DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOADINGASSESSMENT - FIRST QUARTER 2022
REPORT
Chemours Fayetteville Works
Prepared for

The Chemours Company FC, LLC
22828 NC Highway 87
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC
2501 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 430
Raleigh, NC 27607

Project Number TR0795A
6/30/2022

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................. 1

2

SCOPE .................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Sampling Activities in Q1 2022................................................................... 3
2.2 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program ............................... 3
2.3 Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program .............. 4
2.4 Laboratory Analyses .................................................................................... 5

3

PFAS MASS LOAD TO CAPE FEAR RIVER ................................................... 6
3.1 Q1 2022 Total PFAS Mass Load ................................................................. 7
3.2 Measured Mass at Bladen Bluffs, Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge and Kings Bluff
Intake Canal .......................................................................................................... 84

CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL ................................. 10
4.1 PFAS Mass Loading Model Pathways ...................................................... 10
4.2 Mass Loading Model Results .................................................................... 11
4.2.1 Reductions in Modeled Mass Discharge ....................................... 11
4.2.2 Relative Contributions by Pathway ............................................... 12
4.3 Mass Loading Model Sensitivities............................................................. 13
4.3.1 Variability in Input Parameters ..................................................... 135

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 14

6

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 16
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1PFAS Analyte List

Table 2

Surface Water Sample Collection and Flow Measurement Summary

Table 3Groundwater Monitoring Well Sample Collection and Water Level Measurement
Summary

Table 4

Summary of Calculated Total Mass Load in the Cape Fear River

Table 5A

Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load by Compound and Time Interval – Q1 2022

Table 5B

Old Outfall 002 Captured PFAS Mass Load by Compound and Time Interval –Q1 2022

Table 5C

Seep A Flow Through Cell Captured Mass Load by Compound and Time Interval– Q1 2022

Table 5D

Seep B Flow Through Cell Captured Mass Load by Compound and Time Interval– Q1 2022

TR0795Ai

Jun 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

Table 5E

Seep C Flow Through Cell Captured Mass Load by Compound and Time Interval– Q1 2022

Table 5F

Seep D Flow Through Cell Captured Mass Load by Compound and Time Interval– Q1 2022

Table 5G

Stormwater Treatment System Captured Mass Load by Compound and TimeInterval – Q1 2022

Table 6

Summary of Total PFAS Mass Discharge at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge

Table 7PFAS Mass Loading Model Potential Pathways

Table 8A

Summary of Total PFAS Mass Discharge by Pathway Before Remedies – January
2022

Table 8B

Summary of Total PFAS Mass Discharge by Pathway After Remedies – January
2022

Table 9Cape Fear River Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) Relative Mass Discharge Per
Pathway
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Site Location Map

Figure 2

Cape Fear River Watershed and Downstream Drinking Water Intakes

Figure 3

Sample and Flow Measurement Locations – January 2022

Figure 4

Cape Fear River Sample Locations – Q1 2022

Figure 5

Groundwater Wells for Mass Loading Assessment

Figure 6

Potential PFAS Transport Pathways to the Cape Fear River from Site

Figure 7

Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) Concentrations, Daily
Precipitation and Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge

Figure 8

Total Table 3+ Concentrations (17 Compounds) Mass Discharge, Daily
Precipitation and Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A

Sampling Results

Appendix B

Supplemental Tables

Appendix C

Field Forms

Appendix D

Laboratory Reports and DVM Report

Appendix E

Supporting Calculations – Onsite Groundwater Pathway

Appendix F

Supporting Calculations – Direct Aerial Deposition on Cape Fear River

TR0795Aii

Jun 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

List of Abbreviations
cfs

cubic feet per second

CFR-TARHEEL

Cape Fear River at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge

CO

Consent Order

CO Addendum

Addendum to Consent Order Paragraph 12

DVM

Data Verification Module

FTC

flow through cellkg

kilograms

mg/s

milligrams per second

m3

cubic metersng/Lnanograms per liter

NCDEQ

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

PFAS

pe- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFHpA

perfluoroheptanoic acidQ1

first quarter

Q2

second quarter

Q3

third quarter

Q4

fourth quarter

SOP

standard operating procedure

SWTS

Stormwater Treatment System

USGS

United States Geological Survey

TR0795A

iii

Jun 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

1

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C. (Geosyntec) has prepared this Cape Fear River PFAS Mass
Loading Assessment report for The Chemours Company, FC, LLC (Chemours). Chemours
operates the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina (the Site, Figure 1). This
report provides monitoring and assessment results pursuant to the requirements of Paragraphs 1(a)and 1(b) of the Addendum to Consent Order Paragraph 12 (CO Addendum) and Paragraph 16 of
the executed Consent Order (CO) dated 25 February 2019 among the North Carolina Departmentof Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Cape Fear River Watch, and Chemours.
The purpose of this report is to describe the first quarter 2022 (Q1 2022) PFAS Mass Loading
Assessment of the Cape Fear River based on the findings of surface water, river water, andgroundwater samples collected at and surrounding the Site. This is the ninth report prepared since
first quarter (Q1) 2020. Data collected were used to assess mass loading of total per- andpolyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the Cape Fear River. Total PFAS is a term used to refer to
PFAS detected in the environment for those PFAS compounds listed in Table 1 and analyzed by
the Table 3+ standard operating procedure (SOP) analytical method.
One year of monthly sampling of the mass loading model pathways per CO Paragraph 1(b) wascompleted in December 2021. In Q1 2022, quarterly sample collection of the mass loading model
pathways was initiated and will continue for a period of four years (through Q4 2026), as outlinedin the Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec 2020d).
There are two primary objectives for this report:
1. To assess Cape Fear River PFAS mass loads. Specifically:a. Mass loads measured in the Cape Fear River.
b. Mass loads prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by implemented remedies.
c. The projected mass load to the Cape Fear River, i.e., the sum of the two quantities
above.
2. To assess the relative PFAS loadings from the different PFAS transport pathways to theCape Fear River during the reporting period 1 using the Mass Loading Model.
The CO Addendum requires sampling the Cape Fear River for PFAS compounds listed in
Attachment C of the CO (Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2,
Geosyntec 2020d). Accordingly, this report contains data from January 2022 through March 2022,

1

One year of monthly sampling of the mass loading model pathways per CO Paragraph 1(b) concluded as ofDecember 2021 as per CO Paragraph 1(b) and the associated protocol document Cape Fear River Mass Loading
Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec 2020d). Quarterly sampling of these pathways was conducted andwill continue until Q4 2026.

TR0795A

1

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

and mass loading calculations and reporting are done on the set of PFAS compounds listed inTable 1, i.e., both “Table 3+” and “Attachment C”.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:•

Scope – This section describes the sampling programs performed in Q1 2022.

•

PFAS Mass Load to Cape Fear River – This section describes the assessments of Cape
Fear River PFAS Mass Loads.

•

Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model – This section describes the assessment of
the relative mass loading from the various PFAS transport pathways.

•

Summary – This section summarizes report findings.

TR0795A2

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

2

SCOPE

The Q1 2022 sampling was completed by Parsons of NC (Parsons) and Geosyntec from January
1st through March 31st, 2022. The scope of the sampling programs is summarized below, andcomplete descriptions of the field methods can be found in Appendix A.

2.1

Sampling Activities in Q1 2022

Q1 2022 sampling activities included:
1. The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program (January 2022 through March
2022) consisted of collecting twice weekly composite samples at Cape Fear River at Tar
Heel Ferry Road Bridge (CFR-TARHEEL).
2. The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program event (January 2022)
which consisted of the following:a. Collecting one synoptic round of groundwater elevations from select on and offsite
monitoring wells.
b. Collecting water samples for PFAS from 18 onsite and offsite monitoring wells 2.
c. Collecting seep, surface water, and river water samples for PFAS.
d. Measuring flow rates at specified seep and surface water locations.
The Q1 2022 Mass Loading Model Sampling Program events were conducted during dry weather.
Each program is described in further detail below.

Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program

2.2

The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program consists of collecting twice weekly
composite samples from the sampling location at CFR-TARHEEL, approximately 7 miles
downstream of the Site (Figure 2). This location is situated downstream of the Site such that waterfrom the seeps, onsite groundwater, Outfall 002, Old Outfall 002 and Georgia Branch Creek arewell mixed in the river.
Composite samples were collected using an autosampler and were generally composited over 24hours with aliquots collected at one-hour intervals. Two samples per week were collected and sent
for analysis of the PFAS listed in Table 1.
Interruptions to the sampling program may occur due to events such as vandalism, equipment
malfunction, or a high river stage, which will flood the platform and necessitates sampler removal.
2

Bladen-1D is damaged and could not be sampled in Q1 2022. PW-11 could not be sampled in Q1 2022 since it
is being pumped as part of the Interim Black Creek Aquifer interim pumping program.

TR0795A

3

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

During interruptions, field protocol is to collect a grab sample from the river twice per week at the
CFR-TARHEEL location to continue establishing a record of river concentrations over time.
During the reporting period between January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2022, there were nointerruptions recorded, resulting in collection of 23 primary composite samples, three field
duplicate composite samples, and three grab samples over the reporting period.
The data collected from the PFAS Mass Load Sampling Program were used to estimate PFAS
mass loads in the Cape Fear River using concentrations from the CFR-TARHEEL location andflows as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) river gauging station at the W.O.
Huske Dam (Figure 2). Details of the sample collection methods, flow measurement methods, andcalculation methods were reported in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation
Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec, 2020d). Mass load calculations are provided in Section 3 andsampling results are presented in Appendix A.
2.3

Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling Program

The Mass Loading Model Sampling Program for this reporting period consisted of collecting
concentration and flow data from the various PFAS transport pathways in January 2022.
Environmental media sampled were surface water (seeps, creeks, Old Outfall, Outfall 002, andCape Fear River) and groundwater. Surface and river water sampling and flow gauging locations
for the Q1 2022 event are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figures 3 and 4. Groundwater sampling
locations for the Q1 2022 event are shown on Figure 5 and listed in Table 3. Collected samples
were evaluated for the PFAS compounds listed in Table 1.
In January 2022, 24-hour composite samples could not be collected at the influent and effluent of
the FTC’s at Seeps A and C due to issues described in the “Interim Seep Remediation Operationand Maintenance Report #7” (Geosyntec, 2022a). Therefore, the effluent and influent samples
collected for the January 2022 Seep Flow Through cell performance monitoring program wereused for Seeps A and C mass loading calculations.
The data collected from these Q1 2022 field activities were then incorporated into the Mass
Loading Model to estimate PFAS mass discharge from the nine potential transport pathways to theCape Fear River (Figure 6), as identified in the Conceptual Site Model (Geosyntec, 2019) anddiscussed in more detail in Section 4.
Details of the sample collection methods, flow measurement methods, and calculation methods
were reported in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2(Geosyntec, 2020d). Mass Loading Model results are provided in Section 4.2 and sampling results
are presented in Appendix A.

TR0795A

4

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

2.4

Laboratory Analyses

Samples were analyzed for PFAS by Table 3+ Laboratory SOP. The focus of this report is on theset of PFAS originating from manufacturing activities at the Site; therefore, results of sampling
activities and assessments of mass loading were performed and presented with respect to the PFAS
groupings presented in Table 1: (i) Attachment C, (ii) Table 3+ (17 compounds) 3, and(iii) Table 3+ (20 compounds).
For clarity, the text, tables and figures of this report describe the Total Table 3+ (17 compounds),
though the report tables also include results for Total Attachment C and Total Table 3+ (20compounds).
The calculations for Total Attachment C PFAS concentrations include the fluoroether PFAS on
the Attachment C list, i.e., excludes perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA). As presented in the Cape
Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – Third Quarter 2020 Report (Geosyntec, 2020e), thepresence of PFHpA upstream and offsite are unrelated to the Site. PFHpA is already present in the
upstream river from other sources and is therefore excluded from the Attachment C sum. This
represents a modification to the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol
Version 2 submitted to NCDEQ on November 18, 2020 (Geosyntec, 2020d).

