatment and before discharge to
Outfall 001
• an outfall structure that consists of connection to an existing corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) culvert with an Inserta Tee Fitting
Page 4 of 36

III. PUBLIC RECORD & COMMENTS WITH RESPONSES
1. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs): Aquatic Life, Human Health, Fish
Consumption, Carcinogens, Recreation Use and Aquatic Toxicity Testing Limitations
Comments:
• "After looking at the permit request, I am very concerned that Colonial Pipeline will not
meet current state standards of water quality for chemicals allowed in our drinking water. "
• "Strengthen water quality-based limits. "
• "Strengthen water quality based limits in the final permit. "
• "Account for background levels of contamination when developing permit limits. "
• "Account for background levels of contamination when developing final permit limits. "
• "Add technology based discharged limits to the wastewater permit. Particularly for the
known carcinogen benzene found in gasoline. The current effluent limitation in the draft is 5
times higher than the water quality standard for benzene. "
• "lower the acceptable amount of benzene allowed"
• "In regards to this permit I agree with the Southern Environmental Law Center and The
Yadkin River Keepers in adjusting the permit to require lower Benzene levels than what is
currently required for the discharged water and adding a binding condition to insure the
proper operation and maintenance of the system to be used for the duration of the permit. I
would also align with any additional comments/recommendations these two groups make as
they have the resources and knowledge to review and decipher the information especially
given the extremely short notice those of us in the community have had with this comment
period. "
• "The draft permit limits include: Benzene: 274 pg/L = 274 parts per billion of 0.274 parts
per million.Xylene(s) total: 858,ug/L = 858 parts per billion of 0.858 parts per million. It is
virtually impossible to understand these values. Questions: What are the results of previous
studies that looked at the impact to amphibian populations in streams, earthworms in the
ground, etc.? What are the appropriate EPA defined Benzene (and Xylene) test methods?Is it
practical to monitor the discharge chemistries more frequently than identified in the draft
permit?I find EPA methods 624.1 (wastewater) or 8260 (for surface water) but am not
certain what is being required in the draft permit...
Seasonal variation in stream volumes, caused by dry and rainy weather patterns, will affect
the dilution of the discharge, and may be a factor to consider. What percent of the flow in the
North Prong Clark Creek, Clarke Creek and Rocky River will be the discharge as opposed to
normal flow from direct surface runoff. How will this vary during drought and rainy
periods? Will it be feasible to reduce discharge limits and volumes during drought
conditions?If not, what might be the impact to the ecology of the affected surface waters—
especially in North Prong Clark Creek?"
• "I do NOT want toxic water released into the North Prong Clark Creek."
Page 5 of 36

• "I have grave concern allowing said facility would result in toxic water released into the
North Prong Clark Creek. "
• "I believe the effluent should have ZERO additives, including benzene, PFAS, and gasoline
by-products, not just minimal EPA standards. The water should be cleaner than found in
nature, in my opinion. "
• "It is critical that this "water"be treated to NCDEQ and EPA standards. "
• "CLC and CTT are concerned that the levels of contaminants allowed to discharge into the
North Prong Clarke Creek will undermine our conservation efforts in the Clark Creek
watershed and public recreation work along the Rocky River, into which Clarke Creek flows.
As proposed, the permit would allow Colonial Pipeline to discharge contaminated effluent
that exceeds standards set forth in 1 SA NA CA 02B for benzene (Sx higher) toluene (1.3 x
higher), and vinyl chloride (Sx higher.)... "CLC and CTT would request that NCDEQ require
Colonial Pipeline to meet the 2B standards for surface water discharges to protect human
health form carcinogens through the consumption offish and/or to protect water for
recreational use."— Catawba Lands Conservancy (CLC) and Carolina Tread Trail (CTT)
• "The draft permit's WQBELs fail to ensure compliance with water quality standards and
maintenance of designated uses. "—SELC
• "The WQBELs do not ensure compliance with numeric water quality standards for
carcinogens."—SELC
• "DEQ must consider background concentrations of contaminants when developing
WQBELs. "—SELC
• "I'm attaching our comments on the draft permit. I'm also attaching one of several studies
available showing the potential to use GAC to remove benzene, MTBE, and toluene from
water. There are multiple other studies available online. As you know, DEQ also has
significant data confirming the ability of GAC to remove PFAS.
According to the Oregon Health Authority, benzene "can be reduced below S ppb in drinking
water using granular activated carbon filtration. "EPA has similarly concluded that "GAC
is a proven technology with high removal efficiencies (up to 99.901o)for many VOCs."
The EPA document also explains why it is critical that DEQ implement TBELs in the
Colonial Pipeline permit. For example, the GAC technology Colonial proposes to use should
result in discharges of pollutants at levels far below those set through WQBELs in the draft
permit. The EPA paper confirms that improper or infrequent maintenance of GAC filters
reduces their efficacy. The WQBELs set in the draft permit are so high that Colonial would
be able to save money by skipping necessary filter maintenance—which would result in
discharges of significantly more pollution to North Prong Clarke Creek than is achievable by
using properly maintained GAC filters—but remain below the current WQBELs. Allowing
these high pollution discharges by relying solely on WQBELs puts the local community
unnecessarily at risk, including people who use or walk along North Prong Clarke Creek as
several people noted at last night's hearing.
TBELs are intended to prevent this situation. Where technology is available to achieve
pollutant reductions below those required through WQBELs, the Clean Water Act requires
imposition of TBELs to achieve those reductions."
Page 6 of 36

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Colonial intends to neglect their wastewater treatment
system but the community is counting on DEQ to impose appropriate TBELs—which the
Clean Water Act requires—to ensure the wastewater and North Prong Clarke Creek are
consistently as clean as practicable."—SELC
• "According to the Yadkin Riverkeeper, DEQ needs to strengthen the proposed permit to
protect public health and water quality, specifically to further limit Benzene levels and also
test for PFA. DEQ,please strengthen the proposed permit!"
• "I am concerned about: ...the levels of benzene and other toxins that are proposed for the
effluent, ... "—Senator Natasha Marcus
• "Secondly, the Division of Water Resources should base all constituent effluent limitations
on well-established Technology Based Effluent Limits as developed by EPA. Colonial
Pipeline has committed to use treatment technologies (granulated activated carbon) that will
meet the TBELs, and it is puzzling that the state would propose an effluent limitation for
example for benzene, one of the most prevalent contaminants in gasoline, at five times the
current ambient water quality standard and well above what can be required/achieved by
the TBEL, and presumably the technology Colonial has said publicly intends to use.
Thirdly, the use of Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBEL) vs. TBEL is problematic
because then federal Clean Water Act requires the use of TBEL where possible. As detailed
in SELC's comments, the use of WQBEL without a daily flow limit, will likely result in
exceedance of the health -based ambient water quality standards for several carcinogenic
compounds found in the treated wastewater. The permitted daily flow of approximately
500,000 gallons per day would make up almost 20 percent of the annual average flow and
would be problematic when the discharge rate would be higher and the flow of the North
Prong of Clark Creek below average, making it difficult to comply with ambient water
quality standards.
The permitted daily flow of approximately 500,000 gallons per day would make up almost 20
percent of the annual average flow and would be problematic when the discharge rate would
be higher and the flow of the North Prong of Clark Creek below average, making it difficult
to comply with ambient water quality standards.
While the receiving stream in question is not currently considered impaired by NCDWR,
Clark Creek downstream from this new discharge is considered impaired for biological
activity. Adding additional toxic inputs upstream, will certainly not improve the water quality
in Clark Creek and may result in the North Prong of Clark Creek also becoming impaired.
While chronic toxicity testing might mitigate those concerns somewhat, the draft permit
should set effluent limitations that will ensure the North Prong does not become impaired. "
— Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.
Response:
WQBELs limits based on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) as summarized in the
Factsheet:
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed
water quality standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted for every new permit(and
during every permit renewal)utilizing the most recent effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is
Page 7 of 36

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC RPA procedure utilizes the
following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero background; 3)use
of/2 detection limit for"less than"values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution consideration
based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016,NC began implementation of dissolved
metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis (See Factsheet Attachment C)was conducted using groundwater
toxicant data that would be representative of influent flow to the treatment system. This data was
collected between 28Aug2020 and 03Jun2022. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with
positive detections and associated water quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the
following permitting actions are proposed for this permit:
[Please note the following: Recommendation actions listed in the RPA spreadsheet are from
a preliminary analysis of data for the 912012022 draft permit. Please see the Hearing
Officer's Report Recommendations and final Fact Sheet for recommendations and discussion
for final permit limits.]
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality-
based effluent limit(WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed
applicable water quality standards/criteria:
Total Lead
Benzene [See TBELs limits discussion]
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide)
n-Butylbenzene
Ethylbenzene [See TBELs limits discussion]
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene [See TBELs limits discussion]
Naphthalene
n-Propyl benzene
Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene) (PERC)
Toluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total (mix of m+o+p)
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement
since they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality
standards/criteria, but the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable
concentration:
Bromodichloromethane (Dichlorobromomethane)
Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) [See TBELs limits discussion. Since the maximum
predicted concentration is 100,ug/L and the allowable concentration for chronic is
123 yg/L a TBEL will be used per BPJ]
• No Limit or Monitoring (except for Quarterly pollutant scan by EPA 624.1 & 625.1). The
following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring since they did not
demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria and
the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration.
Parameters also did not receive a limit or monitoring if there were no detects (i.e. not
Page 8 of 36

present in groundwater). Parameters with detects that did not have applicable standards,
criteria, or TBELs will be monitored with pollutant scans (EPA Methods 624 & 625).
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform (Trichloromethane)
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (Nemagon)
Dibromochloromethane (Chlorodibromomethane)
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1-Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Diisopropyl ether(Isopropyl Ether)
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP)
n-Butanol
Ethanol
Ethyl-tert-butyl ether
tert-Amyl Alcohol
Page 9 of 36

tert-Amyl methyl ether
tert-Butyl Alcohol
• Pollutant of Concern(Effluent Limit with monitoring). The following parameter had no
data,but is a pollutant of concern for petroleum product groundwater contamination:
Total Phenolic Compounds
• Pollutant of Concern(Monitoring Only)—The following parameters that were detected
did not show reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria,
but are known pollutants of concern for petroleum product groundwater contamination:
1,2-Dichloroethane [See TBELs limits discussion]
Methyl-tert-butyl ether(MTBE)
• The following parameters evaluated in the RPA will be monitored for with the O&G
TBEL:
C5 - C8 Aliphatics
C9 - C 12 Aliphatics
C9 - C 10 Aromatics
VPH (Total)
The groundwater data for toxicants is very extensive at the Huntersville spill site. The greatest 58
detections for each parameter were entered into the RPA spreadsheets. Limits were assigned to
all pollutants of concern that showed RP with predicted concentrations greater than 50% of the
allowable concentrations. See following Fact Sheet attachments for details:
C. NC009000_RPA
1. NC009000_GW DATA_FW RPA_5p
2. Diss metals Implementation-Fact Sheet Info 5-16-16 (Grzyb, Julie)_20220825_4p
3. NC009000_GW DATA—GENERIC RPA—Part 1
4. NC009000_GW DATA_GENERIC RPA—Part 2
5. NC009000_GW DATA—GENERIC RPA—Part 3
6. NC009000 GW DATA GENERIC RPA Part 4
Hearing Officer's recommendations on TBEL and WQBEL permit limits.:
Based on best professional judgment in accordance with 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2), Technology Based
Effluent Limits (TBELs) from similar industrial methods will be implemented where in the final
permit and parameters with quarterly monitoring will be increased to monthly monitoring.
TBELs were implemented in the final permit where TBELs are found to more stringent than
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs). Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's
Report for recommendations on TBELs.
Table 1. Summary of Changes to Permit Limits
Draft Permit Final Permit
Parameter Limit/Condition Recommendation
Total Lead MA 5.26 µg/L(2B RPA) No changes recommended
DM 125 µg/L(2B RPA)
Benzene MA 274 µg/L(2B RPA) MA 37 µg/L(TBEL)
DM 274 µg/L(2B RPA) DM 134 µg/L(TBEL)
Page 10 of 36

Naphthalene MA 15.4 µg/L(NC RPA) No changes recommended
DM 15.4 µg/L(NC RPA)
Ethyl Benzene MA 124 µg/L(NC RPA) MA 32 µg/L(TBEL)
DM 124 µg/L(NC RPA) DM 108 µg/L(TBEL)
Toluene MA 14.1 µg/L(2B RPA) No changes recommended
DM 14.1 µg/L(2B RPA)
Xylenes (Total) MA 858 µg/L(NC RPA) No changes recommended
DM 858 µg/L(NC RPA)
Bromomethane MA 0.05 µg/L(NC RPA)
(Methyl Bromide) DM 0.05 µg/L(NC RPA) No changes recommended
n-Butylbenzene MA 4.99 µg/L(NC RPA) No changes recommended
DM 4.99 µg/L(NC RPA)
Chloroethane MA 104 µg/L(TBEL) No changes recommended
DM 268 µg/L(TBEL)
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene MA 96.6 µg/L(2B RPA) MA 20 µg/L(TBEL)
(Hexachlorobutadiene) DM 96.6 µg/L(2B RPA) DM 49 µg/L(TBEL)
n-Propylbenzene MA 102 µg/L(NC RPA) No changes recommended
DM 102 µg/L(NC RPA)
Tetrachloroethene(PERC) MA 17.7 µg/L(2B RPA) No changes recommended
DM 17.7 µg/L(2B RPA)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene MA 499 µg/L(NC RPA) No changes recommended
DM 499 µg/L(NC RPA)
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene MA 275 µg/L(NC RPA) No changes recommended
DM 275 µg/L(NC RPA)
Vinyl chloride MA 12.9 µg/L(2B RPA) No changes recommended
(Chloroethylene) DM 12.9 µg/L(2B RPA)
Total Recoverable Phenolics(EPA MA 488 µg/L(2B RPA)
Method 420.1) DM 488 µg/L(2B RPA) No changes recommended
Bromodichloromethane M&R(91.3 µg/L NC RPA) No changes recommended
(Dichlorobromomethane)
Chloromethane M&R(123 µg/L NC RPA) MA 86 µg/L(TBEL)
(Methyl Chloride) DM 190 µg/L(TBEL)
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2 DCA) M&R(3489 µg/L EPA RPA) MA 68 µg/L(TBEL)
DM 211 µg/L(TBEL)
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether(MTBE) M&R(8052 µg/L NC RPA) No changes recommended
Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's Report for recommendations on TBEL and
WQBEL permit limits.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)have been
established in accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET
guidance, all NPDES permits issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging"complex"
wastewater(contains anything other than domestic waste)will contain appropriate WET limits
and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions. The State has received prior EPA
approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,using single
concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Page 11 of 36

Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: Based on comments concerning aquatic life in
North Prong Clark Creek, Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)testing was increase to monthly
monitoring using parameter code TAA6C for reported. Accordingly, the WET testing Special
Condition A. (6.) was updated for monthly monitoring as Acute Fathead Minnow (Pimephales
promelas) at 90% effluent concentration with the 48-hour static test.
Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's Report for recommendations on Toxicity
monitoring.
2. Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs)
Comments:
• "Add technology based discharged limits to the wastewater permit. Particularly for the
known carcinogen benzene found in gasoline. The current effluent limitation in the draft is S
times higher than the water quality standard for benzene. "
• "Add technology based discharged limits to the wastewater permit,particularly for benzene.
The current effluent limitation in the draft permit is S times higher than the water quality
standard for benzene."
• "I believe the effluent should have ZERO additives, including benzene, PFAS, and gasoline
by-products, not just minimal EPA standards. The water should be cleaner than found in
nature, in my opinion. "
• "In regards to this permit I agree with the Southern Environmental Law Center and The
Yadkin River Keepers in adjusting the permit to require lower Benzene levels than what is
currently required for the discharged water and adding a binding condition to insure the
proper operation and maintenance of the system to be used for the duration of the permit. I
would also align with any additional comments/recommendations these two groups make as
they have the resources and knowledge to review and decipher the information especially
given the extremely short notice those of us in the community have had with this comment
period. "
• "DEQ must impose TBEL for all constituent pollutants. "—SELC
• "The Clean Water Act requires DEQ to evaluate technologies available to treat pollutants
and impose TBELs accordingly."—SELC
• "DWR failed to include TBELS for constituent pollutants in the draft permit."—SELC
• "I'm attaching our comments on the draft permit. I'm also attaching one of several studies
available showing the potential to use GA to remove benzene, MTBE, and toluene from
water. There are multiple other studies available online. As you know, DEQ also has
significant data confirming the ability of GAC to remove PFAS.
According to the Oregon Health Authority, benzene "can be reduced below S ppb in drinking
water using granular activated carbon filtration. "EPA has similarly concluded that "GAC
is a proven technology with high removal efficiencies (up to 99.901o)for many VOCs. "
Page 12 of 36

The EPA document also explains why it is critical that DEQ implement TBELs in the
Colonial Pipeline permit. For example, the GA technology Colonial proposes to use should
result in discharges of pollutants at levels far below those set through WQBELs in the draft
permit. The EPA paper confirms that improper or infrequent maintenance of GAC filters
reduces their efficacy. The WQBELs set in the draft permit are so high that Colonial would
be able to save money by skipping necessary filter maintenance—which would result in
discharges of significantly more pollution to North Prong Clarke Creek than is achievable by
using properly maintained GAC filters—but remain below the current WQBELs. Allowing
these high pollution discharges by relying solely on WQBELs puts the local community
unnecessarily at risk, including people who use or walk along North Prong Clarke Creek as
several people noted at last night's hearing.
TBELs are intended to prevent this situation. Where technology is available to achieve
pollutant reductions below those required through WQBELs, the Clean Water Act requires
imposition of TBELs to achieve those reductions.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Colonial intends to neglect their wastewater treatment
system but the community is counting on DEQ to impose appropriate TBELs—which the
Clean Water Act requires—to ensure the wastewater and North Prong Clarke Creek are
consistently as clean as practicable."-SELC
• "I am concerned about: ...the levels of benzene and other toxins that are proposed for the
effluent,possible errors in the application of technology-based effluent limitation, ... "—
Senator Natasha Marcus
• "Secondly, the Division of Water Resources should base all constituent effluent limitations
on well-established Technology Based Effluent Limits as developed by EPA. Colonial
Pipeline has committed to use treatment technologies (granulated activated carbon) that will
meet the TBELs, and it is puzzling that the state would propose an effluent limitation for
example for benzene, one of the most prevalent contaminants in gasoline, at five times the
current ambient water quality standard and well above what can be required/achieved by
the TBEL, and presumably the technology Colonial has said publicly intends to use.
Thirdly, the use of Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBEL) vs. TBEL is problematic
because then federal Clean Water Act requires the use of TBEL where possible. As detailed
in SELC's comments, the use of WQBEL without a daily flow limit, will likely result in
exceedance of the health -based ambient water quality standards for several carcinogenic
compounds found in the treated wastewater. "— Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.
Response:
This is a groundwater remediation system. No products are manufactured at this facility. There
are no effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs)promulgated in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) for petroleum pipelines or groundwater remediation. Therefore,NC water
quality standards, EPA water quality criteria, and North Carolina In-Stream Target Values for
Surface Waters were evaluated for this draft permit.
Oil & Grease has a narrative standard found in 15A NCAC 213 .0200. There are no numerical
values set for Oil & Grease for WQBELSs criteria. O&G will monitor for TPH which would
Page 13 of 36

include the following parameters evaluated in the RPA: C5 - C8 Aliphatics, C9 - C12 Aliphatics,
C9 - C 10 Aromatics, and VPH (Total).
40 CFR 125.3(c)(2)provides that, where there are no applicable EPA effluent guidelines, permit
writers have the authority to develop technology-based limitations on a case-by-case basis under
section 402(a)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act. This is provided that there are no applicable water
quality-based limits or criteria available for a pollutant of concern. Parameters listed in the table
below were developed under this best professional judgement.
Table 2. TBELs Development by Best Professional Judgment(BPJ)
Monthly Daily
Pollutant ELG Average Maximum
Limit Limit
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Point Source Category: Petroleum Refining
*40 CFR 419.32/419.34; Subpart C—
Petrochemical&423: Steam Electric Power
Generating(includes MA 20 mg/L)
Oil&Grease Level of Control: BPT/BCT 15.0 mg/L* 20.0 mg/L
Process: Contaminated runoff
Treatment Technology/Treatment Train: Best
Management Practices
TSS Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR 133 / 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L
15A NCAC 2B .0406
40 CFR 414: Organic Chemicals,Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers(OCPSF)and 40 CFR 455:
Pesticide Chemicals
Benzene 37 µg/L 134 µg/L
Level of Control: BAT/NSPS
Treatment Technology/Treatment Train: GAC
40 CFR 414: Organic Chemicals,Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers(OCPSF)and 40 CFR 455:
Ethyl Benzene Pesticide Chemicals 32 µg/L 108 µg/L
Level of Control: BAT/NSPS
Treatment Technology/Treatment Train: GAC
Point Source Category: Organic Chemicals,
Plastic and Synthetic Fibers(OCPSF)
40 CFR 414.74; Subpart G—Bulk Organic
Chemicals
Chloroethane 104 µg/L 268 µg/L
Level of Control: NSPS
Process: Bulk organic chemicals
Treatment Technology/Treatment Train: GAC
Page 14 of 36

40 CFR 414: Organic Chemicals,Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene Level of Control: BAT/NSPS 20 µg/L 49 µg/L
(Hexachlorobutadiene)
Treatment Technology/Treatment Train: GAC
40 CFR 414: Organic Chemicals,Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers(OCPSF)and 40 CFR 455:
Chloromethane Pesticide Chemicals
(Methyl Chloride) 86 µg/L 190 µg/L
Level of Control: BAT/NSPS
Treatment Technology/Treatment Train: GAC
40 CFR 414: Organic Chemicals,Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers(OCPSF)and 40 CFR 455:
1,2-Dichloroethane Pesticide Chemicals
68 µg/L 211 µg/L
(1,2 DCA)
Level of Control: BAT/NSPS
Treatment Technology/Treatment Train: GAC
BAT=Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BPT=Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
BCT=Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
CFR=Code of Federal Regulations
DM=Daily Maximum Limit
GAC=Granular Activated Carbon,
MA=Monthly Average Limit
mg/L=milligrams per liter(ppm-parts per million)
µg/L—micrograms per liter(ppb—parts per billion)
NSPS=New Source Performance Standards
TBEL=Technology Based Effluent Limits
TSS=Total Suspended Solids
WQBEL=Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Based on best professional judgment in accordance with 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2), Technology Based
Effluent Limits (TBELs) from similar industrial methods will be implemented where in the final
permit and parameters with quarterly monitoring will be increased to monthly monitoring.
TBELs were implemented in the final permit where TBELs are found to more stringent than
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs). Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's
Report for recommendations on TBELs.
3. PFAS Monitoring (Emergent Contaminants)
Comments:
• "Require monitoring, disclosure and treatment of PFAS. "
• "DEQ must require Colonial to disclose whether PFAS will be present in the discharge and,
if so, apply appropriate controls—including TBELs."—SELC
• "PFAS present serious threats to human health."—SELC
Page 15 of 36

• "Colonial's effluent discharges will likely contain PFAS. "
• "Colonial must fully disclose any PFAS that may be present in its discharges."—SELC
• "DEQ must set appropriate effluent limits for any discharges of PFAS through the proposed
wastewater treatment plant. "—SELC
• "As you know, DEQ also has significant data confirming the ability of GAC to remove
PFAS. "—SELC
• "I believe the effluent should have ZERO additives, including benzene, PFAS, and gasoline
by-products, not just minimal EPA standards. The water should be cleaner than found in
nature, in my opinion. We have tested our groundwater(well) multiple times and we have
never found benzene or gasoline additives, and we don't want to ever see them in the future. "
• "According to the Yadkin Riverkeeper, DEQ needs to strengthen the proposed permit to
protect public health and water quality, specifically to further limit Benzene levels and also
test for PFA. DEQ,please strengthen the proposed permit. "
• "I am concerned about: ...the fact that there is no plan to test for and remove PFAS, ... "—
Senator Natasha Marcus
• "Lastly, the permit must require disclosure and monitoring for PFASI PFOS given their
presence in the contaminated groundwater at the site and the potential threat they pose to
public health and the environment."— Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc.
Response:
During the NPDES application review DWR requested the following additional information on
November 2, 2011 (See Attachment I): Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS, Data.
Provide any monitoring data that you have related to the presence of PFAS in groundwater and
surface water at the site.
Colonial Pipeline Company's consultant(contractor) TRC Environmental Corporation(dba TRC
Engineers, Inc.) (licensed geologist)provided the following response to the request for additional
information:
"On August 14, 2020, Colonial Pipeline Company(CPC) and local emergency response
agencies were notified of a suspected gasoline release in the CPC right of way(ROW) within
the Oehler Nature Preserve near Huntersville,North Carolina. The release site is situated on a
parcel owned by the Mecklenburg County Parks Department. The emergency response
involved line repair, free product capture, and soil excavation/management. The response
activities also included application of approximately 1,100 gallons of encapsulant for vapor
control in the soil excavation and soil transport trucks.
Given the potential for the presence of PFAS compounds in conventional vapor and fire
suppression foams,North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) initiated
sampling during the emergency response. Sampling activities for PFAS included the
following materials and media:
• Background surface water samples collected by CPC on August 17, 2020;
• Samples of several types of liquid media collected by NCDEQ and CPC during the
emergency response period(August 17 to 20, 2020); and
• Groundwater samples collected by NCDEQ and CPC from 19 monitoring and
recovery wells in October 2020."
Page 16 of 36

The entire report is provided in Fact Sheet Attachment 2_NC0090000_More Information
(Received)_20211222. PFAS data is provided on pages 58 to 216 of this report. The groundwater
data provided was from an October 2020 sampling event. Split samples were taken by CPC (and
their consultants) and NCDEQ. CPC (and their consultants)used Enthalpy of Wilmington,North
Carolina and NCDEQ used GEL Laboratories LLC as a contract laboratory.
NCDEQ received subsequent PFAS data for groundwater on November 6, 2022 (See Factsheet
Attachment A9_NC0090000_More Information(Received)_02221106_43p). CPC (and their
consults)used Eurofins Sacramento as their contract lab.
For review excerpts of data summaries from Factsheet Attachments A2 & A9 have been
combined as Hearing Officer Report Attachment J. The Division of Waste Management has also
provided a PFAS sampling summary (Attachment K). Based on review of the groundwater data,
PFAS was determined by the Division to be pollutant of concern for this groundwater
remediation system. Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's Report for recommendations
on PFAS monitoring.
4. Instream Monitoring
Comments:
• "Require instream monitoring for hazardous constituents in gasoline downstream from the
discharge outfall. "
• "Require instream monitoring for hazardous constituents found in gasoline downstream
from the discharge outfall. A pre-discharge test should be conducted for a baseline so future
test values can be compared to the baseline once the discharging begins. "
• "Colonial Pipeline and NCDEQ have failed to provide sufficient information to the public
and to local governmental agencies regarding the design, construction, and long- term
environmental impacts that might exist as a result of this proposed action. No conceptual
building or facility plans have been provided, no specific location of said facility, no
environmental impact studies of the downstream effects of such discharge, and no public
forum to obtain information on this request. "
• "While the Consent Order approved by the state does require regular instream monitoring at
numerous locations, YRK believes that requirement should be made part of the NPDES
permit to ensure transparency and compliance with ambient water quality standards, as well
as enforceable effluent limitations to limit surface water contamination."— Yadkin
Riverkeeper, Inc.
Response:
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1)to verify model
predictions when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full
permitted flow; 2) to verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future
TMDL; 4)based on other instream concerns.
Data for instream monitoring is provided in the latest report to the NC DEQ Division of Waste
Management. See Factsheet Attachment A8_June Monthly Report 20220630_2189p.
Surface water monitoring for the spill site consists of the following parameters: TPH (GRO),
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, m,p-Xylene, o-Xylene, Xylene, Temperature, pH, ORP,
Page 17 of 36

