2020.04.02_CCO.p16_CFRWCommentsCAP

1

April 2, 2020

VIA E-MAIL
Sheila Holman
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1601
[e-mail]

Re: Cape Fear River Watch Comments on Chemours’ Corrective Action Plan

Dear Ms. Holman:

On behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, please accept these comments on Chemours’
Corrective Action Plan (“plan”) for the Fayetteville Works Facility. On December 31, 2019,
Chemours submitted an 1800-page document that is intended to provide for the “restoration of
groundwater quality” in accordance with state law. Although titled “Corrective Action Plan,”
Chemours’ document fails to provide any action or plan to correct the unprecedented
contamination the company has caused in violation of the 2019 Consent Order and state law.1

Rather than commit to clean up its historic contamination, Chemours seeks to do what it
and DuPont have done for decades—escape responsibility for the harm caused by its chemicals.
For years, DuPont and Chemours have known that the Washington Works Facility in West
Virginia contaminated the air, groundwater, river, and drinking water near the facility. And yet
neither DuPont nor Chemours did anything to prevent the same contamination at the Fayetteville
Works Facility. Now, having been caught contaminating more than 70 square miles, hundreds of
drinking water wells, and the river that provides water for more than 300,000 North Carolinians,
Chemours makes an astonishing argument—that it should be excused from the clear
requirements of the state’s groundwater rules because the harm it has caused is too vast.
Although the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County have invested hundreds
of millions of dollars to clean up Chemours’ contamination, the company’s plan asserts that it
should be allowed to wait and further study its extensive contamination before taking action.
While communities, schools, and churches near and far depend on bottled water because
Chemours’ pollution continues to taint their taps, the company asks for more time to allow it to
escape responsibility.

DEQ must hold Chemours accountable. The company has now made it clear that it does
not intend to uphold its commitments under the Consent Order or the requirements for corrective
action under the state rules. DEQ must exercise its full authority under the Consent Order to

1 The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Corrective Action Plan – Chemours Fayetteville Works (Dec. 2019) (“CAP”).
2
seek penalties for Chemours’ violations of the order, reject Chemours’ proposed Corrective
Action Plan, and require the company to meet the groundwater rules’ requirement to eliminate its
contamination.

I. Chemours must be held responsible.

Chemours’ rejection of responsibility for its pollution begins with its cover letter. The
company states that any remaining problems should be DuPont’s problem.2 DEQ cannot allow
Chemours to shirk its obligations. The Consent Order and state law do not free Chemours from
its responsibility to clean up its pollution simply because DuPont formerly owned and operated
the facility. If Chemours wishes to seek compensation from DuPont, as it has begun to in the
Delaware Chancery Court, it is free to do so. Communities living near and downstream of
Chemours’ facility must not bear the burden of unresolved disputes between the two companies.3

II. State law and the Consent Order require Chemours to clean up its site.

Throughout Chemours’ Corrective Action Plan, the company uses uncertainty or a lack
of information to justify a failure to act. Because per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”)
have not been studied enough, the company argues, it is not certain that there will be harms to
human health and the environment; therefore, more protective cleanup should not be required.
Chemours is wrong.

The Consent Order and state law are designed to ensure the maximum cleanup is
completed, even in the face of uncertainty. The Consent Order requires maximum reductions in
PFAS loading to surface waters to be implemented as soon as possible. In the long-term, the
Consent Order incorporates North Carolina’s stringent groundwater cleanup requirements, which
mandate the cleanup of pollutants to the lowest levels that are measurable by a laboratory, or as
close to those levels as are technologically and economically feasible. As a backstop, the
Consent Order requires that PFAS loading to the Cape Fear River, and each stream that flows
into it, be reduced by 75 percent at a minimum. State water quality standards, which are
incorporated into the state groundwater rules, prohibit discharges of PFAS unless the company
can demonstrate they are safe. In failing to apply these standards, Chemours ignores its
commitments under the Consent Order and those under state law, rendering their Corrective
Action Plan non-compliant.

A. State law requires that Chemours clean up its pollution to groundwater
standards, or as close as is economically and technologically feasible.

State law mandates the comprehensive cleanup of contaminated groundwater. First,
when groundwater contamination has been discovered, the entity responsible must act
immediately—even before investigating the scope of the contamination and before developing a
corrective action plan. It must “take action upon discovery to terminate and control the

2 Letter from Brian D. Long, Chemours, to Sheila Holman, N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”),
“Corrective Action Plan – Chemours Fayetteville Works,” Dec. 31, 2019, *1. 3 This is particularly true here, where the facility simply changed signs—continuing to employ the same persons
responsible for the practices leading to the unprecedented contamination.
3
discharge,” and “mitigate any hazards resulting from exposure to the pollutants.”4 The entity
responsible must abate, contain, and control the migration of the contaminants; remove, treat,
control primary pollution sources; and remove, treat, and control secondary pollution sources
that continue to pollute groundwater, including contaminated soils.5

Then, the entity responsible must assess the contamination,6 and develop a corrective
action plan that includes: “[s]pecific plans, including engineering details where applicable, for
restoring groundwater quality;” “a schedule for the implementation and operation of the
proposed plan;” and “a monitoring plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed
corrective action and the movement of the contaminant plume.”7

The state groundwater rules require that “[w]here groundwater quality has been degraded,
the goal of any required corrective action shall be restoration to the level of the standards, or as
closely thereto as is economically and technologically feasible as determined by the Department
in accordance with this Rule.”8 Pollutants “which are not naturally occurring and for which no
standard is specified,” like PFAS, “shall not be permitted in concentrations at or above the
practical quantitation limit,”9 or the “lowest concentration of a given material that can be reliably
achieved among laboratories within specified limits of precision and accuracy by a given
analytical method during routine laboratory analysis.”10 The rules also require that corrective
action plans “be implemented using a remedial technology demonstrated to provide the most
effective means, taking into consideration geological and hydrogeological conditions at the
contaminated site, for restoration of groundwater quality to the level of standards.”11

State law thus requires that Chemours begin to contain and control its PFAS groundwater
pollution immediately after discovering it; remove, treat, and control all of the sources that
contribute to its groundwater pollution, including contaminated soil; and then clean up its
groundwater pollution to the lowest concentration level that is measurable by laboratories, or as
close to that level as possible—and that the company’s corrective action plan reflect these
actions and goals.