3

As reported in the Matrix Interference During Analysis of Table 3+ Compounds memorandum (Geosyntec,
2020a), matrix interference studies conducted by the analytical laboratory (TestAmerica, Sacramento) haveshown that the quantitation of three compounds (R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE) is inaccurate due tointerferences by the sample matrix in both groundwater and surface water. Total Table 3+ PFAS concentrations
are calculated and presented two ways in this report: (i) summing over 17 of the 20 Table 3+ compounds “Total
Table 3+ (17 compounds)”, i.e., excluding results of R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE, and (ii)summing over 20 of the Table 3+ compounds “Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)”

TR0795A

5

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

3

PFAS MASS LOAD TO CAPE FEAR RIVER

This section presents results of the Cape Fear River PFAS mass loads for the Q1 2022 reporting
period of January 2022 through March 31, 2022. Specifically, this section discusses three types ofmass loads defined in Equation 1.
Equation 1: Total PFAS Mass Loadwhere,

𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝑚𝑚𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝑚𝑚𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = is the Projected Mass Load of PFAS compounds in the Cape Fear River, including
the mass load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River by implemented remedies,measured in kilograms (kg).
𝑚𝑚𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = is the Actual In-River Mass Load estimated using PFAS concentrations in samples
taken in the Cape Fear River downstream of the Site where the river is well mixed andusing measured river flow volumes.
𝑚𝑚𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = is the Captured Mass Load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River byremedies implemented by Chemours.

Remedies that have been implemented by Chemours through Q1 2022 4 include:•

Old Outfall 002 treatment system (October 1, 2020)•

Seep C FTC (December 16, 2020)•

Seep A FTC (April 28, 2021)•

Seep B FTC (June 8, 2021)•

Seep D FTC (June 24, 2021)•

Outfall 002 Stormwater Treatment System (SWTS; June 30, 2021) 5

These remedies prevent PFAS mass loads from reaching the Cape Fear River and were quantified
in the 𝑚𝑚𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 term of Equation 1. The specific methodology for estimating the prevented mass
per remedy was developed on a per remedy basis and details of these calculations are provided in
4

5

There have been numerous other interim and permanent actions taken to limit PFAS reaching the Cape Fear
River prior to Q1 2022, i.e., air abatement measures (installation of the thermal oxidizer and carbon beds, etc.),
grouting of the terracotta pipe, sediment removal from onsite channels, among others, and these may not bereflected in the captured mass load calculations but should be considered in the overall assessment of PFAS
reductions.
Diversion sumps in the conveyance network surrounding the Monomers/IXM area capture stormwater flowsthat would otherwise flow to Outfall 002 and transfers the stormwater to the SWTS for treatment. The diversion
sumps and SWTS are designed to convey and then treat stormwater from storm events up to 1-inch over 24hours. Further details on the SWTS are provided in the Stormwater Treatment System Capture and Removal
Efficiency Report (Geosyntec, 2021a).

TR0795A

6

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec, 2020d).
The goal of these calculations is to estimate the Total PFAS mass diverted from reaching the Cape
Fear River by the remedy that would have otherwise reached the Cape Fear River.

3.1

Q1 2022 Total PFAS Mass Load

During the Q1 2022 reporting period, the in-river Total Table 3+ mass load measured at CFRTARHEEL was 33.1 kg and the Total Table 3+ mass load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear
River was 37.9 kg. The installation of remedies at Old Outfall 002, at Seeps A, B, C, and D, andOutfall 002 (Table 4) resulted in the prevented Total Table 3+ load. The sum of these two loads,
the in-river and remedy reduction load, was 70.9 kg, representing the projected total PFAS massload towards the Cape Fear River.
The total measured and estimated in-river mass load (33.1 kg) was based on the 46 mass loading
estimation intervals presented in Table 5A. The total measured and estimated mass load captured
by remedies implemented by Chemours (37.9 kg) was based on the concentrations in samples
collected at the influent and effluent stilling basins (as reported in Appendix A) and measured
flows at the Old Outfall 002 treatment system, the Seep A, B, C, and D FTCs, and the SWTS
(Tables 5B to 5G).
For the Old Outfall 002 treatment system, a total of 9.8 kg of PFAS was captured and prevented
from reaching the Cape Fear River with a total treated flow of 250,000 cubic meters (m3)(Table 5B). The captured mass varied among the Seeps and ranged from 1.3 kg (Seep C) to 17 kg(Seep B). This range in captured mass loads can be attributed to the differences in influent flows
and concentrations among the Seeps. Specifically, for the Seep A FTC, a total of 5.8 kg was
captured and prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River with a total flow of 38,779 m3(Table 5C). For the Seep B FTC, a total of 17 kg was captured and prevented from reaching theCape Fear River with a total flow of 79,403 m3 (Table 5D). For the Seep C FTC, a total of 1.3 kg
was captured and prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River with a total flow 14,768 m3(Table 5E). For the Seep D FTC, a total of 4.0 kg was captured and prevented from reaching theCape Fear River with a total flow of 44,350 m3 (Table 5F).
The SWTS captures PFAS originating from Stormwater in the Monomers/IXM area that would
otherwise flow to Outfall 002 during storm events. When stormwater is being treated at the SWTS,
HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA concentrations are measured in the SWTS influent and effluent
flows. The captured total mass of HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA during storm events between
January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2022 was 0.33 kg. This estimate was based on mass loading
estimates for 21 individual treatment events between January 1, 2022 and March 31, 2022 with a
total treated flow of 7,544 m3 (Table 5G). This captured total mass represents a minimum mass of
PFAS captured by the SWTS during Q1 2022, since the samples collected are only analyzed forthe three indicator compounds HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA and not the full Table 3+ analyte
list.

TR0795A

7

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

The in-river Total PFAS mass discharge calculated from samples collected in Q1 2022 areprovided in Table 6, while those from previous quarters are presented in Appendix B. For Q1
2022, the Total Table 3+ mass discharge among samples with detected Total Table 3+ PFAS
concentrations ranged from 0.32 milligrams per second (mg/s) (CFR-TARHEEL-24-021822) to
9.9 mg/s (CFR-TARHEEL-24-010322), with the median mass discharge being 2.4 mg/s.
The plots of Total Table 3+ concentrations over time are presented in Figure 7 and indicate that,generally, concentrations in the Cape Fear River are inversely correlated to river flow rate. Thatis, concentrations were higher when flow rates were lowest, while concentrations were lower whenriver flow rates were higher.
The plots of Total Table 3+ mass discharge since the beginning of the sampling program(March 28, 2020) are shown on Figure 8. Over this timeframe, the range of mass discharge acrossall samples with detected concentrations of Table 3+ PFAS was 0.32 mg/s (CFR-TARHEEL-24021822) to 50.8 mg/s (CFR-TARHEEL-20-111220), though the mass discharges are typicallybetween 1 and 20 mg/s with approximately 94% of the data falling within this range. Figure 8
shows that the measured mass discharges at CFR-TARHEEL in Q1 2022 and Q4 2021 are lower
than previous results, particularly when compared to mass discharges before the seep FTC
remedies were operational.

3.2

Measured Mass at Bladen Bluffs, Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge andKings Bluff Intake Canal

The Total Table 3+ concentrations and mass discharge values from the Q1 2022 event are shownin the table below. Total Table 3+ concentrations at the three downstream river locations ranged
from 16 nanograms per liter (ng/L) (CFR-TARHEEL and CFR-BLADEN) to 24 ng/L (CFRKINGS). The CFR-TARHEEL and CFR-BLADEN locations are located within 2 miles of eachother and consequently often have similar sample results. Meanwhile, the CFR-KINGS location
is located further away (i.e., 48 miles from the CFR-TARHEEL location). As per the Cape Fear
River Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec 2020d), CFR-KINGS was
sampled two days after CFR-TARHEEL and CFR-BLADEN to account for travel time between
these two locations and CFR-KINGS.
As per the Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec 2020d),
flows reported at W.O. Huske Dam (Station #2105500) are adjusted for travel time and used in thecalculation of mass discharge for CFR-TARHEEL and CFR-BLADEN. Flows reported at Cape
Fear Lock and Dam #1 (Station #2105769) are used in the calculation of mass discharge for Kings
Bluff.
The Total Table 3+ mass discharge ranged from 3.0 mg/s (CFR-TARHEEL and CFR-BLADEN)
to 3.6 mg/s (CFR-KINGS). In Q1 2022, there is inherent variability associated with river sample
collection due to changing flow rates, precipitation near the Site and along the course of the river,sample collection location, and grab sampling methods, which often leads to variability in theTR0795A

8

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

PFAS mass discharge at these three locations. In Q1 2022, the mass discharge across the threedownstream river locations was relatively consistent. The mass discharge at the downstream river
locations was also consistently lower in Q1 2022 and Q4 2021 than in previous assessments, which
may reflect the reduced mass discharge from the Site due to implemented remedies described in
Section 3.
Sample Location
CFR-BLADENCFR-TARHEEL
CFR-KINGS

TR0795A

SampleCollection
MonthJanuary2022

Total Table 3+
MassConcentration
Discharge(ng/L)(mg/s)
16
3.0

SampleCollection
Date

Flow Rate (cfs)

1/26/2022

6,560

1/26/2022

6,560

16

3.0

1/28/2022

5,350

24

3.6

9

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

4

CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL

Where Section 3 presented the Total Table 3+ PFAS mass load in the Cape Fear River, this section
presents the estimation of mass discharge from the identified PFAS transport pathways using themass loading model and an assessment of the relative contributions by pathway. The following
subsections describe the transport pathways and the results of the Mass Loading Modelassessment, including the sensitivity and the limitations of the Mass Loading Model.

4.1

PFAS Mass Loading Model Pathways

The nine potential pathways representing compartments to the PFAS Mass Loading Model arebriefly described below and described in more detail in the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading
Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec, 2020d). The following pathways were identified as
potential contributors of PFAS to the river PFAS concentrations:•

Transport Pathway 1: Upstream Cape Fear River and Groundwater – This pathway iscomprised of contributions from non-Chemours related PFAS sources on the Cape Fear
River and tributaries upstream of the Site, and upstream offsite groundwater with PFAS
present from aerial deposition.

•

Transport Pathway 2: Willis Creek – Groundwater and stormwater discharge and aerial
deposition to Willis Creek and then to the Cape Fear River.

•Transport Pathway 3: Direct aerial deposition of PFAS on the Cape Fear River (seeAppendix F for further details).

•

Transport Pathway 4: Outfall 002 – Comprised of (i) water drawn from the Cape Fear
River and used as non-contact cooling water, (ii) treated non-Chemours process water, (iii)
Site stormwater, (iv) steam condensate, and (v) power neutralization discharge, which arethen discharged through Outfall 002.

•

Transport Pathway 5: Onsite Groundwater – Direct upwelling of onsite groundwater tothe Cape Fear River from the Black Creek Aquifer (see Appendix E for further details).

•

Transport Pathway 6: Seeps – Onsite groundwater seeps A, B, C and D and offsite Lockand Dam Seep above the Cape Fear River water level on the bluff face from the facility
that discharge into the Cape Fear River.

•Transport Pathway 7: Old Outfall 002 – Groundwater discharge to Old Outfall 002 andstormwater runoff that flows into the Cape Fear River.

•Transport Pathway 8: Adjacent and Downstream Offsite Groundwater – Offsite
groundwater adjacent and downstream of the Site upwelling to the Cape Fear River (seeCape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2 [Geosyntec, 2020d]
for further details).

TR0795A

10

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC•

Transport Pathway 9: Georgia Branch Creek – Groundwater, stormwater discharge andaerial deposition to Georgia Branch Creek and then to the Cape Fear River.

For the Q1 2022 Mass Loading Model assessments, data sources used as model inputs for eachpotential pathway are described in Table 7. These data sources included flow measurements, waterlevels and analytical results from the Q1 2022 sampling event (as discussed in Appendix A) andsupplemental data provided in Appendices B, E, and F.

4.2

Mass Loading Model Results

The Total PFAS mass discharges are summarized in Tables 8A and 8B. Analyte-specific massdischarges estimated from the Mass Loading Model are provided in Appendix B. A comparisonof relative contributions per pathway for the Q1 2022 MLM assessments is provided in Table 9.
4.2.1

Reductions in Modeled Mass Discharge

The model estimated “Before Remedies” and “After Remedies” Total PFAS mass discharge values
from the Q1 2022 event are provided in Tables 8A and 8B, respectively. The reduction in Total
Table 3+ mass discharges after remedies, calculated as the difference between the Total Table 3+
mass discharges after remedies and the Total Table 3+ mass discharges before remedies, issummarized in the table below. Additionally, the operation of the Old Outfall 002 treatment system
and Seep A, B, C, and D FTCs, were effective at reducing the Total Table 3+ mass discharge by
5.8 mg/s. More specifically, the reduction of mass discharge was 1.1 mg/s at Old Outfall 002; 1.7
mg/s at Seep A; 2.2 mg/s at Seep B, 0.19 mg/s at Seep C; and 0.55 mg/s at Seep D.