Conductivity, DO, Turbidity, and rain events. TPH (GRO), Benzene, Ethylbenzene, m,p-Xylene,
o-Xylene, and Xylene were all below the method detect levels. Toluene was detected only at
location D13 [Seep-1(SW-Seep)]. Toluene was detected as 4 µg/L on 4/11/2021 and 6.7 µg/L on
5/5/5/2021. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS) conducted their own
investigation of surface waters in the area of the release sampling on 3/19/2021, 4/26/2021,
6/9/2021, and 7/2/2021. Total Lead was detected as 32.4 µg/L at Site G(SW-G) and as 7.1 µg/L
at Site H (Seep-I/SW-Seep). Instream Total Hardness data would be needed to determine if these
Lead results exceeded the water quality standard(0213) for Total Lead. Additionally, Toluene
was detected as 10.7 µg/L at Site G (SW-G). The 02B standard for Toluene is I I µg/L. Please
note the sampling performed by the permittee and CMSWS was in response to release incident
2020-L1-SR2448. Some sampling locations are not directly related to the proposed outfall for
NPDES permit NC0090000.
Please see discussion in the next comment topic (#5)Aquatic Life, Benthic Study, Stream
Impairment, Environmental Impact Assessment, Ecology, etc.
Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's Report for recommendations for Instream
Monitoring.
5. Aquatic Life,Benthic Study, Stream Impairment,Environmental Impact Assessment,
Ecology, etc.
Comments:
• "Since 2000, CLC has worked to conserve 780 acres long Ramah Creek to protect the Clarke
Creek watershed and habitat for the Carolina Darter (Ethesostoma collis). Clark Creek is a
303(d) listed impaired stream, which provides habitat for Carolina Darter, identified as a
Species of Concern by the NC Natural Heritage Program and a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. CLC and CTT are concerned
that, if the permit is approved as submitted, the elevated levels of contaminants may
negatively impact the aquatic habitat of Clarke Creek and pose a risk to the health of aquatic
organisms, including the Carolina Darter. These impacts will undermine the protection of
the Clarke Creek watershed.
Clarke Creek is listed by NCDEQ as impaired due to a Fair, Poor or Serve Bioclassification,
and actions that may further exacerbate the degradation of the creek should be avoided. The
proposed discharge rate will increase flowrates by 20%over existing base flow for the North
Prong of Clarke Creek. In is not known what impacts the increased flow may have on
existing sediment loads in the channel, erosion potential along the banks of the North Prong
Creek, or aquatic life....
Additionally, the organization would request regular surveys of Clark Creek and the North
Prong Clark Creek to monitor the population of Carolina Darter to determine if the effluent
discharge is having an impact on this imperiled species. "— Catawba Lands Conservancy
(CLC) and Carolina Tread Trail (CTT)
• Seasonal variation in stream volumes, caused by dry and rainy weather patterns, will affect
the dilution of the discharge, and may be a factor to consider. What percent of the flow in the
North Prong Clark Creek, Clarke Creek and Rocky River will be the discharge as opposed to
normal flow from direct surface runoff. How will this vary during drought and rainy
Page 18 of 36

periods? Will it be feasible to reduce discharge limits and volumes during drought
conditions?If not, what might be the impact to the ecology of the affected surface waters—
especially in North Prong Clark Creek?"
• "A biological assessment must be made of the impact to the plants and animals in the area to
ensure that the least harm will be done to the local environment. "
• "What are the results of previous studies that looked at the impact to amphibian populations
in streams, earthworms in the ground, etc.?"
• "Also, I am concerned that the amount of water and particulate will add a significant volume
to the creek system. "
• "If the treated chemicals are released directly into the North and South Prong Clarke Creek
in Huntersville, has an environmental impact study been done. "
• "We are against any accommodations being made to further expand this pollution (treated
or otherwise) into our fragile community ecosystem. "
• "My environmental concerns for Mecklenburg County's natural resources are exacerbated
by this proposal. The company is considering its bottom line, not the fundamental right of
our residents to clean, healthy water. "
• "I believe this poses a significant conflict of interest and inherent risk of minimal due
diligence in the protection of the environment. Since the effluent is proposed to be a point
source discharge to local navigable waters I also believe that ANY treatment facility
constructed near the spill site, regardless of who is operating it, should be required to
conduct an environmental impact assessment by a third party firm with findings provided to
the citizens most impacted. "
• "I am concerned about: ...the impact that the increase in discharge into the North Prong
Clarke Creek might have on the already- impaired creek. "—Senator Natasha Marcus
Response:
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important
natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed
project boundary (5-mile radius). These results are presented in the attached `Documented
Occurrences"tables and map (See Hearing Officer Report Attachment L). The following aquatic
species were listed in the table:
Table 3. Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area for Aquatic Species.
Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status
Freshwater Bivalve Villosa vau haniana Carolina Creekshell --- Endangered
Freshwater Fish Cyprinella zanema Santee Chub --- Threatened
Freshwater Fish Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter --- Special Concern
Page 19 of 36

See Hearing Officer Report Attachment M for excerpts from the 2022 North Carolina
Integrated Report and the 22022 North Carolina 303(d) List for Impaired Waters and screen
shots of the 2022 North Carolina Integrated Report GIS map. Information for stream
impairment is summarized below.
Table 4. 2022 North Carolina 303(d) List for Impaired Waters and Stream Length from
Outfall 001 to the Pee Dee River(nearest water supply stream).
Current 2022 North Carolina
Stream Index Stream 303(d)List for
Stream Name (AU Number) Classification AU Length(Miles) Impairment
North Prong 13-17-4-1 C 0.66(small portion Not listed
Clarke Creek measured by GIS)
Clarke Creek 13-17-4 C 5.5 Fish Community
Rocky River 13-17a C 0.14(small portion Turbidity
measured by GIS) Benthos
Rocky River 13-17bl C 9.2 Turbidity
Benthos
Rocky River 13-17b2 C 8.3 Turbidity
Benthos
Copper
Rocky River 13-17b3 C 3.2 Turbidity
Benthos
Rocky River 13-17cl C 2.8 Turbidity
Benthos
Copper
Rocky River 13-17c2 C 5.9 Turbidity
Benthos
Rocky River 13-176 C 34.9 Turbidity
Copper
Zinc
Rocky River 13-17d C 29.3 Turbidity
Copper
Total Miles of Stream 99.9
Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's Report for recommendations for Instream
Assessment of Biological Integrity.
6. Duty to Provide Information—Nuisance Conditions,Facility Size, and Scope
Comments:
• "We have not been given an explanation of the size and scope of the treatment building on
site and what sound and eye sore issues may arise."
• "I do NOT want a treatment facility located within close proximity of my property. "
Page 20 of 36

• "I do NOT want a treatment facility located within a few hundred yards of my property."
• "As a neighbor to the spill site, it is concerning that the public has not been given any idea of
what the system will look like other than it will be contained in a 9,000sffootprint. This is
something we will be living next to and we have not seen any drawing or rendering of what
this system will look like, sound like, or any other physical properties of the system.
Additionally, during the presentation the presenter indicated that Colonial proposed a
landscaping buffer to hide the structures that will be installed and a computer generated
graphic was depicted showing the initial plantings and another image depicting what the
plantings would look like in S years. I encourage NCDENR to require as a condition of the
permit a significant evergreen buffer, of particular diameter and growth when installed, to
shield the structures from the roadway and neighboring homes. The plantings should be
mature enough so as to shield the structures from day 1, not S years down the road as was
the insinuation during the presentation. "
• "Colonial Pipeline and NCDEQ have failed to provide sufficient information to the public
and to local governmental agencies regarding the design, construction, and long- term
environmental impacts that might exist as a result of this proposed action. No conceptual
building or facility plans have been provided, no specific location of said facility, no
environmental impact studies of the downstream effects of such discharge, and no public
forum to obtain information on this request."
• "I am concerned about: ...the size and possible disturbance created by a permanent water
treatment plant in this rural and residential area, ... "—Senator Natasha Marcus
7. Treatment Design Criteria/Permitted Flow/ Design Flow
Comments:
• "What does this involve?... How clean is this water after treatment? What is the treatment
process?"
• "How will the chemicals be treated?... What are the details about the design plan?"
• "Colonial Pipeline and NCDEQ have failed to provide sufficient information to the public
and to local governmental agencies regarding the design, construction, and long- term
environmental impacts that might exist as a result of this proposed action. No conceptual
building or facility plans have been provided, no specific location of said facility, no
environmental impact studies of the downstream effects of such discharge, and no public
forum to obtain information on this request."
• "I do not know what Best Available Technologies have been considered for the remediation?
In addition to the activated charcoal (carbon)filters, thermal oxidizers, etc., microbes that
digest VOCs including benzene should be considered when evaluating treatment methods.
This type of remediation is used in the chemical industry and should be considered here.
"Bug"management is tricky but if the input flow characteristics are consistent, the process
could be stable and potentially effective. Are the flow volumes simply too high?
Page 21 of 36

Globally, there must have been other gasoline releases to ground and surface waters from
refineries,petroleum tank farms, etc. that have been addressed with remediation. How does
the Colonial spill compare to some of these?Are there any lessons learned that can support
our response to this issue today?"
• "Will it be feasible to reduce discharge limits and volumes during drought conditions?"
• "Also, I am concerned that the amount of water and particulate will add a significant volume
to the creek system. "
• "Reduce the daily flow limit. The proposed flow limit of 500,000 gallons per day is almost 20
percent of the natural flow of the receiving stream, the North Prong of Clark Creek. "
• "Are the best testing and cleaning methods being used and considered?"
• "I would like to see a temporary &permanent treatment plant, but can CP provide that this
large treatment facility would be helpful or further detrimental to our air, water, and earth?
We should consider the long-term energy use and potential environmental impact of off-
gassing on our beautiful town!"
• "The permitted daily flow of approximately 500,000 gallons per day would make up almost
20 percent of the annual average flow and would be problematic when the discharge rate
would be higher and the flow of the North Prong of Clark Creek below average, making it
difficult to comply with ambient water quality standards. " (Yadkin River Keeper)
• "Clarke Creek is listed by NCDEQ as impaired due to a Fair, Poor or Serve
Bioclassification, and actions that may further exacerbate the degradation of the creek
should be avoided. The proposed discharge rate will increase flowrates by 20% over existing
base flow for the North Prong of Clarke Creek. In is not known what impacts the increased
flow may have on existing sediment loads in the channel, erosion potential along the banks of
the North Prong Creek, or aquatic life."— Catawba Lands Conservancy (CLC) and Carolina
Tread Trail (CTT)
Response:
Session Law 2011-394, which became effective July 1, 2011, no longer requires an ATC permit
for construction work at the following facilities with an NPDES permit: waste generated from
manufacturing facilities,power generation operations, compost facilities, mine dewatering
activities, groundwater remediation discharges, and drinking water treatment facilities.
The groundwater remediation system is design by licensed engineers and geologist to treat
contaminated groundwater extracted as part of an approved groundwater remediation system
approved by the Division in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0100.
Typically, aquifer tests are conducted to determine groundwater yields for recovery wells. The
system is designed to treat the amount of water that can be recovered in order to create a
hydrology barrier. The hydrologic barrier must be maintained to prevent any attenuation of the
contaminant plumb. If the design was based on a lower flow than the groundwater remediation
system would fail to adequate treat groundwater. Groundwater treatment is required in
accordance with the Consent Order. Using a lower flow limit would result in the calculation of
less stringent water quality standards as this calculation is based on instream concentration.
Page 22 of 36

During drought conditions groundwater recharge (from rainfall)would be greatly reduced, flow
from well recovery system would be reduced, and the overall flow through treatment system
would be reduced. The permitted flow is the system design flow. It is anticipated that flow would
much less than the design flow on a daily basis. Therefore, groundwater remediation system are
given a monthly maximum average limit.
Please see Section V of this Hearing Officer's Report for recommendations for Duty to Provide
Information.
8. Zoning
Comments:
• "Based on my review of the Town of Huntersville Zoning Ordinance, the proposed use of the
property as a wastewater treatment plant is not an approved use."—Marc Bellet
Response:
Zoning is not under the purview of the NPDES program. Zoning is under the purview of local
government.
9. Complaints about Public Notice/ Public Hearing Process
Comments:
• "Additionally I am concerned with a lack of public forum opportunity to discuss this
request. " (Received before the hearing)
• "Colonial Pipeline and NCDEQ have failed to provide sufficient information to the public
and to local governmental agencies regarding the design, construction, and long- term
environmental impacts that might exist as a result of this proposed action. No conceptual
building or facility plans have been provided, no specific location of said facility, no
environmental impact studies of the downstream effects of such discharge, and no public
forum to obtain information on this request...Let's get back to some basics here and allow
for debate,for communication,for alternatives to be considered. Even the Town of
Huntersville did not know of this comment period until October 14th,just 10 days before the
closure of public comments. What kind of communications is this from the NCDEQ?"
(Received before the hearing)
• "Why weren't homeowners near this area notified of this meeting?I happened upon this
information while looking for something else. What do the people in the Pee Dee Basin think
about this?" (Received March 16)
• "In regards to this permit I agree with the Southern Environmental Law Center and The
Yadkin River Keepers in adjusting the permit to require lower Benzene levels than what is
currently required for the discharged water and adding a binding condition to insure the
proper operation and maintenance of the system to be used for the duration of the permit. I
would also align with any additional comments/recommendations these two groups make as
they have the resources and knowledge to review and decipher the information especially
Page 23 of 36

given the extremely short notice those of us in the community have had with this comment
period. " (Received March 16)
• "I live less than 2 miles from what I understand to be the largest oil spill in the states history.
I do not believe the state and the company have not been forthcoming with information about
the effects to the community. Now I understand that the company has applied for a permit to
"speed up" their clean up efforts yet they refused to take questions in a public hearing that
most of us did not find out about until on the evening local news after the fact.
I'm really disappointed in the information that's been released, notification process, and
actions taken thus far by both the state and the company. I want the state to know that I do
not have confidence in the permitting process or that the actions that the company is asking
to take will ultimately not impact the local residents and water sources they plan to
discharge into. While I think we would all appreciate this being resolved, it is on the state to
ensure that the company is releasing accurate and transparent information. To date,
statements from the company have been lacking. Statements from the state have been lacking.
Aside from a local government representative no one seems to be taking this seriously.
Maybe you don't think there's an impact to those that live close by. It would be great it you'd
perform public outreach if that's the case and the company was put in a position where the
state demand they answer the questions of local residents who are concerned for their health
and well being as a result of an incident that was no fault of their own.
• "I'd also suggest that there should be a mandatory disclosure within a specified distance
from a pipeline (oil, natural gas, other). Most of us were unaware there was a pipeline and
public searchable online resources do not clearly indicate the actual location of these
transmission pipelines to a level of detail that allows residents to determine their proximity."
(Received March 17)
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 09/23/2022. See Fact Sheet Attachment D for Affidavit of
publication.
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days
following the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be
submitted to the Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party
filing such request and the reasons why a hearing is warranted.
On February 14, 2023, a notice of Public Hearing (Attachment C)was published requesting
public comment on the draft permit for the Colonial Pipeline Company Huntersville spill.
Additionally, the draft permit public notice and public hearing public notice was posted on our
website and distributed through an e-mail list server to interested citizens. Public notice on our
website is not required by regulations or general statutes.
10. Public Water Supply Waters
Comments:
• "This water will flow to drinking water for many of our residents and may further
contaminate streams experiencing challenges already. "
Page 24 of 36

• "Do the treated chemicals flow into any town's drinking water?... Does it flow into
Charlotte' s drinking water?"
• "I am writing on behalf of Yadkin Riverkeeper's 300 members who live in the Yadkin Pee
Dee Watershed and are concerned about the potential impact of Colonial Pipeline's draft
NPDES Permit#NCO090000 on water quality in the basin, which supplies drinking water to
more than one million North Carolinians."
• "After looking at the permit request, I am very concerned that Colonial Pipeline will not
meet current state standards of water quality for chemicals allowed in our drinking water."
Response:
The nearest stream classified as water supply is the Pee Dee River [stream index 13-(15.5)b]
currently classified as WS-V, B waters. The distance from Outfall 001 on North Prong Clarke
Creek, along Clarke Creek, and along the Rocky River to the confluence with the Pee Dee River
is approximately 100 miles accounting for the bends in the stream path. [A straight geographical
line of approximately 45.1 miles was used as an earlier estimate for the Permit Rating Sheet
(Fact Sheet Attachment B)]. See Table 5 below for a breakdown of the stream mileage as
provided by GIS Online and AU Lengths provided in 2022 Integrated Report (Attachment M).
By the point flow reaches a water supply watershed,pollutants would encounter significant
dilution.
Table 5. Stream Length from Outfall 001 to the Pee Dee River.
Stream Index Current Stream
Stream Name (AU Number) Classification AU Length(Miles)
North Prong Clarke 13-17-4-1 C 0.66 (small portion
Creek measured by GIS)
Clarke Creek 13-17-4 C 5.5
Rocky River 13-17a C 0.14 (small portion
measured by GIS)
Rocky River 13-17b 1 C 9.2
Rocky River 13-17b2 C 8.3
Rocky River 13-17b3 C 3.2
Rocky River 13-17cl C 2.8
Rocky River 13-17c2 C 5.9
Rocky River 13-176 C 34.9
Rocky River 13-17d C 29.3
Total Miles of Stream 99.9
11. Operation and Maintenance/Self-Monitoring
Comments:
Page 25 of 36

• "In regards to this permit I agree with the Southern Environmental Law Center and The
Yadkin River Keepers in adjusting the permit to require lower Benzene levels than what is
currently required for the discharged water and adding a binding condition to insure the
proper operation and maintenance of the system to be used for the duration of the permit. I
would also align with any additional comments/recommendations these two groups make as
they have the resources and knowledge to review and decipher the information especially
given the extremely short notice those of us in the community have had with this comment
period. " (Received March 16)
• "And I'm here to urge DEQ to use their power to ensure that Colonial does the right thing-
for us and for the environment, and not just for their shareholders and bottom line. Left to
their own devices, I'm not confident that will happen."
• "I also feel there should be independent company that over sees the Colonial Pipeline
through the process to make sure they are meeting all proper procedure and to do all the
testing. Colonial Pipeline should not be allowed to conduct the monitoring. We have seen
failures from their ability to monitor the pipeline itself leading to this massive spill."
• "As a Huntersville resident, I am deeply concerned that based on their track record to date,
Colonial Pipeline cannot be trusted to sufficiently and properly clean up their oil spill that
occurred in 2020. We need a public hearing with ample notice to all Huntersville residents
on the permit requirements as well as an independent contractor for the water remediation. "
• "I demand a public hearing on the permit requirements AND I demand an independent
contractor be used for the water remediation AT THE EXPENSE of Colonial Pipeline. "
• "I also urge that an independent contractor be hired, at Colonial Pipeline's expense. After
two years of obstruction and denying responsibility, Colonial cannot be trusted to safely
clean up our public waterways. "
• "Our property has been directly effected by this incident and we have no confidence that
Colonial Pipeline would manage a water treatment facility effectively."
• "Colonial Pipeline has failed in its public responsibilities to effectively monitor and manage
its core operations of safely operating a pipeline. The public cannot trust a company that
failed to identify a massive 2+ million gallon leak of petroleum products to effectively
monitor the very specific, minuscule compounds, minerals, acids, and other materials being
discharged from a wastewater treatment facility.
• "Clearly (and sadly) based on their historical record, Colonial Pipeline can not be trusted to
do the work of water decontamination without keen oversight and regulation. In fact, the
safest and most logical alternative is to require Colonial Pipeline to pay for an independent
water remediation contractor to do the work and to do the work right."— Tina Katsanos, NC
NAACP
• "I do not trust this corporation to properly clean up the waters which will then be released
into our already compromised bodies of water."
• "I do NOT trust Colonial Pipeline to monitor, test, and report on activities described in the
permit in a responsible or professional manner.... I have little confidence in Colonial
Pipeline to properly do its job when it comes to measuring anything other than how much
Page 26 of 36

money it can make. I would prefer they continue hauling this stuff off-site. When a company
does not know they have lost over 1. 5 million gallons of the product until a couple of kids
find the gas floating on the surface, how can I trust they will properly treat the waste product
and accurately report the test results to the State. The level of detail in the NCDEQ reporting
structure is huge- not something Colonial has a history of being able to manage. "
• "I have doubts on their ability to properly manage this process or that the process would
sufficiently clean the hydrocarbon polluted water sufficiently 100%of the time."
• "For years now Colonial Pipeline has misrepresented the impact and quantity of the leak.
Why would we expect them to follow protocols that would render these "cleaned up
waters". "
• "I live in Huntersville and I don't trust Colonial Pipeline to sufficiently and properly clean
up the oil spill that occurred in 2020. "
• "Frankly, I do not trust them to bring that water up to the standards demanded by DEQ,
EPA or local authorities, because they did not provide immediate remediation for the spill,
did not report the entire nature or magnitude of the spill and are now backing away from the
negotiated settlement of treatment. I would not be at all surprised, given this scenario, that
they would minimally treat or not treat sufficiently per restrictions the water in their
charge. "
• "We need a public hearing on the permit requirements and an independent contractor for the
water remediation. "
• "First, I do not trust Colonial Pipelines (CP) recommendations to clean the water and
protect our environment. They do not have the people and environment's best interests in
mind, as traditionally, it's just about the money for their industry. "
• "I am writing to voice my deep concerns with Colonial Pipeline's request for a permit to
treat the contaminated water from the largest onshore pipeline spill in the history of the
United States...Based on their historical record, Colonial Pipeline can not be trusted to do
the work of water decontamination without keen oversight and regulation. In fact, the safest
and most logical alternative is to require Colonial Pipeline to pay for an independent water
remediation contractor to do the work and to do the work right. "
• "How can a company be trusted to manage and accurately report water quality when their
own oil spill wasn't self-detected but detected by two kids roaming in the back woods?"
• "I do NOT trust Colonial Pipeline to monitor, test, and report on activities described in the
permit in a responsible or professional manner. "
• "We need a public hearing on the permit requirements and an independent contractor for the
water remediation. "
• "However, let's consider multiple experts in the business who are not financially aligned
with CP to be considered in planning how to move forward. "
• "I don't trust Colonial Pipeline to treat the water correctly. "
Page 27 of 36

• "Instead, I would ask that this permit be denied and an independent non-profit to be in charge of
testing the surrounding area and deposing of the oil they spilled for a safe environment for my
children to live in and the other children and residents of this area. "
• "North Carolina should not grant Colonial Pipeline a wastewater discharge permit. We don't
believe that they can be trusted with the care of our community. What happens if the remediation
process fails and unclean water is discharged for any period of time? They had no awareness of the
initial leak until a community member discovered it. Will they have awareness in the event of a
failure with the water treatment process?It could be devastating."
• "My primary concern is that allowing a wastewater treatment plant on site would diminish the
oversight of third party and government groups that are responsible for holding Colonial
accountable. Has Colonial successfully identified all the leaks contributing to this staggering spill?
Would having an onsite treatment facility make it easier to hide damaged pipelines near the current
site? Unless provisions can be made to increase oversight by NCDEQ and to include the Yadkin
Riverkeepers at the highest levels of both planning, supervision and influence over this clean up, I
believe the opportunity for untraceable negligence is too high. It is simply too dangerous for the
community.A cleanup of this scale needs government oversight and transparency. My concern is
that Colonial will remain focused on shareholder value over public safety. This permit request is an
opportunity to increase the oversight, increasing the presence of the NCDEQ and other taxpayer-
funded, environmental representatives. We need community and government representatives
advocating for our community and watching what is happening at this disaster: the largest inland
gasoline spill in history!"
• "Sadly, I do not have trust that Colonial Pipeline will monitor, test, and report on activities
described in the permit properly. This plan is not environmentally friendly, nor does it put the
residents of Huntersville above the profit motives of Colonial Pipeline. "
• "have a separate group carefully monitor the spill"
• "Require additional controls and maintenance conditions to the installed equipment to ensure the
equipment is always operating at optimal levels. "
• "While I understand the proposed limits for testing, concentrations of pollutants in the water, etc.
meet the existing state requirements, this is a historical spill that should require additional testing
and requirements much more than the minimum standards. In addition, if the spill and clean -up
process has taught us anything, it's that Colonial Pipeline is not to be trusted to adequately oversee
and report on the extended cleanup operations. There should be an independent company that
oversees through the process to make sure Colonial is performing all the testing, appropriately
following the testing procedures, and reporting the raw results of the testing. Furthermore, so as to
not burden the state with more unexpected costs, Colonial should be required to pay for this
additional oversight and testing based on their inability to meet previous testing requirements
during the clean -up process."
Response:
Operation and Maintenance permit conditions are found in the NPDES Standard Conditions Part II
Section C.
Monitoring and Records permit conditions are found in the NPDES Standard Conditions Part II Section
D.
Page 28 of 36