4 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(b).
5 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(f). 6 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(c), (g). 7 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(h). Due to the inadequacy of Chemours’ submission, Cape Fear River Watch
has not commented on the company’s proposed monitoring plan. Cape Fear River Watch reserves the right to
comment on a future monitoring plan submitted as part of a corrective action plan that complies with the Consent
Order and state groundwater rules. Just as Chemours’ Corrective Action Plan is wholly inadequate, so too is its
monitoring plan. 8 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(a) (emphasis added). 9 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02L .0202(c). 10 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02L .0102(15).
11 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02L .0106(j) (emphasis added).
4
B. The Consent Order requires that Chemours achieve maximum reductions
from groundwater to rivers and streams within two years, and that
Chemours reduce PFAS loading to all rivers and streams by at least 75
percent.

The Consent Order requires that Chemours clean up and control its contaminated
groundwater in two stages. Paragraph 12 provides for more immediate implementation of
groundwater control measures at the site, whereas paragraph 16 requires the company to conduct
long-term cleanup, incorporating the stringent requirements of state law.

Under paragraph 12 of the Consent Order, Chemours must:
submit to DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch a plan demonstrating the maximum
reductions in PFAS loading from the Facility (including loading from
contaminated stormwater, non-process wastewater, and groundwater) to surface
waters, including Old Outfall 002, that are economically and technologically
feasible, and can be achieved within a two-year period (“PFAS reduction
targets”). The plan shall be supported by interim benchmarks to ensure
continuous progress in reduction of PFAS loading. If significantly greater
reductions can be achieved in a longer implementation period, Chemours may
propose, in addition, an implementation period of up to five years supported by
interim benchmarks to ensure continuous progress in reduction of PFAS
loading.12

Under this provision, Chemours was required to submit a plan by August 2019 that demonstrated
maximum reductions in PFAS loading from groundwater to surface waters that are feasible, and
that could be achieved within two years.

In addition to the short-term implementation of controls required under Consent Order
paragraph 12, paragraph 16 requires the company to submit a “complete Corrective Action Plan
that complies with the requirements of the 2L Rules.”13 These rules require that the company
clean up its PFAS groundwater pollution to almost undetectable levels (i.e., the “practical
quantitation limit”).

As a backstop to the rules, paragraph 16 of the Consent Order mandates that “[a]t
minimum, the Corrective Action Plan must require Chemours to reduce the PFAS loading to
surface water (Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch, and the Cape Fear River), for the
PFAS for which test methods and lab standards have been developed, by at least 75% from
baseline.”14 So that those reductions can be measured, the Consent Order requires that
Chemours install groundwater monitoring wells along each surface water near the facility (Old
Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch, and the Cape Fear River).15

12 Consent Order, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Chemours, 17 CVS 580, 14-15 (N.C. Super. 2019)
(“Consent Order”). 13 Consent Order at 21. 14 Id. at 22 (emphasis added).
15 Id. at 22.
5
Taken together, the goal of the Corrective Action Plan, as dictated by paragraph 16 of the
Consent Order, is Chemours’ cleanup of all PFAS to as close to the practical quantitation limits
as is economically and technologically feasible; and, at a minimum, reduction of PFAS loading
to Old Outfall 002, to Willis Creek, to Georgia Branch, and to the Cape Fear River by 75 percent
for all PFAS.

Despite these requirements, Chemours sent DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch a letter on
October 7, 2019, admitting that its August 2019 submission required by paragraph 12 of the
Consent Order did not address on-site groundwater, as required.16 Chemours’ letter stated that
“addressing on-site groundwater will be a major focus of the Corrective Action Plan due in
December” and proposed to “merge the paragraph 12 and 16 requirements.”17 The company
went on to promise that it would address groundwater loading to the Cape Fear River and other
surface waters in its Corrective Action Plan:

Under this approach, Chemours would be obligated to propose in the Corrective
Action Plan those feasible measures that would achieve maximum reductions in
loadings to surface waters from on-site groundwater in two and five year periods.
This would include consideration of measures that could impact not just loadings
from on-site groundwater to the Cape Fear River, but to other surface waters as
well.18

As discussed below, Chemours did not do any of this in its Corrective Action Plan.

III. Chemours applied the wrong standard and ignored its obligations under
state law and the Consent Order.

Chemours’ Corrective Action Plan could hardly do less to meet the clear state law and
Consent Order mandates set out above. Instead, the company brazenly attempts to rewrite the
law and the Consent Order in order to propose so-called “actions”—actions that cost the
company little, and that will leave 45,000 acres of toxic groundwater sitting beneath people’s
homes, and spilling into the Cape Fear River and streams for the foreseeable future.

A. The Corrective Action Plan will not meet groundwater standards and
Chemours does not qualify for an exemption.

Instead of developing a Corrective Action Plan that complies with state groundwater
laws, or the Consent Order, Chemours argues that DEQ should instead exempt Chemours from
the requirements of state groundwater standards. Chemours argues that it should be released

16 Letter from Joel M. Gross to Francisco Benzoni and Geoff Gisler, “Chemours’ PFAS Loading Reduction Plan,”
Oct. 7, 2019, included as Attachment 1. DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch have demanded compliance from the
company. Letter from Francisco Benzoni and Geoff Gisler to Joel Gross, “Chemours’ PFAS Loading Reduction
Plan,” Sept. 26, 2019, included as Attachment 2; Letter from Francisco Benzoni and Geoff Gisler to Joel Gross,
“PFAS Loading Reduction Plan,” Oct. 23, 2019, included as Attachment 3. 17 Letter from Joel M. Gross to Francisco Benzoni and Geoff Gisler, “Chemours’ PFAS Loading Reduction Plan,”
2-3, Oct. 7, 2019. Note that Cape Fear River Watch and DEQ did not agree to merge the Paragraph 12 and 16
requirements as Chemours proposed.
18 Id. at 3.
6
from state standards because of the historic extent of its contamination, and that it would be too
costly to clean it up in compliance with the law. Putting Chemours’ attempts to avoid
responsibility aside, the company does not qualify for any exemption, its Corrective Action Plan
does not meet the required standards, and DEQ must reject the company’s plan.