TR0795A

11

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

Pathway
Mass Discharge Reduction from Remedies

After Remedies Reduction in Model-EstimatedTotal Table 3+ Mass Discharge (mg/s)1
January 2022
5.8

Old Outfall 002

1.1

Seep A

1.7

Seep B

2.2

Seep C

0.19
0.55

Seep D
Outfall 002--

2

1 - The after remedies reduction in Total Table 3+ mass discharges is the amountprevented from reaching the Cape Fear River due to the implemented remedies,calculated as the difference between the Total Table 3+ mass discharges after
remedies and the Total Table 3+ mass discharges before remedies.
2 - The SWTS treats stormwater flows captured in the conveyance network
surrounding the Monomers/IXM area that would otherwise flow to Outfall 002.
There was no stormwater flow being treated by the SWTS during the January 2022
sampling event (January 26-27, 2022). Over the duration of Q1 when stormwater
was flowing to the SWTS, it removed 99% or greater of HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, andPMPA from the influent flow.
Overall, the mass discharge reductions have increased in Q3 2021 through Q1 2022 compared toQ2 2021, since all four Seep FTCs and the SWTS became operational prior to Q3 2021. As
discussed in Section 3.1, the four seep FTCs have been capturing and reducing the overall PFAS
mass entering the Cape Fear River during Q1 2022.
4.2.2

Relative Contributions by Pathway

The relative contributions per pathway for the Q1 2022 MLM assessments is provided in Table 9.
The most significant pathways before remediation occurs (i.e., upstream of the remedies) continue
to be the Seeps (approximately 36%) and Onsite Groundwater (approximately 50 to 51%) for
January 2022, which is consistent with previous events (Geosyntec, 2020b; Geosyntec, 2020c;
Geosyntec, 2020e; Geosyntec, 2021c; Geosyntec, 2021d; Geosyntec, 2021e; Geosyntec, 2021f;
Geosyntec, 2022b).
In previous assessments Old Outfall 002 and the Seeps were significant contributors to the total
mass discharge. The implementation of the Old Outfall 002 treatment system has reduced theoverall loading from Old Outfall 002 to less than 1% of the Total Table 3+ mass load reaching theCape Fear River (Table 9). The implementation of the Seeps FTCs has also reduced the overallloading from the Seeps from 36% to approximately 4% of the Total Table 3+ mass load reaching
the Cape Fear River (Table 9).

TR0795A

12

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

4.3

Mass Loading Model Sensitivities

As described in previous Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment reports (Geosyntec,
2020b; Geosyntec, 2020c; Geosyntec, 2020e; Geosyntec, 2021c; Geosyntec, 2021d; Geosyntec
2021e; Geosyntec, 2021f; Geosyntec, 2022b), the Mass Loading Model is a suitable tool toevaluate which PFAS transport pathways are significant contributors of mass to the Cape Fear
River.
4.3.1

Variability in Input Parameters

The Mass Loading Model assessments provide PFAS mass discharge estimates and relative
proportions of loadings for a ‘snapshot’ in time. While controlling for temporal variability, themodel-based mass discharge estimates contain some level of uncertainty due to the inherent
variability and measurement error in the input parameters, e.g., flow, concentrations, etc. To better
understand the sensitivity of the model to the various pathway-specific input parameters, theuncertainties associated with the input parameters were used to conduct a sensitivity analysis in
the Q1 2020 report (Geosyntec, 2020b), and the model sensitivity is being evaluated as site
conditions change.
The ongoing sensitivity analysis has indicated that there are input parameters that are currently
overestimating the mass loading to the river, including Segment 8 of the onsite groundwater term
(Transport Pathway 5, see Appendix E). Additional wells being installed as part of the
Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) should improve the resolution on Segment 8 and reduce theuncertainty in the groundwater term.

TR0795A

13

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

5SUMMARY

Two sampling programs were conducted in Q1 2022:•

The PFAS Mass Load Sampling program consisting of 23 composite samples and 3 grab
samples collected at the Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge. The analytical results of thesesamples were used to calculate the in-river PFAS mass loads in the Cape Fear River during
the reporting period and to calculate the Baseline Mass Load.

•

The PFAS Mass Loading Model Sampling program collected 45 water samples from the
PFAS transport pathways and receptors (seeps, creeks, Old Outfall, Outfall 002,
groundwater and Cape Fear River) and paired water flow measurements and estimates.
These data were used to assess the relative loadings per transport pathway to the Cape Fear
River using the PFAS Mass Loading Model for a sampling event in January 2022.

The Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Load assessment at CFR-TARHEEL estimated the Total PFAS
that was either discharged or prevented from being discharged to the Cape Fear River over theload assessment period of January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022. Over this period, 33.1 kg was
the in-river Total Table 3+ mass load measured at CFR-TARHEEL and 37.9 kg was the Total
Table 3+ mass load prevented from reaching the Cape Fear River due to the installation of remedies
at Old Outfall 002, at Seeps A, B, C, and D, and at Outfall 002. In the last three quarters (i.e., Q1
2022, Q4 2021 and Q3 2021), the measured in-river mass load has been lower than the captured
mass load.
The PFAS Mass Loading Model estimated “Before Remedies” and “After Remedies” massdischarge estimates from the PFAS transport pathways between January 26 to 28, 2022. Over thisperiod, the implementation of remedies at the Old Outfall 002 and Seeps A, B, C, and D resulted
in reductions of model-estimated mass discharges of about 5.8 mg/s. These reductions represent
the estimate of reductions for a single mass loading event and are similar to model-estimatedreductions reported in Q4 2022 (Geosyntec, 2022b).
In terms of relative contributions, the pathways with the largest PFAS mass discharges continue
to be the Seeps (Transport Pathway 6) and Onsite Groundwater (Transport Pathway 5). Previous
assessments (Geosyntec: 2020b; 2020c; 2020e; 2021c; 2021d; 2021e) indicated that Old Outfall
002 (Pathway 7) was also a contributor, where the Old Outfall 002 Before Remedies Load in Q1
2022 contributed between 6% and 10% of the potential Total Table 3+ mass load reaching theCape Fear River. Implementation of the Old Outfall 002 treatment system has reduced thispotential loading to less than 1% of the Total Table 3+ mass load reaching the Cape Fear River.
The Seeps Before Remedies Load in Q1 2022 contributed approximately 36% of the potential
Total Table 3+ mass load reaching the Cape Fear River. Remedy implementation at Seeps A, B,
C, and D has reduced this potential loading to approximately 4% of the Total Table 3+ mass load
reaching the Cape Fear River.

TR0795A

14

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

The intent of the Mass Loading Model is to estimate Table 3+ PFAS loading to the Cape Fear
River over time and to evaluate changes in the loading that are the result of remedy
implementation. Over the course of the Mass Loading Model evaluations, decreases have been
observed in the in-river mass loads, as well as corresponding increases in the mass removed by theremedies. The remedy reduction mass loads are expected to increase following implementation of
additional remedies onsite.
Quarterly sample collection was initiated in January 2022 and will continue for a period of four
years (through Q4 2026), as outlined in the Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculation Protocol
Version 2 (Geosyntec 2020d), as one year of monthly sampling of the mass loading model
pathways per CO Paragraph 1(b) was completed in December 2021. Assessment of PFAS massloads will continue in future sampling events, including evaluation of reductions in mass loads
from the model pathways due to the implemented remedies and calculations of measured massloads at CFR-TARHEEL.

TR0795A

15

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

6REFERENCES

Geosyntec, 2019. On and Offsite Assessment. Chemours Fayetteville Works. September 30,
2019.
Geosyntec, 2020a. Matrix Interference During Analysis of Table 3+ Compounds. Chemours
Fayetteville Works. June 30, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020b. Cape Fear River Table 3+ PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – First Quarter2020 Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. July 31, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020c. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – Second Quarter 2020
Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. September 30, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020d. Cape Fear River Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2, Chemours
Fayetteville Works. November 18, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2020e. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – Third Quarter 2020
Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. December 23, 2020.
Geosyntec, 2021a. Stormwater Treatment System Capture and Removal Efficiency Report,
Chemours Fayetteville Works. September 30, 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021b. Interim Seep Remediation – Seep A Effectiveness Demonstration Report,
Chemours Fayetteville Works. August 26, 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021c. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – Fourth Quarter 2020
Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. March 31, 2021.
Geosyntec, 2021d. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – First Quarter 2021
Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. June 30, 2021.
Geosyntec 2021e. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – Second Quarter 2021
Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. September 30, 2021.
Geosyntec 2021f. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – Third Quarter 2021
Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. December 23, 2021.
Geosyntec, 2022a. Interim Seep Remediation and Operation and Maintenance Report #7,
Chemours Fayetteville Works. March 31, 2022.
Geosyntec 2022b. Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Assessment – Fourth Quarter 2021
Report, Chemours Fayetteville Works. March 31, 2022.

TR0795A

16

Jun-2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TablesTR0795A

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 1PFAS ANALYTE LIST
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

PFAS Grouping
1

CASN

Chemical Formula

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid13252-13-6

C6HF11O3✔

Perfluoro-2-ethoxypropionic acid267239-61-2

C5HF9O3✔

✔

Perfluoro-4-isopropoxybutanoic acid

801212-59-9

C12H9F9O3S

✔

✔

✔

Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid674-13-5

C3HF5O3PFO2HxA✔

✔

✔

Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid39492-88-1

C4HF7O4PFO3OA✔

✔

✔

Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid39492-89-2

C5HF9O5PFO4DA✔

✔

✔

Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic acid39492-90-5

C6HF11O6

PMPA

✔

✔

✔

Perfluoro-2-methoxypropionic acid

13140-29-9

C4HF7O3

Hydro-EVE Acid

--

✔

✔

2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-3-({1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-3-[(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl)oxy]propan-2-yl}oxy)propionic acid773804-62-9

C8H2F14O4

EVE Acid--✔

✔

2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-3-({1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-3-[(1,2,2-trifluoroethenyl)oxy]propan-2-yl}oxy)propionic acid

69087-46-3

C8HF13O4PFECA B--✔

✔

Perfluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid

151772-58-6

C5HF9O4

R-EVE

--

--

✔

Pentanoic acid, 4-(2-carboxy-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)-2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-

2416366-22-6

C8H2F12O5

PFO5DA✔

✔

✔

Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid39492-91-6

C7HF13O7

R-PSDA----✔

Pentanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-4-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)-2416366-18-0

C7H2F12O6S

R-PSDCA--✔

✔

Ethanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-[1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)propoxy]-2416366-21-5

C6H2F12O4S

Hydrolyzed PSDA

--

--

✔

Acetic acid, 2-fluoro-2-[1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)propoxy]-2416366-19-1

C7H3F11O7S

NVHOS

--

✔

✔

1,1,2,2,4,5,5,5-heptafluoro-3-oxapentanesulfonic acid; or 2-(1,2,2,2-ethoxy)tetrafluoroethanesulfonic acid; or 1(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-2-sulfoethoxy)-1,2,2,2-tetafluoroethane

801209-99-4

C4H2F8O4S

PES

--

✔

✔

Perfluoro-2-ethoxyethanesulfonic acid

113507-82-7

C4HF9O4S

PS Acid✔

✔

✔

29311-67-9

C7HF13O5S

Hydro-PS Acid

✔

✔

✔

Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[1-[difluoro[(1,2,2-trifluoroethenyl)oxy]methyl]-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,1,2,2tetrafluoroEthanesulfonic acid, 2-[1-[difluoro(1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)methyl]-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy]-1,1,2,2tetrafluoro-

749836-20-2

C7H2F14O5S

PFHpA2✔

----

Perfluoroheptanoic acid375-85-9

C7HF13O2

Common Name

Attachment C

Table 3+(17 compounds)

Table 3+(20 compounds)

HFPO-DA2

✔

✔

✔

PEPA

✔

✔

PFECA-G✔

PFMOAA

Chemical Name

Notes:
1 - Analyzed under analytical method Table 3+ Lab SOP.
2 - HFPO-DA and PFHpA can be analyzed under methods Table 3+ SOP and EPA Method 537 Mod.
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
PFAS - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC
TABLE 2
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND FLOW MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

January 2022
Pathway / Location
Upstream River Water and
Groundwater3
Willis Creek

