DEQ-CFW_00051018

From: Brantley, Mark [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDI BO H F23SPDLT)/CN =RECI PI ENTS/CN =4DD9 D7CD94FO44CAAE lA45BC58BA5EF2-KM BRANTLEY]
Sent: 7/30/2015 5:43:00 PM
To: Henson, Belinda [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b8l34bcde48b4ba29533b6ec352ca951-bshenson]
Subject: FW: Landlord /Tenant Release Reporting Obligations
Belinda
Below is the e-mail Mike .Johnson sent yesterday,
Mark
From: Johnson, Michael E [mailto: MICHAEL. EJOH [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Brantley, Mark
Subject: Landlord / Tenant Release Reporting Obligations
Mark:
It was good talking to you this morning.
My question is around the legal reporting obligation when a tenant (Company A) at an industrial park setting
releases a chemical to flowing water that passes through the industrial park owner's (Company B) NPDES
permitted final outfall, and then ultimately into a surface water (specifically the Cape Fear River).
I would like for you to expand my original question to you, using the following three scenarios:
1) Company A releases a CERCLA hazardous substance in a quantity above the regulatory (40 CFR part
302) reportable quantity ("RQ") into the non -contact cooling water that then flows through Company
B's NPDES permitted final outfall and into the river. Both CERCLA and EPCRA require immediate
reporting of the release to the National Response Center, the North Carolina SERC, and the Local
Emergency Planning Committees of the county where the release occurred. It is my belief that
Company A has total responsibility for making these immediate agency notifications. What is your
opinion?
2) Company A releases a CERCLA hazardous substance in a quantity below the regulatory (40 CFR part
302) reportable quantity into the non -contact cooling water that then flows through Company B's
NPDES permitted final outfall and into the river. Because the release is less than the RQ, no reporting is
required under CERCLA or EPCRA. However, Part 11(E)(6)(a) of Company B's NPDES Permit
Standard Conditions requires 24-hour notification of NC-DWR of "any noncompliance that potentially
threatens public health or the environment." Does Company A have any legal requirement to notify
NC-DWR of this type of release? Does Company B have to make the 24-hour notification of NC-DWR
even though the released chemical did not come from Company B?
3) Company A releases a non-CERCLA hazardous substance into the non -contact cooling water that then
flows through Company B's NPDES permitted final outfall and into the river. Because the chemical has
no RQ, there is no reporting required under CERCLA or EPCRA. However, Part II(E)(6)(a) of
Company B's NPDES Permit Standard Conditions requires 24-hour notification of NC-DWR of "any
noncompliance that potentially threatens public health or the environment." Does Company A have any
legal requirement to notify NC-DWR of this type of release? Does Company B have to make the 24-
hour notification of NC-DWR even though the released chemical did not come from Company B?
DEQ-CFW-00051018

llook forward 0oNC-DWRLmresponse tnthese questions.
MichanE. Johnson, pB
Environmental Manager
Chemours Compony—Fi e Works
The ChemousCompany FC'LLC
22828NCHighway 87VV
Fayetteville, NC 28306-7332
This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be Privileged,
confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.
Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and
conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended. This e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract
amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of
sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.
OEQ-CFVV_00051019