1. Chemours does not qualify for an exemption from state
groundwater standards.

Chemours asks DEQ to exempt the company from the state’s groundwater rules under
15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k). For that narrow exemption to apply, however, DEQ must
find, based on Chemours’ demonstration, that all of the following elements are true:

 Chemours must have already removed or controlled “all sources of contamination
and free product”19—including “buried waste, waste stockpiles, or surficial
accumulations of free products;” 20 as well as all “secondary pollution sources that
would be potential continuing sources of pollutants to the groundwaters, such as
contaminated soils and non-aqueous phase liquids.”21

 “[T]he time and direction of contaminant travel can be predicted with reasonable
certainty.”22

 “[C]ontaminants have not and will not migrate onto adjacent properties, or that: (A)
such properties are served by an existing public water supply system dependent on
surface waters or hydraulically isolated groundwater; or (B) the owners of such
properties have consented in writing to the request.”23

 Groundwater standards “will be met at a location no closer than one year time of
travel upgradient of an existing or foreseeable receptor, based on travel time and the
natural attenuation capacity of subsurface materials or on a physical barrier to
groundwater migration that exists or will be installed by the person making the
request.”24

 Because “the contaminant plume is expected to intercept surface waters,” the
groundwater discharge cannot “possess contaminant concentrations that would result
in violations of standards for surface waters contained in 15A NCAC 02B .0200.”25

 Public notice of the request has been provided.26

19 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k) (emphasis added).
20 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(f)(3). 21 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(f)(4).
22 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(2). 23 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(3). 24 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(4). 25 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(5).
26 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(6).
7
 The proposed corrective action plan would be consistent with all other environmental
laws.27

Chemours has not shown, and cannot show, that all of these circumstances exist.

Chemours has not come close to removing or controlling all sources of groundwater
contamination.28 Chemours’ facility has released PFAS into the air, water, and soil for over four
decades. As a result, there are numerous sources of contamination that continue to leach PFAS
into the groundwater below. For instance, there are PFAS in soils caused by the deposition of
Chemours’ air emissions—contamination that remains in soil on-site and off-site.29

Areas at the site have also been polluted by the company’s highly toxic process
wastewater and other media.30 For decades, PFAS-contaminated wastewater and stormwater
traveled throughout the facility.31 PFAS clung to soils and sludge, leaked continuously into
groundwater, and flushed throughout the site when it rained.32 The company did nothing to
contain that contamination.

Polluted solid waste and sludge from the facility’s wastewater treatment plant and from
sedimentation basins were dumped in unlined pits and lagoons around the site.33 Because
Chemours has not fully excavated that waste, PFAS will continue to leach into groundwater.34
In fact, Chemours outright refuses to conduct such remediation in its plan, stating that although
“2L requires removal or control of secondary sources to groundwater such as contaminated
soils,” it would not remove those sources because “soil remediation would have reduced
benefit.”35

Sampling at the facility required under paragraph 11 of the Consent Order confirms
continuing sources of contamination to groundwater. One sampling location had PFAS

27 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(7).
28 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(1). 29 CAP at 19 (describing the “[i]nfiltrating rainfall [that] has transported these PFAS downward to groundwater.”).
30 CAP at 23-24. This has also been documented by all of Chemours’ submissions since its pollution was uncovered
in 2017. 31 See Attachment 3 of The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan, 24, 26
(Aug. 2019).
32 Id. 33 Phase III Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Report for DuPont Fayetteville Works,
Appendix D, SWMU 9, 16 (2014). Given that the historical waste was produced long before Chemours began
capturing its PFAS process wastewater, it is likely that the waste contains high concentrations of PFAS and is a
continuing source of contamination to groundwater. 34 Note that there is also a rainwater retention basin north of the PPA Manufacturing area that is a known source of
PFAS into groundwater that Chemours has not yet investigated. Phase III Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Facility Investigation Report for DuPont Fayetteville Works, Appendix D, SWMU 7 (2014) (“Evidence of a release
was identified in the vicinity of the former rain water retention basin north of the PFOA manufacturing facility and a
second, similar release occurred on June 23, 2011 from the PPA stack in this same area. PFOA has been identified in
shallow groundwater as a result of air deposition in the immediate vicinity of the PFOA manufacturing area being
carried via runoff and infiltrating into the subsurface.” PFOA is a type of PFAS.).
35 CAP at 55 (emphasis added).
8
concentrations of 48,000 parts per trillion (“ppt”),36 potentially caused by a leaking terracotta
pipe which Chemours says will not be remedied for another year.37 Stormwater in its Nafion
Manufacturing area has been measured at concentrations up to 66,000 ppt;38 yet Chemours does
not currently have a plan in place to control its stormwater. The wastewater treatment plant
discharge has been measured at 36,000 ppt.39 Many channels around the facility that receive
wastewater treatment plant discharge and flow from the contaminated Nafion Manufacturing
area are unlined or leaking, allowing PFAS to seep into the groundwater below.40 The
company’s own analysis demonstrates that Chemours has not removed or controlled all sources
of contamination to groundwater, and does not meet the first and crucial requirement of 15A
N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k).