Reporting permit conditions are found in the NPDES Standard Conditions Part II Section E.
Self-monitoring is and essential to Section 402 of the CWA.
Colonial Pipeline has employed third party contractors including Licensed Engineers, Licensed
Geologists, Consulting Firms, Licensed Drillers, and Certified Laboratories that conduct field sampling.
These personnel and companies are all regulated under various professional licensing boards and state
certification programs.
12. Engineering Alternatives (Antidegradation Review)
Comments:
• "There has been no public discussion on alternatives to the proposed plan, why this plan should be
approved rather than continuation of the present operation to haul this wastewater off-site, nor the
term or lifespan of such proposed facility."
• "There is nothing about this plan that is environmentally friendly or puts the residents of
Huntersville above the profit motives of Colonial Pipeline. They are simply looking for the quickest
and cheapest path to do the minimum required by State and Federal authorities."
• "The company is considering its bottom line, not the fundamental right of our residents to clean,
healthy water. "
• "We have no idea which unfortunate community is the current recipient of their waste, but they can
keep it. Colonial Pipeline can continue sending it to them until it runs clean which may take several
lifetimes. This problem should be solved by Colonial Pipeline and they should be forced to solve
it."
• "There is nothing about this plan that is environmentally friendly or puts the residents of
Huntersville above the profit motives of Colonial Pipeline. They are simply looking for the quickest
and cheapest path to do the minimum required by State and Federal authorities. "
• "It makes good sense to treat contaminated water on site in the Whitby's barn. In an ideal
situation, the overall environmental impact would be less severe if contaminated water is not
trucked off site for treatment. That said, I have several reservations. "
• "They are looking for the quickest and cheapest path to do the minimum required by State
and Federal authorities. I respectfully implore the NCDEQ to deny Colonial's request."
• "As a concerned resident living in the Mirabella neighborhood that resides next to the
pipeline, It feels shameful that Colonial can apply for a permit to treat their wastewater
onsite with a permanent structure in the middle of our residential neighborhoods. It is not
our responsibility to bend over backwards because Colonial is tired of trucking wastewater
offsite. "
• "I would like the record to reflect that I am for a NPDES solution and NOT for running
trucks up and down our roads 2417. Not only for the added cost, but the added traffic, road
damage, air and noise pollution. "
• "I attended the public hearing last night and was appalled to hear during the brief
presentation done by NCDENR, the state was concerned about the amount of money
Colonial would have to spend by doing an option different than the one proposed in the
Page 29 of 36

permit. While I understand the method selected is preferred and the "best"of the options to
cleanup the spill, state officials should not be deterred from imposing additional
requirements based on potential financial implications to Colonial- that is irresponsible and
immoral as a state official."
The NPDES permit program was enacted in 1972 as part of the Clean Water Act. The original
goal of the program was to eliminate all point source discharges to surface waters by 1985.
Although this goal was not achieved, the NPDES program continues to strive toward it. In that
light, an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is required with any NPDES application for a
new or expanding wastewater treatment plant discharge, in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0105(c)(2). In order for an NPDES application to be approved, the EAA must provide
complete justification for a direct discharge to surface water alternative and demonstrate that
direct discharge is the most environmentally sound alternative selected from all reasonably cost-
effective options [per 15A NCAC 2H.0 I 05(c)(2)].
The EAA was reviewed on 08/26/2022. The following alternatives were cost prohibitive:
• Connection to POTW: Prohibited by sewer use ordinance.
• Land Application: Technically infeasible due to engineering restrictions, lack of available
land, and protection of groundwater.
• Infiltration Galleries: Technically infeasible due to engineering restrictions, lack of
available land, and protection of groundwater.
• Closed-Loop Groundwater Remediation Wells: Technically infeasible due to engineering
restrictions, lack of available land, and protection of groundwater. This alternative is
technically infeasible because of the goal of the long-term operation of the recovery wells
is to create a hydraulic barrier to prevent free product and VOCs from migrating further
downgradient from the initial release location.
• In-Situ Groundwater Remediation Wells: This alternative is technically infeasible
because of the goal of the long-term operation of the recovery wells is to create a
hydraulic barrier to prevent free product and VOCs from migrating further downgradient
from the initial release location.
• Pump &Haul: Pumping and hauling the treated water would require approximately 115
trucks per day that will be operating 24 hours a day in a residential area. Cost estimate is
$594,857,305.
• Surface Water Discharge: The cost for surface water discharge (NPDES) was estimated
to be $23,106,669.
Note: Attachment A2 for addition information received on 12/22/2021 provided a present value
cost analysis (PVCA)that adjusted the values to $587,095,151 and $21,113,545 for Pump &
Haul and Surface Water Discharge, respectively.
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading
will not degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an
antidegradation review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a
new/expanding NPDES permit must document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives
per 15A NCAC 2H.0 I 05(c)(2). In all cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water
quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained and protected.
Page 30 of 36

13. Analytical Methods, Sampling, and Monitoring Frequency
Comments:
• "Are the best testing and cleaning methods being used and considered?"
• "What are the appropriate EPA defined Benzene (and Xylene) test methods?Is it practical to
monitor the discharge chemistries more frequently than identified in the draft permit?I find
EPA methods 624.1 (wastewater) or 8260 (for surface water) but am not certain what is
being required in the draft permit...
I am concerned with the draft permit defined monitoring processes including testing criteria
and frequencies. In my opinion, discharge should be from an (admittedly) large tank and
follow testing for benzene and other organics per tightened discharge limits. Also, I believe
that monthly sampling and testing of the organics is not enough. Continuous, Non-monitored
discharge during a month could allow "slugs"of outlier (high) concentration to be
discharged without any community awareness. Slugs such as these could result from events
such as the blasting that Libby (lives approximately half mile from pipeline) mentioned
during her comments. "
V. HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on review of the public record and written/oral comments received during the public hearing
process, I recommend to the Division Director that NPDES permit NCO090000 for the Colonial
Pipeline Company be revised as follows:
1. Based on best professional judgment in accordance with 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2), Technology
Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) from similar industrial treatment methods will be
implemented in the final permit and parameters with quarterly monitoring will be increased
to monthly monitoring. The final permit has been revised as follows:
a. TBELs were implemented in the final permit where TBELs are found to more
stringent than Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs). See Permit Condition
A. (L).
b. Monitoring frequencies for parameters that did not have limits in the draft permit
were increased from quarterly to monthly monitoring. See Permit Condition A. (L).
c. Monitoring for Total Purgeables Organics (VOCs) (EPA Method 624.1)was
increased to monthly. See Permit Conditions A. (L) and A. (7.).
The table below summarizes the new limits and monitoring frequencies for these parameters.
MONITORING
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS LIMITS REQUIREMENTS
[PARAMETER CODES] Monthly Daily Measurement
Average Maximum Frequency
Benzene /L 34030 37 /L 134 /L Weekly
Ethyl Benzene /L 34371 32 /L 108 /L Weekly
Page 31 of 36

Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene(µg/L) C0702 20 µg/L 49 µg/L Monthly
Hexachlorobutadiene
Bromodichloromethane(µg/L) 32101 Monitor Monitor Monthly
Dichlorobromomethane &Re ort &Re ort
Chloromethane(Methyl Chloride /L 34418 86 /L 190 /L Monthly
1,2-Dichloroethane(1,2 DCA)(mg/L) 32103 68 µg/L 211 µg/L Monthly
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether(MTBE)(mg/L) 22417 Monitor Monitor Monthly
&Report &Report
Organics,Total Purgeables(VOCs)
76029 Monitor&Report Monthly
(EPA Method 624.1)
2. Based on comments concerning aquatic life in North Prong Clark Creek, the presence of
threatened or endangered species, and stream impairment downstream in Clarke Creek and the
Rocky River, the following changes were made for monitoring and protection of aquatic life:
a. Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET)testing was increased to monthly monitoring.
Accordingly, the WET testing Special Condition A. (6.)was updated for monthly
monitoring as Acute Fathead Minnow(Pimephales promelas) at 90% effluent
concentration with the 48-hour static test. Permit Condition A. (1.)was updated to
indicate parameter code TAA6C.
b. Permit Condition A. (4.) for Instream Monitoring Requirements was added.
Monitoring will be conducted at historic locations monitored during the incident
response, as identified in Footnote 3, for SW-1/SD-1 (upstream), SW-2/SD-2
(immediately downstream), and SW-4/SD-4 (downstream confluence). For reporting
purposes using only three characters, these locations have been assigned Outfall IDs as
SW1, SW2, and SW4, respectively. Monitoring for instream will include reporting
BTEX parameters,Naphthalene, Free Oil Visual Sheen, Temperature,pH,
Conductivity, DO, ORP, Turbidity, TSS, O&G, and Total Lead by using NC DWR's
eDMR application system. Total Hardness monitoring will only be required for
instream location SW1. For consistency with instream monitoring, effluent Hardness
sampling will be increased to 2/Month.
c. Permit Condition A. (5.) for Instream Assessment of Biological Integrity that will be
conducted annually was added.
3. Based on review of the groundwater data, PFAS was determined by the Division to be
pollutant of concern for this groundwater remediation system. Accordingly, Permit Special
Condition A. (8.) for PFAS Monitoring Requirements was added to the permit with quarterly
monitoring.
4. Based on concerns about the treatment system performance, operation, and maintenance, the
following changes were made for monitoring of treatment system quality control:
a. Permit Condition A. (3.) for Internal Outfall Monitoring for Breakthrough was added
to the final permit. Internal monitoring for breakthrough will include internal Outfalls
I01, IO2, I03, I04, I05, and I06 as described in in Condition A. (3.) Footnote 2 and
indicated in Figure 1. Monitoring for internal outfalls will include reporting BTEX
Page 32 of 36

I
parameters,Naphthalene, and VOC EPA Method EPA Method 624.1 by using NC
DWR's eDMR application system.
b. Subsequently, the facility description on the supplement to permit cover sheet(page 2
of 19) was updated to include the following details for treatment system:
• two (2)parallel sets of two (2) 20,000-pound liquid phase granular activated
carbon(GAC) vessels in series
• six (6) sampling ports [see Permit Condition A. (3.) Footnote 2 and Figure 1,
page 6 of 20]
• a sampling port at a point designated as after final treatment and before
discharge to Outfall 001.
5. Permit reopener Condition A. (2.)was added for any supplementary monitoring. The
Division may, upon written notification to the Permittee, require any additional monitoring
(e.g., effluent, instream, etc.)that it deems necessary to support its water quality protection,
groundwater protection, and restoration efforts in the receiving stream.
6. Based on comments received concerning the visual condition, operation, and maintenance of
the groundwater remediation facility, Permit Special Condition A. (9.) for Duty to Provide
Information was added to the final permit. The condition has the following requirements:
a. Engineer's Certification. Upon completion of construction of the treatment system
complete and return the attached Engineer's Certification.
b. Site Mitigation Plan. This condition requires that the permittee provide information
on vegetative plantings and construction in order to reduce nuisance conditions
resulting from operation of the groundwater remediation system, by submitting a site
mitigation plan with sixty (60) days, quarterly reports showing survivability of the
plantings and which ones had to be replaced, and within three (3)years contact DWR
to schedule a site visit to confirm establishment of vegetative plantings.
c. Solid Waste Management Report. This condition requires documentation of hauling
records and the proper disposal for the following solid wastes: skimmed LNAPL,
oil/water separator sludge, spent bag filters, and spent carbon transported off-site.
These reports are due by June 30st and December 31 st of each calendar year.
This condition is also supported by the NPDES Standard Condition Part II, Section B (8.),
Duty to Provide Information and 40 CFR 122.41(h).
i
C �
Amy man, Hearinj Officer Date
Page 33 of 36

BPT—Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
BAT—Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BCT—Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CLC and CTT—Catawba Lands Conservancy/Carolina Thread Trail
CPC—Colonial Pipeline Company
DM—Daily Maximum Limit
DWR—Division of Water Resources
EPA—US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)—EPA Criteria
ELG—Effluent Limitations Guidelines
GAC—Granular Activated Carbon
HH—Human Health
MA—Monthly Average Limit
MGD—Million gallons per day
mg/L—milligrams per liter(ppm-parts per million)
MRO—NC DEQ Mooresville Regional Office
M&R—Monitor&Report
(N)—Narrative Standard
NA—Not applicable,not available, or not promulgated.
(NC)—North Carolina In-Stream Target Values for Surface Waters. Established per language in 15A
NCAC 02B .0202 & .0208.
NCAC—North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDEQ—North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ND—No Data,No Detection
ng/L—Nanograms per Liter(ppt—parts per trillion)
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSPS—New Source Performance Standards
POC—Pollutants of Concern
PSES—Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
PSNS—Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
RP—Reasonable Potential
RPA—Reasonable Potential Analysis
SELC—Southern Environmental Law Center
TBEL—Technology Based Effluent Limits
TSS— Total Suspended Solids
SU—Standard Units
UoM—Unit of Measure
VOCs—Volatile Organic Compounds
WQBEL—Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
YRK—Yadkin Riverkeeper,Inc.
µg/L—micrograms per liter(ppb—parts per billion)
2B - 15A NCAC 02B .0200
133 —40 CFR 133: Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC 2B .0406
414—40 CFR 414: Organic Chemicals,Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
455—40 CFR 455: Pesticide Chemicals
VII. ATTACHMENTS
Page 34 of 36

A. NC0090000_Draft Permit_20220920_17p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2499745
B. NC0090000_Comments_20221024_106p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov[WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2566106
C. NC0090000_Affidavit_20230214_lp
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov[WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2683993
D. NC0090000_Public Hearing Presentation_20230316_28p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2727559
E. NC0090000_Public Hearing Posters_20230316_3p
htlps:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2727561
F. NC0090000_Public Hearing Sign In Sheet_20230316_8p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov[WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2727737
G. NC0090000_Public Hearing Recording_20230316
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov[WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2727569&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
H. NC0090000_Public Hearing Comments_20230317_57p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2728076
1. NC0090000_More Information(Requested)ltr_20211102_3p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&i d=205 8684
J. PFAS Data Summaries_Up
(Attached to Hearing Officer's Report)
K. CP CO PFAS Q3 Sampling Summary DRAFT_9p
(Attached to Hearing Officer's Report)
L. NCNHP_project_report_npdes_permit_NC0090000_20230317_19p
(Attached to Hearing Officer's Report)
M. NCIntegratedReport2022 NC303d2022_GIS Maps_15p
(Attached to Hearing Officer's Report)
Fact Sheet Attachments:
A. Application,Additional Information Received, and Reports
1. NC0090000_Application_20210818_49p.
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov[WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=l 955816&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
2. NC0090000_More Information(Received)_20211222_225p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2466450&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
3. NC0090000_More Information(Received)_20220714_17p
https://edocs.deq.nc.fzov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2449622&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
4. NC0090000_More Information(Received)_20220808_47p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2489753&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
5. NC0090000_More Information(Received)_20220810_12p
https://edocs.deq.nc.fzov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2449624&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
6. NC0090000_More Information(Received)_20220810(2)_5p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2449625&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
Page 35 of 36

7. NC0090000_More Information(Received)_20220818_133p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2466344&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
8. June Monthly Report 20220630_2189p
https://deq.nc.gov/media/30577/download?attachment
9. NC0090000_More Information(Received)_20221106 43p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2765530
B. NC0090000_Permit Rating Sheet_20220913_20220913_15p
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2780040
C. NCO090000_RPA Spreadsheets_20230614_56p
(Attached to Fact Sheet)
D. NC0090000_Affidavitt(public notice)_20220923_lp
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2505313
E. NCO090000_EPA Region 4_Acknowledgment_20220922_3p
(Attached to Fact Sheet)
For other Colonial Pipeline Spill Information-Huntersville including correspondence,background,
emergency response,data,results,required report, etc.please see the DEQ DWM webpage:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/underground-storage-tanks-section/colonial-
pipeline-spill-information-huntersville-nc
Page 36 of 36

Attachment J
PFAS Data Summaries_13p

DEEP MONITORING WELL
MW-18 CPC NCDEQ ti MONITORING WELL
RAN-07 CPC NCDEQ MONITORING WELL SAMPLED
MW-53 PFBA (ng/L) 11.0 J ND
PFBA (ng/L) 24.3 J ND MW-3s MW-07D o RECOVERY WELL
Mw-os Mw-z7 PFMOPrA (ng/L) ND <PQL o RECOVERY WELL SAMPLED
PFMOPrA (ng/L) ND ND MW-03 MW-54
6:2 FTS (ng/L) <PQL N DIA
6:2 FTS (ng/L) N D <PQL
RELEASE SITE
MW-63
dr M MW 36D Mwzs MW-zz Mw-zo COLONIAL PIPELINE
RW-32
MW-01 Rw-za - - - OCTOBER 2020 BENZENE EXTENT
RW-31 MW-33Preserve
R1N-20 CPC NCDEQ Mw-os y Mw37 Rw-as ; _r EXCAVATION AREA
RW-29 M W-18
PFBA (ng/L) N D <PQL MW 02 MW-30 1 Mwaz .- OCTOBER 2020 APPARENT FREE PRODUCT
THICKNESS ZERO CONTOUR
PFMOPrA (ng/L) ND ND m�:-na Mw-os RW-45 Rw-o7 MW-24 CPC NCDEQ
MW-25D SEPTIC DRAINING FIELD AREA
6:2 FTS (ng/L) 33.9 JN ND Mw-zs % RW-12 MW-25 P F BA (n g/L) D 30.2 J SEPTIC TANKS
Mw-ss m►�.ss v N
MW-12 MW VQO RW-19
RW-15 PFMOPrA (ng/L) ND ND
ri
MW-501U RW-08
RW-39 RW-17 6:2 FTS (ng/L) ND ND
MW-52 RW-25 RW-13 1 MW:24
13
RW-40 RW-47
cmRW& RW-18 MW-71
RW-14 13
RW-14 CPC NCDEQ Rw-z1
MW-10 RW-43 MW-41
PFBA (ng/L) 154 J ND RW-16 MW-69
MW61
PFMOPrA (ng/L) ND ND ti MW-15 RW-44 MW-55 MW-s1U
NOTES:
6:2 FTS (ng/L) N D N D f,!.
OEMRW-41 W-36 ' ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
CPC=COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY
RW-35 PQL=10 NG/L
RW-01 NCDEQ=NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
W09 NO VALIDATED DETECTION>10 NG/L REPLICATED IN SPLIT SAMPLES.
RW-03 RW-02low
'
d MW-66
MW-39 MW-11
z RW-06 y MW-64 BASE MAP:GOOGLE EARTH AND THEIR DATA PARTNERS(1/22/2021).
RW-04 DATA SOURCES:TRC
RW-24
MW-40 RW-0513RW-22 RW-51 MW-70
o . MW-16 MW-1d y RW-50
Q MW-28 RW-11 RW-53 RW-52 ® i
- RW-49 Myy.13 MW-42
z .F 9 y MW-68
RW-28 �
= MW-50
13
a MW-23 MW-51
MW-21 1:2,100
MW-19 MW 45 . "=175'
RW-5s 1
MW-65
RW-55 MW-14015_AG_RD, MW-65U
h 0 175 350
Mw-46 FEET
a Mw-1a PROJECTCOLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY
CL
++ 2020-L1 -SR2448 RELEASE
�a MW-19 CPC NCDEQ - t A +- • r HUNTERSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
TITLE:
QQ PFBA (ng/L) <PQL <PQL - Mw-o8 PFAS OBSERVATIONS AND
Mw-44 PERTINENT SITE FEATURES
�� PFMOPrA (ng/L) ND 14.3 J -
MIN-42 CPC NCDEQ DRAWN BY: M.HORN PROJ.NO.: 429385.0001.0000
3� 6:2 FTS (ng/L) ND ND MW-73 CHECKED BY: B.FEUERSTEIN
PFBA (ng/L) ND <PQL APPROVED BY: FIGURE 2
z DATE: OCTOBER 2021
g - P F M 0 P rA (ng/L) ND 19.6 J — TRIC
708 Heartland Trail
M MW62 �� Suite 3000
6:2 FTS (ng/L) ND <PQL , Madison,WI53717
a
o�
� ; FILE: HuntersvilleNC.a rx

Surface Water Sampling Stations
Al
Surface Water
Ale j . ,\
Connector
CanalDitch
_!O! \.
Pipeline
�• �� StrearnRiver
ArtificialPath
ii A —� eckCoastVne
kvrrAorti�flo 0 r s5 .k••:
others
•.= Site H
Site G , ' y
Release
Site
7 t
Neeyme r F tying
Regi Orel PF �' �- r�'S
A Ar t+~ 1

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PFAS Analytical Results
Sample Type: ENCAPSULANT
Sample Name: 20230-Foam 20230-Foam 20233-Raw Product 20233-Mixed 20254-Foam-1 20254-Foam-2 20254-Foam-3 20254-Foam-4 20254-Foam-5 20254-Mixed-1 20254-Mixed-2 20254-Blank
Enca sulant Encapsulant Enca sulant Encapsulant Enca sulant Diluted Enca sulant Diluted Encapsulant Diluted Encapsulant Enca sulant Enca sulant Enca sulant Enca sulant Enca sulant Diluted Enca sulant Diluted Enca sulant Equipment Blank
Sample Description: p Reanalysis p Reanalysis p p Reanalysis Split p p p p p p p
Lab Report: 0820-73 0920-71 20-741- 0002 0820-' L.0920-720-1 0920-720-1 0920-72 20-720-1 0920-720-1 0920-720-1 0920-720-1 0920-7
Sample Date: 8/17/2020 8/17/2020 8/20/2020 8/20/2020 9/10/2020 9/10/2020 9/10/2020 9/10/2020 9/10/2020 9/10/2020 9/10/2020 9/10/2020
Validated? No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No
Units: ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
Analysis Ana yte Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy
PFAS
Perflumobutanoic acid(PFBA) 2,550 787 U 1,340 J 787 U 2,500 UJ 787 U 787 U 500 UJ 787 U 787 U 787 U 787 U 787 U 787 U 787 U 0.146 U
Perflumo entanoic acid(PFPeA) 449 U 449 U 449 U 449 U 2,500 UJ 449 U 449 U 2,500 UJ 449 U 449 U 449 U 449 U 449 U 449 U 449 U 0.0831 U
Perflumohexanoic acid(PFHxA) 788 U 788 U 788 U 788 U 2,500 UJ 788 U 788 U 500 UJ 788 U 788 U 788 U 788 U 788 U 827 J 788 U 0.146 U
Perfluoroh tanoicacid(PFH A) 348 U 348 U 348 U 348 U 2,500 UJ 348 U 348 U 500 UJ 348 U 348 U 348 Ti 348 U 348 U 348 U 348 U 0.0643 U
Perfluorooctanoic acid(PFOA) 397 U 1410 J 397 U 397 U 2,500 UJ 397 U 397 U 500 UJ 397 U 397 U 1,070 J 397 U 397 U 826 J 397 U 0.0735 U
Perfluorononanoic acid(PFNA) 254 U 254 U 254 U 254 U 25,000 UJ 254 U 254 U 500 UJ 254 U 254 U 254 U 254 U 254 U 254 U 254 U 0.0471 U
Perfluorodecanoic acid(PFDA) 625 U 625 U 625 U 625 U 500 UJ 625 U 625 U 500 UJ 625 U 625 U 625 U 625 U 625 U 625 U 625 U 0.116 U
Perfluoroundecanoic acid(PFUnA) 240 U 240 U 1 3871 J 240 U 1 25,000 UJ 240 U 2401 U 2,500 1 UJ 240 U 240 U 240 U 240 U 240 U 240 U 240 U 0.0445 U
Perfluorododecanoic acid(PFDoA) 238 U 238 U 3,240 238 U 25,000 UJ 238 U 238 U 2,500 UJ 238 U 2381 U 2381 U 238 U 238 U 238 U 238 U 0.0440 U
Perfluorotridecanoic acid(PFTriA) 7,890 372 U 8,890 372 U 2,500 UJ 372 U 372 U 500 UJ 372 U 372 U 372 U 372 U 372 U 372 U 372 U 0.0689 U
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid(PFTeA) 18,200 415 U 22,600 415 U 125,000 UJ 415 U 415 U 25,000 UJ 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 0.0768 U
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 445 UJ 415 U 415 U 445 UJ 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 415 U 0.0768 U
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 495 U 495 U 495 U 495 U 23,500 UJ 495 U 495 U 2,350 UJ 495 U 495 U 495 U 495 U 495 U 495 U 495 U 0.0916 U
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 414 U 414 U 414 U 414 U 22,800 UJ 414 U 414 U 2,280 UJ 413 U 413 U 413 U 413 U 413 U 413 U 413 U 0.0765 U
Perfluorohe tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 390 U 390 U 390 U 390 U 23,800 UJ 390 U 390 U 2,380 UJ 389 U 389 U 389 U 389 U 389 U 389 U 389 U 0.0721 U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 5,020 3,630 1 2361 U 2361 U 1 25,000 UJ 236 U 2361 U 1 2,500 UJ 1 235 U 235 U 235 U 235 U 235 U 1,640 1,190 J 0.0436 U
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 327 U 327 U 327 U 327 U 24,000 UJ 327 U 327 U 2,400 UJ 327 U 327 U 327 U 327 U 327 U 327 U 327 U 0.0605 U
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 675 U 675 U 675 U 675 U 24,300 UJ 675 U 675 U 2,430 UJ 675 U 675 U 675 U 675 U 675 U 675 U 675 U 0.125 U
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 323 U 323 U 323 U 323 U 235,000 UJ 323 U 323 U 235,000 UJ 323 U 323 U 323 U 323 U 323 U 323 U 323 U 0.0598 U
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 1,810 U 1,290 J 452 J 362 U 238,000 UJ 718 J 362 U 238,000 UJ 392 J 361 U 361 U 361 U 361 U 361 U 1,030 J 0.0669 U
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 284 U 284 U 284 U 284 U 96,000 UJ 284 U 284 U 240,000 UJ 284 U 284 U 284 U 284 U 284 U 284 U 2841 U 1 0.0527 U
Perflumooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 16,600 13,800 1,820 U 1,820 U 500 UJ 4,810 4,100 5,620 J- 1,825 U 1,825 U 1,825 U 1,825 U 1,825 U 14,600 9,180 0.338 U
N-meth 1 perfluorooctanesulfonaniido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 272 U 272 U 272 U 272 U 250,000 UJ 272 U 272 U 250,000 UJ 272 U 272 U 272 U 272 U 272 U 272 U 272 U 0.0503 U
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonaniido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 326 U 3261 U 5401 J 1 326 U 1 250,000 1 UJ 3261 U 326 U 1 5,000 UJ 1 326 U 326 U 326 U 326 U 326 U 326 U 326 U 0.0602 U
Herafluoro ro lene dimer acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 476 U 476 U 476 U 476 U 2,500 UJ 476 U 476 U 500 UJ 476 U 476 U 476 U 476 U 476 U 476 U 476 U 0.0881 U
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 5,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 1,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,4001 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 1.37 U
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 5,000 UJ 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,000 UJ 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 0.222 U
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 5,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 1,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 1.37 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 5,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 1,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,4001 U 1 1.37 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 5,000 UJ 15,000 U 15,000 U 1,000 UJ 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 2.78 U
Nafion Byproduct 1 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 5,000 UJ 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,000 UJ 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 0.222 U
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid(ADONA) 600 U 600 U 1 6001 U 6001 U 1 2,500 UJ 6001 U 1 600 U 500 UJ 1 6001 U 600 U 600 U 6001 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 0.111 U
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-l-sulfonic acid(9CI-PF30NS) 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 49,100 UJ 600 U 600 U 4,910 UJ 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 0.111 U
I1-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(1 lCl-PF30UdS) 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 25,000 UJ 600 U 600 U 2500 UJ 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 600 U 0.111 U
Nation Byproduct 2 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 5,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 1,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 1.37 U
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxah tanoic acid(NFDHA) 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U NA 1,200 U 1,200 U NA 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 0.222 U
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox)ro anoic acid(PEPA) 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 5,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 1,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,4001 U 1 1.37 U
Perfluoro(2-ethox thane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U NA 1,200 U 1,200 U NA 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 1,200 U 0.222 U
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 5,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 1,000 UJ 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 1.37 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 I-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 5,000 UJ 15,000 U 15,000 U 1,000 UJ 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 15,000 U 2.78 U
Perfluoro-2-(erfluoromethox)ro anoic acid(PMPA 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U NA 7,400 U 7,400 U NA 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 7,400 U 1.37 U
N-eth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-EtFOSE) NA NA NA NA 1,000,000 UJ NA NA 50,000 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NA NA NA NA 50,000 UJ NA NA 5,000 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
4-(H tafluoroiso ro ox hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA NA NA NA 5,000 UJ NA NA 1,000 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
N-ethyl erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-EtFOSA) NA NA NA NA 50,000 UJ NA NA 5,000 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI I NA
N-meth 1 erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA) NA NA NA 50,000 UJ NA NA 50,000 UJ NAI I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA NA NA NA 50,000 UJ NA NA 5,000 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Perflucrohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) NA NA NA NA 250,000 UJ NA NA 50,000 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid PFODA NA NA NA NA 5,000 UJ NA NA 50,000 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Notes:
ng/L-nanograms per liter.
.-Qualified as nondetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
JN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to inert ences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-Rejected due to significant quality control nonconformances
U-Analyze was not detected at specified limit of detection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified quantitation limit for GEL.
UJ-Estimated-detects
Values in bold indicate the analyze was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the analyse was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
PFAS-Per-and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances.
Page 1 of 8