Location ID

Location Description

Flow Measurement Method2

CFR-RM-76

Cape Fear River Mile 76

Grab

USGS DataWC-1

24-hour composite

Marsh-McBirney Flow

24-hour composite

Facility DMRs

21-hour composite4

Facility DMRs

5

--

--5

11-day composite6
24-hour composite--7

Stormwater Treatment System

STS DISCHARGE

Seep ASEEP-A-EFF

Mouth of Willis Creek
Water Drawn Through the Intake
Sampled at the Power Area at the
Site
Outfall 002 in open channel
Monomers/IXM Stormwater
Treatment System Effluent
Effluent Basin of Seep A FTC

Seep B

SEEP-B-EFF

Effluent Basin of Seep B FTCIntake River Water at Facility

INTAKE AT FACILITY

Outfall 002

Outfall 002

11-day composite
24-hour composite

FTC8
Flume
Flume

Grab

Bucket and timer

--10

--10

19-hour composite11

Marsh-McBirney Flow

Mouth of Georgia Branch Creek

Grab

Marsh-McBirney Flow

CFR-TARHEEL

Cape Fear River at Tar Heel
Ferry Road Bridge

Grab

USGS Data

CFR-BLADEN

Cape Fear River at Bladen Bluffs

Grab

USGS Data

CFR-KINGS

Cape Fear River at Kings Bluff
Raw Water

Grab

USGS Data

Seep C
Seep D

SEEP-C-EFF
SEEP-D-EFF

Lock and Dam Seep

LOCK-DAM SEEP

Lock and Dam North

LOCK-DAM-NORTHOld Outfall 002
Georgia Branch Creek

OLDOF-1

Effluent Basin of Seep C FTC
Effluent Basin of Seep D FTCSouthside of the boat ramp at the
Lock and Dam Seep
Northside of the boat ramp at the
Lock and Dam Seep
Mouth of Old Outfall 002

GBC-1

Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge3
Bladen Bluffs3
Kings Bluffs12

Sample Collection
Method1

9Notes:
1 - Samples analyzed for PFAS by EPA Method 537 Mod and Table 3+ Lab SOP.
2 - Estimated flow results are included in Appendix A Table A3. Supplemented flow measurement data are included in Appendix B.
3 - USGS data measurements were recorded from the USGS flow gauging station at the W.O. Huske Dam, ID 02105500 (USGS, 2022).
4 - The ISCO experienced an error and did not collect sample for the final three hours.
5 - No sample was collected and flow was not measured at the Stormwater Treatment System because there was no flow at that location during the sampling
event.
6 - The 11-day composite sample from the Seep FTC Sampling event was used instead because there was maintenance occurring at Seep A during the 24hour composite sampling.
7 - Instantaneous flows were estimated using median wet weather flows measured at the Seep A flume during Q1 2020 (Geosyntec, 2021b) because there
were flume damage and channel blockage at Seep A from a 4-inch rainfall.
8 - The flows from Seep B FTC were used instead because the flume was flooded from high river levels during the sampling event.
9 - The 11-day composite sample from the Seep Flow Through Cell Sampling event was used instead because the Seep C FTC was clogged during the 24hour composite sampling.
10 - A sample was not collected and flow was not measured at Lock and Dam Seep North since the location was flooded during the sampling event.
11 - The ISCO experienced an error and did not collect sample for the final five hours.
12 - Flow rate measured at USGS gauging station #02105769 located at Lock #1 near Kelly used to estimate flow rate at Kings Bluff.
-- - not measured
DMRs - Discharge Monitoring Reports
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
USGS - United States Geological Survey
FTC - Flow-through cell
PFAS - per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
ISCO - In situ Chemical Oxidation

TR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 3
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL SAMPLE COLLECTION AND WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Area

Water Bearing
Unit1

Well ID

Adjacent Surface Water
FeatureOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteFloodplain
Black Creek
Floodplain
Floodplain
Black Creek

LTW-01
LTW-02
LTW-03
LTW-04LTW-05

OnsiteSurficial

OnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOnsiteOffsiteFloodplain
Black Creek
Black Creek
Floodplain
Surficial
Surficial
Surficial
Black Creek
Black Creek
Black Creek
Surficial
Surficial
Black Creek
Black Creek

January 2022

Sample Collection
Date

Synoptic Water
Level Date

Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River

1/25/2022
1/25/2022
1/25/2022
1/18/2022
1/18/2022

1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022

PIW-1D

Cape Fear River / Willis Creek

1/24/2022

1/6/2022

PIW-1S
PIW-3D
PIW-7D
PIW-7S
PW-04
PW-06
PW-07
PW-09

Cape Fear River / Willis Creek
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Old Outfall
Georgia Branch Creek
Georgia Branch Creek
Willis Creek
Old Outfall
Cape Fear River
Willis Creek
Willis Creek
Willis Creek
Georgia Branch Creek

1/24/2022
1/25/2022
1/18/2022
1/18/2022
1/25/2022
1/13/2022
1/27/2022
1/7/2022

1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022
1/6/2022

PW-112
PZ-22
SMW-10
SMW-11
SMW-12
Bladen-1D3--2
1/18/2022
1/7/2022
1/13/2022
1/24/2022--3

Notes:
1 - Water Bearing Unit - refers to the primary aquifer unit where the well screen is estimated to be located.
2 - PW-11 could not be sampled in Q1 2022 because it was being pumped as part of the Black Creek interim pumping program.
3 - Bladen-1D is damaged and could not be sampled in Q1 2022.
-- - Sample not collected

TR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 4
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED TOTAL MASS LOAD IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Total Attachment C2

Reporting Period Details
Reporting Period1
2021-Q2
2021-Q3
2021-Q4
2022-Q1

Start Date

End Date

3/31/21 23:01
7/1/21 23:01
9/30/21 23:01
12/30/21 23:01

7/1/21 23:01
9/30/21 23:01
12/30/21 23:01
3/31/22 23:01

Days River volume (m3)
92
91
91
91

701,860,000
590,440,000
275,300,000
1,442,100,000

Projected Load toCape Fear River
(kg)4
118.5
96.7
61.1
68.6

Remedy Reduction
Loads (kg)5
43.3
58.0
43.9
37.5

Measured Load in
Cape Fear River
(kg)6
75.1
38.7
17.2
31.1

Notes:
1 - Calculated total mass loads by compound and time interval are provided in Tables 5A though
5G for 2022 Q1 and in Appendix B for previous reporting periods.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), R-PSDA,
Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
4 - Projected load to the Cape Fear River represents baseline load that would reach the Cape Fear
River in the absence of any remedies. This is calculated as the total of the measured load in theCape Fear River and the calculated remedy reduction load.
5 - Calculated remedy reduction loads represent the total load that was prevented from reaching
the Cape Fear River. This is calculated as the total load from Old Outfall 002, Seeps A to D and
the Stormwater Treatment System.
6 - Measured load in Cape Fear River represent loads measured in the Cape Fear River at the
CFR-TARHEEL sampling location downstream of the Site.
kg - kilograms
m3 - cubic meters

TR0795A

Page 1 of 3

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 4
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED TOTAL MASS LOAD IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Reporting Period Details
Reporting Period1
2021-Q2
2021-Q3
2021-Q4
2022-Q1

Start Date

End Date

3/31/21 23:01
7/1/21 23:01
9/30/21 23:01
12/30/21 23:01

7/1/21 23:01
9/30/21 23:01
12/30/21 23:01
3/31/22 23:01

Days River volume (m3)
92
91
91
91

701,860,000
590,440,000
275,300,000
1,442,100,000

Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds)3
Projected Load to
Measured Load in
Remedy Reduction
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Loads (kg)5
4
(kg)
(kg)6
121.1
43.9
77.2
99.4
58.8
40.6
63.5
44.7
18.7
70.9
37.9
33.1

Notes:
1 - Calculated total mass loads by compound and time interval are provided in Tables 5A though
5G for 2022 Q1 and in Appendix B for previous reporting periods.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), R-PSDA,
Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
4 - Projected load to the Cape Fear River represents baseline load that would reach the Cape Fear
River in the absence of any remedies. This is calculated as the total of the measured load in theCape Fear River and the calculated remedy reduction load.
5 - Calculated remedy reduction loads represent the total load that was prevented from reaching
the Cape Fear River. This is calculated as the total load from Old Outfall 002, Seeps A to D and
the Stormwater Treatment System.
6 - Measured load in Cape Fear River represent loads measured in the Cape Fear River at the
CFR-TARHEEL sampling location downstream of the Site.
kg - kilograms
m3 - cubic meters

TR0795A

Page 2 of 3

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 4
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED TOTAL MASS LOAD IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Reporting Period Details
Reporting Period1
2021-Q2
2021-Q3
2021-Q4
2022-Q1

Start Date

End Date

3/31/21 23:01
7/1/21 23:01
9/30/21 23:01
12/30/21 23:01

7/1/21 23:01
9/30/21 23:01
12/30/21 23:01
3/31/22 23:01

Days River volume (m3)
92
91
91
91

701,860,000
590,440,000
275,300,000
1,442,100,000

Total Table 3+ (20 Compounds)
Projected Load to
Measured Load in
Remedy Reduction
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Loads (kg)5
4
(kg)
(kg)6
152.6
46.8
105.8
112.3
63.6
48.7
72.2
50.1
22.1
81.9
41.9
40.0

Notes:
1 - Calculated total mass loads by compound and time interval are provided in Tables 5A though
5G for 2022 Q1 and in Appendix B for previous reporting periods.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), R-PSDA,
Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
4 - Projected load to the Cape Fear River represents baseline load that would reach the Cape Fear
River in the absence of any remedies. This is calculated as the total of the measured load in theCape Fear River and the calculated remedy reduction load.
5 - Calculated remedy reduction loads represent the total load that was prevented from reaching
the Cape Fear River. This is calculated as the total load from Old Outfall 002, Seeps A to D and
the Stormwater Treatment System.
6 - Measured load in Cape Fear River represent loads measured in the Cape Fear River at the
CFR-TARHEEL sampling location downstream of the Site.
kg - kilograms
m3 - cubic meters

TR0795A

Page 3 of 3

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5A
CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Calculated Mass Load 2 (kg)

PS Acid

Hydro-PS Acid

R-PSDA

Hydrolyzed PSDA

R-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE Acid

R-EVE

PES

PFECA BPFECA-G

PFHpA

6,663,350
4,747,631
8,548,998
204,788,058
12,376,614
17,190,506
14,486,276
61,867,779
17,235,105
10,391,575
80,800,706
16,923,167
9,641,037
14,657,536
6,759,429
10,674,715
14,213,075
5,886,053
11,973,184
5,202,286
19,595,286
9,708,063
49,173,875
12,978,828
15,094,861
5,535,377
15,776,844
4,735,143
33,417,928
6,174,035
9,199,889
10,643,878
24,555,718
10,699,436
16,598,996
3,841,633
12,345,522
205,183,587
39,619,233
206,215,736
23,996,574
25,746,385
101,425,847

PEPA

1/2/22 0:01
1/2/22 23:01
1/3/22 23:01
1/11/22 0:01
1/11/22 23:01
1/13/22 0:01
1/13/22 23:01
1/19/22 0:01
1/19/22 23:01
1/20/22 14:01
1/25/22 0:01
1/25/22 23:01
1/26/22 12:54
1/27/22 11:54
1/28/22 0:01
1/28/22 23:01
1/31/22 0:01
1/31/22 23:01
2/3/22 0:01
2/3/22 23:01
2/7/22 0:01
2/7/22 23:01
2/11/22 0:01
2/11/22 23:01
2/14/22 0:01
2/14/22 23:01
2/18/22 0:01
2/18/22 23:01
2/26/22 0:01
2/26/22 23:01
2/27/22 23:01
2/28/22 23:01
3/3/22 0:01
3/3/22 23:01
3/7/22 0:01
3/7/22 23:01
3/10/22 23:01
3/17/22 12:30
3/18/22 9:00
3/22/22 9:10
3/23/22 8:10
3/24/22 13:05
3/29/22 0:01