Chemours cannot predict the time and direction of contaminant travel with reasonable
certainty.41 Chemours relies on “retardation factors” to predict contaminant travel, yet has only
produced such information for five PFAS.42 The company’s own fate and transport study only
addresses 24 PFAS.43 The company’s analysis thus only covers a fraction of the pollutants in
Chemours’ groundwater. The company has identified an additional 22 PFAS from non-targeted
sampling that are not addressed in its fate and transport study,44 and Chemours has admitted that
there are over 150 PFAS that could be present at the facility.45 Even for those covered by the
company’s study, Chemours acknowledges that it cannot predict their fate with any certainty.46

Chemours cannot demonstrate that its “contaminants have not and will not migrate
onto adjacent properties.”47 Chemours’ PFAS have migrated onto nearby properties. They
have been found in over 1,900 wells that provide drinking water to surrounding residents,48 and
Chemours cannot ensure that its PFAS-contaminated groundwater will not continue to migrate
further onto other properties.49 The company also cannot demonstrate that “such properties are

36 The Chemours Company FC, LLC, PFAS Characterization Quarterly Report, Figure 3B (Jan. 2020) (“Chemours
Jan. 2020 Characterization Report”).
37 CAP at 18-19. 38 Chemours Jan. 2020 Characterization Report at Figure 3B. 39 Id. 40 See Attachment 3 of The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan,
(Aug. 2019). 41 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(2).
42 CAP at 27, 58-59. 43 The Chemours Company FC, LLC., Site Associated PFAS Fate and Transport Study Chemours Fayetteville
Works, 3 (June 2019) (“Fate and Transport Study”). 44 Fate and Transport Study at 3.
45 The Chemours Company FC, LLC., Chemours Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit Application Update,
Attachment F-4, “List of PFAS Compounds” (July 2019). (“This list represents the known PFAS compounds that
could be present at Chemours – Fayetteville Works and therefore potentially detected in the effluent from the
facility.”). 46 Fate and Transport Study at 15 (“Site [a]ssociated PFAS have limited publicly available, peer-reviewed literature
describing their fate and transport.”).
47 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(3). 48 The Chemours Company FC, LLC., Consent Order Progress Report for Fourth Quarter 2019, *1.
49 DEQ guidance requires that a map “be provided that shows the current plume boundary as well as adjacent
properties and those down gradient properties where the plume is expected to migrate. Any supply wells on those
properties must be located on the map. An indication of which properties are predicted to be impacted and the
technical basis for this determination must also be provided. In addition, a map must be provided that shows the
predicted maximum extent of the contamination plume.” DEQ – Division of Water Resources, Guidelines for the
9
served by an existing public water supply system dependent on surface waters or hydraulically
isolated groundwater;” or that “the owners of such properties have consented in writing to the
request.”50 Hundreds of affected properties are not served by existing public water supplies,51
and the property owners have not consented in writing to Chemours’ pollution being on their
property.

Chemours cannot show that groundwater standards will be met upgradient of existing
or foreseeable receptors. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(4) requires that groundwater
standards will “be met at a location no closer than one year time of travel upgradient of an
existing or foreseeable receptor, based on travel time and the natural attenuation capacity of
subsurface materials or on a physical barrier to groundwater migration that exists or will be
installed by the person making the request.”52 Groundwater upgradient of anyone who might be
exposed to the company’s contamination, and other potential receptors,53 will not meet practical
quantitation limits for PFAS—Chemours admits as much.54 Chemours has also not shown that
there is any physical barrier to groundwater migration, nor has the company proposed to install a
physical barrier to prevent that migration.

Chemours cannot demonstrate that its PFAS groundwater discharge will not cause
violations of standards in surface waters.55 Applicable surface water standards include the
North Carolina Toxics Substances Standard, which requires that: “[T]he concentration of toxic
substances […] in surface waters shall not render waters injurious to […] public health, or impair
the waters for any designated uses,”56 as well as the Class C water quality standard: 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 02B .0211(12), which requires that wastes “shall not render waters injurious to
public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, […] or impair the waters for
any designated uses.” To meet these standards, Chemours must demonstrate that it is not
harmful to public health to continue to expose the public to the PFAS that it has subjected
hundreds of thousands of people for decades. The company has not even considered such a
study. Lack of information cannot be a basis to excuse Chemours from taking responsibility for
its actions; it must instead be a bar to demonstrating compliance with applicable water quality
standards. Therefore, Chemours cannot demonstrate compliance with the either the North

Investigation and Remediation of Soil and Groundwater Contamination, 27 (2017). Chemours has not satisfied these
requirements. 50 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(3). 51 Chemours has not finished installing filters, or providing alternative drinking supplies for everyone with a
contaminated well. It has not even finished sampling wells. So the company cannot claim that properties are
effectively served by an uncontaminated drinking water supply. DEQ guidance states that “[s]uitable water supplies
must meet the regulatory definition of a public water supply and be approved by the DWR Public Water Supply
Section,” and that documentation must be provided. Id. 52 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(4). 53 DEQ guidance interprets “receptors” broadly to include “utility lines, public and domestic water supply wells,
surface waters, and regions of groundwater that have been identified for planned resource development by state or
local governments.” Id. at 27-28. In addition, DEQ guidance requires that “[a]ll existing and foreseeable receptors”
“be identified on the base map.” Id. at 27. 54 Chemours unilaterally concludes, without providing evidence, that meeting practical quantitation limits would not
be feasible, and argues for “alternate cleanup standards.” See CAP at 51-60. 55 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(k)(5).
56 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B .0208.
10
Carolina Toxic Substances Standard or the Class C water quality standard, 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 02B .0211(12).

Because Chemours fails to satisfy the requirements for 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L
.0106(k)’s exemption to the groundwater rules, the company must clean up its groundwater to
practical quantitation limits, or as close as is technologically and economically feasible.

2. The Corrective Action Plan does not attempt to, and will not, meet
groundwater standards.

Chemours admits that the Corrective Action Plan will not clean up groundwater to
practical quantitation limits—the applicable standard for PFAS. The company also does not
propose remediation that comes as close to practical quantitation limits is technologically and
economically feasible, as state law requires.