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PFAS Analytical Results
Sample Type: SURFACE WATER
Sample Name: 20230-SWI 20230-SW2 20230-SW3 20230-SW4 20230-SW5 20230-SW6 20230-SW-DUP 20230-Rinsate
Sample Description: Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Surface Water Surf a Water Surf a Water Surface Water Equipment Blank
Lab Report: 0820-735-1 0820-735-1 0820-735-1 0820-735-1 0820-735-1 0820-735-1 0820-735-1 0820-735-1
Sample Date: 8/17/2020 8/17/2020 8/17/2020 8/17/2020 8/17/2020 8/17/2020 8/17/2020 8/17/2020
Validated. No No No No No No No No
Units: ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
Ana ysls Ana yte Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy
PFAS
Perflumobutanoic acid(PFBA) 0.139 U 0.143 U 0.139 U 0.144 U 0.144 U 0.140 U 0.140 U 0.140 U
Perflumo entanoic acid(PFPeA) 0.0791 U 0.0818 U 0.0794 U 0.0821 U 0.0822 U 0.0799 U 0.0797 U 0.0796 U
Perflumohexanoic acid(PFHxA) 9.12 5.58 10.3 6.74 2.11 4.28 5.60 0.140 U
Perflumoh tanoic acid(PFH A) 3.15 2.04 8.06 4.76 0.760 3.14 2.32 0.0616 U
Perflumooctanoic acid(PFOA) 6.40 5.43 14.9 8.97 1.11 5.87 5.48 0.0704 U
Perflumononanoic acid(PFNA) 1.10 0.786 2.21 1.19 0.153 J 0.887 1.03 0.0451 U
Perflumodecanoic acid(PFDA) 1.51 0.829 2.78 1.23 0.155 J 0.788 1.67 0.111 U
Perflumoundecanoic acid(PFUnA) 0.1271 J 1 0.0438 U 0.3301 0.0582 J 0.0440 U 0.04801 J 0.702 1 0.0426 U
Perflumododecanoic acid(PFDoA) 0.0418 U 0.0433 U 0.0420 U 0.0435 U 0.0435 U 0.0423 U 0.0422 U 0.0421 U
Perfluorotridecanoic acid(PFTriA) 0.0656 U 0.0679 U 0.0659 U 0.0682 U 0.0682 U 0.0663 U 0.0661 U 0.0660 U
Perfluormetradecanoic acid(PFTeA) 0.0731 U 0.0756 U 0.0734 U 0.0759 U 0.0760 U 0.0739 U 0.0737 U 0.0736 U
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 2.95 2.02 0.0734 U 0.0759 U 0.0760 U 0.0739 U 0.0737 U 0.0736 U
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 0.0872 U 0.0902 U 0.649 0.0906 U 0.0906 U 0.0881 U 0.0879 U 0.08771 U
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 0.984 0.722 4.88 2.66 0.401 1 1.46 0.673 0.0733 U
Perfluoroh tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 0.0686 U 0.0710 U 0.0689 U 0.0713 U 0.0713 U 0.0693 U 0.0691 U 0.0690 U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 2.93 1 2.50 4.38 2.95 1.40 2.79 3.81 0.0417 U
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 0.0576 U 0.0596 U 0.0578 U 0.0598 U 0.0599 U 0.0582 U 0.0580 U 0.0580 U
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 0.119 U 0.123 U 0.119 U 0.124 U 0.124 U 0.120 U 0.120 U 0.120 U
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 0.0569 U 0.0588 U 0.0571 U 0.0591 U 0.0591 U 0.0575 U 0.0573 U 0.0572 U
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 0.0637 U 0.0659 U 0.225 J 0.0756 J 0.0662 U 0.0643 U 0.127 J 0.777
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 0.0501 U 0.0518 U 0.0503 U 0.0521 U 0.0521 U 0.0506 U 0.0505 U 0.0504 U
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 0.321 U 0.332 U 0.323 U 0.334 U 0.334 U 0.325 U 0.324 U 0.323 U
N-meth 1 perfluorooctanesulfonatnido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 0.0479 U 0.0496 U 0.0481 U 0.0498 U 0.0498 U 0.0484 U 0.0483 U 0.0482 U
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 0.0573 U 0.0593 U 0.0576 U 0.0596 U 0.0596 U 0.0579 U 0.0578 U 0.0577 U
Hexafluoro ro lene dimer acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 0.0838 U 0.0867 U 0.0841 U 0.0870 U 0.0871 U 0.0847 U 0.0844 U 0.0843 U
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 1.30 U 1.35 U 1.31 U 1.35 U 1.35 U 1.32 U 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 0.211 U 0.219 U 0.212 U 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.214 U 0.213 U 0.213 U
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) 1.30 U 1.35 U 1.31 U 1.35 U 1.35 U 1.32 U 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 1.30 U 1.351 U 1.31 U 1.35 U 1.35 U 1.32 U 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 2.65 U 2.74 U 2.661 U 2.75 U 2.75 U 2.68 U 2.67 U 2.67 U
Nation Byproduct 1 0.211 U 0.219 U 0.212 U 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.214 U 0.213 U 0.213 U
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid(ADONA) 0.106 U 0.109 U 0.106 U 0.110 U 0.110 U 0.107 U 0.106 U 0.106 U
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1-sulfonic acid(9C1-PF30NS) 0.106 U 0.109 U 0.106 U 0.110 U 0.110 U 0.107 U 0.106 U 0.106 U
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(1lCl-PF30UdS) 0.106 U 0.109 U 0.106 U 0.110 U 0.110 U 0.107 U 0.106 U 0.106 U
Nation Byproduct 2 1.30 U 1.35 U 1.31 U 1.35 U 1.35 U 1.32 U 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxah tanoic acid(NFDHA) 0.211 U 0.219 U 0.212 U 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.214 U 0.213 U 0.213 U
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox)ro anoic acid(PEPA) 1.30 U 1.351 U 1.31 U 1.35 U 1.35 U 1.32 U 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoro(2-ethox thane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 0.211 U 0.219 U 0.2121 U 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.214 U 0.213 U 0.213 U
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 1.30 U 1.35 U 1.31 U 1.35 U 1.35 U 1.32 U 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 I-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA) 2.65 U 2.74 U 2.66 U 2.75 U 2.75 U 2.68 U 2.67 U 2.67 U
Perfluoro-2-(erfluoromethox)ro anoic acid(PMPA) 1.30 U 1.35 U 1.31 U 1.35 U 1.35 U 1.32 U 1.31 U 1.31 U
N-eth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-E[FOSE) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
4-(He tafluoroiso ro ox hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
N-ethyl erfluoro-l-octanesulfonatnide(N-EtFOSA) NA NA NA NA NAI NA NA INA
N-meth 1 erfluoro-I-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Perflumohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Perfluorooctadecanoic acid PFODA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Notes:
ng/L-nanograms per liter.
.-Qualified as nmdetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
JN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to inte't ences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-Rejected due to significant quality control nonconformances
U-Analyze was not detected at specified limit of detection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified quantitatim limit
UJ-Estimated nondetects
Values in bold indicate the analyze was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the analyze was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
PEAS-Per-and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances.
Page 2 of 8

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PEAS Analytical Results
Sample Type: MUNICIPAL WATER
Sample Name: 20233-Mun Water 20233-Mun Water
Municipal Water Municipal Water
Sample Description: Reanatysls
Lab Report:EEE.0820 1
Sample Date: 8/20/2020 8/20/2020
Validated? No No
Units: ng/L ng/L
Analysis Ana yte Enthalpy Enthalpy
PFAS
Perflumobutanoic acid(PFBA) 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perflumo entanoic acid(PFPeA) 0.748 U 0.748 U
Perflumohexanoic acid(PFHxA) 1.31 U 1.39 J
Perflumoh tanoic acid(PFH A) 0.579 U 0.579 U
Perflumooctanoic acid(PFOA) 0.662 U 1.00 J
Perflumononanoic acid(PFNA) 0.424 U 0.424 U
Perflumodecanoic acid(PFDA) 1.04 U 1.04 U
Perflumoundecanoic acid(PFUnA) 0.401 U 0.401 U
Perflumododecanoic acid(PFDoA) 0.396 U 0.396 U
Perfluorotridecanoic acid(PFTriA) 0.621 U 0.621 U
Perfluormetradecanoic acid(PFTeA) 0.692 U 0.692 U
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 0.692 U 0.692 U
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 0.8251 U 0.825 U
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 0.689 U 0.689 U
Pertluoroh tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 0.649 U 0.649 U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 0.392 U 0.674 J
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 0.545 U 0.545 U
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 1.12 U 1.12 U
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 0.538 U 0.538 U
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 0.879 J 0.602 U
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 0.474 U 0.474 U
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 3.04 U 3.04 U
N-meth 1 perfluorooctanesulfonatnido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 0.453 U 0.453 U
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 0.542 U 0.542 U
Hexafluoro ro lene dimer acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 0.793 U 0.793 U
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 2.00 U 2.00 U
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 12.31 U 1 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 25.1 U 25.1 U
Nafion Byproduct 1 2.00 U 2.00 U
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid(ADONA) 1.00 U 1.00 U
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-l-sulfonic acid(9CI-PF30NS) 1.00 U 1.00 U
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(1lCl-PF30UdS) 1.00 U 1.00 U
Nation Byproduct 2 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxah tanoic acid(NFDHA) 2.00 U 2.00 U
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox)ro anoic acid(PEPA) 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro(2-ethox thane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 2.00 U 2.00 U
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 I-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA) 25.1 U 25.1 U
Perfluoro-2-(erfluoromethox)ro anoic acid(PMPA) 12.3 U 12.3 U
N-eth 1 erflumooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-EtFOSE) NA NA
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NA NA
4-(He tafluoroiso ro ox hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA NA
N-ethyl erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-EtFOSA) NA NA
N-meth 1 erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA) NA NA
Peril orododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA NA
Perflumohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) NA NA
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid PFODA NA NA
Notes:
ng/L-nanogmms per liter.
.-Qualified as noadetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
JN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to inert ences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-R jetted due to significant quality control nonconformances
U-Analyze was not detected at specified limit of detection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified quantitation limit
UJ-Estimated nondetects
Values in bold indicate the analyze was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the analyze was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
PEAS-Per-and Poly-flionmelkyl Substances.
Page 3 of 8

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PFAS Analytical Results
Sample Type: POOLED WATER(RELEASE SITE)
Sample Name: 20233-PFAS SWl 20233-PFAS SW2 Field Blank 20233-Blank 20233-Blank
Pooled water(Release Pooled water(Release Pooled water(Release Pooled water(Release Pooled water(Release Pooled water(Release Equipment Blank
Sample Description:
Site) Site)Reanalysis Site)Split Site) Site)Reanalysis Site)Split Field Blank Equipment Blank Reanalysis
Lab Report: 0820-741-1 0920-717-1 520002 0820-741-1 0920-717-1 520002 520002 0820-741-1 0920-717-1
Sample Date: 8/20/2020 8/20/2020 8/20/2020 8/20/2020 8/20/2020
Validated. No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No
Units: ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
Analysis Ana yte Enthalpy Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy Enthalpy GEL GEL Enthalpy Enthalpy
PFAS
Perflumobutanoic acid(PFBA) 72.4 1.31 U 500 UJ 30.3 1.31 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoro entanoic acid(PFPeA) 187 U 22.4 U 500 UJ 0.748 U 0.748 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.748 U 0.748 U
Perfluorohexanoic acid(PFHxA) 1.31 U 1.31 U 500 UJ 73.7 63.2 500 UJ 500 UJ 1.31 U 1.31 U
Perfluoroh tanoic acid(PFH A) 0.579 U 0.579 U 500 UJ 24.7 0.579 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.579 U 0.579 U
Perfluorooctanoic acid(PFOA) 58.4 0.662 U 500 UJ 61.0 59.8 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.662 U 0.662 U
Perflumononanoic acid(PFNA) 0.424 U 0.424 U 500 UJ 0.424 U 0.424 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.424 U 0.424 U
Perfluorodecanoic acid(PFDA) 1.04 U 1.04 U 500 UJ 1.04 U 1.04 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 1.04 U 1.04 U
Perfluoroundecanoic acid(PFUnA) 0.4011 U 0.401 U 500 UJ 0.401 U 0.401 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 11 0.401 U 0.4011 U
Perfluorododecanoic acid(PFDoA) 0.396 U 0.396 U 500 UJ 0.396 U 0.396 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.396 U 0.396 U
Perfluorotridecanoic acid(PFTriA) 0.621 U 0.621 U 500 UJ 0.621 U 0.621 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.621 U 0.621 U
Perfluormetradecanoic acid(PFTeA) 0.692 U 0.692 U 2,500 UJ 0.692 U 0.692 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.692 U 0.692 U
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 0.692 U 0.692 U 445 UJ 0.692 U 0.692 U 445 UJ 445 UJ 0.692 U 0.692 U
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 0.825 U 0.825 U 470 UJ 0.825 U 0.825 U 470 UJ 470 UJ 0.825 U 0.825 U
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 0.689 U 0.689 U 455 UJ 0.689 U 2.26 455 UJ 455 UJ 0.689 U 0.689 U
Perfluoroh tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 0.649 U 0.649 U 475 UJ 0.6491 U 0.649 U 475 UJ 475 UJ 0.649 U 0.649 U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 1601 176 1 500 UJ 161 141 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.392 U 0.392 U
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 0.545 U 0.545 U 480 UJ 0.545 U 0.545 U 480 UJ 480 UJ 0.545 U 0.545 U
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 1.12 U 1.12 U 485 UJ 1.12 U 1.12 U 485 UJ 485 UJ 1.12 U 1.12 U
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 0.538 U 0.538 U 47,000 UJ 0.538 U 0.538 U 4,700 UJ 940 UJ 0.538 U 0.538 U
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 59.9 63.3 47,500 UJ 47.9 36.5 4,750 UJ 950 UJ 1.14 J 0.602 U
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 15.7 0.474 U 48,000 UJ 11.8 13.5 4,800 UJ 960 UJ 0.4741 U 0.474 U
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 1,140 906 1,210 J- 654 563 913 J- 500 UJ 3.04 U 3.04 U
N-meth 1 perfluorooctanesulfonatnido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 5.70 0.453 U 50,000 UJ 21.11 0.453 U 5,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 0.453 U 0.453 U
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonaniido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 0.5421 U 0.542 U 1 5,000 UJ 0.542 U 0.542 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 0.542 U 0.542 U
Hexafluoro ro lene dimer acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 198 U 23.8 U 500 UJ 0.793 U 0.793 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 0.793 U 0.793 U
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 2.00 U 2.00 U 1,000 UJ 2.00 U 2.00 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 2.00 U 2.00 U
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) 3,080 U 370 U 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 25.1 U 25.1 U 1,000 UJ 25.1 U 25.1 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 25.1 U 1 25.11 U
Nation Byproduct 1 2.00 U 2.00 U 1,000 UJ 2.00 U 2.00 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 2.00 U 2.001 U
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid(ADONA) 1.00 U 1.00 U 500 UJ 1.00 U 1.00 U 500 UJ 500 UJ 1.00 U 1.00 U
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-l-sulfonic acid(9C1-PF30NS) 1.001 U 1.00 U 982 UJ 1.00 U 1.00 U 466 UJ 982 UJ 1.00 U 1.00 U
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(1lCl-PF30UdS) 1.001 U 1.00 U 500 UJ 1.00 U 1.00 U 471 UJ 500 UJ 1.00 U 1.00 U
Nation Byproduct 2 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxah tanoic acid(NFDHA) 2.00 U 2.00 U NA 2.00 U 2.00 U NA NA 2.00 U 2.00 U
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox)ro anoic acid(PEPA) 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro(2-ethox ethane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 2.00 U 2.00 U NA 2.00 U 2.00 U NA NA 2.00 U 2.00 U
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 12.3 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 12.31 U 12.3 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 12.3 U 12.3 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 I-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA) 25.1 U 25.11 U 1,000 UJ 25.1 U 25.1 U 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ 25.1 U 25.1 U
Perfluoro-2-(erfluoromethox)ro anoic acid(PMPA) 12.3 U 12.3 U NA 12.3 U 12.31 U NA I NA 12.3= 12.3 U
N-eth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-E[FOSE) NA NA 5,000 UJ NA NA 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ NA NA
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NA NA 1,000 UJ NA NA 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ NA NA
4-(He tafluoroiso ro ox hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA NA 1,000 UJ NA NA 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ NA NA
N-ethyl erfluoro-I-octanesulfonamide(N-EtFOSA) NA NA 1,000 UJ NA NA 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ NA NA
N-meth 1 erfluoro-I-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA) NA NA 1,000 UJ NA NA 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ NA NA
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA NA 1,000 UJ NA NA 484 UJ 1,000 UJ NAI NA
Perflumohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) NAI NA 1,000 UJ NA NA 1,000 UJ 1,000 UJ NA NA
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid PFODA NA NA 1,000 UJ NA NAI t,000 UJ 1 1,000 1 UJ NAI I A
Notes:
ng/L-nanograms per liter.
.-Qualified as nondetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
JN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to interferences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-Rejected due to significant quality control nonconformances
U-Analyze was not detected at specified limit of detection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified quantitation limit
UJ-Estimated nondetects
Values in bold indicate the analyze was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the analyze was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
PEAS-Per-and Poly-flumnalkyl Substances.
Page 4 of 8

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PEAS Analytical Results
Sample Type: RECOVERY WELLS
Sample Name: 20287 RW 07 20288 RW 13 20288 RW 14 20288 RW 20
Re-cry Well Recovery Well split Recovery Well Recovery well Split�Recovery Well Recovery Well split Recovery Well Recovery Well split
Sample Description:
Lab Report: 1020-736-1 524179 1020-736-1 020-736-1 524433 020-736-1 1 524433
Sample Date: 10/13/2020 10/14/2020 10/14/2020 10/14/2020
Validated? Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Yes Yes
Units: ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
Analysis Ana yte Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL
PFAS
Perfluorobutanoic acid(PFBA) 24.3 J 1.92 U 0.984 UJ 2.48 U 154 J 2.63 U 0.984 UJ 2.46
Perfluoro entanoic acid(PFPeA) 0.561 UJ 1.92 U 0.561 UJ 3.20 4.49 UJ 2.63 U 0.561 UJ 1.82 U
Perfluorohecanoic acid(PFHxA) 0.985 UJ 1.92 U 0.985 UJ 2.67 7.88 UJ 2.63 U 0.985 UJ 1.82 U
Perfluoroh tanoic acid(PFH A) 0.434 UJ 1.92 U 0.434 UJ 0.895 J 3.48 UJ 2.63 U 0.434 UJ 1.82 U
Perfluorooctanoic acid(PFOA) 0.625 UJ* 1.92 U 2.13 UJ* 2.02 J 6.64 UJ* 2.63 U 1.58 UJ* 0.727 J
Perfluorononanoic acid(PFNA) 0.318 UJ 1.92 U 0.378 J 2.48 U 2.54 UJ 2.63 U 0.568 JN 1.82 U
Perfluorodecanoic acid(PFDA) 0.781 UJ 1.92 U 0.781 UJ 2.48 U 6.25 UJ 2.63 U 0.781 UJ 1.82 U
Perfluoroundecanoic acid(PFUnA) 0.301 UJ 1 1.92 1 U 0.3011 UJ 2.48 U 2.41 UJ 2.63 U 0.855 J 1.82 U
Perfluorododecanoic acid(PFDoA) 0.297 UJ 1.92 U 0.2971 UJ 2.48 U 2.38 UJ 2.63 U 1.17 JN 1.82 U
Perfluorotridecanoic acid(PFTriA) 0.466 UJ 1.92 U R 2.48 U 3.72 UJ 2.63 U 0.889 J 1.82 U
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid(PFTeA) 0.519 UJ 1.92 U R 2.48 U 4.15 UJ 2.63 U 2.48 J 1.82 U
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 0.519 UJ 1.71 U 0.519 UJ 1.13 J 4.15 UJ 2.34 U 0.519 UJ 1.62 U
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 0.619 UJ 1.81 U 0.619 UJ 2.33 U 4.95 UJ 2.47 U 0.619 UJ 1.71 U
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 0.517 UJ 1.75 U 0.517 UJ 2.26 U 4.14 UJ 2.40 U 0.517 UJ 1.65 U
Perfluorohe tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 0.487 UJ 1.83 U 0.487 UJ 2.36 U 3.89 UJ 2.50 U 0.487 UJ 1.73 U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 0.2941 UJ 1.92 U 1.17 J 2.30 J 2.35 UJ 2.63 U 2.02 J 1.13 J
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 0.409 UJ 1.85 U 0.409 UJ 2.38 U 3.27 UJ 2.53 U 0.409 UJ 1.74 U
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 0.844 UJ 1.87 U 0.844 UJ 2.41 U 6.75 UJ 2.55 U 0.844 UJ 1.76 U
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 0.404 UJ 18.1 U 0.404 UJ 233 U 3.23 UJ 24.7 U 0.404 UJ 171 U
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 0.646 JN 18.3 U 0.452 UJ 236 U 3.61 UJ 25.0 U 33.9 JN 17.3 U
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 0.356 UJ 18.5 U 0.356 UJ 238 U 2.84 UJ 253 U 0.3561 UJ 3.49 U
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 2.28 UJ 1.92 U 2.28 UJ 12.4 U 18.2 UJ 2.63 U 2.28 UJ 1.82 U
N-meth 1 perflimmoctan2sulfortamido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 0.340 UJ 1 3.85 U 0.3401 UJ 24.8 U 2.72 UJ 5.26 U 0.340 UJ 1 3.63 U
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonatnido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 0.407 UJ 3.85 U 0.4071 UJ 24.8 U 3.26 UJ 5.26 U 0.407 UJ 3.63 U
Herafluoro ro lene diner acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 0.595 UJ 1.92 U 0.595 UJ 2.48 U 4.76 UJ 2.63 U 0.595 UJ 1.82 U
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 9.25 UJ 3.85 U 9.25 UJ 4.96 U 74.0 UJ 5.26 U 9.25 UJ 3.63 U
Perfluoro-3-methoxylimpanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 1.50 UJ 3.85 U 1.50 UJ 4.96 U 12.0 UJ 5.26 U 1.50 UJ 3.63 U
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) R 3.85 U R 4.96 U R 5.26 U R 1.33 J
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 9.25 UJ 3.85 U 9.25 UJ 4.96 U 74.0 UJ 5.26 U 9.25 UJ 3.63 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 18.8 UJ 3.85 U 18.8 UJ 4.96 U 150 UJ 5.26 U 18.8 UJ 3.63 U
Nation Byproduct 1 R 3.85 U R 4.96 U R 5.26 U R 3.63 U
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorommanoic acid(ADONA) 0.750 UJ 1.92 U 0.750 UJ 2.48 U 6.00 UJ 2.63 U 0.750 UJ 1.82 U
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-l-sulfonic acid(9C1-PF30NS) 0.750 UJ 3.78 U 0.750 UJ 4.87 U 6.00 UJ 5.17 U 0.7501 UJ 1 3.57 U
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(11C1-PF30UdS) 0.750 UJ 1.92 U 0.750 UJ 2.48 U 6.00 UJ 2.63 U 0.750 UJ 1.82 U
Nation Byproduct 2 9.25 UJ 3.85 U 9.25 UJ 4.96 U 74.0 UJ 5.26 U 9.25 UJ 3.63 U
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxah tanoic acid(NFDHA) 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 12.0 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox ro anoic acid(PEPA) 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 74.0 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA
Perfluoro(2-ethox ethane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 12.0 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 9.25 UJ 3.85 U 9.25 UJ 4.96 U 74.0 UJ 5.26 U 9.25 UJ 3.63 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 1-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA) 18.8 UJ 3.85 U 18.8 UJ 4.96 U 150 UJ 5.26 U 18.8 UJ 3.63 U
Perfluoro-2- erfluoromethox ro anoic acid(PMPA) 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 74.0 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA
N-eth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-EtFOSE) NA 3.85 U NA 4.96 U NA 26.3 U NA 3.63 U
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NA 3.85 U NA 24.8 U NA 26.3 U NA 18.2 U
4-(H tafluoroiso ro ox)hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA 3.85 U NA 4.96 U NA 5.26 U NA 3.63 U
N-ethyl erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-EtFOSA) NA 1 3.85 U NAI 24.8 U NA 26.3 U NA 18.2 U
N-meth 1 erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA) NAI 1 3.85 U NAI 24.8 1 U NA 26.3 U NA 18.2 U
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA 3.85 U NA 4.96 U NA 5.26 U NA 3.63 U
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) NA 3.85 U NA 4.96 U NA 5.26 1 U NA 18.2 U
Perfluorotctadecanoic acid PFODA NAI 1 3.85 U I NAI 1 4.96 1 U I NAI 1 5.26 1 U NA 3.63 U
Notes:
ng/L-nanograms per liter.
*-Qualified as nondetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
IN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to interferences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-Rejected due to significant quality control nonconformances
U-Analyte was not detected at specified limit of detection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified quantitation limit
UJ-Estimated nondetects
Values in bold indicate the analyte was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the analyze was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
PEAS-Per-and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances.
Page 5 of 8

