DEQ-CFW_00084752

From: Kritzer, Jamie [/D=[XCHANG[LAB5/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHF2]SPDLT)/CN=REOP|ENTS/CN=C[E9]C49D01445A]B541B8327DCDCD4O-JBKR|TZ[R]
Sent: 9/18/I0I78:37:I4PW1
To: Talley, Noe||e3[/b=ExchanXeLabs/ou=ExchangeAdministrative Group
(FYD|8OHFZ33PDO)/cn=Redpient$cn=cd9[3Q8%4%I745bcb5a6Ocbe8ZcdMA9'nstaUey]
Subject: RE: FYI vauXhn?s
Just an FYI — getting lots of media questions on atmospheric deposition / air quality issues with GenX.
Knappe made a statement during Thursday's info session in these regards. We were asked and said we were
investigating the possibility of atmospheric deposition because one of the wells is actually uphill from the source and
things like that don't defy gravity typically.
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
519-707-8602
011111461 PA�0�
�a S��x��:���
k,����nY�Law/mn�/nay�wo�x�n��dynhhkdpmnO�n�
From: Talley, Noe||eS
Sent: Monday, September 1Q,JO174:Z1PK4
To: Kritzer, Jamie ^[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: FYI vau0hn?s
Noelle Talley
eputy Communications Director
#ffice of Governor Roy Cooper
From: Kritzer, Jamie
Sent: Monday, September 1Q,JO173:S1PK4
To: Talley, NoeUeS
DEQ stands by its actions in this matter. In issuing the 60-day notice letter and filing the complaint in Bladen County
Superior Court, DEQ took complementary approaches to address concerns with the discharges from the Chemours
facility. Chemours has taken steps to satisfy the requirements of the partial consent order. DEQ cannot comment further
because this isactive litigation.

1) What is DEQ's legal authority for its threat outlined in Zimmerman's Sept. 5 letter to revoke Chemours' NPDES permit
unless it met specific demands to stop discharges of GenX, the Nafion byproducts and other PFASs? Anything beyond
the N.C. Administrative Code and CFR references in the letter?
2) Chemours alleges that DEQ did not follow the correct procedure in seeking the cessation of the discharges, specifically
in terms of prior notice, public hearings and other steps as outlined in N.C. Administrative Code. Why would the
regulations Chemours' cites (60 days' notice, same procedure as for a permit renewal, etc.) not apply in this case?
3) Chemours alleges that DEQ was not responsive to requests for records. Has DEQ provided all the records requested
byChemouo?|fkdid, when? |fnot, will those records besupplied? When?
4) Chemours states it is complying with the terms of its permit, including as they pertain to disclosure of pollutants. In
the Sept. Sletter cited above, DEQ states "We have found no evidence in the permit file indicating that Chemours or
DuPont (Chemours' predecessor) disclosed the discharge to surface water of GenX compounds at the Fayetteville Works.
In particular, the NPDES permit renewal applications submitted to DWR contain no reference to "GenX" or to any
chemical name, formula, or CAS number that would identify any GenX compounds in the discharge." Among other
things, [hemoursdtes a]une 29, 2017, 5tarNew/s article in which you said the description of the manufacturing process
constituted disclosure.
As far as | know/ the Sept. S statement that GenXw/as not disclosed is the first time since June 29that D8Qhas stated
GenX was not disclosed in the permit. What changed? Is the manufacturing description you referenced as disclosure in
June not sufficient? Why not? What actions will DE{lpursue against [hemuuo regarding this failure to disclose?
We've answered this question before. Adain Wagner wrote about it in his Aug. 2' 1 article.
5) Chemours states that DEQ's zero -discharge demand is "unprecedented" and that the company is being singled out.
Can you provide examples of when DEQ taken similar action in other cases? Or is this a unique case?
6) Chemours states that it asked for an additional seven days to analyze the situation regarding the Nafion byproducts,
but that DE{lrefused. Is this correct? If so, why did DE[lrefuse the request?
7) Chemours makes a number of broader allegations in the letter, including that the state is violating the company's due -
process rights, acting in a "capricious" and "arbitrary" manner toward Chemouns, making demands regarding discharges
that are not science -based and not following state laws and regulations regarding this process. Any response to those?
8) What's the status of the information Chemours agreed to provide in the partial consent order?
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
519-707-8602

s is s
t'."e o"i,
DEQ-CFW-00084754