Instead, Chemours unilaterally decides that achieving practical quantitation limits is
infeasible without providing any evidence.57 That omission alone is sufficient reason to reject
the plan. Feasibility under state law is determined by DEQ, not by Chemours.58 Therefore,
Chemours must provide DEQ with sufficient supporting documentation so that the agency can
make the determination as to what actions are economically and technologically feasible. It has
not.

Even if Chemours were able to prove to DEQ’s satisfaction that achieving practical
quantitation limits is not economically feasible or technologically feasible, state law requires that
Chemours come as close as possible to that standard—and that its Corrective Action Plan reflects
that goal.59 The plan, however, does not even consider methods to meet this mandatory standard.
The only action Chemours proposes to take to clean up its on-site groundwater is to pump water
from a handful of existing wells at a rate of 14 gallons per minute, after admitting that pumping
at such a low rate would not meaningfully reduce the contamination.60

Despite admitting that the “most effective means” to stop groundwater from flowing into
surface water is to install a barrier wall,61 the company argues that the technology is not available

57 Chemours makes broad sweeping statements about how it could not possibly meet groundwater standards without
providing any evidence or supporting documentation for those statements. For instance, the company states that any
remedy which “could help make progress towards PQLs over this area would cost in the billions to tens of billions
of dollars.” CAP at 56. It claims that a pump and treat system “with the goal of restoring groundwater to PQLs
would cost an economically infeasible amount of over a billion dollars and would almost certainly not achieve PQLs
and not achieve any additional benefit in loading reductions to the Cape Fear River greater than those already
proposed in this CAP.” CAP at 57. It adds that “[E]x situ treatment will become asymptotic and not achieve
cleanup goals.” CAP at 57. None of these broad, conclusory statements are supported by evidence. 58 State law requires that Chemours restore all contaminated groundwater to the level of standards, “or as closely
thereto as is economically and technologically feasible as determined by the Department.” 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2L .0106(a) (emphasis added).
59 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(a). 60 The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Memorandum, “Response to Cape Fear River Watch Comments Dated
December 19, 2019,” Jan. 31, 2020, at 11. (Chemours states that pumping at 70 gallons per minute would not
“meaningfully reduce loadings to the Cape Fear River.”).
61 CAP at xvii.
11
to remedy the problem. The company’s long-term goal—to wait-and-see what “remedial
approaches” become available—is unacceptable.62 First, the law is clear: it requires that the
company come as close to practical quantitation limits as is feasible. Second, state groundwater
rules contemplate the development of new technology, but they do not allow a polluter to delay
cleanup. The rules state that if DEQ determines that a new technology is available at some point
in the future “that would remediate the contaminated groundwater to the standards…,” DEQ
“may require the responsible party to evaluate the economic and technological feasibility of
implementing the new technology in an active groundwater corrective action plan.”63 Chemours
must act now. If new technology is developed, DEQ may determine whether or not that
technology would be effective and require Chemours to evaluate it. Finally, effective technology
exists. The company admits that there is an effective way to prevent groundwater from leaving
the site, but is simply reluctant to pay for it.64

Similarly, the company argues that DEQ should wait-and-see what groundwater cleanup
standards are developed in the future, rather than developing a plan that attempts to achieve
practical quantitation limits.65 State groundwater rules specifically provide for situations in
which the groundwater cleanup standards have not been provided, and prioritize maximum
cleanup in the face of uncertainty.66 To wait for groundwater standards to be developed before
implementing a Corrective Action Plan that comes as close as possible to achieving practical
quantitation limits would be rewriting the law and excuse historic levels of groundwater
contamination.

3. DEQ must reject Chemours’ false and self-motivated claims that
its pollution will not harm communities and the environment.

Chemours argues that its toxic PFAS contamination is not harming people or the
environment, and therefore “hypothetical remedies” that would clean up its pollution “are not
considered necessary.”67 At the outset, this is not the applicable standard, as discussed above.
Moreover, the company’s exposure assessments are fundamentally flawed. In arguing that its
groundwater does not need to be cleaned up, Chemours relies only on existing human health data
for GenX—one out of dozens of PFAS released by the facility.68 Chemours’ ecological

62 CAP at 54; see also CAP at 51. 63 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(o). 64 CAP at xvii. (“It is not presently possible to conclude with confidence whether this alternative is economically
feasible”).
65 CAP at 51. 66 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02L .0202(c); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02L .0102(15).
67 CAP at 56. Chemours impermissibly uses this as a cleanup goal. It states that its cleanup goal for off-site
groundwater is to “maintain human exposures to HFPO-DA below the North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services (NCDHHS) reference dose (achieved per HH-SLEA results and replacement drinking water
actions).” CAP at 54.
68 CAP, Appendix F – Offsite Human Health Screening Level Exposure Assessment (SLEA) of Table 3+ PFAS, at
35 (“The hazard characterization is limited to an assessment of HFPO-DA based on the current availability of
toxicity criteria.”). Because Chemours’ assessment is limited to GenX, or HFPO-DA, its conclusions regarding harm
to human health must be limited to GenX. See id. at 50 (“[B]ased on the provisional hazard characterization, HFPO-
DA does not pose a human health hazard…Under current conditions, no human health hazards from HFPO-DA were
identified for consumptive use of untreated surface water from the Bladen and Kings Bluffs public supply intake
points…In summary, the SLEA demonstrates that current concentrations of HDPO-DA in the environment in the
12
assessment is similarly unsupported by data.69 In addition to Table 3+ PFAS and GenX,
Chemours has identified an additional 22 PFAS from non-targeted sampling that are not
addressed in the assessment,70 and Chemours has admitted that there over 150 PFAS that could
be present at the facility.71