PMPA

12/30/21 23:01
1/2/22 0:01
1/2/22 23:01
1/3/22 23:01
1/11/22 0:01
1/11/22 23:01
1/13/22 0:01
1/13/22 23:01
1/19/22 0:01
1/19/22 23:01
1/20/22 14:01
1/25/22 0:01
1/25/22 23:01
1/26/22 12:54
1/27/22 11:54
1/28/22 0:01
1/28/22 23:01
1/31/22 0:01
1/31/22 23:01
2/3/22 0:01
2/3/22 23:01
2/7/22 0:01
2/7/22 23:01
2/11/22 0:01
2/11/22 23:01
2/14/22 0:01
2/14/22 23:01
2/18/22 0:01
2/18/22 23:01
2/26/22 0:01
2/26/22 23:01
2/27/22 23:01
2/28/22 23:01
3/3/22 0:01
3/3/22 23:01
3/7/22 0:01
3/7/22 23:01
3/10/22 23:01
3/17/22 12:30
3/18/22 9:00
3/22/22 9:10
3/23/22 8:10
3/24/22 13:05

PFO5DA

2022_1_Q1
2022_2_Q1
2022_3_Q1
2022_4_Q1
2022_5_Q1
2022_6_Q1
2022_7_Q1
2022_8_Q1
2022_9_Q1
2022_10_Q1
2022_11_Q1
2022_12_Q1
2022_13_Q1
2022_14_Q1
2022_15_Q1
2022_16_Q1
2022_17_Q1
2022_18_Q1
2022_19_Q1
2022_20_Q1
2022_21_Q1
2022_22_Q1
2022_23_Q1
2022_24_Q1
2022_25_Q1
2022_26_Q1
2022_27_Q1
2022_28_Q1
2022_29_Q1
2022_30_Q1
2022_31_Q1
2022_32_Q1
2022_33_Q1
2022_34_Q1
2022_35_Q1
2022_36_Q1
2022_37_Q1
2022_38_Q1
2022_39_Q1
2022_40_Q1
2022_41_Q1
2022_42_Q1
2022_43_Q1

PFO4DA

Total River
Flow (m3)

PFO3OA

End Time 1

PFO2HxA

Start Time 1

PFMOAA

Interval ID

HFPO-DAInterval Details

TR0795A

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

0.071
0.044
0.18
2.6
0.053
0.069
0.054
0.22
0.059
0.030
0.29
0.071
0.040
0.062
0.030
0.051
0.081
0.039
0.089
0.043
0.12
0.042
0.19
0.047
0.067
0.029
0.042
0
0
0
0
0
0.036
0.031
0.081
0.026
0.089
0.93
0.042
0.36
0.084
0.084
0.27

0.15
0.076
0.24
3.9
0.12
0.086
0
0.16
0.087
0.053
0.21
0
0.033
0.10
0.050
0.085
0.15
0.077
0.19
0.10
0.27
0.089
0.36
0.071
0.10
0.043
0.061
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.091
0.042
0.15
1.2
0
0.92
0.21
0.16
0.32

0.083
0.052
0.17
2.6
0.064
0.085
0.068
0.24
0.062
0.032
0.27
0.063
0.043
0.076
0.034
0.053
0.086
0.042
0.11
0.057
0.15
0.048
0.21
0.047
0.082
0.040
0.10
0.027
0.21
0.043
0.035
0
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.032
0.12
1.2
0.052
0.47
0.11
0.10
0.29

0.019
0.013
0.045
0.54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.022
0.019
0.036
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.017
0.008
0.030
0.236
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.10
0.07
0.18
2.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.034
0.11
0.16
0.077
0.17
0.078
0.26
0.11
0.30
0
0.083
0.061
0.087
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.13
1.0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.016
0
0.053
0.92
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.15
0.04
0.03
0.11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.13
0.19
0.04
0.12
1.0
0
0
0
0
0

0.030
0.016
0.12
1.8
0.041
0.047
0.032
0.15
0.022
0
0
0
0.014
0.044
0.010
0
0.021
0.017
0.040
0.020
0.058
0.022
0.052
0
0.017
0.013
0.018
0
0
0
0
0
0.025
0.021
0.041
0.011
0.044
0.36
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.022
0.015
0.035
0.42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.010
0.031
0.007
0
0.020
0.016
0.033
0.014
0.066
0.038
0.098
0
0.025
0.018
0.026
0
0
0
0
0
0.063
0.055
0.090
0.022
0.087
0.698
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.058
0.050
0.079
0.018
0.066
0.53
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.026
0.016
0.029
0.75
0.048
0.069
0.059
0.26
0.072
0.037
0.30
0.064
0.039
0.063
0.028
0.043
0.062
0.028
0.051
0.020
0.083
0.046
0.22
0.055
0.058
0.019
0.028
0
0.057
0.021
0.029
0
0.059
0.051
0.080
0.018
0.055
0.81
0.14
0.67
0.072
0.079
0.35

Page 1 of 2

Total
Attachment C3

Total Table 3+(17 Compounds)4

Total Table 3+(20 Compounds)

0.4
0.3
0.8
12
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.04
0.03
0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.5
4.7
0.1
1.8
0.4
0.3
0.9

0.4
0.3
0.8
12
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.3
1.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.04
0.03
0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.6
5.4
0.1
1.8
0.4
0.3
0.9

0.5
0.3
1.0
15
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.3
1.0
0.4
1.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.04
0.03
0
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.8
7.3
0.1
1.8
0.4
0.3
0.9

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5A
CAPE FEAR RIVER PFAS MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

Calculated Mass Load 2 (kg)

PS Acid

Hydro-PS Acid

R-PSDA

Hydrolyzed PSDA

R-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE Acid

R-EVE

PES

PFECA BPFECA-G

PFHpA

18,757,589
14,136,874
11,889,083
1,442,073,301

PEPA

3/29/22 23:01
3/31/22 0:01
3/31/22 23:01
3/31/22 23:01

PMPA

3/29/22 0:01
3/29/22 23:01
3/31/22 0:01
12/30/21 23:01

PFO5DA

2022_44_Q1
2022_45_Q1
2022_46_Q1
Q1 2022 Total

PFO4DA

Total River
Flow (m3)

PFO3OA

End Time 1

PFO2HxA

Start Time 1

PFMOAA

Interval ID

HFPO-DAInterval Details

0.043
0.037
0.034
6.9

0.058
0.047
0.042
10

0.049
0.042
0.040
8.0

0
0
0
1.0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
5.2

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
3.1

0
0
0
3.1

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1.9

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0.80

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0.073
0.053
0.043
5.2

Total
Attachment C3

Total Table 3+(17 Compounds)4

Total Table 3+(20 Compounds)

0.2
0.1
0.1
31.1

0.2
0.1
0.1
33.1

0.2
0.1
0.1
40.0

Notes
1 - Start and end times are adjusted based on sampling times ± one hour to account for the total flow of the Cape Fear River.
2 - The calculated mass load is a product of weighted concentration and total river flow. Refer to the Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec, 2020d) for more details.
3 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid (PFHpA).
4 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
Where mass loads are equal to 0 kg, the compound was not detected above the reporting limit.
kg - kilogramm3 - cubic meterTR0795A

Page 2 of 2

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5B
OLD OUTFALL 002 CAPTURED MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPA

PEPA

PS Acid

Hydro-PS Acid

R-PSDA

Hydrolyzed PSDA

R-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE Acid

R-EVE

PES

PFECA BPFECA-GStart Time
1/1/22 0:00
2/1/22 0:00
3/1/22 0:00

1

PFMOAA

Interval ID
OF003_2022_1_Q1
OF003_2022_2_Q1
OF003_2022_3_Q1

Total
Duration3(hours) Flow (m )End Time
1/31/22 23:59
744
90,0002/28/22 23:59
672
80,0003/31/22 23:59
744
80,000Total 250,000

Calculated Captured Mass Load (kg)HFPO-DAInterval Details

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

0.46
0.37
0.48
1.3

1.3
1.8
1.6
4.7

0.60
0.57
0.59
1.8

0.19
0.16
0.17
0.51

0.077
0.068
0.078
0.22

0.037
0.034
0.041
0.11

0.26
0.17
0.16
0.6

0.11
0.093
0
0.21

0.040
0.035
0.043
0.12

0.022
0.019
0.022
0.062

0
0.033
0.033
0.067

0.085
0.11
0.12
0.32

0.00060
0.0005300.0011

0.023
0.020
0
0.044

0.00190.001600.0035

0.012
0.010
0
0.022

0.015
0.016
0.023
0.054

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

Total Table Total Table
Total
3+ (17
Attachment
3+ (202
3
C
compounds) compounds)
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.4
9.7
9.8
10

Notes:
1 - The calculated captured mass load is a product of the concentration difference in the influent and the effluent samples and total flow at the influent for the sampling interval, see Appendix B for more details.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
Where mass loads are equal to 0 kg, the compound was not detected above the reporting limit.
OF003 - Outfall 003, i.e., Old Outfall 002 treatment systemkg - kilogram3

m - cubic meterTR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5CSEEP A FLOW THROUGH CELL CAPTURED MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

PS Acid

Hydro-PS Acid

R-PSDA

Hydrolyzed PSDA

0.02
0.06
0.07
0.1
0.02
0.004
0.003
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.5

0.009
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.009
0.002
0.001
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.2

0.003
0.006
0.01
0.007
0.001
0.00010.0001
0.01
0.008
0.002
0.05

0.002
0.005
0.006
0.01
0.002
0.00040.0002
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.04

0.003
0.009
0.00040.02
0.004
0.00090.0005
0.01
0
0.005
0.05

0.03
0.1
0.04
0.2
0.04
0.01
0.006
0.1
0.07
0.05
0.7

0.0001 0.002 0.0004 0.002
0.0002 0.004
0.001
0.006
0.0002 0.006
0.002
0.008
0.0009 0.010
0.001
0.01
0.0002 0.002 0.0002 0.003
0.00003 0.0003 0.00002 0.0004
0.00002 0.0002 0.00001 0.0003
0.0002 0.005
0.002
0.007
0
0.005
0.001
0.005
0
0.003 0.0002 0.003
0.002
0.04
0.007
0.05

PFECA-G

PEPA

0.006
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.006
0.001
0.0008
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.1

PFECA B

PMPA

0.01
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.003
0.002
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.2

PES

PFO5DA

0.02
0.05
0.07
0.1
0.02
0.004
0.002
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.4

R-EVE

PFO4DA

0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.06
0.01
0.007
0.2
0.1
0.09
1.2

Hydro-EVE Acid

PFO3OA

0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.02
0.01
0.3
0.3
0.1
2.3

EVE Acid

PFO2HxA

0.03
0.10
0.16
0.19
0.03
0.01
0.004
0.1
0.09
0.05
0.8

NVHOS

PFMOAA

End Time
1/8/22 23:01
1/15/22 23:01
1/31/22 20:00
2/20/22 15:00
2/23/22 17:00
2/24/22 17:00
2/25/22 17:00
3/14/22 4:00
3/26/22 19:00
3/31/22 23:59

Hfpo Dimer Acid

Start Time
1/1/22 0:00
1/8/22 23:02
1/15/22 23:02
1/31/22 20:01
2/20/22 15:01
2/23/22 17:01
2/24/22 17:01
2/25/22 17:01
3/14/22 4:01
3/26/22 19:01

Total
Flow
(m3)
1,554
3,970
8,123
9,498
1,714
280
198
6,581
4,547
2,313
Total 38,779

Duration(hours)
191
168
381
475
74
24
24
395
303
125

R-PSDCA

Calculated Captured Mass Load (kg)1

Interval Details

Interval ID
SeepA_2022_1_Q1
SeepA_2022_2_Q1
SeepA_2022_3_Q1
SeepA_2022_4_Q1
SeepA_2022_5_Q1
SeepA_2022_6_Q1
SeepA_2022_7_Q1
SeepA_2022_8_Q1
SeepA_2022_9_Q1
SeepA_2022_10_Q1

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

0.001
0.004
0.00050.009
0.001
0.00040.0002
0.005
0
0.002
0.02

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
Total Table 3+ Total Table 3+
Attachment
(17
(20
C2
compounds)3
compounds)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.6
1.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.5
5.8
5.8
6.6

Notes:
1 - The calculated captured mass load is a product of the concentration difference in the influent and the effluent samples and total flow recorded at the influent for the sampling interval, see Appendix B for more details.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
Where mass loads are equal to 0 kg, the compound was not detected above the reporting limit.
kg - kilogram3

m - cubic meterTR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5D
SEEP B FLOW THROUGH CELL CAPTURED MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Calculated Captured Mass Load (kg)1

PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPA

PEPA

PS Acid

Hydro-PS Acid

R-PSDA

Hydrolyzed PSDA

R-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE Acid

R-EVE

PES

PFECA BPFECA-GEnd Time
1/8/22 23:01
1/15/22 23:01
1/31/22 20:00
2/15/22 8:00
3/1/22 8:00
3/14/22 10:00
3/26/22 19:00
3/31/22 23:59