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PEAS Analytical Results
Sample Type: GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
Sample Name: 20289 MW 11 20289 MW 13 20289 MW 15 20288 MW 18 20289 MW 19 20289 MW 22 20289 MW 24 20288 MW 25 20289 MW 29
Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater I Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split
Sample Description:
Lab Report: 1020-736-1 524566 ]020-736-1 524566 1020-736-1 525064 -736-1 524433 736-1 524566 1020-736-1 525064 0-736-1 525064 736-1 524433 1020-736-1 525064
Sample Date: 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/14/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/14/2020 10/15/2020
Validated? Yes F Yes Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Yes I Yes
Units: ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
Analysis Ana yte Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL
PFAS
Perfluorobutanoic acid(PFBA) 5.10 J 1.27 J 0.984 UJ 1.10 J 0.984 UJ 1.86 U 11.0 J 1.92 U 5.74 J 1.64 J 2.84 J 0.722 J 0.984 UJ 30.2 J- 2.42 J 1.35 J 0.984 UJ 0.858 J
Perfluoro entanoic acid(PFPeA) 0.561 UJ 1.71 U 0.561 UJ 1.71 U 0.561 UJ 1.86 U 0.561 UJ 1.92 U 0.561 UJ 1.05 J 0.561 UJ 0.911 J 0.561 UJ 2.01 U 1.42 J 3.07 0.561 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorohecanoic acid(PFHxA) 0.985 UJ 0.748 J 0.985 UJ 0.765 J 0.985 UJ 1.86 U 0.985 UJ 1.26 J 0.985 UJ 1.23 J 0.985 UJ 0.930 J 0.985 UJ 2.01 U 1.60 J 2.91 0.985 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluoroh tanoic acid(PFH A) 0.434 UJ 1.71 U 0.434 UJ 1.71 U 0.434 UJ 1.86 U 0.434 UJ 1.92 U 0.434 UJ 0.627 J 0.434 UJ 1.70 U 0.434 UJ 2.01 U 0.434 UJ 2.14 U 0.434 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorooctanoic acid(PFOA) 1.02 UJ* 0.774 J 0.957 UJ* 1.71 U 0.797 UJ* 1.86 U 1.92 UJ* 0.844 J 1.29 UJ* 1.21 J 4.23 UJ* 1.70 U 0.679 UJ* 2.01 U 6.34 UJ* 8.37 0.497 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorononanoic acid(PFNA) 0.318 UJ 1.71 U 0.318 UJ 1.71 U 0.318 UJ 1.86 U 0.318 UJ 1.92 U 0.318 UJ 1.77 U 0.318 UJ 1.70 U 0.318 UJ 2.01 U 0.318 UJ 2.14 U 0.318 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorodecanoic acid(PFDA) 0.781 UJ 1.71 U 0.781 UJ 1.71 U 0.781 UJ 1.86 U 0.781 UJ 1.92 U 0.781 UJ 1.77 U 0.781 UJ 1.70 U 0.781 UJ 1 2.01 U 0.7811 UJ 2.14 1 U 1 0.781 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluoroundecanoic acid(PFUnA) 0.3011 UJ 1.71 U 0.301 UJ 1.71 U 0.301 UJ 1.86 U 0.301 UJ 1.92 U 0.301 UJ 1.77 U 0.301 UJ 1.70 U 0.301 UJ 2.01 U 0.301 UJ 2.14 U 0.301 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorododecanoic acid(PFDoA) 0.2971 UJ 1.71 U 0.297 UJ 1.71 U 0.297 UJ 1.86 U 1 0.2971 UJ 1.92 U 0.2971 UJ 1.77 1 U 1 0.297 UJ 1.70 U 0.297 UJ 2.01 U 0.297 UJ 2.14 U 0.297 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorotridecanoic acid(PFTriA) 0.4661 UJ 1.71 U 0.466 UJ 1.71 U 0.466 UJ 3.71 U 1 0.4661 UJ 1.92 U 0.466 UJ 1.77 U R 1.70 U 0.466 UJ 2.01 U 0.466 UJ 2.14 U 0.466 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid(PFTeA) 0.519 UJ 1.71 U 0.519 UJ 1.71 U 0.519 UJ 3.71 U 0.519 UJ 1.92 U 0.519 UJ 1.77 U R 1.70 U 0.519 UJ 2.01 U 0.519 UJ 2.14 U 0.519 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 0.519 UJ 1.52 U 0.519 UJ 1.52 U 0.519 UJ 1.65 U 0.519 UJ 1.71 U 0.519 UJ 1.57 U 0.519 UJ 1.52 U 0.519 UJ 0.780 J 0.519 UJ 1.91 U 0.519 UJ 1.63 U
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 0.619 UJ 1.61 U 0.619 UJ 1.60 U 0.619 UJ 1.74 U 0.619 UJ 1.80 U 0.619 UJ 1.66 U 0.619 UJ 1.60 U 0.619 UJ 1.89 U 0.619 UJ 2.01 U 0.619 UJ 1.72 U
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 0.517 UJ 1.56 U 0.517 UJ 1.55 U 5.05 J 8.01 0.517 UJ 1.74 U 0.517 UJ 1.61 U 0.517 UJ 1.55 U 0.517 UJ 1.83 U 0.517 UJ 1.95 U 0.517 UJ 1.67 U
Perfluorohe tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 0.487 UJ 1 1.63 U 0.487 UJ 1.62 U 0.487 UJ 1.76 U 0.487 UJ 1.82 U 0.487 UJ 1.68 U 0.487 UJ 1.62 U 0.487 UJ 1.91 U 0.487 UJ 2.03 U 0.487 UJ 1.74 U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 0.294 UJ 1.71 U 0.490 J 1.14 J 0.294 UJ 1.86 U 0.294 UJ 1.92 U 0.294 UJ 1.05 J 0.294 UJ 1.70 U 0.294 UJ 2.01 U 0.294 UJ 2.14 U 0.294 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 0.409 UJ 1.64 U 0.409 UJ 1.64 U 0.409 UJ 1.78 U 0.409 UJ 1.84 U 0.409 UJ 1.70 U 0.409 UJ 1.64 U 0.409 UJ 1.93 U 0.409 UJ 2.06 U 0.409 UJ 1.76 U
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 0.8441 UJ 1.66 U 0.844 UJ 1.66 U 0.844 UJ 1.80 U 0.844 UJ 1.86 U 0.844 UJ 1.71 U 0.844 UJ 1.65 U 0.844 UJ 1.95 U 0.844 UJ 2.08 U 0.844 UJ 1.78 U
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 0.404 UJ 16.1 U 0.404 UJ 3.21 U 0.404 UJ 3.49 U 0.404 UJ 3.60 U 0.404 UJ 16.6 U 0.404 UJ 3.20 U 0.404 UJ 18.9 U 0.404 UJ 4.02 U 0.404 UJ 3.44 U
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 0.452 UJ 3.25 U 0.452 UJ 3.24 U 0.452 UJ 3.53 U 0.452 UJ 1.39 J 0.452 UJ 3.35 U 0.452 UJ 1.38 J 0.753 UJ* 19.1 U 0.452 UJ 4.07 U 0.452 UJ 3.48 U
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 0.356 UJ 3.29 U 0.356 UJ 3.28 U 0.356 UJ 3.56 U 0.356 UJ 3.68 U 0.356 UJ 3.39 U 0.356 UJ 3.27 U 0.356 UJ 3.85 U 0.356 UJ 4.11 U 0.356 UJ 3.52 U
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 2.28 UJ 1.71 U 2.28 UJ 1.71 U 2.281 UJ 1 1.86 U 2.28 UJ 1.92 U 2.28 UJ 1.77 U 2.28 UJ 1.70 U 2.28 UJ 2.01 U 2.28 UJ 2.14 U 2.28 UJ 1.83 U
N-meth 1 perfluorooctanesulfonaniido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 0.340 UJ 3.42 U 0.340 UJ 3.41 U 0.340 UJ 3.71 U 0.340 UJ 3.83 U 0.340 UJ 3.53 U 0.3401 UJ 3.41 U 0.340 UJ 4.01 U 0.340 UJ 4.28 U 0.340 UJ 3.66 U
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonatnido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 0.407 UJ 3.42 U 0.407 UJ 3.41 U 0.407 UJ 3.71 U 0.407 UJ 3.83 U 0.407 UJ 3.53 U 0.407 UJ 3.41 U 0.407 UJ 4.01 U 0.407 UJ 4.28 U 0.407 UJ 3.66 U
Herafluoro ro lene diner acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 0.595 UJ 1.71 U 0.595 UJ 1.71 U 0.595 UJ 1.86 U 0.595 UJ 1.92 U 0.5951 UJ 1.77 U 0.595 UJ 1.70 U 0.595 UJ 2.01 U 0.595 UJ 2.14 U 0.595 UJ 1.83 U
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 9.251 UJ 3.42 U 9.25 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 3.71 U 9.25 UJ 3.83 U 9.25 UJ 3.53 U 9.25 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 4.01 U 9.25 UJ 4.28 U 9.25 UJ 3.66 U
Perfluoro-3-methoxylimpanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 1.50 UJ 3.42 U 1.50 UJ 3.41 U 1.50 UJ 5.78 J 1.50 UJ 4.37 J 1.50 UJ 14.3 J 1.50 UJ 3.41 U 1.50 UJ 4.01 U 1.50 UJ 4.52 J 1.50 UJ 4.51 J
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) R 3.42 U R 3.41 U R 3.71 U R 3.83 U R 3.53 U R 3.41 U R 4.01 U R 4.28 U R 3.66 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 9.25 UJ 3.42 U 9.25 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 3.71 U 9.25 UJ 3.83 U 9.25 UJ 3.53 U 9.25 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 4.01 U 9.25 UJ 4.28 U 9.251 UJ 3.66 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 18.8 UJ 3.42 U 18.8 UJ 3.41 U 18.8 UJ 3.71 U 18.8 UJ 3.83 U 18.8 UJ 3.53 U 18.8 UJ 3.41 U 18.8 UJ 4.01 U 18.81 UJ 4.28 U 18.8 UJ 3.66 U
Nation Byproduct 1 R 3.42 U R 3.41 U R 3.71 U R 3.83 U R 3.53 U R 3.41 U R 4.01 U R 4.28 U R 3.66 U
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorom anoic acid(ADONA) 0.750 UJ 1.71 U 0.750 UJ 1.71 U 0.750 UJ 1.86 U 0.750 UJ 1.92 U 0.750 UJ 1.77 U 0.750 UJ 1.70 U 0.750 UJ 2.01 U 0.750 UJ 2.14 U 0.750 UJ 1.83 U
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-l-sulfonic acid(9C1-PF30NS) 0.750 UJ 3.36 U 0.750 UJ 3.35 U 0.750 UJ 3.65 U 0.750 UJ 3.76 U 0.750 UJ 3.47 U 0.750 UJ 3.35 U 0.750 UJ 3.94 U 0.750 UJ 4.20 U 0.750 UJ 3.60 U
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(llC1-PF30UdS) 0.7501 UJ 1.71 U 0.750 UJ 1.71 U 0.750 UJ 1.86 U 0.750 UJ 1.92 U 0.750 UJ 1.77 U 0.750 UJ 1.70 U 0.750 UJ 2.01 U 0.750 UJ 2.14 U 0.750 UJ 1.83 U
Nation Byproduct 2 9.251 UJ 3.42 U 9.25 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 3.71 U 9.25 UJ 3.83 U 9.25 UJ 3.53 U 9.25 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 4.01 U 9.25 UJ 4.28 U 9.25 UJ 3.66 U
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxahe tanoic acid(NFDHA) 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA U 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox ro anoic acid(PEPA) 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA U 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.251 UJ I NA 9.25 UJ NA 1 9.25 UJ NA
Perfluoro(2-ethox ethane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA U 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 9.25 UJ 3.42 U 9.251 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 3.71 U 9.251 UJ 3.83 U 9.25 UJ 3.53 U 9.251 UJ 3.41 U 9.25 UJ 4.01 U 9.25 UJ 4.28 U 9.25 UJ 3.66 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 1-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA) 18.8 UJ 3.42 U 18.8 UJ 3.41 U 18.8 UJ 3.71 U 18.81 UJ 3.83 U 18.8 UJ 3.53 U 18.8 UJ 3.41 1 U 18.8 UJ 4.01 U 1 18.81 UJ 4.28 U 18.8 UJ 3.66 U
Perfluoro-2- erfluoromethox ro anoic acid(PMPA) 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA U 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA
N-eth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-EtFOSE) NA 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NA 3.71 U NA 3.83 U NA 3.53 U NA 3.41 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NAI 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NA 3.71 U NA 3.83 U NA 3.53 U NA 3.41 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
4-(H tafluoroiso ro oxy)hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NA 3.71 U NA 3.83 U NA 3.53 U NA 3.41 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
N-ethyl erfluoro-l-octanesulfonantide(N-EtFOSA) NA 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NA 3.71 U NA 3.83 U NA 3.53 U NA 3.70 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
N-meth 1 erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA) NA 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NAI 3.71 U NA 3.83 U NA 3.53 U NA 3.41 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NA 3.71 U NA 3.83 U NA 3.53 U NA 3.41 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) NA 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NA 3.71 U NA 3.83 U NA 3.53 U NA 3.41 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
Perfluorooctadecamicacid PFODA NA 3.42 U NA 3.41 U NA 3.71 U NA It U NA 3.53 U NA 3.41 U NA 4.01 U NA 4.28 U NA 3.66 U
Notes:
ng/L-nanograms per liter.
*-Qualified as nondetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
IN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to interferences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-Rejected due to significant quality control nonconformances
U-Analyte was not detected at specified limit ofdetection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified quantitation limit
UJ-Estimated nondetects
Values in bold indicate the analyze was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the analyze was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
PEAS-Per-and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances.
Page 6 of 8

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PFAS Analytical Results
Sample Type:
Sample Name: 20288 MW 36 20288 MW 37 20288 MW 38 20289 MW 39 20289 MW 40 20289 MW 42 20289 DUP
Groundwater I Groundwater Split Groundwater I Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater Groundwater Split Groundwater;MW-
Sample Description: 42 Field Duplicate
Lab Report: -736-1 524433 1020-736-1 524433 1020-736-1 524433 1020-736-1 525064 736-1 525064 1020-736-1 524566
Sample Date: 10/14/2020 10/14/2020 10/14/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020
Validated? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Units: ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
Analysis Ana yte Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy
PFAS
Perfluorobutanoic acid(PFBA) 1.80 J 1.82 U 0.984 UJ 1.72 U 0.984 UJ 1.78 U 0.984 UJ 1.56 J 6.61 J 1.87 U 0.984 UJ 2.75 0.984 UJ
Perfluoro entanoic acid(PFPeA) 0.561 UJ 1.82 U 0.561 UJ 1.72 U 0.561 UJ 1.87 0.561 UJ 1.14 J 0.561 UJ 1.87 U 0.561 UJ 1.87 0.561 UJ
Perfluorohecanoic acid(PFHxA) 0.985 UJ 1.82 U 0.985 UJ 0.996 J 0.985 UJ 2.57 0.985 UJ 1.97 0.985 UJ 1.87 U 2.03 J 3.72 1.42 J
Perfluoroh tanoic acid(PFH A) 0.434 UJ 1.82 U 0.434 UJ 1.72 U 0.434 UJ 1.78 U 0.434 UJ 0.702 J 0.434 UJ 1.87 U 0.434 UJ 1.32 J 0.434 UJ
Perflimmoctanoic acid(PFOA) 0.522 UJ* 1.82 U 0.497 UJ 1.72 U 4.94 UJ* 5.42 2.10 UJ* 0.945 J 0.896 UJ* 1.87 U 4.69 UJ* 6.96 1.30 UJ*
Perfluorononanoic acid(PFNA) 0.318 UJ 1.82 U 0.318 UJ 1.72 U 0.318 UJ 1.78 U 0.318 UJ 1.80 U 1 0.318 UJ 1.87 U 0.318 UJ 1.80 U 0.318 UJ
Perfluorodecanoic acid(PFDA) 0.7811 UJ 1 1.82 U 1 0.7811 UJ 1.72 1 U 1 0.781 UJ 1.78 U 0.7811 UJ 1.80 U 0.781 UJ 1.87 U 0.781 UJ 1.80 1 U 0.7811 UJ
Perfluoroundecanoic acid(PFUnA) 0.301 UJ 1.82 U 0.301 UJ 1.72 U 0.301 UJ 1.78 U 0.301 UJ 1.80 U 0.301 UJ 1.87 U 0.301 UJ 1.80 U 0.301 UJ
Perfluorododecanoic acid(PFDoA) 0.297 UJ 1.82 U 0.297 UJ 1.72 U 0.297 UJ 1.78 U 0.297 UJ 1.80 U 0.297 UJ 1.87 U 0.297 UJ 1.80 U 0.297 UJ
Perfluorotridecanoic acid(PFTriA) 0.466 UJ 1.82 U 0.466 UJ 1.72 U 0.466 UJ 1.78 U 0.466 UJ 1.80 U 0.466 UJ 1.87 U 0.466 UJ 1.80 U 0.466 UJ
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid(PFTeA) 0.519 UJ 1.82 U 0.519 UJ 1.72 U 0.519 UJ 1.78 U 0.519 UJ 1.80 U 0.519 UJ 1.87 U 0.519 UJ 1.80 U 0.519 UJ
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 0.519 UJ 1.62 U 0.519 UJ 1.53 U 0.519 UJ 1.58 U 0.519 UJ 1.60 U 0.519 UJ 1.66 U 0.519 UJ 0.742 J 0.519 UJ
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 0.619 UJ 1.71 U 0.619 UJ 1.62 U 0.619 UJ 1.67 U 0.619 UJ 1.69 U 0.619 UJ 1.75 U 0.619 UJ 1.69 U 0.619 UJ
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 0.517 UJ 1.66 U 0.517 UJ 1.56 U 0.517 UJ 1.62 U 0.576 J 1.64 U 1 0.517 UJ 1.70 U 0.653 J 0.760 J 0.517 UJ
Perfluorohe tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 0.4871 UJ 1 1.73 U 1 0.4871 UJ 1.63 U 0.487 UJ 1.69 U 0.487 UJ 1.71 U 0.487 UJ 1.77 U 0.487 UJ 1.71 U 0.487 UJ
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 0.294 UJ 1.82 U 0.294 UJ 1.72 U 0.294 UJ 1.78 U 0.299 J 0.953 J 0.294 UJ 1.87 U 1.14 J 2.43 0.2941 UJ
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 0.409 UJ 1.75 U 0.409 UJ 1.65 U 0.409 UJ 1.71 U 0.409 UJ 1.73 U 0.409 UJ 1.79 U 0.409 UJ 1.73 U 0.4091 UJ
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 0.844 UJ 1.77 U 0.844 UJ 1.67 U 0.844 UJ 1.73 U 0.844 UJ 1.75 U 0.844 UJ 1.81 U 0.844 UJ 1.75 U 0.844 UJ
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 0.404 UJ 3.42 U 0.404 UJ 3.23 U 0.404 UJ 3.34 U 0.404 UJ 3.60 U 0.404 UJ 16.9 U 0.404 UJ 16.9 U 0.404 UJ
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 0.452 UJ 3.46 U 0.452 UJ 1.49 J 0.452 UJ 2.62 J 0.452 UJ 3.60 U 0.452 UJ 17.1 U 0.452 UJ 2.14 J 1.63 UJ*
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 0.356 UJ 3.49 U 0.356 UJ 3.30 U 0.356 UJ 3.42 U 0.356 UJ 3.46 U 0.356 UJ 3.58 U 0.356 UJ 3.46 U 0.356 UJ
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 2.28 UJ 1.82 U 2.28 UJ 1.72 U 2.281 UJ 1 1.78 U 2.281 UJ 1.80 1 U 2.28 UJ 1.87 U 2.281 UJ 1 1.80 U 2.28 UJ
N-meth 1 perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 0.3401 UJ 1 3.64 U 1 0.340 UJ 3.44 U 0.340 UJ 3.56 U 0.340 UJ 3.60 U 0.340 UJ 3.73 U 0.340 UJ 3.60 U 0.340 UJ
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonatnido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 0.4071 UJ 1 3.64 U 0.407 UJ 3.44 U 0.407 UJ 3.56 U 0.407 UJ 3.60 U 0.407 UJ 3.73 U 0.407 UJ 3.60 U 0.407 UJ
Herafluoro re, lene diner acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 0.595 UJ 1.82 U 0.595 UJ 1.72 U 0.595 UJ 1.78 U 0.595 UJ 1.80 U 0.595 UJ 1.87 U 0.595 UJ 1.80 U 0.595 UJ
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 9.25 UJ 3.64 U 9.25 UJ 3.44 U 9.25 UJ 3.56 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ 3.73 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ
Perfluoro-3-methoxylimpanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 1.50 UJ 3.64 U 1.50 UJ 3.44 U 1.50 UJ 3.56 U 1.50 UJ 4.85 J 1.50 UJ 4.70 J 1.50 UJ 19.6 J 1.50 UJ
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) R 3.64 U R 3.44 U R 3.56 U R 3.60 U R 3.73 U R 3.60 U R
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 9.25 UJ 3.64 U 9.25 UJ 3.44 U 1 9.25 UJ 3.56 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ 3.73 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 18.8 UJ 3.64 U 18.8 UJ 3.44 U 18.8 UJ 1 3.56 U 18.81 UJ 3.60 U 18.8 UJ 3.73 U 1 18.81 UJ 3.60 1 U 1 18.8 UJ
Nation Byproduct 1 R 3.64 U R 3.44 U R 3.56 U R 3.60 U R 3.73 U R 3.60 U R
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorom anoic acid(ADONA) 0.7501 UJ 1.82 U 1 0.750 UJ 1.72 U 0.750 UJ 1.78 U 0.750 UJ 1.80 U 0.750 UJ 1.87 U 0.750 UJ 1.80 U 0.750 UJ
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-l-sulfonic acid(9C1-PF30NS) 0.750 UJ 3.57 U 0.750 UJ 3.38 U 0.750 UJ 3.49 U 0.750 UJ 3.54 U 0.750 UJ 3.66 U 0.750 UJ 3.54 U 0.750 UJ
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(11C1-MOWS) 0.750 UJ 1.82 U 0.750 UJ 1.72 U 0.750 UJ 1.78 U 0.750 UJ 1.80 U 0.750 UJ 1.87 U 0.750 UJ 1.80 U 0.750 UJ
Nation Byproduct 2 9.25 UJ 3.64 U 9.25 UJ 3.44 U 9.25 UJ 3.56 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ 3.73 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxah tanoic acid(NFDHA) 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox re,anoic acid(PEPA) 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ
Perfluoro(2-ethox ethane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ NA 1.50 UJ
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 9.25 UJ 3.64 U 9.25 UJ 3.44 U 9.25 UJ 3.56 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ 3.73 U 9.25 UJ 3.60 U 9.25 UJ
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 1-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA) 18.8 UJ 3.64 U 18.8 UJ 3.44 U 18.8 UJ 3.56 U 18.8 UJ 3.60 U 18.8 UJ 3.73 U 18.8 UJ 3.60 U 18.8 UJ
Perfluoro-2- erfluoromethox re,anoic acid(PMPA) 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ NA 9.25 UJ
N-eth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamide,ethanol(N-EtFOSE) NA 3.64 U NA 3.44 U NA 3.56 U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 U NA 3.60 U NA
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NA 3.64 U NA 3.44 U NA 3.56 U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 U NA 3.60 U NA
4-(H tafluoroiso re,ox)hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA 3.64 U NA 3.44 U NA 3.56 U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 U NA 3.60 U NA
N-eth 1 erfluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-EtFOSA) NA 3.64 U NA 3.44 U NA 3.56 U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 1 U NAI 3.60 U NA
N-me th 1 ertluoro-l-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA) NA I3.64 U NAI U NAI 1 3.56 U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 U NA 3.60 U NA
Perfluorododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA 3.64 U NA 3.44 U NA 3.56 U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 U NA 3.60 U NA
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) NA 3.64 U NA 3.44 U NA 3.56 U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 U NA 3.60 U NA
�__Ilperfltmrooctadecarooic acid PFODA NA 3.64 U NA 3.44 U NAI U NA 3.60 U NA 3.73 U NA 3.60 U NA
Notes:
ng/L-nanograms per liter.
*-Qualified as nondetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
JN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to interferences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-Rejected due to significant quality control nomonformances
U-Analyte was not detected at specified limit of detection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified combustion limit
UJ-Estimated nondetects
Values in bold indicate the analyze was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the analyze was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
HAS-Per-and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances.
Page 7 of 8