Furthermore, recent retesting of 2014 and 2015 samples downstream of Chemours
facility revealed that people have been drinking water with PFAS concentrations that are far
higher than previously suspected, including high levels of PFAS other than GenX, such as
PFMOAA, PFO2HxA and PFO3OA. A 2014 sample below Chemours’ outfall had PFAS
concentrations of about 990,000 ppt.72 Another sample near the drinking water intake for people
in Wilmington and Brunswick County had PFAS concentrations of 130,000 ppt.73 Detlef
Knappe, the N.C. State University scientist conducting the sampling, stated that these high
concentrations are the “current best estimate of what people in the Wilmington area were
drinking for […] 37 years.”74 Focused only on GenX, Chemours’ assessment, therefore, barely
begins to cover the breadth of its PFAS pollution, and the devastating impact it has had, and will
continue to have, on people nearby and downstream.75

Despite knowing that it has exposed hundreds of thousands of people to dozens of other
PFAS at high levels, Chemours justifies its failure to fully evaluate other PFAS—and to clean up
its groundwater—on a lack of information. The company states that “the lack of toxicity
information for other Table 3+ PFAS also introduces uncertainty to the [Human Health
Screening Level Exposure Assessment] but data are not available to evaluate the potential effect,
if any, on the conclusions hazard characterization.”76

For years, Chemours profited due to the public and the agency’s lack of knowledge about these
chemicals. By relying on a human health assessment that is supported by insufficient data in
order to claim that no one will be harmed, Chemours again attempts to profit over the lack of
information about PFAS. Chemours again attempts to put the burden of uncertainty on
communities that have already suffered for decades from the company’s actions.

Fortunately, the law places the risk of uncertainty on Chemours. There is a reason that
unnatural, poorly studied chemicals are not permitted in groundwater. State law could not be
clearer on how to deal with uncertainty regarding a chemical’s toxicity: if there is no standard,

vicinity of the Facility are unlikely to pose a hazard to human health, even in the absence of groundwater
treatment.”).
69 CAP at 42. (“[T]his analysis was unable to assess hazards to exposed receptors for Table 3+ PFAS other than
HFPO-DA”).
70 Fate and Transport Study at 3. 71 The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Chemours Fayetteville Works NPDES Permit Application Update,
Attachment F-4, “List of PFAS Compounds” (July 2019). 72 Adam Wagner, NC State-led study shows Cape Fear River had ‘incredibly high’ levels of chemicals, THE
NEWS&OBSERVER, Oct. 10, 2019, available at https://www.newsobserver.com/article235963052.html (last visited
Feb. 25, 2020).
73 Id. 74 Id. 75 For the same reason, the “Potential Future Risk-Based Remediation” proposed by Chemours in the company’s
plan is also inappropriate in this situation. See CAP at 60.
76 CAP at 40.
13
the chemical must be removed. DEQ’s decision here is not difficult. Chemours has decided to
submit a corrective action plan that does not attempt to comply with the law. The company’s
plan must be rejected.

B. Chemours’ plan does not comply with the Consent Order and DEQ should
impose penalties.

As discussed in Section II(B) of these comments, Chemours has violated the groundwater
remediation requirements under paragraph 12 of the Consent Order since August 26, 2019.
Chemours’ Corrective Action Plan also violates paragraph 16 of the Consent Order. Paragraph
16 of the Consent Order requires, at a minimum, a 75 percent reduction in PFAS loading to each
surface water near the plant: Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch Creek, and the Cape
Fear River.77 So that those reductions can be measured, the Consent Order requires that
Chemours install groundwater monitoring wells along each surface water near the facility (Old
Outfall 002, Willis Creek, Georgia Branch, and the Cape Fear River).78

In addition to the base failures of the company’s plan, Chemours attempts to unilaterally
rewrite the Consent Order by limiting its cleanup goal is to reduce PFAS loading only to the
Cape Fear River by 75 percent—thereby ignoring groundwater flow to all other surface waters.79
This is a blatant violation of the Consent Order. DEQ must reject the Corrective Action Plan,
require full compliance with the Order, and impose penalties on the company.
IV. State law demands action.

DEQ must discard Chemours’ plan and require maximum cleanup of the company’s
groundwater. In evaluating the company’s Corrective Action Plan, state law requires that DEQ
consider “the extent of any violations, the extent of any threat to human health or safety, the
extent of damage or potential adverse impact to the environment, technology available to
accomplish restoration, the potential for degradation of the contaminants in the environment, the
time and costs estimated to achieve groundwater quality restoration, and the public and economic
benefits to be derived from groundwater quality restoration.”80 Each of these factors warrants
DEQ’s rejection of Chemours’ current plan, and mandates that Chemours do more.

Chemours’ violations are extensive. As stated in DEQ’s complaint against Chemours,
filed in the Bladen County Superior Court, Chemours has committed extensive violations.81 The
company knew that it was dumping PFAS into surface waters, including drinking water supplies;
it repeatedly misled DEQ about its manufacturing processes, discharges, and the harmfulness of
GenX; it violated state groundwater rules; and it violated its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit and state water quality laws, and discharged without a permit.82

77 Consent Order at 22
78 Id. at 21-22. 79 CAP at 51. (“The Cape Fear River receives discharge from Old Outfall 002, Willis Creek and Georgia Branch
Creek, onsite seeps and onsite groundwater. Therefore, reducing Cape Fear River PFAS mass loading by at least
75% was established as the cleanup goal.”). 80 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L .0106(i). 81 Amended Complaint, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Chemours, 17 CVS 580 (N.C. Super. 2018).
82 Id.
14

Chemours’ pollution has caused extensive damage, and continues to threaten human
health and public safety. Chemours’ violations are especially concerning because DEQ, the
Environmental Protection Agency, other agencies, and other states acknowledge the serious
threats to human health and safety posed by PFAS contamination. Two of the most commonly
studied PFAS—perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”)—
have been found to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney and testicular
cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, lower birth weight
and size, obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels, and delayed
puberty.83 EPA established a lifetime health advisory of 70 ppt for the combined concentrations
of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.84