PFMOAA

Start Time
1/1/22 0:00
1/8/22 23:02
1/15/22 23:02
1/31/22 20:01
2/15/22 8:01
3/1/22 8:01
3/14/22 10:01
3/26/22 19:01

Total
Flow
(m3)
4,554
2,769
13,242
12,515
15,99915,853
9,807
4,664
Total 79,403

Duration(hours)
191
168
381
348
336
314
297
125

Hfpo Dimer Acid

Interval Details

Interval ID
SeepB_2022_1_Q1
SeepB_2022_2_Q1
SeepB_2022_3_Q1
SeepB_2022_4_Q1
SeepB_2022_5_Q1
SeepB_2022_6_Q1
SeepB_2022_7_Q1
SeepB_2022_8_Q1

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

0.1
0.08
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.1

0.3
0.2
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.7
1.3
0.5
7.6

0.1
0.08
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
2.8

0.03
0.02
0.08
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.08
0.05
0.7

0.005
0.004
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.009
0.1

0.002
0.0006
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0
0
0.01

0.1
0.08
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.2

0.07
0.04
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.09
0.06
1.0

0.005
0.001
0.012
0.004
0.003
0.008
0.004
0.002
0.04

0.004
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.007
0.003
0.06

0.01
0.009
0.009
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.2

0.09
0.06
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.0

0.00020.00010.00060.00050.00160.0007
0
0
0.004

0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.2

0.005
0.0009
0.009
0.004
0.002
0.007
0.003
0.001
0.03

0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.006
0.1

0.009
0.005
0.007
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.007
0.1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
Total Table 3+ Total Table 3+
Attachment
(17
(20
C2
compounds)3
compounds)
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.6
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
4.3
3.6
3.6
4.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
17
17
19

Notes:
1 - The calculated captured mass load is a product of the concentration difference in the influent and the effluent samples and total flow recorded at the influent for the sampling interval, see Appendix B for more details.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
Where mass loads are equal to 0 kg, the compound was not detected above the reporting limit.
kg - kilogram3

m - cubic meterTR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5E
SEEP C FLOW THROUGH CELL CAPTURED MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Calculated Captured Mass Load (kg)1

PFO2HxAPFO3OAPFO4DAPFO5DAPMPA

PEPA

PS Acid

Hydro-PS Acid

R-PSDA

Hydrolyzed PSDA

R-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE Acid

R-EVE

PES

PFECA BPFECA-GEnd Time
1/8/22 23:01
1/15/22 23:01
1/31/22 20:00
2/15/22 8:00
3/1/22 8:00
3/14/22 10:00
3/26/22 19:00
3/31/22 23:59

PFMOAA

Start Time
1/1/22 0:00
1/8/22 23:02
1/15/22 23:02
1/31/22 20:01
2/15/22 8:01
3/1/22 8:01
3/14/22 10:01
3/26/22 19:01

Total
Flow
(m3)
380
1,687
3,543
2,533
1,291
2,946
1,180
1,207
Total 14,768

Duration(hours)
191
168
381
348
336
314
297
125

Hfpo Dimer Acid

Interval Details

Interval ID
SeepC_2022_1_Q1
SeepC_2022_2_Q1
SeepC_2022_3_Q1
SeepC_2022_4_Q1
SeepC_2022_5_Q1
SeepC_2022_6_Q1
SeepC_2022_7_Q1
SeepC_2022_8_Q1

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

0.005
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.2

0.01
0.06
0.1
0.09
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.06
0.6

0.006
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.3

0.002
0.009
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.02
0.006
0.009
0.08

0.0007
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.002
0.003
0.03

0
0.00020.000400000.00010.0006

0.003
0.01
0
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.008
0.010
0.08

0.0009
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.006
0.002
0.003
0.03

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00010.00050.00070.00070.00040.00080.00040.00040.004

0.0003
0.001
0
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.00080.001
0.008

0.0002
0.001
0
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.0009
0.001
0.009

0
0
0
0
0.00010000.00010.00020.000900.001
0.00070.002
0.00060.0008
0.006

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.01

0.00020.0009
0
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.00070.0009
0.007

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
Total Table 3+ Total Table 3+
Attachment(17(20
compounds)
C2
compounds)3
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.2
1.3
1.3

Notes:
1 - The calculated captured mass load is a product of the concentration difference in the influent and the effluent samples and total flow recorded at the influent for the sampling interval, see Appendix B for more details.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
Where mass loads are equal to 0 kg, the compound was not detected above the reporting limit.
kg - kilogram3

m - cubic meterTR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5F
SEEP D FLOW THROUGH CELL CAPTURED MASS LOAD BY COMPOUND AND TIME INTERVAL - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

PFO4DAPFO5DAPMPA

PEPA

PS Acid

Hydro-PS Acid

R-PSDA

Hydrolyzed PSDA

R-PSDCANVHOSEVE AcidHydro-EVE Acid

R-EVE

PES

PFECA BPFECA-GTotal

PFO3OA

End Time
1/13/22 12:23
1/31/22 20:00
2/15/22 8:00
3/1/22 8:00
3/14/22 4:00
3/26/22 19:00
3/31/22 23:59

Total
Flow
3
(m )
8,023
6,016
6,772
6,085
7,234
5,073
5,146
44,350PFO2HxA

Start Time
1/1/22 0:00
1/13/22 12:24
1/31/22 20:01
2/15/22 8:01
3/1/22 8:01
3/14/22 4:01
3/26/22 19:01

Duration(hours)
300
440
348
336
308
303
125

1

PFMOAA

Interval ID
SeepD_2022_1_Q1
SeepD_2022_2_Q1
SeepD_2022_3_Q1
SeepD_2022_4_Q1
SeepD_2022_5_Q1
SeepD_2022_6_Q1
SeepD_2022_7_Q1

Calculated Captured Mass Load (kg)Hfpo Dimer Acid

Interval Details

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

0.1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.1
0.06
0.07
0.6

0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.9

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.8

0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.2

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.01
0.08

0.00080.00060.0007000.00040.0006
0.003

0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.2

0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.08

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.002
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.01

0.006
0.003
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.03

0.01
0.007
0.01
0.01
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.07

0
0
0
0.0004
0
0
0
0

0.005
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.02

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.007
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.04

0.005
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.03

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
Total Table 3+ Total Table 3+
Attachment
(17
(20
2
3
C
compounds)
compounds)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.9
4.0
4.1

Notes:
1 - The calculated captured mass load is a product of the concentration difference in the influent and the effluent samples and total flow recorded at the influent for the sampling interval, see Appendix B for more details.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
Where mass loads are equal to 0 kg, the compound was not detected above the reporting limit.
kg - kilogramm3 - cubic meterTR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 5G
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CAPTURED MASS LOAD
BY COMPOUND AND DATE - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Calculated Captured Mass Load (kg) 3,4
Date1

Total Flow(m3)2

HFPO-DAPFMOAA

PMPA

Total of 3
Compounds 5

1/1/22
1/2/22
1/3/22
1/4/22
1/5/22
1/10/22
1/15/22
1/16/22
1/17/22
1/18/22
1/21/22
1/22/22
2/3/22
2/8/22
2/18/22
3/1/22
3/12/22
3/13/22
3/17/22
3/24/22
3/31/22
Total

234
236
596
747
257
382
176
484
554
637
316
262
418
495
139
340
484
485
125
131
42
7,544

0.006
0.006
0.02
0.02
0.007
0.01
0.005
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.01
0.004
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.28

1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.6E-03
3.3E-03
7.7E-04
1.7E-03
7.8E-04
1.5E-03
1.7E-032.0E-03
9.8E-04
1.9E-03
1.7E-033.0E-03
6.8E-04
2.2E-03
3.3E-03
3.3E-03
8.7E-04
9.4E-04
3.0E-04
0.04

5.9E-04
5.9E-04
1.5E-03
1.9E-03
4.9E-04
6.5E-04
3.0E-04
9.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.2E-03
6.0E-04
7.6E-04
9.2E-04
1.4E-03
3.5E-04
5.4E-04
9.7E-04
9.7E-04
2.5E-04
3.1E-04
1.0E-04
0.02

0.008
0.008
0.02
0.02
0.008
0.01
0.006
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.007
0.009
0.009
0.02
0.005
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.33

Notes:
1 - Listed dates are days when flow was recorded at the Stormwater Treatment System.
2 - Total daily flows were based on the volume recorded via a totalizer at the Stormwater
Treatment System effluent.
3 - The calculated captured mass load is a product of the concentration difference in the influent
and the effluent samples and total flow at the effluent for the sampling date, see Appendix B for
more details.
4 - For days where only flow was recorded, the concentrations from the closest date was used to
calculate mass loads.
5 - Only HFPO-DA, PFMOAA and PMPA are recorded at this location. Thus, the total captured
mass load presented here is summed over these three compounds only.

TR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 6SUMMARY OF TOTAL PFAS MASS DISCHARGE AT TAR HEEL FERRY ROAD BRIDGE - Q1 2022 DATA
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Quarter

Field Sample ID

Collection
Date

Hours
Composited1

2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
2022 Q1

CFR-TARHEEL-24-010222
CFR-TARHEEL-24-010322
CFR-TARHEEL-24-011122
CFR-TARHEEL-24-011322
CFR-TARHEEL-24-011922
CFR-TARHEEL-24-011922-D
CFR-TARHEEL-15-012022
CFR-TARHEEL-24-012522
CAP1Q22-CFR-TARHEEL-012622
CAP1Q22-CFR-TARHEEL-24-012722
CFR-TARHEEL-24-012822
CFR-TARHEEL-24-013122
CFR-TARHEEL-24-020322
CFR-TARHEEL-24-020722
CFR-TARHEEL-24-020722-D
CFR-TARHEEL-24-021122
CFR-TARHEEL-24-021422
CFR-TARHEEL-24-021822
CFR-TARHEEL-24-022622
CFR-TARHEEL-24-022722
CFR-TARHEEL-24-022822
CFR-TARHEEL-24-030322
CFR-TARHEEL-24-030722
CFR-TARHEEL-24-031022
CFR-TARHEEL-24-031022-D
CFR-TARHEEL-031722
CFR-TARHEEL-031822
CFR-TARHEEL-24-032322
CFR-TARHEEL-032422
CFR-TARHEEL-24-032922
CFR-TARHEEL-24-033122

1/2/22 23:01
1/3/22 23:01
1/11/22 23:01
1/13/22 23:01
1/19/22 23:01
1/19/22 23:01
1/20/22 14:01
1/25/22 23:01
1/26/22 16:40
1/27/22 11:54
1/28/22 23:01
1/31/22 23:01
2/3/22 23:01
2/7/22 23:01
2/7/22 23:01
2/11/22 23:01
2/14/22 23:01
2/18/22 23:01
2/26/22 23:01
2/27/22 23:01
2/28/22 23:01
3/3/22 23:01
3/7/22 23:01
3/10/22 23:01
3/10/22 23:01
3/17/22 12:30
3/18/22 9:00
3/23/22 8:10
3/24/22 13:05
3/29/22 23:01
3/31/22 23:01

24
24
24
24
24
24
15
24
0
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
0
0
24
0
24
24

Total
Attachment C2
53
95
20
8.4
12
12
11
7.9
16
16
28
40
57
30
30
13
31
5.6
7
3.8
0
6.8
28
41
43
4.7
0
17
9.4
8
9.8

Concentrations (ng/L)
Total Table 3+(17 compounds)3
56
99
20
8.4
12
12
11
7.9
16
18
28
43
60
34
34
13
35
5.6
7
3.8
0
12
34
48
50
4.7
0
17
9.4
8
9.8

Total Table 3+(20 compounds)
60
120
26
13
17
15
14
7.9
19
21
28
45
64
36
39
13
37
5.6
7
3.8
0
31
52
66
69
4.7
0
17
9.4
8
9.8

Total Volume(ft3)4

Instantaneous
Flow Rate(ft3/s)5

167,660,000
292,270,000
437,080,000
511,580,000
608,650,000
608,650,000
340,370,000
597,640,000-517,630,000
376,970,000
207,860,000
183,720,000
342,840,000
342,840,000
458,340,000
195,480,000
167,220,000
218,030,000
311,400,000
361,320,000
377,850,000
135,670,000
147,190,000
147,190,000--847,430,000-662,420,000
419,860,000--------6,530----------------11,100
24,800-7,680---

Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.