Colonial Pipeline
2020-L1-SR2448 Incident
Huntersville,North Carolina
Summary of PEAS Analytical Results
Sample Type: AQUEOUS QC SAMPLES(10/13/20-10/15/20)
Sample Name: 20287 Field Blank 20287 Equipment Blank 20288 Field Blank 20288 Equipment Blank B 20288 Equipment Blank T 20289 Field Blank 20289 Equipment Blank B 20289 Equipment Blank T
Sample Description: Field Blank Equipment Blank Field Blank FB-01 Split Equipment Blank Equipment Blank Field Blank FB-02 Split Equipment Blank Equipment Blank
Lab Report: 1020-736-1 20-736-1 1020-736-1 524433 20-736-1 1020-736-1 ]020-736-1 064 1020-7 20-736-
Sample Date: 10/13/2020 10/13/2020 10/14/2020 10/14/2020 10/14/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020
Validated? Yes Yes Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes I Yes Yes Yes
Units: ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
Analysis Ana yte Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy GEL Enthalpy Enthalpy
PFAS
Perfluorobutanoic acid(PFBA) 0.153 U 0.135 U 0.157 U 1.81 U 0.151 U 0.148 U 0.143 U 1.82 U 0.145 U 0.153 U
Perfluoro entanoic acid(PFPeA) 0.0870 U 0.0773 U 0.0897 U 1.81 U 0.0861 U 0.0845 U 0.0816 U 1.82 U 0.0829 U 0.0872 U
Perfluorohexanoic acid(PFHxA) 0.153 U 0.136 U 0.158 U 1.81 U 0.151 U 0.148 U 0.143 U 1.82 U 0.146 U 0.153 U
Perfluoroh tanoic acid(PFH A) 0.0674 U 0.0598 U 0.0695 U 1.81 U 0.0667 U 0.0654 U 0.0632 U 1.82 U 0.0642 U 0.0675 U
Perfluorooctanoic acid(PFOA) 0.0770 U 0.0792 J 0.0794 U 1.81 U 0.106 J 0.0748 U 0.0722 U 1.82 U 0.0734 U 0.120 J
Perflumononanoic acid(PFNA) 0.0493 U 0.0438 U 0.0509 U 1.81 U 0.0488 U 0.0479 U 0.0463 U 1.82 U 0.0470 U 0.0494 U
Perflumodecancic acid(PFDA) 0.1211 U 0.1081 U 0.125 U 1.81 U 0.120 U 0.118 U 0.1141 U 1.82 U 0.115 U 0.121 U
Perflucroundecatoic acid(PFUnA) 0.0466 U 0.0414 U 0.0481 U 1.81 U 0.0461 U 0.0453 U 0.0437 U 1.82 U 0.0444 U 0.0731 J
Perflumododecatoic acid(PFDoA) 0.0460 U 0.0409 U 0.0475 U 1.81 U 0.0456 U 0.0447 U 0.0432 U 1.82 U 0.0439 U 0.0461 U
Perflumotridecancic acid(PFTriA) 0.0722 U 0.0641 U 0.0745 U 1.81 U 0.0714 UJ 0.0701 U R 1.82 U 0.0688 UJ 0.0724 U
Perflummetradecatoic acid(PFTeA) 0.0805 U 0.0714 U 0.0830 U 1.81 U 0.0796 UJ 0.0782 U R 1.82 U 0.0767 UJ 0.107 J
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid(PFBS) 0.0805 U 0.0714 U 0.0830 U 1.61 U 0.0796 U 0.0782 U 0.0754 U 1.62 U 0.0767 U 0.0806 U
Perfluoro entanesulfonic Acid(PFPeS) 0.0960 U 0.0852 U 0.0990 U 1.70 U 0.0949 U 0.0932 U 0.0900 U 1.71 U 0.0914 U 0.0962 U
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid(PFHxS) 0.0802 U 0.0712 U 0.08271 U 1.65 U 0.0793 U 0.07791 U 0.0752 U 1.65 U 0.0764 U 0.08031 U
Perfluoroh tanesulfonic acid(PFH S) 0.07551 U 0.0670 U 0.0779 U 1.72 U 0.07471 U 0.0733 U 0.07081 U 1.73 U 0.0719 U 0.0757 U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid(PFOS) 0.0457 U 0.0405 U 0.0471 U 1.81 U 0.04521 U 0.0443 U 0.0428 U 1.82 U 0.0435 U 0.0457 U
Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid(PFNS) 0.0634 U 0.0563 U 0.0654 U 1.74 U 0.06271 U 0.0616 U 0.0594 U 1.75 U 0.0604 U 0.0635 U
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid(PFDS) 0.131 U 0.116 U 0.135 U 1.76 U 0.129 U 0.127 U 0.123 U 1.76 U 0.125 U 0.131 U
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(4:2 FTS) 0.0626 U 0.0556 U 0.0646 U 3.41 U 0.0620 U 0.0608 U 0.0587 U 3.42 U 0.0597 U 0.0627 U
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(6:2 FTS) 0.0701 U 0.0622 U 0.0723 U 3.44 U 0.0693 U 0.0681 U 0.0657 U 3.45 U 0.0668 U 0.231 J
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate(8:2 FTS) 0.0552 U 0.0490 U 0.0569 U 3.48 U 0.0546 U 0.0536 U 0.0517 U 3.49 U 0.0526 U 0.0553 U
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide(PFOSA) 0.354 U 0.3141 U 0.3651 U 1.81 1 U 0.350 U 0.344 U 0.332 U 1.82 U 0.3371 U 0.355 U
N-meth 1 erfluorooctanesulfonamido acetic acid(N-McFOSAA) 0.0527 U 0.04681 U 0.0544 U 3.62 U 0.0522 U 0.0512 U 0.0494 U 3.64 U 0.0502 U 0.0528 U
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonaniido acetic acid(N-EtFOSAA) 0.0631 U 0.0560 U 0.0651 U 3.62 U 0.0624 U 0.0613 U 0.0592 U 3.64 U 0.0601 U 0.0632 U
Hexafluoro ro lene dieter acid(HFPO-DA)(GenX) 0.0922 UJ 0.0819 UJ 0.0951 UJ 1.81 U 0.0912 UJ 0.0896 UJ 0.0865 UJ 1.82 U 0.0879 UJ 0.0924 UJ
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid(PFMOAA) 1.43 U 1.27 U 1.48 U 3.62 U 1.42 U 1.39 U 1.35 U 3.64 U 1.37 U 1.44 U
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid(PFMOPrA) 0.233 U 0.207 U 0.240 U 3.62 U 0.230 U 0.226 U 0.218 U 3.64 U 0.222 U 0.233 U
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid(PF02HxA) R R R 3.62 U R R R 3.64 U R R
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid(PF030A) 1.43 U 1.27 U 1.48 U 3.62 U 1.42 U 1.39 U 1.35 U 3.64 U 1.37 U 1.44 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid(PF04DA) 2.92 UJ 2.59 UJ 3.01 UJ 3.62 U 2.88 UJ 2.83 UJ 2.73 U 3.64 U 2.78 U 2.92 U
NaflOn Byproduct 1 R R R 3.62 U R R R 3.64 U R R
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid(ADONA) 0.116 U 0.103 U 0.120 U 1.81 U 0.115 U 0.113 U 0.109 U 1.82 U 0.111 U 0.117 U
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-l-sulfonic acid(9C1-PF30NS 0.116 U 0.103 U 0.120 U 3.56 U 0.115 U 0.113 U 0.109 U 1 3.57 U 0.111 U 0.117 U
11-chlorocicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonic acid(1lCl-PF30UdS) 0.116 U 0.103 U 0.120 U 1.81 U 0.115 U 0.113 U 0.109 U 1.82 U 0.111 U 0.117 U
Nation Byproduct 2 1.43 U 1.27 U 1.48 U 3.62 U 1.42 U 1.39 U 1.35 U 3.64 U 1.37 U 1.44 U
Perfluoro-3,6-dioxah tanoic acid(NFDHA) 0.233 U 0.207 U 0.240 U NA 0.230 U 0.226 U 0.218 U NA 0.222 U 0.233 U
2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoro-2-entafluoroethox)ro anoic acid(PEPA) 1.43 U 1.27 U 1.48 U NA 1.42 U 1.39 U 1.35 U NA 1.37 U 1.44 U
Perfluoro(2-ethox thane)sulfonic acid(PFEESA) 0.233 U 0.207 U 0.2401 U NA 0.2301 U 0.226 U 0.218 U NA 0.222 U 0.233 U
Perfluoro(4-methox butanoic)acid(PFMOBA) 1.43 U 1.27 U 1.48 U 3.62 U 1.42 U 1.39 U 1.35 U 3.64 U 1.37 U 1.44 U
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 I-entaoxadodecanoic acid(PF05DA) 2.92 UJ 2.59 UJ 3.01 UJ 3.62 U 2.88 UJ 2.83 UJ 2.73 UJ 3.64 U 2.78 UJ 2.92 UJ
Perfluoro-2-(erfluoromethox)ro anoic acid(PMPA) 1.43 U 1.27 U 1.48 U NA 1.42 U 1.39 U 1.35 U NA 1.37 U 1.44 U
N-eth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-EtFOSE) NA NA NA 3.62 U NA NA NA 3.64 U NA NA
N-meth 1 erfluorooctane sulfonamido ethanol(N-McFOSE) NA NA NA 3.62 U NA NAI NA 3.64 U NA NA
4-(H tafluoroiso ro ox hexafluorobutanoic acid(PFECA-G) NA NA NA 3.62 U NA NA NA 3.64 U NAI NA
N-ethyl erfluoro-I-octanesulfonamide(N-EtFOSA) NA NA NA 3.62 U NA NA NA 3.64 U NAI NA
N-meth 1 erfluoro-I-octanesulfonamide(N-McFOSA) NA NA NA 3.62 U NA NA NA 3.64 U NA NA
Pertluorododecanesulfonic acid(PFDoS) NA NA NA 3.62 U NA NA NA 3.64 U NA NA
Perfluntohexadecanoic acid(PFHxDA) I NAI NA 1 3.62 1 U NAI NA NA 3.64 U NA NA
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid PFODA NA NA NA 3.62 U NA NA NA 3.64 U NAI NA
Notes:
ng/L-nanograms per liter.
.-Qualified as nondetect due to blank contamination
J-Estimated value.
J--Estimated value;potential low bias
JN-Estimated value;tentative identification due to inert ences and/or poor peak shapes
NA-Not analyzed
R-Rejected due to significant quality control nonconformances
U-Analyze was not detected at specified limit of detection(LOD)for Enthalpy and specified quantitation limit
UJ-Estimated nondetects
Values in bold indicate the analyze was detected.
Values in bold and shaded indicate the=style was detected at greater than PQL of 10 ng/L.
PEAS-Per-and Poly-fluoroslkyl Substances.
Page 8 of 8

COORDINATE SYSTEM:GCS WGS 1984,MAP ROTATION:0
--SAVED BY JWELCH ON 1 11412 0 2 2,10:19:10AM;FILE PATH:1:1-PROJECTSICOLONIAL PIPELINLI466610 HUNTERSVILLE NC12-APRXIHUNTERSVILLE NC JSW.APRX, LAYOUT NAME.:FIGURE 2-PFAS GW SAMPLING RESULTS
94
.�
At
` +
Avb
s
OT
..'�
_ MW-2a7 SAMPLE ID: COL-MW-72R-Q1
ANALYTE: CONCENTRATION (NG/L):
ss PFOA 12
6:2FTS 2.2 J
t r`M
SAMPLE ID: COL-MW-41R-Q1
SAMPLE ID: COL-MW-84-Q1 ANALYTE: CONCENTRATION (NG/L):
ANALYTE: CONCENTRATION (NG/L): 6:2FTS 11
PFBA 2.6 J
PFOA 2.3 ~
PFOS 7.7
6:2FTS 4.7
" SAMPLE ID: COL-MW-42-Q1
ANALYTE: CONCENTRATION (NG/L): -
PFBA 4.0 J
PFOA 120
SAMPLE ID: COL-MW-19-Q1 a` _
ANALYTE: CONCENTRATION (NG/L): PFOS 22_ � ti
PFOS 1.1
6:2FTS 71
-'- J
MW-44
Ar f _
PROJECT: COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY
MONITORING WELL SAMPLED 2020-L1-SR2448 1 PIPELINE ROW RELEASE
MONITORING WELL HUNTERSVILLE, NC
TITLE:
• RECOVERY WELL NOTES: PFAS DETECTIONS MAP
PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA)
♦ HYDRAULIC CONTROL WELL PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID(PFOA)
PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONICACID(PFOS) DRAWN BY: J.WELCH PROJ.NO.: 466610.0001
♦ NORTH HYDRAULIC CONTROL WELL 6:2 FLUOROELOMESULFONNICACIAMIDE (6:2FTFOSA)S)
CHECKED BY: R.SPRING
6:2 FLUOROTELOMER SULFONIC ACID(6:2FTS)
COLONIAL PIPELINE MW-27 AND MW-44 WERE NOT SAMPLED DUE TO APPROVED BY: B.FEUERSTEIN FIGURE 2
INSUFFICIENT WATER. DATE: NOVEMBER 2022
BASE MAP: &WORLD IMAGERY;ONLINE SERVICE 0 200 400 1429 ROCK QUARRY ROAD
LAYER.(AERIALIAL DATE:10119/2021) FEETSUITE 110
DATA SOURCES:TRC N RALEIGH,INC 2761
1:2,400 1"=200' PHONE:[phone]
TRIC
FILE: HUNTERSVILLE NC JSW

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PFAS GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS
FIRST QUARTERLY PFAS GROUNDWATER SAMPLING REPORT-JULY 2022
Incident No.95827 Huntersville,NC
Sample ID MW-19 MW-27 MW-41R MW-42 MW-44 MW-72R MW-84
Sample Date 28-Jul-22 28-Jul-22 28-Jul-22 28-Jul-22 28-Jul-22 28-Jul-22 28-Jul-22
ANALYTE Unit Result MDL Result MDL Result MDL Result MDL Result MDL Result MDL Result MDL
PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA) ng/L ND 2.0 ND 2.0 4.0 J 2.1 ND 2.0 2.61 2.1
PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID(PFOA) ng/L ND 0.72 - - ND 0.71 120 0.74 - - 12 0.72 2.3 0.74
PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONIC ACID(PFOS) ng/L 1.11 0.46 ND 0.45 22 0.47 ND 0.46 7.7 0.47
PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONAMIDE(PFOSA) ng/L ND 0.83 - - ND 0.82 ND 0.85 - - ND 0.83 ND 0.85
6:2 FLUOROTELOMER SULFONIC ACID(6:2FT5) ng/L ND 2.1 11 2.1 71 2.2 2.2 J 2.1 4.7 2.2
Legend
RDL=Reporting detection limit
MDL=Method detection limit
ng/L=Nanogram per liter
ND=Not detected at the reporting limit(or MDL)
-=Unable to collect sample due to insufficient water
J=Result is less than the reporting limit but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value
Page 1 of 1 �' TR C

TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS DURING PFAS GROUNDWATER MONITORING
FIRST QUARTERLY PFAS GROUNDWATER SAMPLING REPORT-JULY 2022
Incident No.95827 Huntersville,NC
Field Measured Parameters
Cl o
� � o
Sample ti :S
Well ID Event Sample ID
TRC Standard Water Quality Stabilization Parameters* f0.1 unit 3% 3% 10% 10 my ±10%or<5
Value Value Value Value Value Value
MW-19 7/28/2022 COL-MW-19-Ql 6.24 23.42 0.071 0.00 -48 0.0
MW-27 7/28/2022 Not Sampled,Insufficient Water Volume - - - - - I -
MW-41R 7/28/2022 C0L-MW-41R-Q1 6.13 20.83 0.085 0.00 74 1.2
MW-42 7/28/2022 COL-MW-42-Ql 5.49 22.89 0.120 0.00 135 0.0
MW-44 7/28/2022 Not Sampled,Insufficient Water Volume - - - - -
MW-72R 7/28/2022 C0L-MW-72R-Q1 5.75 18.97 0.082 0.00 56 3.4
MW-84 7/28/2022 COL-MW-84-Ql 5.77 26.72 0.070 0.00 -10 9.2
*=Values recorded in this table,reflect the last recorded value before sampling of the well occurred.
°C=Degree Celsius
mS/cm=Millisiemens/Centimeter
mg/L=Milligrams/Liter
mV=millivolts
Page 1 of 1 ,'
TRC

Attachment K
CP CO PFAS Q3 Sampling Summary DRAFT_9p

Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) at Colonial Pipeline Site. Concentrations listed in ng/L.
MW-19 MW-42
Sample Description, Collection
Date, and Data Provider 10/15/20 7/28/2022 10/12/2022 001/24/2023 10/15/20 7/28/2022 10/12/2022 001/24/2023
Category PFAS DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP
Carboxylic Acids PFBA 1.64 J 5.74 ND ND 0.836 J ND F1 4.30 2.75 NDU 3.43 4.0 J - ND 0.954 J
PFPeA 1.05 J NDU 2.17 - 3.28 - 3.45 1.87 NDU 8.66 - - - 1.21 J
P F H xA 1.23 J 0.664 L 1.23 J - - - 1.67 J 3.72 2.03 7.46 - 0.938 J - 1.40 J
P F H pA 0.627 J NDU N D - - - - 1.32 J 0.293 L 2.98 - 2.25 - 2.31
PFOA 1.21 J 1.29 J N D N D - - - 6.96 4.69 0( 120 119 122
PFNA < 1.77U 0.144L ND - - - - < 1.80U 0.211L ND - - - -
PFDA < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - - -
PFUnA < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.80 U 0.162 L ND - - - -
PFDoA < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - - -
PFTriA < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - - -
P FTeA < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - - -
PFHxDA < 3.53 U - ND - - - - < 18.0 U - ND - - - -
PFODA < 3.53 U - ND - - - - < 3.60 U - ND - - - -
Sulfonic Acids PFBS < 1.57 U NDU ND - - - - 0.742 J NDU 3.01 - 0.635 J - 0.771 J
PFPeS < 1.66 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.69 U NDU 1.9 - - - -
PFHxS < 1.61 U NDU 0.638 J - - - - 0.760 J 0.653 J 11.3 - 1.59 J - 2.00 J
PFHpS < 1.68 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.71 U NDU ND - - - -
PFOS 1.05 J 0.276 L 1.11 - - - 2.43 1.14 J - 0.82 J -
PFNS < 1.70 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.73 U NDU ND - - - -
PFDS < 1.71 U NDU ND - - - - < 1.75 U NDU ND - - - -
PFDoS < 3.53 U - ND - - - - < 3.60 U - ND - - - -
Fluorotelemers 4:2 FTS < 16.6 U NDU ND - - - - < 16.9 U NDU ND - - - -
6:2 FTS < 3.35 U NDU ND ND - - - 2.14J NDU 74.5 71 - ND -
8:2FTS < 3.39U NDU ND - - - - < 3.46U NDU ND - - - -
10:2 FTS I - I - - - - - I - - - - - -
Sulfonamides PFOSA < 1.77 U NDU ND ND - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - ND -
N-McFOSA < 3.53 U - ND - - - < 18.0 U - ND - - - -
N-EtFOSA < 3.53 U - ND - - - < 18.0 U - ND - - - -
N-McFOSE < 3.53 U - ND - - - < 3.60 U - ND - - - -
N-EtFOSE < 3.53 U - ND - - - < 3.60 U - ND - - - -
N-McFOSAA < 3.53 U NDU ND - - - < 3.60 U NDU ND - - - -
N-EtFOSAA < 3.53 U NDU ND - - - < 3.60 U NDU ND - - - -
Ethers PFMOPrA - NDU ND - - - - NDU ND - - - -
PMPA 14.3 X - ND - - - 19.6 X - ND - - - -
PFMOBA - NDU ND - - - - NDU ND - - - -
PEPA < 3.53 UX - ND - - - < 3.60 UX - ND - - - -
HFPO-DA/Gen < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - - -
PFMOAA < 3.53 UX NDU ND - - - 1.31 < 3.60 UX NDU 0.52 - 0.64 - 0.55 J
PF02HxA < 3.53 UX NDU ND - - - 1.30 < 3.60 UX NDU ND - - - -
PF030A < 3.53 UX NDU ND - - - < 3.60 UX NDU ND - - - -
PF04DA < 3.53 UX NDU ND - - - < 3.60 UX NDU ND - - - -
PF05DA < 3.53 UX NDU ND - - - < 3.60 UX NDU ND - - - -
NFDHA/PFECA - NDU ND - - - - NDU ND - - - -
ADONA < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - - -
PFEESA - NDU ND - - - - NDU ND - - - -
NafBP1 < 3.53 UX NDU ND - - - < 3.60 UX NDU ND - - - -
NafBP2 < 3.53 UX NDU ND - - - < 3.60 UX NDU ND - - - -
90-PF30NS < 3.47 U NDU ND - - - < 3.54 U NDU ND - - - -
110-PBOWS < 1.77 U NDU ND - - - < 1.80 U NDU ND - - - -
Total PFAS: 21 8 5 2 4 - 11 42 9 239 215 124 141 134
Total PFOS + PFOA: 2 2 2 2 - - - 9 6 125 143 119 141 122
DRAFT PRELIMINARY DATA CAVEATS: Some samples have non detects that are due to elevated reporting limits, which may be extra elevated because it was the first time working with the matrix. Some samples are
complex media and this may have had matrix effects on the reported concentrations.The labs used different modified 537.1 methods and method evaluation and data evaluation are still ongoing to resolve some
differences in reported results. Some data was entered manually because Colonial has not complied with requests to submit data electronically. Reporting limits are not recorded consistently and some show
quantitavive limits and others detection limits. Data has not been double checked for public reporting.
Note: Reported concentrations and non-quantitative estimates (J, L, X, and B values) are bolded and color coded as shown below.
[<10 ng/LM
10-100 ng/L
100-1,000 ng,
1,000-10,000
k10,00gs1ft
U: Non Detect.
J:The reported concentration is an estimate and is lower than the limit of quantification (LOQ) but higher than the limit of detection (LOD).
L:The reported concentration was below the LOD and there are uncertainties.
X:The reported concentration is an estimate based on a non-stadardized reference material
B:The analyte was found in the method blank at a concentration at least 10%of the concentration in the sample.
Total PFAS: Sum does include J, L, X, and B values
Total PFOS+ PFOA: Sum of PFAS compounds that have an EPA Health Advisory for Drinking Water (70 ng/L for PFOA+ PFOS). Sum does include J, L,X, and B values

Concentration(ng/L)072822 Split Sampling Concentration(ng/L)101222 Split Sampling Concentration(ng/L)012423 Split Sampling
Category PEAS cas_rn MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-07R MW-60
Carboxylic Acids PFPrA 422-64-0 2950 61.8 1.581 14.4 11.1 1770 27 7.06 23 14 4.92
PFBA 375-22-4 -- -- M 3.19 0.836 J - -- - 10.9 4.30 1.15 J 0.954 J 1.03 J -- - -
PFPeA 2706-90.3 - 8.66 1.591 1.821 3.28 1.181 -- 1.94 2.36 3.45 1.131 L211 1.34J -- - -
PFHxA 307-24-4 -- 7.46 1.85 1.89 -- 1.72 0.938 J 2.19 4.25 1.64 J 1.381 1.401 2.20 -- -- 1.48 J
PFHpA 375-85-9 -- -- 2.98 -- 1.04J -- - 2.25 - 3.6 - - 2.31 - -- - -
PFOA 335-67-1 -- - 106 11.1 1.73 J - 6.27 11.8 - 9.63 122 6.95 - 3.79 -
PFNA 375-95-1 -- -- -- -- 0.782 J -- -- -- -- 2.86 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFDA 335-76-2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 1.23 J -- - - - -- - -
PFUnA 2058-94-8 -- -- - - - - - -- -
PFDoA 307-55-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - --
PFTriA 72629-94-8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFTeA 376-06-7 -- -- - - - - - -- -
PFHxDA 67905-19-5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- --
PFODA 16517-11-6 -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -
Sulfonic Acids PFBS 375-73-5 -- -- -- 0.883J -- -- 0.635J -- 2.1 -- 0.5581 0.771J -- -- -- --
PFPeS 2706-91-4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFHxS 355-46-4 -- 11.3 - 1.75 - - 1.591 - 1.88 - - 2.00J
PFHpS 375-92-8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFOS 1763-23-1 -- 17.4 -- 5.94 -- -- -- -- 16 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFNS 68259-12-1 -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -
PFDS 335-77-3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - --
__
PFDoS 79780-39-5 -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -
F uorote emers 4:2 FTS 757124-72-4 -- -- -- - -- --
6:2 FTS 27619-97-2 -- 74.5 -- 6.931
8:2 FTS 39108-34-4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Sulfonamides PFOSA 754-91-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
__
N-MCFOSA 31506-32-8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
N-EtFOSA 4151-50-2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
N-McFOSE 24448-09-7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
N-EtFOSE 1691-99-2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
__
N-McFOSAA 2355-31-9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
N-EtFOSAA 2991-50-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
__
Ethers PFMOPrA 377-73-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
PMPA 13140-29-9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFMOBA 863090-89-5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- --
PEPA 267239-61-2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HFPO-DA/GenX 13252-13-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFECA-G 801212-59-9 -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFMOAA 674-13-5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -
PF02HxA 39492-88-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PF030A 39492-89-2 -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PF04DA 39492-90-5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PF05DA 39492-91-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NFDHA/PFECA-B --
ADONA 919005-14-4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PFEESA
NafBP1 29311-67-9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
NafBP2 749836-20-2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
9CI-PF30NS 756426-58-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
11CI-PF30UdS 763051-92-9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Total PFAS: 449.1 109.9 242.8 24.5 32.5 2954 71 126 29 68 1,784 41 138 35 0 18 6.4
Total PFAS w/out PFPrA 5.1 8.9 237 15 26 3.3 8.0 122 15 56 14 14 131 12 0 3.8 1.5
DRAFT PRELIMINARY DATA CAVEATS:Some samples have non detects that are due to elevated reporting limits,which may be extra elevated because it was the first time working with the matrix.Some samples are complex media and this may have had matrix effects on the reported concentrations.The labs used different modified
537.1 methods and method evaluation and data evaluation are still ongoing to resolve some differences in reported results.Some data was entered manually because Colonial has not complied with requests to submit data electronically.Reporting limits are not recorded consistently and some show quantitavive limits and others
detection limits.Data has not been double checked for public reporting.
Note:units of ng/L=ppt(parts per trillion)
Red text indicates exceedance of EPA Interim Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA
Note:EPA Interim Health Advisories are 0.02 ppt for PFOS and 0.004 opt for PFOA,with a minimum reporting limit of 4 opt for both compounds
Note:Reported concentrations and non-quantitative estimates(J,L,X,and B values)are bolded and color coded as shown below.
<10 ng/L
10-100 ng/L Exceeds 2L PQL of 10 ng/L for PEAS other than PFOA and PECS(EPA Health Advisory MDL of 4 ng/L applies for these compounds
100-1,000 ng/L
10000
Non-detect designated by--rather than U to be more reader-friendly
J:The reported concentration is an estimate and is lower than the limit of quantification(LOQ)but higher than the limit of detection(LOD).
L:The reported concentration was below the LOD and there are uncertainties.
X:The reported concentration is an estimate based on a non-stadarc ized reference material
B:The analyte was found in the method blank at a concentration at least 10%of the concentration in the sample.
Total PEAS:Sum does include J,L,X,and B values.Sum does not include PFPrA due to lab-indicated false positive for this analyte.

Concentration(ng/L)072822 Spilt Sampling Concentration(ng/L)101222 Split Sampling Concentration(ng/L)012423 Split Sampling
Category PFAS cas_rn MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-07R MW-60
Carboxylic Acids PFBA 375-22-4 -- -- -- 3.19 0.836J -- -- -- 10.9 1.151 0.954J 1.03J NS -- --
PFOA 335-67-1 11.1 1.731 10.5 11.8 6.95 NS 3.79
Sulfonic Acids PFOS 1763-23-1 jr 1.02J -- 17.4 -- 5.94 1.02J -- -- -- 16 -- -- -- -- NS -- --
Fluorotelemers 6:2 FTS 27619-97-2 -- 8.86 J 74.5 -- 6.931 — — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NS -- --
Sulfonamides PFOSA 754-91-6 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NS -- --
DRAFT PRELIMINARY DATA CAVEATS:Some samples have non detects that are due to elevated reporting limits,which may be extra elevated because it was the first time working with the matrix.Some samples are complex media and this may have had matrix effects on the reported concentrations.The labs used different modified 537.1
methods and method evaluation and data evaluation are still ongoing to resolve some differences in reported results.Some data was entered manually because Colonial has not complied with requests to submit data electronically.Reporting limits are not recorded consistently and some show quantitavive limits and others detection
limits.Data has not been double checked for public reporting.
Note:units of ng/L=ppt(parts per trillion)
Blue text indicates exceedance of current EPA MCLG
Red text indicates exceedance of EPA proposed MCL
Note:EPA Interim Health Advisories are 0.02 ppt for PFOS and 0.004 ppt for PFOA,with a minimum reporting limit cf 4 plat for both compounds
Note:Reported concentrations and non-quantitative estimates(1,L,X,and B values)are bolded and color coded as shown below.
<10 ng/L 901
10-100 ng/L Exceeds 2LPOLof 30 ng/Lfor PFAS otherthan PFOA and PFOS(EPA Health Advisory MDLof4 ng/L applies for these compounds
100-1,000 ng/L
0-10,000 n
ll
Non-detect designated by--ratherthan U to be more reader-friendly
l:The reported concentration is an estimate and is lower than the limit of quantification(LOD)but higher than the limit of detection(LOD).
L:The reported concentration was belowthe LOD and there are uncertainties.
X:The reported concentration is an estimate based on a non-stadardI,ed reference material
B:The analyte was found in the method blank at a concentration at least 10%of the concentration in the sample.