Since then, in June 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released
an updated Draft Toxicological Profile for PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS—suggesting that many
of the chemicals are much more harmful than previously thought. For instance, the minimum
risk levels, or the amount of a chemical a person can eat, drink, or breathe each day without a
detectable risk to health, was determined to be only 11 ppt for PFOA, and 7 ppt for PFOS.85
Epidemiological studies show that many of these same health outcomes result from exposure to
other PFAS.86 Given these harms, states like Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, and Vermont have acknowledged the dangers of these compounds and have either
proposed or finalized drinking water standards for various PFAS at 20 ppt and lower.87

Communities downstream of Chemours’ facility are still receiving drinking water with
PFAS concentrations much higher than these health-based values. As recently as October 2019,
total PFAS concentrations at the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority’s raw and finished water
reached nearly 400 ppt.88 Sampling results in December 2019 were still around 100 ppt.89

83 Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENVTL. HEALTH
PERSPECTIVES 5, A 107 (2015); U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet: PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories, 2. 84 EPA, Fact Sheet: PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories at 2. 85 Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), CFPUA Statement on Recently Released DHHS Report (June 21,
2018); see also ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment (June 2018) (“Draft
2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls”).
86 Draft 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls at 5-6, 25-26. 87 Press Release, Mich. Dep’t of Env’t, Great Lakes, and Energy, Michigan moves forward on PFAS in drinking
water rules (June 27, 2019), available at https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3308_3323-500772--
,00.html (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); New York to set limits for industrial chemicals in water, AP, July 8, 2019,
available at https://apnews.com/63bffd42efaf49d08d114ea4443491f0 (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Annie Ropeik,
N.H. Approves Unprecedented Limits for PFAS Chemicals in Drinking Water, NHPR, July 18, 2019, available at
https://apnews.com/63bffd42efaf49d08d114ea4443491f0 (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Press Release, Vt. Agency of
Nat. Res., Agency Of Natural Resources Initiates Rulemaking Process To Adopt Maximum Contaminant Level For
PFAS Compounds, available at https://anr.vermont.gov/content/agency-natural-resources-initiates-rulemaking-
process-adopt-maximum-contaminant-level-pfas (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); James M. O’Neill, NJ proposes strict
new drinking water standards for cancer-linked chemicals, NORTH JERSEY RECORD, Apr. 1, 2019, available at
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/environment/2019/04/01/nj-sets-stringent-drinking-water-standard-cancer-
linked-chemicals-pfoa-pfos-pfas/3334281002/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Interstate Tech. Regulatory Council,
PFAS Fact Sheets, Section 4 Tables (Aug. 2019). 88 Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Emerging Contaminants, available at https://www.cfpua.org/761/Emerging-
Compounds (last visited Feb. 24, 2020).
89 Id.
15
If Chemours does not clean up its groundwater and prevent it from continuously leaking into
rivers and streams, these communities will continue to suffer.

Chemours’ pollution also threatens the environment. PFAS have been shown to cause
damaging effects in fish,90 amphibians,91 mollusks,92 and other aquatic invertebrates93—resulting
in developmental and reproductive impacts, behavioral changes, adverse effects to livers,
disruption to endocrine systems, and weakened immune systems.94 Moreover, PFAS are
extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment, can travel long distances, and bio-
accumulate in organisms.95

Technology is available to remove PFAS pollution. Future threats and harms caused by
Chemours pollution can be eliminated because, as the company stated in its Corrective Action
Plan, the technology exists to prevent the company’s pollution from entering surface waters and
harming downstream communities and aquatic ecosystems.96 And the technology might even
exist to control off-site groundwater.97

90 Huang, et al., Toxicity, uptake kinetics and behavior assessment in zebrafish embryos following exposure to
perfluorooctanesulphonicacid (PFOS), 98 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 139–147 (2010); Jantzen, et al., PFOS, PFNA,
and PFOA sub-lethal exposure to embryonic zebrafish have different toxicity profiles in terms of morphometrics,
behavior and gene expression, 175 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 160–170 (2016); Hagenaars, et al., Structure–activity
relationship assessment of four perfluorinated chemicals using a prolonged zebrafish early life stage test, 82
CHEMOSPHERE 764–772 (2011); Du, et al., Chronic effects of water-borne PFOS exposure on growth, survival and
hepatotoxicity in zebrafish: A partial life-cycle test, 74 CHEMOSPHERE 723–729 (2009); Rotondo, et al.,
Environmental doses of perfluorooctanoic acid change the expression of genes in target tissues of common carp, 37
ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 942–948 (2018); Liu, et al., The thyroid-disrupting effects of long-term
perfluorononanoate exposure on zebrafish (Danio rerio), 20 ECOTOXICOLOGY 47–55 (2011); Chen, et al.,
Multigenerational Disruption of the Thyroid Endocrine System in Marine Medaka after a Life-Cycle Exposure to
Perfluorobutanesulfonate, 52 ENVIRON. SCI. & TECH. 4432–4439 (2018); Chen, et al., Perfluorobutanesulfonate
Exposure Causes Durable and Transgenerational Dysbiosis of Gut Microbiota in Marine Medaka, 5 ENVIRON. SCI.
& TECH. LETTERS 731–738 (2018); Chen, et al., Accumulation of perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) and impairment
of visual function in the eyes of marine medaka after a life-cycle exposure, 201 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1–10 (2018). 91 Ankley, et al., Partial Life-Cycle Toxicity And Bioconcentration Modeling of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in the
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens), 23 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2745 (2004); Cheng, et al., Thyroid
disruption effects of environmental level perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS) in Xenopus laevis, 20 ECOTOXICOLOGY
2069–2078 (2011); Lou, et al., Effects of perfluorooctanesulfonate and perfluorobutanesulfonate on the growth and
sexual development of Xenopus laevis, 22 ECOTOXICOLOGY 1133–1144 (2013).
92 Liu, et al., Oxidative toxicity of perfluorinated chemicals in green mussel and bioaccumulation factor dependent
quantitative structure-activity relationship, 33 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2323–2332 (2014); Liu, et al.,
Immunotoxicity in green mussels under perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) exposure: Reversible response and
response model development, 37 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 1138–1145 (2018).
93 Ji, et al., Oxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Perfluorooctanoic Acid on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates
(Daphnia Magna and Moina Macrocopa) and Fish (Oryzias Latipes), 27 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2159
(2008); Houde, et al, Endocrine-disruption potential of perfluoroethylcyclohexane sulfonate (PFECHS) in
chronically exposed Daphnia magna, 218 ENVIRON. POLLUTION 950–956 (2016); Liang, et al., Effects of
Perfluorooctane sulfonate on immobilization, heartbeat, reproductive and biochemical performance of Daphnia
magna, 168 Chemosphere 1613–1618 (2017); MacDonald, et al., Toxicity Of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid to Chironomus Tentans, 23 ENVIRON. TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2116 (2004). 94 See supra notes 92-95.
95 Draft 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls at 2, 534; see also EPA, Technical Fact Sheet -
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), 1, 3 (Nov. 2017). 96 CAP at xvii. 97 The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan – Supplemental Information
Report, 53-55 (Nov. 2019).
16

