DEQ-CFW_00052649

From: Kritzer, Jamie [/D=[XCHANG[LAB5/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHF2]SPDLT)/CN=REOP|ENTS/CN=C[E9]C49D01445A]B541B8327DCDCD4O-JBKR|TZ[R]
Sent: 6/20/I0I711:0000AW1
To: Lane, Bill F[/h=ExchangeLabs/ou=ExzhanXeAdministrative Group
(FYD|8OHFZ33PDO)/cn=Redpient$cn=a4db93cf656d476a978a4db84ObI59fd'bflane]
CC: Holman, Sheila [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=ExchanXeAdministrative Group
(FYD|8OHFZ33PDO)/cn=Redpient$cn=94a3f59574d34b769b3bd834a97105c5-scho|man]
Subject: Fwd:Story I'm writing today onChemours,6enX,NPDE5
Wanted to make sure you saw this one since it crosses into the legal arena.
JK
Sent from myiP4zonn
Begin forwarded message:
Fromm:" ljmdo"
Date: June 2O 20|7n16:5|:O9}\MEDT
To: i Jamie" j i
Subject: Re: Story I'm writing today on Chemours, GenX, NPDES
No. Paths did not cross. I'll make sure to have time for her this morning.
Sent from myiP4zonn
On Jun 202017 o16:46 AM Kritzer, Jamie <jamie.kritzer@)ncdenr.govwrote:
Linda,
lasked Marla howork onthese questions yesterday and vvewould discuss after
she had answers ready. She indicated she was nearly complete yesterday
afternoon. Did she speak with you nnthem?
Jamie
Sent from ooyiPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Vaughn Hagerty <vatighti.liagertyLa)gtiiail.coni>
Date: June 20 2017a16:08:43 AM EDT
To: i Jamie" j i "Sink, Marla"
Bridget"
Subject: Story I'm writing today on Chemours, GenX, NPDES
AaIindicated h»Marla yesterday afternoon, l\n writing ostnry
today regarding Chemours'NPDES permit.
lhad afairly extensive conversation yesterday with aformer EPA
attorney who teaches environmental law focused mnregulations
and policy. Hcalso has written anumber oftexts and course

materials for teaching this subject. So, he seems to be pretty
knowledgable.
He essentially said that Dupont and now Chemours would have to
have mentioned GenX (perhaps using a different name) in its
applications for NPDES permits in force since 1980 regardless of
whether it is a "regulated substance." The company has said GenX
is discharged at its point source, which the permit covers.
If Chemours or DuPont has not listed GenX, then that may
constitute violations under the Clean Water Act.
The company also should have listed the "novel" substances
mentioned in Sun, et al., on the permit applications. My
understanding is that, based on sampling above and below the
Fayetteville Works, those appear to be emanating from the
Fayetteville Works. Chemours holds the permit governing those
discharges and, as such, is responsible for such reporting.
1) Does DEQ agree with this assessment? If not, please let me
know which parts are incorrect and what the correct interpretation
should be.
2) Has GenX ever been mentioned as part of the Fayetteville
Works NPDES permit or permit application?
3) What about any of the "novel" substances listed in Sun, et al.?
Have they ever appeared in the company's NPDES permit or
permit application? If so, when and how were they mentioned? If
not, why not?
4) GenX does not appear in the April 2016 permit renewal
application. Can you confirm that and help me understand why it
does not and what that means in terms of that application?
5) If what I describe above is correct, then according to Section
402 of the CWA, the state is bound to "abate violations of the
permit or the permit program, including civil and criminal
penalties and other ways and means of enforcement." Please let me
know how the state plans to proceed in this case.
Again, I'm writing this story today. In fact, I'll have most of it
finished before noon.
Regards,
Vaughn Hagerty
DEQ-CFW-00052650