DEQ-CFW_00046908

From: Kritzer, Jamie
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:47 PM
To: Vaughn Hagerty <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kritzer, Jamie <[e-mail]>; Sink, Marla <[e-mail]>; Munger, Bridget
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Vaughn: answers to your questions
Vaughn,
Please see the answers to your questions below.
Sorry for the delay. Staff are working on a lot of fronts right now.
Jamie
M
As I indicated to Marla yesterday afternoon, I'm writing a story today regarding Chemours'
NPDES permit.
I had a fairly extensive conversation yesterday with a former EPA attorney who teaches
environmental law focused on regulations and policy. He also has written a number of texts 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 HFPO dim
acid [ca.11 me on this correction] 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.
.` e crass %er to question # 2,• they dick notifj, us.
2) Has GenX ever been mentioned as part of the Fayetteville Works NPDES permit or permit
application?
IlieI-)ern it al-)pliccrtion describes five diff�3i-ent manumcluring,areas. In that description, theyy
a cc;o
,iz ca'thc� laa caca'uc°tip (rf l' monomer 6Mich is beha<g referred to as Gen.Y) and the vinj,l
ether monomers in the ivassteivater. The uwsteit, titer• generated as a result gf'thesc processes is
sent to the �vaste�vater trecrtinemplant, according- to the per°n it gal licc_riion. 1I%e were infor°in ed
that the Chemours `polytuerprocessing cairn (additional GenX coral-)oua ds) manufacturing area is
DEQ-CFW 00046908

a closed lool?system. In other ivordv, the w.7stc,,!�(�nei'atedchii-iii(,Y these j?rocesses is capuredon-
site and not djschar,!�ed to the rh vr.
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?
7heY �rere all identified in the '110 16 apl-)licalion and allj-Areilous qfyhcations as HI-710
monomer (4,hich car-e being referred to as GenX) and the vinyl ether monomers.
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?
The 016 i-eneival qj-)[,hcafion does mention HF110 monomer (which is being i-efti-red to as
GenX) and the Nny1 Ether monowers in the ivasies ater.
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.
Tf7iat.vou described is incorrect. Please see an,sivers above.
Again, I'm writing this story today. In fact, I'll have most of it finished before noon.
EM
Vaughn Hagerty
DEQ-CFW-00046909