DEQ-CFW_00061681

r
CAI 1 2 Z6
NORTH CAROLINA C8 WORKING GROUP
2009 CHAPEL HILL ROAD_ , DURHAM, NC 27707
mm
May 5, 2006 MAY a
Alan Klimek, Director DW• OF VIATM N
Division of Water Quality a�
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699Water Quality Division
RE: Request to Investigate DuPont's Fayetteville Plant for Deliberate Unauthorized Discharges
APFO Plant Wastewater
Dear Mr. Klimek,
Please consider this letter as enforcement sensitive and direct it to the appropriate persons within
your Division. This request concerns DuPont's Fayetteville facility, the only location in the
United States where APFO (also known as C8) is produced. As you may know, C8
contamination of groundwater and surface water at the Fayetteville Works was discovered several
months after production of this controversial chemical began. Since that time, C8 contamination
has been found in new areas of the plant and in off -site locations. The source(s) of this
contamination has yet to be identified by DuPont or DENR
Although DuPont has represented that all APFO Plant wastewater was transported out of the
complex for off -site treatment and disposal, records to support this claim are not available to the
public. If unauthorized wastewater discharges did occur, it could explain the presence of C8
contamination in surface water discharges and monitoring wells located near the Wastewater
Treatment Plant. It could also explain the presence of C8 in the Nafion area and in groundwater
at the APFO plant.
Background
On May 3, 2001 DuPont -Fayetteville submitted a renewal application for its NPDES discharge
permit. The new permit was to authorize wastewater discharges from the new APFO Plant in
addition to existing permitted discharges from other plants in the complex. It was anticipated that
up to 48,000 gallons of APFO Plant wastewater would need to be discharged each day.(1)
DuPont wanted to be able to choose between two discharge options for the APFO Plant .
wastewater. One option was to send it through the Wastewater Treatrnent.Plant where it would
then be discharged with wastewater from other plants through a "woodlined ditch" leading to the
Cape Fear River. The other option was to bypass the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the send
the APFO Plant wastewater to the Cape Fear River through the woodlined ditch.(2)
On January 9, 2004 DuPont was sent the NPDES permit authorizing discharges from the APFO
Plant.(3) The permit was to be effective as of February 1, 2004 and did not require the
wastewater to be monitored for C8. It allowed DuPont the option of bypassing the Wastewater
DEQ-CFW 00061681

/e .4�
2003. If these dates are correct, this shut down would have occurred around January of 2003, the
same time DuPont claims to have first discovered C8 in groundwater and surface water
discharges. Perhaps this discovery prompted DuPont to stop unauthorized discharges and begin
trucking .the wastewater off -site for disposal. DENR files contained records reflecting such
wastewater shipments in 2003, but not for 2002 when the APFO Plant first started operating.(9)
• DuPont claims that the C8 in groundwater at the Nafion Plant does not come from the APFO
Plant, but instead comes from the Nafion manufacturing process where it is created as a "by-
product." DuPont also claims this by-product leaked to the groundwater from an "underground
concrete waste storage vault, or sump" beneath the Nafion Plant. This area is referred to as
SWMU 6 (Common Sump). DuPont claims the sump was closed in 2000 after plant workers
found groundwater leaking through a in the crack in the floor.(10) This leak would have occurred
before the APFO Plant began operating. DuPont also reported a crack in the concrete wall near
the top of the "Waste Fluorocarbon System's secondary containment sump" on December 11,
2002. The APFO Plant was operating at this time. DuPont asked that its hazardous waste permit
be modified to allow this "existing secondary containment system" to be repaired and lined.(11)
• It is also possible that the C8 found in groundwater beneath the Nafion Plant came from
unauthorized APFO Plant wastewater discharges that were routed to the Nafion Plant. DuPont's
NPDES permit application proposed two locations for a new internal Outfall 007 to monitor
APFO Plant discharges. One was at the APFO Plant and the other was at the Nafion Plant.(12)
• It is not clear if APFO Plant discharges were intended to enter the "Common Sump" prior to
discharge through Outfall 007. Even if APFO Plant wastewater did not enter the common sump,
the wastewater could still cause or contribute to the C8 contamination in the Nafion area. In 2004
the DENR noted, "the distribution of different constituents and variations in their concentrations
implies there may be more than one release originating at SWMU 6 (Common Sump)." The
agency wanted DuPont to consider the possibility of point sources of contamination "other than
the common sump at SWMU 6."(13)
Specific Areas and Events in Need of Investigation
• Pathways for Deliberate Wastewater Discharges
According to DuPont, there is a "drainage system" in the C8 plant that is "designed to catch and
guide any spilled material into a collection and treatment system.(14)" This collection and
drainage and collection system should be sampled for the presence of C8. Although DuPont
claims never to have discharged wastewater from the APFO Plant, it was apparently designed and
built on the assumption that discharges could occur.
The APFO Plant's drainage or conveyance system should be sampled at the point beginning at
the APFO plant where DuPont initially proposed Outfall 007, and points leading to the Nafion
Plant where DuPont also proposed to locate Outfall 007.
DuPont employees, who would have knowledge of APFO Plant discharges, should be
interviewed to determine if APFO Plant wastewater discharges occurred. The interviews should
be conducted off -site and in the absence of DuPont management.
• Records of Wastewater Shipment and Disposal
DEQ-CFW 00061682

a
Outfall 007. Internal Outfalls 001, 006, and 007 are discharged through Outfall 002 at Cape Fear
River. Outfall 007 (APFO low -biodegradable process wastewater) limitations were: flow .048
MGD monthly average; BOD5 20 degrees C, 18 lb. a day monthly average, 48 lb. day daily
maximum; TSS 22.8 lb./day monthly average, 73.3 lb./day daily maximum; pH between 6-9
standard units.
(4) On 2/3/04 DENR sent a corrected permit reflecting changes requested by DuPont, including
references to Outfall 007 where C-8 plant discharges had previously been authorized.
(5) The 1/17/03 letter from DuPont to DENR blamed the exceedance on the use of a new
plasticizer in the Butacite Plant. According to DuPont, the plasticizer was used without issue for
most of 2002.
(6) 2/5/03, Letter from DENR to DuPont Fayetteville Works with December 5, 2002 internal
DENR email communication. According to an 3/21/03 EPA inspection report, DuPont blamed the
BOD exceedance of November 2002 on a new product (3GO Plasticide) that was discharged to
the wastewater treatment plant.
(7) 5-3-01, DuPont Renewal Application for NPDES Permit NC0003537, Potential Facility
Changes.
(8) "DuPont officials say chemical process is safe," March 3, 2003, Fayetteville Observer
(9) DuPonfs 2003 Hazardous Waste Report, Forms GM, identify quantities of hazardous waste -
related to the C-8 manufacturing process and the ultimate location and disposition of those
wastes.
(10) 5/26/05, "DuPont monitors chemical pollution." Fayetteville Observer
(11) 12-11-02, Letter from DuPont's Fayetteville Plant Environmental Manager to DENR
Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Section
(12) It is not clear why DuPont wanted to route the APFO Plant.Wastewater to the Nafion Plant
area located several hundred yards to the south east. This was not the most direct route of
discharge to the Cape Fear River or the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although DuPont proposed
that Naflon and APFO plant discharges have the same effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements, each had a separate internal Outfall to be monitored.
(13) 6/25/04, Hazardous Waste Section's Comments on Phase I Supplemental RCRA Facility
Investigation Report (5/27/04)
(14) 3/3/03, "DuPont officials say chemical process is safe," Fayetteville Observer
DEQ-CFW 00061683