Due to an oversight at the lab,there are no matrix spike samples this quarter. The lab has put a fail safe in place to prevent this from happening again.

DRAFT PRELIMINARY DATA CAVEATS: Some samples have non detects that are due to elevated reporting limits, which may be extra elevated because it was the first time working with the matrix. Some samples are complex media and this may have had matrix effects on the reported con(
Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) at Colonial Pipeline Site. Concentrations listed in ng/L.
Sample Description, Collection Groundwater Monitoring Mells (MW)
Date, and Data Provider MW-1 I MW-13 MW-15 MW-18 MW-19 MW-22 MW-24 MW-25 MW-29 MW-36 MW-37 MW-38 MW-39 MW-40 MW-42
10/15/20 10/15/20 10/15/20 10/14/20 10/15/20 10/15/20 10/15/20 10/14/20 10/15/20 10/14/20 10/14/20 10/14/20 10/15/20 10/15/20 10/15/20
Category PFAS DWM I CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP DWM CP
Carboxylic Acids PFBA 1.27 J 5.1 1.10 J NDU < 1.86 U NDU < 1.92 U 11 1.64 J 5.74 0.722 J 2.84 1.10 J NDU 1.35 J 2.42 0.858 J NDU < 1.82 U 1.80 J < 1.72 U NDU < 1.78 U ND U 1.56 J ND U < 1.87 U 6.61 2.75 NDU
PFPeA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU 1.05J NDU 0.911J NDU < 2.01U NDU 3.07 1.42J < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU 1.87 NDU 1.14J NDU < 1.87U NDU 1.87 NDU
PFHxA 0.748 J 0.131 L 0.765 J 0.114 L < 1.86 U NDU 1.26 J 0.092 L 1.23 J 0.664 L 0.930 J 0.132 L <2.01 U NDU 2.91 1.60 J < 1.83 U NDU < 1.82 U ND U 0.996 J NDU 2.57 0.402 L 1.97 0.511 L < 1.87 U 0.294 L 3.72 2.03
PFHpA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU 0.627J NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U .0825 < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU 0.702J0.135L< 1.87U NDU 1.32J 0.293L
PFOA 0.774 J 1.02 J < 1.71 U 0.957 J < 1.86 U 0.797 J 0.844 J 1.92 1.21 J 1.29 J 5.31 4.23 < 2.01 U 0.679 J 8.37 6.34 < 1.83 U NDU < 1.82 U 0.522 J < 1.72 U 0.474 L 5.42 4.94 0.945 J 2.1 < 1.87 U 0.896 J 6.96 4.69
PFNA < 1.71U .0356 < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U0.144L< 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U .0743 < 1.87U NDU < 1.8000.211L
PFDA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.80U NDU
PFUnA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.8000.162L
PFDoA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.80U NDU
PFTriA < 1.71 U1 NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.80U NDU
PFTeA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.80U NDU
PFHxDA < 3.42U - < 3.41U - < 3.71U - < 3.83U - < 3.53U - < 3.41U - <4.01U - < 4.28U - < 3.66U - < 3.64U - < 3.44U - < 3.56U - < 3.60U - < 3.73U - < 18.OU -
PFODA < 3.42U - < 3.41U - < 3.71U - < 3.83U - < 3.53U - < 3.41U - <4.01U - < 4.28U - < 3.66U - < 3.64U - < 3.44U - < 3.56U - < 3.60U - < 3.73U - < 3.60U -
Sulfonic Acids PFBS < 1.52U NDU < 1.52U NDU < 1.65U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.57U NDU < 1.52U NDU 0.780J NDU < 1.91U NDU < 1.63U NDU < 1.62U NDU < 1.53U NDU < 1.58U NDU < 1.60U NDU < 1.66U NDU 0.742J NDU
PFPeS < 1.61U NDU < 1.60U NDU < 1.74U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.66U NDU < 1.60U NDU < 1.89U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.62U NDU < 1.67U NDU < 1.69U NDU < 1.75U NDU < 1.69U NDU
PFHxS < 1.56U NDU < 1.55U NDU 8.01 5.05 < 1.74U NDU < 1.61U NDU < 1.55U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.95U NDU < 1.67U NDU < 1.66U NDU < 1.56U NDU < 1.62U NDU < 1.64U0.576J < 1.70U NDU 0.760J 0.653J
PFHpS < 1.63U NDU < 1.62U NDU < 1.76U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.68U NDU < 1.62U NDU < 1.91U NDU < 2.03U NDU < 1.74U NDU < 1.73U NDU < 1.63U NDU < 1.69U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.71U NDU
PFOS < 1.71U NDU 1.14J 0.490J < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU 1.05J 0.276L< 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU 0.953J 0.299J < 1.87U NDU 2.43 1.14J
PFNS < 1.64U NDU < 1.64U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.84U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 1.64U NDU < 1.93U NDU < 2.06U NDU < 1.76U NDU < 1.75U NDU < 1.65U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.73U NDU < 1.79U NDU < 1.73U NDU
PFDS < 1.66U NDU < 1.66U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.65U NDU < 1.95U NDU < 2.08U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.67U NDU < 1.73U NDU < 1.75U NDU < 1.81U NDU < 1.75U NDU
PFDoS < 3.42U - < 3.41U - < 3.71U - < 3.83U - < 3.53U - < 3.41U - <4.01U - <4.28U - < 3.66U - < 3.64U - < 3.44U - < 3.56U - < 3.60U - < 3.73U - < 3.60U -
Fluorotelemers 4:2FTS < 16.1U NDU < 3.21U NDU < 3.49U NDU < 3.60U NDU < 16.6U NDU < 3.20U NDU < 18.9U NDU <4.02U NDU < 3.44U NDU < 3.42U NDU < 3.23U NDU < 3.34U NDU < 16.9U NDU < 3.51U NDU < 16.9U NDU
6:2FTS < 3.25U NDU < 3.24U NDU < 3.53U NDU 1.39J NDU < 3.35U NDU 1.38J NDU < 19.1U0.753J < 4.07U NDU < 3.48U NDU < 3.46U NDU 1.49J NDU 2.62J NDU < 17.1U NDU < 3.54U0.427L 2.14J NDU
8:2FTS < 3.29U NDU < 3.28U NDU < 3.56U NDU < 3.68U NDU < 3.39U NDU < 3.27U NDU < 3.85U NDU < 4.11U NDU < 3.52U NDU < 3.49U NDU < 3.30U NDU < 3.42U NDU < 3.46U NDU < 3.58U NDU < 3.46U NDU
10:2 FTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sulfonamides PFOSA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.80U NDU
N-McFOSA < 3.42U - < 3.41U - < 3.71U - < 3.83U - < 3.53U - < 3.41U - <4.01U - < 4.28U - < 3.66U - < 3.64U - < 3.44U - < 3.56U - < 3.60U - < 3.73U - < 18.OU -
N-EtFOSA < 3.42U - < 3.41U - < 3.71U - < 3.83U - < 3.53U - < 17.OU - <4.01U - < 4.28U - < 3.66U - < 3.64U - < 3.44U - < 3.56U - < 3.60U - < 3.73U - < 18.OU -
N-McFOSE < 3.42U - < 3.41U - < 3.71U - < 3.83U - < 3.53U - < 3.41U - <4.01U - < 4.28U - < 3.66U - < 3.64U - < 3.44U - < 3.56U - < 3.60U - < 3.73U - < 3.60U -
N-EtFOSE < 3.42U - < 3.41U - < 3.71U - < 3.83U - < 3.53U - < 3.41U - <4.01U - < 4.28U - < 3.66U - < 3.64U - < 3.44U - < 3.56U - < 3.60U - < 3.73U - < 3.60U -
N-McFOSAA < 3.42U NDU < 3.41U NDU < 3.71U NDU < 3.83U NDU < 3.53U NDU < 3.41U NDU <4.01U NDU < 4.28U NDU < 3.66U NDU < 3.64U NDU < 3.44U NDU < 3.56U NDU < 3.60U NDU < 3.73U NDU < 3.60U NDU
N-EtFOSAA < 3.42U NDU < 3.41U NDU < 3.71U NDU < 3.83U NDU < 3.53U NDU < 3.41U NDU <4.01U NDU < 4.28U NDU < 3.66U NDU < 3.64U NDU < 3.44U NDU < 3.56U NDU < 3.60U NDU < 3.73U NDU < 3.60U NDU
Ethers PFMOPrA - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU
PMPA 3.42U) - 3.41U - 5.78X - 4.37X - 14.3X - 3.41U - 4.01U) - 4.52X - 4.51X - 3.64U) - 3.44U - 3.56U - 4.85X - 4.70X - 19.6X -
PFMOBA - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU
PEPA 3.42U) - 3.41U - 3.71U - 3.83U) - 3.53U - 3.41U - 4.01U) - 4.28U - 3.66U - 3.64U) - 3.44U - 3.56U - 3.60U - 3.73U) - 3.60 U1, -
HFPO-DA/Gen < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.80U NDU
PFMOAA 3.42U) NDU 3.41U NDU 3.71U NDU 3.83U) NDU 3.53U NDU 3.41U NDU 4.01U) NDU 4.28U NDU 3.66U NDU 3.64U) NDU 3.44U NDU 3.56U NDU 3.60U NDU 3.73U) NDU 3.60U NDU
PFO2HxA 3.42U) NDU 3.41U NDU 3.71U NDU 3.83U) NDU 3.53U NDU 3.41U NDU 4.01U) NDU 4.28U NDU 3.66U NDU 3.64U) NDU 3.44U NDU 3.56U NDU 3.60U NDU 3.73U) NDU 3.60U NDU
PFO3OA 3.42U) NDU 3.41U NDU 3.71U NDU 3.83U) NDU 3.53U NDU 3.41U NDU 4.01U) NDU 4.28U NDU 3.66U NDU 3.64U) NDU 3.44U NDU 3.56U NDU 3.60U NDU 3.73U) NDU 3.60U NDU
PFO4DA 3.42U) NDU 3.41 UI NDU 3.71U NDU 3.83U) NDU 3.53U NDU 3.41U NDU 4.01U) NDU 4.28U NDU 3.66U NDU 3.64U) NDU 3.44U NDU 3.56U NDU 3.60U NDU F3.73U) NDU 3.60U NDU
PFO5DA 3.42U) NDU 3.41U NDU z 3.71U NDU 3.83U) NDU 3.53U NDU 3.41U NDU 4.01U) NDU 4.28U NDU 3.66U NDU 3.64U) NDU 3.44U NDU 3.56U NDU 3.60U NDU 3.73U) NDU 3.60U NDU
NFDHA/PFECA - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - ND U - NDU - NDU - ND U - NDU - NDU - NDU - ND U
ADONA < 1.71U NDU < 1.71U NDU < 1.86U NDU < 1.92U NDU < 1.77U NDU < 1.70U NDU < 2.01U NDU < 2.14U NDU < 1.83U NDU < 1.82U NDU < 1.72U NDU < 1.78U NDU < 1.80U NDU < 1.87U NDU < 1.80U NDU
PFEESA - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - NDU - ND U - NDU - NDU - ND U - NDU - NDU - NDU - ND U
NafBP1 3.42U) NDU 3.41U NDU 3.71U NDU 3.83U) NDU 3.53U NDU 3.41U NDU 4.01U) NDU 4.28U NDU 3.66U NDU 3.64U) NDU 3.44U NDU 3.56U NDU 3.60U NDU 3.73U) NDU 3.60U NDU
NafBP2 3.42U) NDU 3.41U NDU 3.71U NDU 3.83U) NDU 3.53U NDU 3.41U NDU 4.01U) NDU 4.28U NDU 3.66U NDU 3.64U) NDU 3.44U NDU 3.56U NDU 3.60U NDU 3.73U) NDU 3.60U NDU
90-PHONS < 3.36U NDU < 3.35U NDU < 3.65U NDU < 3.76U NDU < 3.47U NDU < 3.35U NDU < 3.94U NDU < 4.20U NDU < 3.60U NDU < 3.57U NDU < 3.38U NDU < 3.49U NDU < 3.54U NDU < 3.66U NDU < 3.54U NDU

110-PF301,16 < 1.71U ND < 1.71U ND < 1.86U ND < 1.92U ND < 1.77U ND < 1.70U ND < 2.01U ND < 2.14U ND < 1.83U ND < 1.82U ND < 1.72U ND < 1.78U ND < 1.80U ND < 1.87U ND < 1.80U ND
Total PFAS: 3 6 3 2 14 6 8 13 21 8 9 7 2 1 20 12 5 0 0 2 2 0 12 5 12 4 5 8 42 9
Total PFOS + PFOA: 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 5 4 0 1 8 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 5 2 2 0 1 9 6
DRAFT PRELIMINARY DATA CAVEATS: Some samples have non detects that are due to elevated reporting limits,which may be extra elevated because it was the first time working with the matrix. Some samples are complex media and this may have had matrix effects on the reported
concentrations.The labs used different modified 537.1 methods and method evaluation and data evaluation are still ongoing to resolve some differences in reported results. Some data was entered manually because Colonial has not complied with requests to submit data electronically.
Note: Reported concentrations and non-quantitative estimates (J, L, X, and B values) are bolded and color coded as shown below.
<10 ng/L
10-100 ng/L
100-1,000 ng
9 11 MTPO I
U: Non Detect.
J: The reported concentration is an estimate and is lower than the limit of quantification (LOQ) but higher than the limit of detection (LOD).
L: The reported concentration was below the LOD and there are uncertainties.
X:The reported concentration is an estimate based on a non-stadardized reference material
B:The analyte was found in the method blank at a concentration at least 10%of the concentration in the sample.
Total PFAS: Sum does include J, L, X, and B values
Total PFOS+ PFOA: Sum of PFAS compounds that have an EPA Health Advisory for Drinking Water (70 ng/L for PFOA+ PFOS). Sum does include J, L, X, and B values

MA�.•cw, rcw,
0,00 DUD/W " l 4a D ►wl000
Om IIIA D
1R1C7 27
N M 1 aim no
M<W
am
D,D MIN Figure 5A from Colonial Pipeline CSM
N.cw Rw r: a om I�+cw
Om NM1 ON IIDr 7K Om
1 i3 • -r ,�i V GO 7
10 M,t WW W RYVnt Rw 1)) kq*,r■ Dm
0DO RW 1 ^ Rw 0 ..W 2 °m MKW
,% � ,r am � _ Consent Order Wells
WA OI Om OO
000 Mmot_ q., Rwa. Z "° ,� ,.: aMou °m Blue square = CO wells sampled
DID Rw 1
6 ' RW Red square = CO wells with insufficient volume to sample
c.7
-0 RWE Irw .,aD y) 1a O00
Yw ODD IgDfi
°ao NK'W RIM-71 )%7 q1v g11Y-1 ,wW
Qm 7 il] 2
Ono tI�ICw,E 7 qw RwY 0 IAM i;u
71W Mq Om .N q91 • � MW.'..
°m °� �" "
2r 3A2
Previous Sampling Locations
Om RW- Rw Rw
MW 3 in R7.r RIw 3 3r, NA:° _ Red Circle = previous PFAS detect
HIII1 Om OD6 am �u
nm rw 00 W .w. Rw Green Circle = previous PFAS non-detect
000 o fin
MW "am DK RW '""' Orange Circle = wells CP proposed to include for sampling
"' 1r/Cw p oMv Blue Circle = wells NCDEQ proposed for sampling
O DO Mq q°Do
NK1M�, 4A RW I _
Om MN RW2 Om -A u
1
121 MW L:
ro ld 4*47 3 y
O.f3 RW Iq PN
II
Rw 4: ofi. Mw OI isl I I °0O DD
r.z 0 I.'w:
MA' ' .34 RWRW Ili
Ti 7NY_gi
u. 3 Rw.• ee. Dm _
o°o IN 0 DO
kMl I I!< NC7 "MCI IS:w 24
, YM 9,°C H:W H:W.G am 001 Om
lcw am
O aw Ncw Ir_w-0 OD0 nm
LS ry Tl C It MW
RW/O T I1 O
~
~ 07O IMF, HCwS m
D M 1xw� ,1Cw OID
vA 1z 4n 007 0 rWY l MYY Om lny. -rCr11
D7D Irwit 0 1 •_'W' tD0 057
-
/1q �w-7 _.—W X .1. .Cw-1 226 pID
OID r.Q 000 -
GOD 3 O
oIq n22 ,r —
_ RWJI __W, Rw0 HL7.1 w
HN:e
.• 177 0.00 Oq7 "CIA,1 RW *no
M11-11 Om M_
0O0 212 GM +u Om
RW2
0IS RW Rp)12 QIl DID
}� or Rws am
00D 00 RW _
aw
072 RW3
on? -
000 DOI
7M, IIMf 2, 112 DAD
Om Om IIIM-1
Can
Rw
Will-I RW- OID YW
Om MIRq + Om
Om YWJ
Om YWr
DID NY
yw_ am It! worm INW t• Om
Om O Om
MW.7
0m
M- ON am
DIDcoo Om

Concentration(ng/L)072822 Split Sampling Concentration(ng/L)101222 Split Sampling Concentration(ng/L)012423 Split Sampling
MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-07R MW-60
Category PFAS cas_rn DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP
Carboxylic Acids PFBA 375-22-4 -- -- -- -- 3.43 4.0 -- — WF19 2.6J 0.83670 ND F1 — -- -- NO -- -- 10.9 NO UJ 4.3 1.151 0.954J 1.03J NS -- --
PFOA 335-67-1 -- -- -- — 106 120 11.1 12 1.73 J 2.3 — — 119 140 10.5 8.8 11.8 12J -- 9.63 122 6.95 NS 3.79 --
SulfonicAcids PFOS 1763-23-1 -- -- 17.4 22 -- — 5.94 7.7 1.02J -- — -- -- 0.82J -- -- 16 191 -- -- -- -- NS -- --
Fluorotelemers 6:2 FTS 27619-97-2 -- -- 74.5 71 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NO UJ -- -- -- -- NS -- --
Sulfonamides PFOSA 754-91-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NO UJ -- -- -- -- NS -- --
DRAFT PRELIMINARY DATA CAVEATS:Some samples have non detects that are due to elevated reporting limits,which may be extra elevated because it was the first time working with the matrix.Some samples are complex media and this may have had matrix effects on the reported concentrations.The labs used different modified 537.1 methods and method evaluation and data evaluation are still ongoing
to resolve some differences in reported results.Some data was entered manually because Colonial has not complied with requests to submit data electronically.Reporting limits are not recorded consistently and some show quantitavive limits and others detection limits.Data has not been double checked for public reporting.
Note:units of ng/L=ppt(parts per trillion)
Red text indicates exceedance of EPA Interim Health Advisoryfor PFOS and PFOA
Note:EPA Interim Health Advisories are 0.02 ppt for PFOS and 0.004 ppt for PFOA,with a minimum reporting limit of 4 ppt for both compounds
Note:Reported concentrations and non-quantitative estimates(J,L,X,and B values)are bolded and color coded as shown below.
<10 ng/L V
10-100 ng/L Exceeds 2L PQL of 30 ng/L for PEAS other than PFOA and PFOS(EPA Health Advisory MDL of 4 ng/L applies for these compounds
100-1,000 ng/L
0-30,0
Non-detect designated by--ratherthan U to be more reader-friendly
1:The reported concentration is an estimate and is lowerthan the limit of quantification(LOQ)but higher than the limit of detection(LOD).
L:The reported concentration was below the LOD and there are uncertainties.
X:The reported concentration is an estimate based on a non-stadardized reference material
B:The analyte was found in the method blank at a concentration at least 10%of the concentration in the sample.

Concentration(ng/L)072822 Split Sampling Concentration(ng/L)101222 Split Sampling Concentration(ng/L)012423 Split Sampling
MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-19 MW-41R MW-42 MW-72R MW-84 MW-07R MW-60
Category PFAS cas_rn DEQ CP DEQ CP %diff DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP diff DEQ CP %diff DEQ CP %diff DEQ CP DEQ CP DEQ CP iff DEQ CP DEQ CP
Carboxylic Acids PFBA 375-22-4 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.43 4.0 -15% -- -- - 3.19 2.6 20% 0.836 0 -- -- -- -- ND -- -- -- -- 10.9 0 0% 0.836 100% -- -- -- -- -- -- 10.9 -- --
PFOA 335-67-1 - - - - - - 106 120 -12% 11.1 12 -7.8% 1.73 2.3 -28% - -- -- 6.27 11% 119 140 -16% 10.5 8.8 18% 11.8 12 -2% - - 6.27 100% 119 100% 10.5 100% 11.8 100% 3.79 -
u onic cis 1763-23-1 1.02 1.1 -7.5% -- --
-- 17.4 22 -23% -- -- - 5.94 7.7 -26% 1.02 0 -- -- -- 0 0.82 -200% -- -- -- 16 19 -17% 1.02 100% -- -- 0 --
-- 16 100% -- --
Fluorotelemers 6:2 FTS 27619-97-2 -- -- -- 8.86 11 -22% 74.5 71 4.8% 0 2.20 -200% 6.93 4.7 38% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Sulfonamides PFOSA 754-91-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
DRAFT PRELIMINARY DATA CAVEATS:Some samples have non detects that are due to elevated reporting limits which may be extra elevated because it was the first time working with the matrix.Some samples are complex media and this may have had matrix effects on the reported concentrations.The labs used different modified 537.1 methods and method evaluation and data evaluation are still ongoing to resolve some differences in reported results.Some data was entered manual) because Colonial has not complied with requests to submit data electronically.Reporting limits are not recorded consistent)
P P g � Y g P P Y P g g P Y P q Y P g Y
and some show quantitavive limits and others detection limits.Data has not been double checked for public reporting.
Note:units of ng/L=opt(parts per trillion)
Red text indicates exceedance of EPA Interim Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA
Note:EPA Interim Health Advisories are 0.02 ppt for PFOS and 0.004 pot for PFOA,with a minimum reporting limit of 4 ppt for both compounds
Note:Reported concentrations and non-quantitative estimates(1,L,X,and B values)are bolded and color coded as shown below.
<10 ng/L
10-100 ng/L Exceeds 2LPQLof 30 ng/Lfor PFAS otherthan PFOAand PFOS(EPA Health Advisory MDL of 4 ng/L applies for these compounds
100-1,000 ng/L
1,000-10,000 n
Non-detect designated by--rather than U to be more reader-friendly
1:The reported concentration is an estimate and is lower than the limit of quantification(LOQ)but higher than the limit of detection(LOD).
L:The reported concentration was below the LOD and there are uncertainties.
X:The reported concentration is an estimate based on a non-stadardi-c!reference material
B:The analyte was found in the method blank at a concentration at least 10%of the concentration in the sample.
-indicates one or both lab results are J values

Attachment L
NCNHP_proj ect_report_npdes_permit_NC0090000_20230317_19p

Roy Cooper,Governor
■■■
■■ , NC DEPARTMENT OF D_Reid Wilson,Secretary
■■ ■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■ I■ Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director,Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-21294
March 17, 2023
Derek Denard
NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
RE: NPDES Permit Application NCO090000 Colonial Pipeline Company; NCO090000
Dear Derek Denard:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally-listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one-mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler(o-)ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Qv 121 W.JONES STREET.RALEIGH.NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER.RALEIGH.NC 27699
& OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
NPDES Permit Application NC0090000 Colonial Pipeline Company
Project No. NC0090000
March 17, 2023
NCNHDE-21294
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Na n Name Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
i M Date Rank
Animal 15928 Waterbird Colony Waterbird Colony 2004 BC 3-Medium --- --- GNR S3
Assemblage
Bird 31303 Haliaeetus Bald Eagle 2011 E 3-Medium Bald/Golden Threatened G5 S3B,S3
leucocephalus Eagle N
Protection
Act
Butterfly 32081 Pontia protodice Checkered White 2004-08-19 C? 3-Medium --- Significantly G5 S1S2
Rare
Butterfly 28568 Satyrium favonius Northern Oak 2010-05-20 D 3-Medium --- Significantly G4G5T S2S3
ontario Hairstreak Rare 4
Freshwater 4864 Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell 1998-07-13 H? 3-Medium --- Endangered G2G3 S3
Bivalve
Freshwater Fish42491 Cyprinella zanema Santee Chub H? 3-Medium --- Threatened G4 S3
Freshwater Fish15945 Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter 2016-06-01 E 3-Medium --- Special G3 S3
Concern
Natural 40849 Basic Mesic Forest --- 2021-04-19 B 2-High --- --- G3G4 S3S4
Community (Piedmont Subtype)
Natural 40851 Dry-Mesic --- 2021-04-19 C 2-High --- --- G4G5 S4
Community Oak--Hickory Forest
(Piedmont Subtype)
Natural 19888 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2010 AB 3-Medium --- --- G4G5 S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment (Open
Water Subtype)
Natural 30602 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2010 AB 3-Medium --- --- G4? S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment
(Piedmont Marsh
Subtype)
Page 2 of 19

Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
_ Date Rank _ _
Natural 25191 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2012-08-15 B 2-High --- --- G4? S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment
(Piedmont Marsh
Subtype)
Natural 30603 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2010 AB 3-Medium --- --- G4 S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment (Shrub
Subtype)
Natural 19412 Upland Depression --- 2009-06-21 A 2-High --- --- G2G3 S2S3
Community Swamp Forest
Natural 14670 Upland Depression --- 2001 CD 2-High --- --- G2G3 S2S3
Community Swamp Forest
Natural 15632 Xeric Hardpan Forest --- 2009-06-21 A 2-High --- --- G2G3 S2
Community (Basic Hardpan
Subtype)
Natural 3942 Xeric Hardpan Forest --- 2010 CD 3-Medium --- --- G2G3 S2
Community (Basic Hardpan
Subtype)
Reptile 23064 Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake 2000-09-22 H? 1-Very --- Special G4 S3
High Concern
Vascular Plant 15448 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 2002-07-03 C 3-Medium --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 8163 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-08-15 D 3-Medium --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24597 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-09-26 F 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24593 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-09-26 D 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 28787 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 2010-08-24 E 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24596 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 2002-07-03 F 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24588 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-08-19 D 1-Very --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil High
Vascular Plant 27040 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2017-09-19 F 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Page 3 of 19

Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name V mmon Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
in A Date Rank MR
Vascular Plant 18661 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2021-09-21 Dr 3-Medium Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 30383 Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot 2021-07-24 D 2-High --- Significantly G5 S2
Rare
Peripheral
Vascular Plant 40604 Ilex longipes Georgia Holly 2021-06-14 A 2-High --- Significantly G5 S1S2
Rare
Peripheral
Vascular Plant 8456 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 1997-09-09 X 3-Medium --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 205 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 1970-07-22 H 3-Medium --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 26114 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 BC 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 36510 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 B? 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 39036 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 BC 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 40831 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 D 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 1871 Symphyotrichum Georgia Aster 1990-12-05 F 3-Medium Candidate Threatened G3 S3
georgianum
Natural Areas Documented Within Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating ffi'"r Collective Rating
Ridge Road Hardpan Forest RI (Exceptional) C4 (Moderate)
Bingham Road Hardpan Forest R5 (General) C4 (Moderate)
Ferrelltown Nature Preserve and Vicinity R2 (Very High) C4 (Moderate)
Clarke Creek Heronry R4 (Moderate) C5 (General)
Brackett Bluff R5 (General) C5 (General)
West Branch Preserve R5 (General) C5 (General)
Page 4 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area'
Managed Area Name ne Owner Type
Cabarrus County - Coddle Creek Reservoir Cabarrus County Local Government
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Conservation Property District
Catawba Lands Conservancy - Rocky Pop Preserve Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government
City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Kannapolis Open Space City of Kannapolis Local Government
City of Kannapolis Open Space City of Kannapolis Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Alexandriana Mecklenburg County Local Government
Historic Site
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Bailey Road Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clark's Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clarks Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clarks Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clarks Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Tributary
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Cook Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - David B. Mecklenburg County Local Government
Waymer Aeromodeller Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - David B. Mecklenburg County Local Government
Waymer Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Eastfield Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Page 5 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area'
Managed Area Nam
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Mallard Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - McDowell Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - McDowell Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - North Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Oehler Nature Mecklenburg County Local Government
Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - R.C. Bradford Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Rocky River Mecklenburg County Local Government
Bluff Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - South Prong Mecklenburg County Local Government
Clarke Creek Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - South Prong Mecklenburg County Local Government
Rocky River Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Torrence Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Torrence Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Tributary
Mecklenburg County Open Space - West Branch Mecklenburg County Local Government
Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - West Branch Mecklenburg County Local Government
Rocky River Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Westmoreland Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - White Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Three Rivers Land Trust Preserve - Clarke Creek Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Town of Cornelius - Caldwell Station Creek Town of Cornelius Local Government
Greenway
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Page 6 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area'
Managed Area Nam ner Owner Type
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
NC Land and Water Fund Conservation Agreement NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Conservation Agreement NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Page 7 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Three Rivers Land Trust Easement Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Unique Places to Save Easement Unique Places to Save Private
Rocky River Bluff Dedicated Nature Preserve NC DNCR, Natural Heritage Program State
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area(RHA),or Federally-listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.orq/help. Data query generated on March 17,2023;source: NCNHP, Q4,Winter(January)
2023. Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 8 of 19

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
NPDES Permit Application NC0090000 Colonial Pipeline Company
Project No. NC0090000
March 17, 2023
NCNHDE-21294
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank �k-
Animal 15928 Waterbird Colony Waterbird Colony 2004 BC 3-Medium --- --- GNR S3
Assemblage
Bird 31303 Haliaeetus Bald Eagle 2011 E 3-Medium Bald/Golden Threatened G5 S3B,S3
leucocephalus Eagle N
Protection
Act
Bird 37057 Haliaeetus Bald Eagle 2016 E 2-High Bald/Golden Threatened G5 S313,S3
leucocephalus Eagle N
Protection
Act
Butterfly 32081 Pontia protodice Checkered White 2004-08-19 C? 3-Medium --- Significantly G5 S1S2
Rare
Butterfly 32085 Pontia protodice Checkered White 2003-11-02 BC 3-Medium --- Significantly G5 S1S2
Rare
Butterfly 28568 Satyrium favonius Northern Oak 2010-05-20 D 3-Medium --- Significantly G4G5T S2S3
ontario Hairstreak Rare 4
Freshwater 4864 Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell 1998-07-13 H? 3-Medium --- Endangered G2G3 S3
Bivalve
Freshwater Fish42491 Cyprinella zanema Santee Chub H? 3-Medium --- Threatened G4 S3
Freshwater Fish15945 Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter 2016-06-01 E 3-Medium --- Special G3 S3
Concern
Natural 40849 Basic Mesic Forest --- 2021-04-19 B 2-High --- --- G3G4 S3S4
Community (Piedmont Subtype)
Natural 31592 Basic Mesic Forest --- 2012-08-15 C 2-High --- --- G3G4 S3S4
Community (Piedmont Subtype)
Natural 40851 Dry-Mesic --- 2021-04-19 C 2-High --- --- G4G5 S4
Community Oak--Hickory Forest
(Piedmont Subtype)
Page 9 of 19

Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name ast Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank I_
Natural 19888 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2010 AB 3-Medium --- --- G4G5 S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment (Open
Water Subtype)
Natural 30602 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2010 AB 3-Medium --- --- G4? S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment
(Piedmont Marsh
Subtype)
Natural 25191 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2012-08-15 B 2-High --- --- G4? S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment
(Piedmont Marsh
Subtype)
Natural 30603 Piedmont/Mountain --- 2010 AB 3-Medium --- --- G4 S4
Community Semipermanent
Impoundment (Shrub
Subtype)
Natural 19412 Upland Depression --- 2009-06-21 A 2-High --- --- G2G3 S2S3
Community Swamp Forest
Natural 14670 Upland Depression --- 2001 CD 2-High --- --- G2G3 S2S3
Community Swamp Forest
Natural 15632 Xeric Hardpan Forest --- 2009-06-21 A 2-High --- --- G2G3 S2
Community (Basic Hardpan
Subtype)
Natural 3942 Xeric Hardpan Forest --- 2010 CD 3-Medium --- --- G2G3 S2
Community (Basic Hardpan
Subtype)
Reptile 23063 Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake 2006 E 4-Low --- Special G4 S3
Concern
Reptile 23064 Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake 2000-09-22 H? 1-Very --- Special G4 S3
High Concern
Vascular Plant 4441 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1978-09-21 H 4-Low --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 15448 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 2002-07-03 C 3-Medium --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Page 10 of 19

Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name "'c'"""XL
ast Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 8163 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-08-15 D 3-Medium --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24592 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-09-21 C 3-Medium --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24591 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-08-31 D 3-Medium --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24597 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-09-26 F 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24593 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-09-26 D 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 28787 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 2010-08-24 E 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24596 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 2002-07-03 F 2-High --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil
Vascular Plant 24588 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot- 1994-08-19 D 1-Very --- Threatened G5T3 S3
trefoil High
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi? 5-Very --- Threatened G3 S2
Low
Vascular Plant 1732 Desmodium Sessile Tick-trefoil 1988 X 3-Medium --- Special G5 SH
sessilifolium Concern
Historical
Vascular Plant 11779 Desmodium Sessile Tick-trefoil 1951-08-28 X? 3-Medium --- Special G5 SH
sessilifolium Concern
Historical
Vascular Plant 41618 Dichanthelium Ringed Witch Grass 1956-06-18 H 3-Medium --- Endangered G4 S1
annulum
Vascular Plant 26708 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2021-10-01 C 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 28994 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2017-09-19 D 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 28995 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2018-10-31 Dr 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 28997 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2013-10-16 F 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 20476 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2017-09-19 D 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 27040 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2017-09-19 F 2-High Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 18661 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2021-09-21 Dr 3-Medium Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Vascular Plant 30383 Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot 2021-07-24 D 2-High --- Significantly G5 S2
Rare
Peripheral
Page 11 of 19

Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name ffL_c""'
Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 40604 Ilex longipes Georgia Holly 2021-06-14 A 2-High --- Significantly G5 S1S2
Rare
Peripheral
Vascular Plant 12880 Pseudognaphalium Heller's Rabbit- 1992-09-17 A 3-Medium --- Endangered G4G5T S2S3
helleri Tobacco 3T4
Vascular Plant 33285 Sceptridium jenmanii Alabama Grape-fern 1936-09 H 5-Very --- Special G3G4 S2
Low Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 8456 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 1997-09-09 X 3-Medium --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 205 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 1970-07-22 H 3-Medium --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 14739 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 C 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 26114 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 BC 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 36510 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 B? 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 39036 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 BC 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 40831 Silphium perfoliatum Northern Cup-plant 2021-07-23 D 2-High --- Special G5T5? S1
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 1871 Symphyotrichum Georgia Aster 1990-12-05 F 3-Medium Candidate Threatened G3 S3
georgianum
Natural Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating
Ridge Road Hardpan Forest R1 (Exceptional) C4 (Moderate)
Bingham Road Hardpan Forest R5 (General) C4 (Moderate)
Page 12 of 19

Natural Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Nam Representational Rating Collective Rating
McDowell/Torrence Creek Confluence Slope R2 (Very High) C5 (General)
Mallard Creek Road Sunflower Site R5 (General) C5 (General)
Ferrelltown Nature Preserve and Vicinity R2 (Very High) C4 (Moderate)
Clarke Creek Heronry R4 (Moderate) C5 (General)
Brackett Bluff R5 (General) C5 (General)
West Branch Preserve R5 (General) C5 (General)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owne Owner Type
Cabarrus County - Coddle Creek Reservoir Cabarrus County Local Government
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Conservation Property District
Catawba Lands Conservancy - Joseph B. McCoy Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Preserve
Catawba Lands Conservancy - Rocky Pop Preserve Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government
City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government
City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Concord Open Space City of Concord Local Government
City of Kannapolis Open Space City of Kannapolis Local Government
City of Kannapolis Open Space City of Kannapolis Local Government
Davidson College Nature Preserve Davidson College Private
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Abersham Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Alexandriana Mecklenburg County Local Government
Historic Site
Page 13 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Na oppmorowner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Bailey Road Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Blythe Landing Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Charles And Ida Mecklenburg County Local Government
Graham Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clark's Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clarks Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clarks Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clarks Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Tributary
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Cook Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - David B. Mecklenburg County Local Government
Waymer Aeromodeller Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - David B. Mecklenburg County Local Government
Waymer Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Dixon Branch Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Eastfield Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Gar Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Mallard Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - McDowell Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - McDowell Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Mcllwaine Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - North Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Oehler Nature Mecklenburg County Local Government
Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - R.C. Bradford Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Robbins Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Page 14 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Nam wn
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Rocky River Mecklenburg County Local Government
Bluff Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - South Prong Mecklenburg County Local Government
Clarke Creek Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - South Prong Mecklenburg County Local Government
Rocky River Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Torrence Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Torrence Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Tributary
Mecklenburg County Open Space - West Branch Mecklenburg County Local Government
Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space - West Branch Mecklenburg County Local Government
Rocky River Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Westmoreland Mecklenburg County Local Government
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space - White Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Three Rivers Land Trust Preserve - Clarke Creek Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Town of Cornelius - Caldwell Station Creek Town of Cornelius Local Government
Greenway
Town of Cornelius - Legion Park Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius - Smithville Park Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Page 15 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Na 11111prown Owner Type
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Cornelius Open Space Town of Cornelius Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Davidson Open Space Town of Davidson Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
Town of Huntersville Open Space Town of Huntersville Local Government
INC Land and Water Fund Conservation Agreement INC DNCR, INC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Conservation Agreement NC DNCR, INC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Conservation Agreement NC DNCR, INC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, INC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, INC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, INC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, INC Land and Water Fund State
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Page 16 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Na Nomprowner
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation District Cabarrus Soil and Water Conservation Local Government
Easement District
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
Davidson Lands Conservancy Easement Davidson Lands Conservancy Private
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Three Rivers Land Trust Easement Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Three Rivers Land Trust Easement Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Page 17 of 19

Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name wner
Three Rivers Land Trust Easement Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Three Rivers Land Trust Easement Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Unique Places to Save Easement Unique Places to Save Private
Rocky River Bluff Dedicated Nature Preserve NC DNCR, Natural Heritage Program State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on March 17,2023:source: NCNHP, Q4,Winter(January)
2023. Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 18 of 19

NCNHDE-21294: NPDES Permit Application NCO090000 Colonial Pipeline Company
Kann
Davidso .89 Coddle Creek �868fr
t ��
O pr I Moo Mooresville Fa
orneOug res
s
Shady Br
AAlLpewell 0
� Peninsula Club � \ a
\ 0$%;%0F River Run ` \ 0 �
Country Club1 c
tI wejFj � I
i
0
Loke <<Ya �� o
orman
S a" 73
< Davidso Q°
= v
f0 Northstone
ans Ford Hicks a a Country Club
t Crossro ds \
�i 1 Y
tap
Hynters rook Golf McDo ~ poplar Tent Rd
��V11iii Club f CS. Mill
w
o
c � eek
v
t
a
o
Weak''i \
`�, \
8 Y
Rock River
\
`i.•' .''Q Golf Club at
:M. e
Concord
\
Robert
.25 5 . 5 Miles
�,... ..
March 17,2023
® NHP Natural Area (NHNA) Q Buffered Project Boundary
® Managed Area (MAREA) Q Project Boundary
Sources:Esri,Airbus DS,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,N Robinson,NCEAS,
NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat. GSA, Geoland. FEMA,
Natural Heritage Element Occurrence(NHEO) Intermap and the GIs user community
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap
contributors,and the GIs User Community
Page 19 of 19

Attachment M
NCIntegratedReport2022_NC303d2022_GIS Maps_15p

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
Etewarts Creek 113-17-36-9-( WS-III 8.3 FW Miles
2334 From source to a point 0.4 mile downstream of mouth of Stumplick Branch
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Stewarts Creek [Lake Twitty(Lake Stewart)] 13-17-36-9-( WS-III;CA 1.1 FW Miles
2335 From a point 0.4 mile downstream of mouth of Stumplick Branch to Union County SR 1681 (City of
Monroe water supply intake)
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Water Temperature (329C, AL, LP&CP) 3a Data Inconclusive
Cribs Creek 13-17-37 C 11.2 FW Miles
2344 From source to Rocky River
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER hL IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Clarke Creek 13-17 44 C 5.5 FW Miles
2350 From source to Rocky River
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1316 of 1346

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
North Prong Clarke Creek 13-17-4-1 C 4 4 FW Miles
2384 From source to Clarke Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Hardy Creek 13-17-42 C 9.0 FW Miles
2385 From source to Rocky River
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
I
South Prong Clarke Creek 13-17-4-2 C 3.5 FW Miles
2386 From source to Clarke Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Ramah Creek 13-17-4-4 C 7-- 5J FW Miles 1
2393 From source to Clarke Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Clarks Creek 13-17-5-2 C 4.4 FW Miles
2399 From source to Mallard Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER = IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1318 of 1346

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
Rocky River 13-17a C 34.1 FW Miles
2216 From source to mouth of Reedy Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Chloride (230 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Flouride (1.8 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
1,4-Dioxane in Water (80 µg/I, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 4t Exceeding Criteria
Rocky River 13-17b1 C 9.2 FW Miles
13483 From Clarke Creek to Mallard Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1333 of 1346

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
Rocky River 13-17b2 C 8.3 FW Miles
13700 From Mallard Creek to Reedy Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Copper (7 µg/I, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Rocky River I13-17b3 C 3.2 FW Miles
13701 From Reedy Creek to Irish Buffalo Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1334 of 1346

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
Rocky River 13-17c1 C 2.8 FW Miles
13484 From the Irish Buffalo Creek to Hamby Branch
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Copper (7 µg/I, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Rocky River I13-17c2 C 5.9 FW Miles
13702 From Hamby Branch to Anderson Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Chloride (230 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Flouride (1.8 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
1,4-Dioxane in Water (80 µg/I, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1335 of 1346

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
Rocky River 13-176 C 34.9 FW Miles
13703 From Anderson Creek to Lanes Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Copper (7 µg/I, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Zinc (50 µg/I, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Rocky River 13 17d C 29.3 FW Miles
2214 From the mouth of Island Creek to the Pee Dee River
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
1,4-Dioxane in Water (80 µg/I, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
Copper Dissolved Chronic (Calcuated, AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
M low
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1336 of 1346

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Lower Pee Dee Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
PEE DEE RIVER (including Blewett Falls Lake below 13-(26.5) WS-IV,B;CA 2,170.5 FW Acres
normal operating levels)
2190 From a point 0.8 mile downstream of mouth of Savannah Creek to Blewett Falls Dam
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Water Temperature (329C, AL, LP&CP) 3a Data Inconclusive
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
PEE DEE RIVER 13-(34)a C 6.3 FW Miles
2191 From Blewett Falls Dam to mouth of Hitchcock Creek
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Water Temperature (329C, AL, LP&CP) 1 Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (6 su, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
pH (9.0, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Chloride (230 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Flouride (1.8 mg/I, AL, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
Turbidity (50 NTU, AL, FW miles) 1 Meeting Criteria
14-Dioxane in Water (80 µg/I, AL, FW) 3a Data Inconclusive
LFecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW) 1 Meeting Criteria
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT-Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1337 of 1346

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 303(D) LIST
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU_LengthArea AU—Units
AU ID Description
Little Richardson Creek(Lake Monroe) 13-17-36-4-( WS-IV 77.1 FW Acres
2321 From source to a point 0.6 mile upstream of Buck Branch
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I,AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Little Richardson Creek(Lake Monroe) 13-17-36-4-( WS-IV;CA 38.7 FW Acres
2322 From a point 0.6 mile upstream of Buck Creek to Richardson Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Water Temperature(322C,AL, LP&CP) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2018
pH (9.0,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2018
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I,AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2008
Stewarts Creek 13-17-36-9-( WS-III 8.3 FW Miles
2334 From source to a point 0.4 mile downstream of mouth of Stumplick Branch
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008
Stewarts Creek [Lake Twitty(Lake Stewart)] 13-17-36-9-( WS-III;CA 1.1 FW Miles
2335 From a point 0.4 mile downstream of mouth of Stumplick Branch to Union County SR 1681 (City of
Monroe water supply intake)
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/l,AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Clarke Creek 13-17-4 C FW Miles
2350 From source to Rocky River
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Fish Community(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 1998
Lanes Creek 13-17-40-(1) WS-V 27.4 FW Miles
2351 From source to Marshville Water Supply Dam (located 0.1 mile downstream of Beaverdam Creek)
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/l,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2022
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2004
6/7/2022 NC 2022 303d List-Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 187 of 192

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 303(D) LIST
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU_LengthArea AU—Units
AU ID Description
McKee Creek 13-17-8-4 C 6.9 FW Miles
2424 From source to Reedy Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
Caldwell Creek 1 3-17-R-Sa C 6.0 FW Miles
2426 From source to Freeman Drive
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008
Reedy Creek 13-17-8a C 8.1 FW Miles
13379 From source to McKee Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008
Reedy Creek 13-17-8b C FW Miles
13452 From McKee Creek to Rocky River
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
Unnamed Tributary to Cold Water Creek(Lake 13-17-9-4-2-( WS-IV;CA FW Acres
Concord)
13888 Northwest Arm of Lake Concord
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I,AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Rocky River 13-17a FW Miles
2216 From source to mouth of Reedy Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2020
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 1998
Rocky River 13-17b1 C 9.2 FW Miles
13483 From Clarke Creek to Mallard Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2016
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008
6/7/2022 NC 2022 303d List-Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 190 of 192

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 303(D) LIST
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU_LengthArea AU—Units
AU ID Description
Rocky River 13-17b2 C 8.3 FW Miles
13700 From Mallard Creek to Reedy Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification
Copper(7 µg/I,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
Rocky River 13-17b3 C 3.2 FW Miles
13701 From Reedy Creek to Irish Buffalo Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2008
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2008
Rocky River 13-17c1 C 2.8 FW Miles
13484 From the Irish Buffalo Creek to Hamby Branch
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria LUlb
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2014
Copper(7 µg/I,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
Rocky River 13-17c2 C 5.9 FW Miles
13702 From Hamby Branch to Anderson Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2008
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2011
Rocky River 13-176 C 3," " FW Miles
13703 From Anderson Creek to Lanes Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2008
Copper(7 µg/I,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
Zinc(50 µg/I,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
6/7/2022 NC 2022 303d List-Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 191 of 192

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 303(D) LIST
Rocky Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification AU_LengthArea AU—Units
AU ID Description
Rocky River 13-17d C 29.3 FW Miles
2214 From the mouth of Island Creek to the Pee Dee River
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Turbidity(50 NTU,AL, FW miles) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2008
Copper Dissolved Chronic(Calcuated,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Exceeding Criteria with Statistical 2018
Confidence
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin 03040201 Lower Pee Dee
PEE DEE RIVER (including Blewett Falls Lake below 13-(26.5) WS-IV,B;CA 2,170.5 FW Acres
normal operating levels)
2190 From a point 0.8 mile downstream of mouth of Savannah Creek to Blewett Falls Dam
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/l,AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2018
South Fork Jones Creek 13-42-2 C 15.0 FW Miles
2754 From source to Jones Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Fish Community(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2020
Marks Creek(Boyds Lake, City Lake, Everetts Lake) 13-45-(2)a5 C 4.3 FW Miles
13887 From City Lake to NC 177
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
Marks Creek(Boyds Lake, City Lake, Everetts Lake) 13-45-(2)b C 13.3 FW Miles
2770 From NC 177 to N.C.-S.C. State Line
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos(Nar,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 1998
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin 1pr 03040202 Lynches
Polecat Creek 13-49-1 C 4.7 FW Miles
2788 From source to N.C.-S.C. State Line
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Dissolved Oxygen (4 mg/I,AL, FW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy RAMS Assessments
6/7/2022 NC 2022 303d List-Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 192 of 192

- • . - • • - • • + • - •
VS fl
-• -• '-•• -•• Sam Furr R1 �a a ' c \ . • • ♦ es
73
t
O .. ► \ O�y Srooe Or
McCord Rd \
775 ft \
Integrated Report: Clarke Creek McCord Ro, c o \
_ Northstone
• • + Number
- Country Club `Q 4S�
�C d
1 I
1 • --• •
ar`rJ<c,
AU Name Clarke Creek
,,,,,borough Rd 01.
(iaR` A \
i
CommunityAU Description From source to Rocky River
Parameter Fish + \,
-• -• '-•• • -•• Fermat,Church Rd Huntersville-C e�5 \`Q-Concord Rd \
IR -.. oncor
a
Classification \
_ ' \
v
.0- \�
A
� 1 OA Y unter,ville- a �d
Oehler Nature
_ _• Cc)rq 3 Preserve Oar
v c Rd o Qo
v
z f zi
2 r
4 Ir
Gilead Rd NJ --ON ' � = r
Skybrook
ce0 ngu�ra Golf Club r
Rosedale �j LA y`
D o AE
d o c
d Pdos O 0\a
••• •- G`1ea pellwood Or O 1 11 Pw
pcey Ave p 4 David B.
y� o Waymer Flying �J
Regional Park `
O ,a
y \tee ^ \
01
�d c
o� E �—' a o Eastfield �a
`r� 2 Regional Park o \ \
\�Oelf Or Lake Norman
e x
^o o` Charter High N� -a \
S, v
0
c
Huntersville \ G\a
Athletic
Community \
Highland Creek
850 ft
- Golf C`uh

Fur:
N 73 �y0 1
O � \
• © •• to d Rd \\ wry stone nr d
a
775 fr
• 7
McCord
Int
- • - • - • • • • • - - °o \
_ \ o
--• • AU ID 2384 Northstone a T
Country Club Q y f d
• -• • Number I
d
• - . • • _ Creek ,ar " %
1 . --• • rnborocrgh R \
A, \'1
AU Description From source to Clarke Creek r
Parameter • R�n�3Yr Church Rd Huntersville-Cop `e`� \e Concord
Ru' \
-• -• '-•• • -•• I corn, wP \
CategoryIR p°
Classification C
a
o` \
_ a
i rn Guntersville. c
y = Cor c Oehler Nature
Co
o Preserve
-• o z a
LL kP C r
C,�tedd Rd ceQ` an9Uor Skybrook
Golf Club
Rosedale o ap r
y Da//
d
D ood
�Cey Ave ellw Dr
David B. 4; �
••• •- 4` I Waymer Flying a i
Regional Park -
� � 1
^- u
IV
�
Z; ell
m r -
F`e\0 \ °aR
d c
E x—' v o o Eastfield �a \
°C Regional Park \
H \
Y y`r°etS Dr Lake Norman
J Charter High .A �� v
o
cp / Huntersville \, C�^`
Athletic
Community
Park
- SSOft Highland Creek �
Golf Club

• -• -•• -•• t Fat � � • • � _
• O Zoom to Pan ... 12 of 12 ► Ramob p�4
Huntersville•Cooco'
.- • Integrated ' - • • Rocky RiverSri
• -• • AU ID 2216
o`
w
� h
O C
♦
Number
• Oehler Nature 1
T
1 • -' • RockyPreserve
Po O
DescriptionAU
Creekke lr
Skybrook
-• -• -•• Parameter BenthosGolf Club
IR ry Q
'•• G' 0-
.a
• CPry drTen l�
•< t�
V
.- -• r r
O
Eastfield L` O
Regional Park o
eof
ear° Lake Norman
Charter High
r i � i✓�
Hu ntersvi lle
Athletic
Community I \ �
Park N I
' Highland Creek \ A—Put
O d, 850ft• Po Golf Club
cc
CL
ro r)0 CT
\ -
V
m St J Christe
•818ff �836ff { Qa e enbu" \ \ nb��y
J ys��e�J s ♦807 ft
`m a
hr Rrl Blythe Vr
" \ Q a
Elementary z Ridge Road
' O a MiddleJt0 Forest Ot \ \
osito '?idge 5,., 931 o
Carolina�� �cord't'�-r.

F
® < <7 \ r
• O Zoom to + Pan 3 of 7 ► -ConcordRd \
Cy
Huntersville-Concor �e
Integrated • - • • Rocky RiverAU ID 13483
jp
o a
AU Number 13-17bl
� • A c
00, _
• Oehler Nature �'
l
1 • --• • - Rocky River Preserve
lP" O
Creek
AU Description From Clarke Creek to Mallard
Skybrook = 1
Golf ClubIR s I
Q
Category
•• + d�
rdcP Pop/ ;
Classification C (I �a a�Te
j
0
�- -• ti \ \ Fri a
Eastfield �� c
Regional Park o
Lake Norman Qr is x
J Charter High
Huntersville t C
Athletic
Community
Park I Highland Creek \ on g+�,
t
n y •850�t 90 Golf Club \\ Aviac d
u �a Te „ -
\ a
A = rL \
CL
A
a 9 Chess
828ff 836fr t a 'rPnnury
v �a \ a
Blythe
Y �_ n
ye
Elementary + a A Ridge Road \ Q�
Middle O
Forestpt \ O
i O w Jtn \
o9h � RicJ9e� 7 ,;i�J C,a•cfin.\,\ C �cOru a.