Total
Attachment C2
3
9.5
3
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.1
1.6
3
2.8
3.6
2.8
3.6
3.5
3.5
2
2.1
0.32
0.52
0.4
0
0.88
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.5
0
4.9
2
1.8
1.4

Mass Discharge (mg/s)
Total Table 3+
Total Table 3+(20 compounds)(17 compounds)3
3.2
3.4
9.9
12
2.9
3.8
1.5
2.2
2.4
3.6
2.6
3
2.1
2.7
1.6
1.6
3
3.5
3.2
3.8
3.6
3.6
3
3.2
3.8
4
4
4.2
4
4.6
2
2
2.3
2.5
0.32
0.32
0.52
0.52
0.4
0.4
0
0
1.5
4
1.6
2.4
2.4
3.3
2.5
3.5
1.5
1.5
0
0
4.9
4.9
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.4

Notes:
1 - Samples with a compositing duration of zero (0) hours are grab samples.
2 - Total Attachment C does not include Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and R-EVE.
4 - Total flow volume is determined based on measurements taken over the sample collection period.
5 - For samples with a duration of zero (0) hours, i.e., grab samples, the instantaneous flow rate was used to calculated the mass discharge.
-- - not applicable
ng/L - nanograms per liter

ft3 - cubic feetmg/s - milligrams per second
ft3/s - cubic feet per second

TR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 7PFAS MASS LOADING MODEL POTENTIAL PATHWAYS
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Transport
Potential PFAS Transport
Pathway
Pathway
Number
1

Upstream River and
Groundwater

2

Willis Creek

3

Aerial Deposition on River4

Outfall 002

5

Onsite Groundwater

6

7
8
9

Seeps

Analytical Data Source for Mass Loading Model1

Geosyntec Consultants NC, P.C.

Flow Data Source for Mass Loading Model1

Measured flow rates from USGS gauging station at W.O. Huske Dam during January2022 volumetrically adjusted for flow pathways between River Mile 76 and W.O. Huske
Dam.2
Measured from Willis Creek samples collected in January 2022 as reported Measured flow rates through Marsh-McBirney method during January 2022 as reported
in Appendix A Table A2.
in Appendix B.
Measured from Cape Fear River Mile 76 samples collected in January2022 as reported in Appendix A Table A2.

Estimated from air deposition modeling3.

Estimated from air deposition modeling3.

Measured from Outfall 002 samples collected in January 2022 as reported Measured daily Outfall 002 flow rates recorded in Facility discharge monitoring reports,
in Appendix A Table A2.
summarized in Appendix B.
Estimated as the sum of the mass flux from the Black Creek Aquifer calculated from a
Measured from monitoring well samples collected in January 2022 astransect along the Cape Fear River. Further details and supporting calculations provided
reported in Appendix A Table A5.
in Appendix E.

Measured from Seeps A, B, C, and D samples, and Lock and Dam Seep
samples collected in January 2022 as reported in Appendix A Table A2.

Measured flow rates through flumes for Seeps C and D during January 2022 as reported
in Appendix B. Measured flow rates through bucket and timer for Lock and Dam Seepduring January 2022 as reported in Appendix B. Surrogate flow data for Seep A wasused while the Seep A flume was not operational. Flow-Through Cell data for Seep B
was used as flows from the Seep-B flume were beyond the limits of the flume.

Measured from Old Outfall 002 samples collected in January 2022 as
Measured flow rates through Marsh-McBirney method during January 2022 as reported
reported in Appendix A Table A2.
in Appendix B.
Estimated using a scaling factor applied to upstream mass discharge. Refer Estimated using a scaling factor applied to upstream mass discharge. Refer to Cape Fear
Adjacent and Downstream
to Cape Fear River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2
River PFAS Mass Loading Calculation Protocol Version 2 (Geosyntec, 2020d) for
Groundwater(Geosyntec, 2020d) for details.
details.
Measured from Georgia Branch Creek samples collected in January 2022 Measured flow rates through Marsh-McBirney method during January 2022 as reported
Georgia Branch Creek
as reported in Appendix A Table A2.
in Appendix B.
Old Outfall 002

Notes:
1 - Flow and concentration data are multiplied together to estimate the PFAS mass discharge in the Cape Fear River originating from each pathway.
2 - Cape Fear River flow rates measured at USGS gauging station #02105500 located at William O Huske Lock & Dam accessed from https://waterdata.usgs.gov.
3 - ERM, 2018. Modeling Report: HFPO-DA Atmospheric Deposition and Screening Groundwater Effects. 27 April 2018.

TR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 8A
SUMMARY OF TOTAL PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY BEFORE REMEDIES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)3

Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)

Total Flow Volume
on Sample Date
(MG)1

Concentration(ng/L)

Mass Loading(mg/s)

Concentration(ng/L)

Mass Loading(mg/s)

Concentration(ng/L)

Mass Loading(mg/s)

Pathway

Pathway Name

1

4,250

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Upstream River Water and Groundwater4
Willis Creek

7.1

1,500

0.47

1,500

0.47

1,600

0.50

3

Aerial Deposition on Water Features----

5.5E-03

5.5E-03

14.4

58

3.7E-02

-58

0.037

-82

5.7E-03
0.052

4
4A
5

Outfall 002

5
6

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

7

Onsite Groundwater (Lower Bound)

--

--

7.11

--

7.12

--

7.50

7

Stormwater Treatment System

--

--

7.31

--

7.32

--

7.70

6A

Seep A8

0.30

160,000

2.12

6B

Seep B

0.26

180,000

2.08

160,000
190,000

2.12

8

2.20

170,000
200,000

2.25
2.32

Seep C8

0.06

71,0000.19

72,0000.19

72,000

0.19

8

0.13

100,000

0.55

100,000

0.55

110,000

0.61

0.01

130,000

0.08

130,000

0.08

130,000

0.08

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0.82

33,0001.19

33,0001.19

33,000

1.19

8

Old Outfall 002
Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater

--

--

0

--

0

--

0

9

Georgia Branch Creek

3.17

1,400

0.19

1,400

0.19

1,400

0.19

6C
6D
6E
6F
7

Onsite Groundwater (Upper Bound)

Seep D
Lock and Dam Seep
Lock and Dam Seep North

98

Calculated Total Table 3+ Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Lower Bound)

14.0

14.2

14.9

Calculated Total Table 3+ Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Upper Bound)

14.2

14.4

15.1

Notes:
1 - Total flow volume is determined based on measurements taken over 24-hour sample collection
period for all locations except Willis Creek, Lock and Dam Seep, Old Outfall 002, and Georgia
Branch Creek. At these locations, the total flow volume was estimated based on the instantaneous
flow measurement.
2 - Mass discharge calculations for Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid
(PFHpA).
3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and REVE.
4 - The volumetric flow rate for upstream river water and groundwater was estimated by subtracting
inflows from Willis Creek, upwelling groundwater, seeps to the river, and Outfall 002 and byadding the river water intake from Chemours to the flow rate measurement from the W.O. Huske
Dam.
5 - Total PFAS concentrations at the Intake River Water at Facility location are subtracted from
Outfall 002 concentrations to compute the mass discharge at Outfall 002.
6 - The stormwater treatment system captures PFAS originating from Stormwater in the
Monomers/IXM area that would otherwise flow to Outfall 002 during storm events. During theJanuary Sampling Event there was no stormwater flow to the stormwater treatment system, so there
was no mass loading calculated for this location.

TR0795A

Total Attachment C2

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

7 - Mass Discharge for Onsite Groundwater was determined using calculations described in Appendix E. The
lower and upper bounds on the mass discharge were calculated using two different contour elevationdifferences in the vicinity of the river frontage: a ten-foot elevation difference (between the 40 and 50 ft
contours) and a twenty-foot elevation difference (between the 40 and 60 ft contours) as described in Appendix
E.
8 - For January 2022, the concentrations from the influent samples collected at the Old Outfall 002 treatment
system and Seep A, B, C and D flow-through cell were used to calculate the Before Remedy mass discharge forthese pathways.
9 - Lock Dam North was not sampled during the January Sampling event because the seep was under water due
the river height.

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

TABLE 8B
SUMMARY OF TOTAL PFAS MASS DISCHARGE BY PATHWAY AFTER REMEDIES
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina
Total Attachment C2

Total Table 3+ (17 compounds)3

Total Table 3+ (20 compounds)

Total Flow Volume
on Sample Date
(MG)1

Concentration(ng/L)

Mass Loading(mg/s)

Concentration(ng/L)

Mass Loading(mg/s)

Concentration(ng/L)

Mass Loading(mg/s)

Pathway

Pathway Name

1

4,250

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Upstream River Water and Groundwater4
Willis Creek

7.1

1,500

0.47

1,500

0.47

1,600

0.50

3

Aerial Deposition on Water Features----

5.5E-03

5.5E-03

14.4

58

0.04

-58

0.04

-82

5.7E-03
0.05

4
4A
5

Outfall 002

5
6

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

7

Onsite Groundwater (Lower Bound)

--

--

7.11

--

7.12

--

7.50

7

--

--

7.31

--

7.32

--

7.70

0.30

32,0004.2E-01

4.4E-01

4.9E-01
2.5E-03

Stormwater Treatment System

Onsite Groundwater (Upper Bound)
8

6A

Seep A

6B

Seep B

8

0.26

210

2.4E-03

33,000210

2.4E-03

37,000220

Seep C

8

0.062

950

2.6E-03960

2.6E-031,000

2.7E-03

8

0.13

3.6

2.0E-05

3.6

2.0E-05

3.6

2.0E-050.013

130,000

0.08

130,000

0.08

130,000

0.08

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0.93

1,400

0.05

1,400

0.05

1,400

0.05

8

Old Outfall 002
Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater

--

0

2.6

-1,4000Georgia Branch Creek-1,40009-1,400

6C
6D
6E
6F
7

Seep D
Lock and Dam Seep
Lock and Dam Seep North

9

8

0.19

0.19

0.19

Calculated Total Table 3+ Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Lower Bound)

8.4

8.4

8.9

Calculated Total Table 3+ Loading (mg/s) at Tar Heel (Upper Bound)

8.6

8.6

9.1

Notes:
1 - Total flow volume is determined based on measurements taken over 24-hour sample collection
period for all locations except Willis Creek, Lock and Dam Seep, Old Outfall 002, and Georgia
Branch Creek. At these locations, the total flow volume was estimated based on the instantaneous
flow measurement.
2 - Mass discharge calculations for Total Attachment C does not include Perfluorohepthanoic acid
(PFHpA).

7 - Mass Discharge for Onsite Groundwater was determined using calculations described in Appendix E.
The lower and upper bounds on the mass discharge were calculated using two different contour elevationdifferences in the vicinity of the river frontage: a ten-foot elevation difference (between the 40 and 50 ft
contours) and a twenty-foot elevation difference (between the 40 and 60 ft contours) as described inAppendix E.
8 - For January 2022, the concentrations from the Old Outfall 002 sample collected downgradient from thetreatment system and effluent samples collected at the effluent basins of the Seep A, B, C and D flowthrough cells were used to calculate the After Remedy mass discharge for these pathways.

3 - Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) does not include PFHpA, R-PSDA, Hydrolyzed PSDA, and REVE.
4 - The volumetric flow rate for upstream river water and groundwater was estimated by subtracting
inflows from Willis Creek, upwelling groundwater, seeps to the river, and Outfall 002 and byadding the river water intake from Chemours to the flow rate measurement from the W.O. Huske
5 - Total PFAS concentrations at the Intake River Water at Facility location are subtracted from
Outfall 002 concentrations to compute the mass discharge at Outfall 002.
6 - The stormwater treatment system treats PFAS originating from Stormwater in the
Monomers/IXM area that would otherwise flow to Outfall 002 during storm events. During theJanuary Sampling Event there was no stormwater flow to the stormwater treatment system, so there
was no mass loading calculated for this location.

TR0795A

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.

9 - Lock Dam North was not sampled during the January Sampling event because the seep was under water
due the river height.