PFAS do not degrade. Chemours’ failure to apply available technology in its plan is
critical because, as the company admits, PFAS do not degrade.98

Chemours’ complaints about cost pale in comparison to the harm caused by the
company’s pollution. Chemours’ intentional dumping of toxic PFAS into the air, water, and soil
has devastated southeastern North Carolina. Municipalities are spending hundreds of millions of
dollars on clean drinking water.99 Multiple generations of families have gotten sick.100 People
who have been unknowingly drinking tainted water for decades are terrified and enraged every
day. Residents who have newly moved into the area are shattered when they discover the
contaminated water beneath their homes.101 It is crucial that Chemours be held responsible for
the harm that it has caused to these people and to the environment, and that DEQ requires
Chemours to eliminate the harms it has caused.

Even if the cleanup costs billions of dollars—as Chemours claims without support—
Chemours has, for decades, profited from its PFAS chemicals and from its unchecked pollution.
Chemours is a multi-billion-dollar company. Just last year, the company had $5.5 billion in net
sale.102 The local communities and municipalities that are already suffering from the company’s
intentional contamination should not be the ones left to shoulder the burden. DEQ must now
require the company to incur the costs to clean up that pollution.

The public, local communities, and municipalities will benefit tremendously from an
effective cleanup. If DEQ holds Chemours to its commitments under the Consent Order and
state law, there will be tremendous public and economic benefits from the resulting groundwater
cleanup—both tangible and intangible. For instance, families may be able to rest knowing that
the water they drink, and the rivers they swim and fish in, are no longer laced with Chemours’
toxic chemicals. Homeowners might be able to sell their homes for a reasonable price. Drinking
water utilities may not have to incur the heavy cost of upgrades. The local economy may benefit
without the stigma of Chemours’ PFAS pollution. By holding Chemours accountable, DEQ will
make it less likely that other corporations will be so reckless with their industrial pollution.

98 CAP at 58. 99 Makenzie Holland, Cleaner water could cost Brunswick, CFPUA water customers, STARNEWS ONLINE, Apr. 11,
2019, available at https://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20180411/cleaner-water-could-cost-brunswick-cfpua-
water-customers (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Paul Woolverton, Cumberland County to spend $10.5M to send water
to GenX contaminated Gray’s Creek, THE FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER, Jan. 6, 2020, available at
https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20200106/cumberland-county-to-spend-105m-to-send-water-to-genx-
contaminated-grayrsquos-creek (last visited Feb. 24, 2020); Greg Barnes, Local governments, residents having to
foot bill for industrial contamination, NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH NEWS, Jan. 7, 2020, available at
https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2020/01/07/local-governments-residents-having-to-foot-bill-for-industrial-
contamination/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2020). 100 Sharon Lerner, New Teflon Toxin Found in North Carolina Drinking Water, THE INTERCEPT, June 17, 2017,
available at, https://theintercept.com/2017/06/17/new-teflon-toxin-found-in-north-carolina-drinking-water/ (last
visited Feb. 24, 2020). 101 Greg Barnes, People are buying houses unaware of ‘forever chemicals’ in their well water, NORTH CAROLINA
HEATH NEWS, Jan. 6, 2020, available at https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2020/01/06/people-are-buying-
houses-unaware-of-forever-chemicals-in-their-well-water/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2020). 102 Press Release, The Chemours Company Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2019 Results, Feb. 13, 2020,
available at https://investors.chemours.com/news-releases/news-releases-details/2020/The-Chemours-Company-
Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2019-Results/ (last visited Mar. 11, 2020).
17

Based on a thorough analysis of all relevant factors under 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2L
.0106(k), therefore, state law mandates that DEQ require maximum cleanup and control of the
company’s groundwater pollution.

V. Conclusion

With this proposed Corrective Action Plan, Chemours continues to put the cost of its
contamination on everyone else: on families downstream, on well owners, on utilities trying to
provide clean drinking water, on DuPont. DEQ must not allow it.

DEQ cannot allow Chemours’ blatant disregard for the law and for the well-being of
those living in southeastern North Carolina to continue. DEQ must exercise its full authority
under the Consent Order to seek penalties for Chemours’ violations of paragraphs 12 and 16,
reject Chemours’ proposed plan, and require that the company clean up its PFAS pollution.

Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at [e-mail] or
919-967-1450 if you have any questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney

Jean Zhuang
Staff Attorney

Kelly Moser
Senior Attorney

Cc (via email):
Dana Sargent, CFRW
Kemp Burdette, CFRW
Bill Lane, DEQ
Francisco Benzoni, NCDOJ
18
Michael Abraczinskas, DAQ
Michael Scott, DWM
Linda Culpepper, DWR
David Shelton, Chemours
Brian Long, Chemours
John Savarese, Wachtell, Lipton
Joel Gross, Arnold & Porter

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3