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
TABLE 9CAPE FEAR RIVER TOTAL TABLE 3+ (17 COMPOUNDS) RELATIVEMASS DISCHARGE PER PATHWAY
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Pathway1[1] Upstream River Water and Groundwater

January 2022
Lower
Upper
<1%
<1%

[2] Willis Creek3%3%[3] Aerial Deposition on Water Features

<1%

<1%

[4] Outfall 002

<1%

<1%

2

-50%

-- 2
51%

[6] Seeps

36%

36%

Seeps (After Remedies) 3[7] Old Outfall 002

4%

4%

8.4%
<1%

8.3%
<1%

<1%

<1%

1%

1%

Outfall 002 (After Remedies)[5] Onsite Groundwater

2

4

Old Outfall 002 (After Remedies)[8] Offsite Adjacent and Downstream Groundwater[9] Georgia Branch Creek
Notes:< - less than indicated value.
1 - Relative contributions were calculated using the before remedies Total Table 3+ (17 compounds) modelestimated mass discharges (Tables 8A). These relative contributions are presented as a range, which
represents the upper and lower bound model estimates. Relative contributions for Total Attachment C andTotal Table 3+ (20 compounds) are provided in Appendix B.
2 - T he Stormwater Treatment System captures stormwater flows in the conveyance network surrounding
the Monomers/IXM area that would otherwise flow to Outfall 002 during storm events. There was no flow
being treated by the Stormwater Treatment System during the January 2022 sampling events.
3 - The Seeps (After Remedies) relative contributions for January 2022 were calculated using the After
Remedies model-estimated mass discharges at Seeps A to D, Lock and Dam Seep (Tables 8B).
4 - The Old Outfall 002 (After Remedies) relative contributions for January 2022 were calculated using theAfter Remedies model-estimated mass discharges at Old Outfall 002 (Tables 8B).

TR0795A

Page 1 of 1

June 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

FiguresTR0795A

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

³
NC
Hig
hw
ay

87

Will is C
reek

Site River Water Intake ")Seep A)"

Seep B)"

Outfall 002

)
"

)
"

)
"

Seep C)")
W.O. Huske Dam "Seep D)"

Old Outfall 002

or g

ia B

r an

ch C

re

r River
Cape Fea

Ge

ek

³

8 Miles

Flow-Through Cell

Old Outfall 002 Treatment System
Stormwater Treatment System
Site Features

Site Boundary

Nearby Tributary

Observed Seep (Natural Drainage)
Site Conveyance Network

Areas at Site

Chemours Monomers IXM
Chemours Polymer
Processing Aid Area

DuPont Polyvinyl Fluoride
Leased Area

Former DuPont PMDF Area
Kuraray SentryGlas®
Leased Area

Wastewater Treatment Plant
Power - Filtered and
Demineralized Water
Production
Kuraray Laboratory

Notes:
1. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS (MajorHydro shapefile).
2. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS
User Community

Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US

1,000

Kuraray Trosifol®
Leased Area500

01,000 Feeta ry 1

"
)
)
"
)
"
)
"

0

Site Location Map
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

utLegend

4

Tri
b

8

FigureBC

Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_SiteLocation_MLM_2022Q1.mxd

Last Revised: 4/8/2022

Author: JKasunicSite Location

RaleighG

June 20221DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC³
Virginia

ve r
Ri

Haw

Greensboro

River
Deep

RaleighStart ofCape FearRiver
L i t tleR

iver

FayettevilleChemours
Fayetteville
Works

ive

r

Tar Heel
Ferry Road
BridgeW.O. Huske Dam_^
Bladen Bluffs
IntakeCapKings BluffFe arRIntake Canale

South
Carolina

North
Carolina

Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_Cape Fear River Watershed and Downstream Intakes.mxd; JKasunic; 04/08/2022

Wilmington

20

Legend_^10020 MilesChemours Fayetteville Works
Upper Basin
Middle Basin

Cape Fear River Watershed and Downstream
Drinking Water Intakes
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Lower Basin
Note:
Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community.

Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US

FigureRaleigh2

June 2022
Sources:Esri, Garmin, USGS, NPSDocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC³

1kWillis Cree#*
( Sample Location!

") Flow-Through Cell"))"

CFR-MILE-76

Old Outfall 002 Treatment System
Stormwater Treatment System
Observed Seep

Nearby Tributary

(
!

WC-1

Site Boundary

Notes:* - Flow measurement was taken at W.O. Huske Dam - USGS
1. Flows at Seeps C and D were measured using a flume.
2. Flows at Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, and Georgia Branch Creek
were measured using flow velocity method.
3. Flow-Through Cell flow data were used for Seep B.
4. Flow at Lock and Dam Seep was measured using a sample
bottle and timer.
5. Flow at Seep A could not be measured during Q1 2022. At thislocation, flows were estimated using flow data measured at Seep A
during Q1 2020.
6. Results of estimated flow at these locations are provided in Table A3.
7. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on
open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.
8. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community.

#
*
!
(
Cap
e Fe
i
ar R
ver

SEEP-A-EFF
Intake River Water at Facility

Author: JKasunic
Last Revised: 4/28/2022

³

1

(
!
"
)

Path: P:\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_StreamReaches_FlowMeasurements_Jan2022_Q1_2022.mxd³

LegendFlow Measurement Location

#
*
!
(

³

2

or
gi

2,000 1,000

a

Br

an
ch

Cr
e

ek

0

Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US

#
*
!
(

GBC-1

SEEP-B-EFF

2

OUTFALL 002)"
SEEP-C-EFF

#
*
!
(

Ge

SEEP-B-1

#
(*
!
"
)

Old O

(*
!
"
)
#
(
!
"
)
#
*

SEEP-C-1
SEEP-D-EFF

SEEP-D-1#*
u t f a ll

002

)
"

W.O. Huske Dam*
LOCK-DAM SEEP#*!
(
# OLDOF-1
*
!
(

1

0.5

0

1 Miles

1,250 1,000625 500

0 0

1,250
1,000
FeetFeetSample and Flow Measurement
Locations - January 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

Figure2,000 Feet
Raleigh

June 20223

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC³

1

Legend(!

³

Sample Location
Site Boundary
Cape Fear River

CFR-MILE-76(!

CFR-BLADEN

Notes:
1. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on
open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality Online GIS.
2. Basemap sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community.

³(!

Path: \\guelph-01\data\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_CapeFearRiverSampleLocations_Q12022.mxd

Last Revised: 4/8/2022

Author: JKasunic

CFR-TARHEEL

(
!
1

³

2 - Downstream

CFR-KINGS

2

25

12.5

0
2

(
!

25 Miles1

0

2 MilesCape Fear River Sample
Locations - Q1 2022
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

2

1

0

Figure2 Miles
Raleigh

Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US

June 2022

4DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

Willis Creek

³

PW-09

SMW-10

!
'
A

!
'
A
!
'
A

SMW-12

SMW-11!
'
A
PIW-1S

!
'
A
!
'
A

PIW-1D
PIW-3D
LTW-01

!
'
A
!
'
A

LTW-02!
'A)"

Seep A

LTW-03!
'A

Seep B
PZ-22)"

LTW-04

!
'
!
'
A
A

PIW-7D

!
'
A
!
'
!
'
A

)
"

PIW-7S
LTW-05)"

Seep C)"

Cape

Seep D

!
'
A

A

PW-11

)!
"
'

Fear Riv

PW-04

er

Old Outfall 002
PW-06

!
'
A

Path: \\guelph-01\data\PRJ\Projects\TR0795\Database and GIS\GIS\Baseline Monitoring Workplan\TR0795_BaselineGroundwaterMonitoringWellNetwork.mxd; NBarNahoum; 2/9/2022

Ge

org

ia B
r an

ch

Cre
e

PW-07

k

!
'
A

Bladen-1D!
'
A

Legend'!
A

Surficial Aquifer'!
A

Floodplain Deposits'!
A

Black Creek Aquifer'!
A

Damaged

"
)
)
"
)
"

Flow-Through Cell

Site Boundary500

01,000 Feet

Old Outfall 002 Treatment System
Stormwater Treatment System
Observed Seep
Nearby Tributary

Notes:
1. Due to the scale of the map, pairs of wells that are in close proximity have been offset for visibility. Therefore, the placement ofthese wells on this map do not reflect their true geographic coordinates.
2. The outline of Cape Fear River is approximate and is based on open data from ArcGIS Online and North Carolina Departmentof Environmental Quality Online GIS.
3. Basemap source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the
GIS User Community.
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet; Units in Foot US

1,000

Groundwater Wells for Mass Loading Assessment
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

FigureRaleigh

June 20225

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC(3) Aerial Deposition(4) Outfall 002 (Pipe to River)Non-contact cooling water from river
Non-Chemours treated process water
Stormwater

Rain

Chemours
Fayetteville Works
Manufacturing Area

(1) Upstream
Cape Fear River

Seep A

(2)
Wil
lis

Seep B

ne
ed Zo

h

Perc

cial

Perched Zone Clay

Surfi

ifer

Aqu

Black Creek
Confining Unit

und

wa

(7)

Seep D

ld

O

B

nc

Ou
tfa

Seep C

02
ll 0

a
gi
or

ra

c
ja
Ad ea
(8) nstrw
Do

Data/PRJ/Projects/TR0795/Database and GIS/Illustrator/3D CSM Illustration/ConceptualSiteModel_Dec2020.ai

te

(9
)G
e

hC
ree
k

ek

(6) Seeps

i
nS
O
(5)

eek
k Cr rBlac Aquife

Gro

Cre

W.O. Huske
Dam

ter

pe

Ca

Gr
ou

nd w

ater

ver

r Ri

Fea

an (8) Ad D dja
Groownstrcee n t
amundw at e rr
pe ar itUp pe Fe g Unn
Ca nfinioCm en
G t an
ro d
un
dw
ater

Potential PFAS Transport Pathways to theCape Fear River from Site
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

FigureNote: Image is conceptual and is not to scale

Raleigh, NC

June 2022

6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

Seep A Seep B
FTC
FTC

Seep D
FTC

Outfall 002
SWTS

7

Total Table 3+ (17)Concentration (ng/L)

350

6

300

5

250

4

200

3

150

2

100

1

50

0
0
400
28-03-20
27-04-20
27-05-20
26-06-20
26-07-20
25-08-20
24-09-20
24-10-20
23-11-20
23-12-20
22-01-21
21-02-21
23-03-21
22-04-21
22-05-21
21-06-21
21-07-21
20-08-21
19-09-21
19-10-21
18-11-21
18-12-21
17-01-22
16-02-2235,000

Total Table 3+ (17)Concentration (ng/L)

350

30,000300

25,000250

20,000200

15,000150

10,000

100
50

5,000

0

0

Composite Sample
Grab Sample

Precipitation
Cape Fear River Flow

Notes:-PFAS concentrations calculated by summing over Attachment C compounds
and Table 3+ (20 compounds) are provided in Appendix A.
-Precipitation data are from the USGS monitoring site at the W.O. Huske Dam.
Abbrevations:in - inches
FTC - flow through cellng/L - nanograms per liter
SWTS - stormwater treatment system
ft3/s - cubic feet per second

Total Daily Precipitation (in)400

Seep CFTC

Cape Fear River Flow (ft3/s)

Old Outfall 002
treatment system

Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) Concentrations, Precipitation
and Daily Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

FigureRaleigh

June 2022

7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 01E5CA93-F27F-47FE-AE4C-A4CE68E590CC

Total Table 3+ (17)Mass Discharge (mg/s)

60

Seep CFTC

Seep A Seep B
FTC
FTC

Seep D
FTC

Outfall 002
SWTS

6

50

5

40

4

30

3

20

2

10

1

0

0

Total Daily Precipitation (in)Old Outfall 002
treatment system50

30,00040

24,00030

18,00020

12,000

10

6,000

0

0

Composite Sample
Grab Sample

Precipitation
Cape Fear River Flow

Notes:-Total PFAS mass discharges calculated by summing over Attachment C compounds
and Table 3+ (20 compounds) are provided in Table 6 and Appendix B.
-Precipitation data are from the USGS monitoring site at the W.O. Huske Dam.
Abbrevations:in - inches
FTC - flow through cell
mg/s - milligrams per second
SWTS - stormwater treatment system
ft3/s - cubic feet per second

Cape Fear River Flow (ft3/s)

Total Table 3+ (17)Mass Discharge (mg/s)

6028-03-20
27-04-20
27-05-20
26-06-20
26-07-20
25-08-20
24-09-20
24-10-20
23-11-20
23-12-20
22-01-21
21-02-21
23-03-21
22-04-21
22-05-21
21-06-21
21-07-21
20-08-21
19-09-21
19-10-21
18-11-21
18-12-21
17-01-22
16-02-2236,000

Total Table 3+ (17 Compounds) Mass Discharge, Precipitation
and Daily Flow at Tar Heel Ferry Road Bridge
Chemours Fayetteville Works, North Carolina

FigureRaleigh

June 20228