DEQ-CFW_00001463

l J)r
3 t AY 1.1 2006--
o NR - WRTER.QuR� CAROLINA CS WORKING GROUP
FAQ c WATER PROTEC
- 2009 CHAPEL HILL ROAD, DURHAM, NC 27707
May 5, 2006
Alan Klimek, Director ON. cOF WNATMQ 11Y
n;u;einn of Water OilAlitV
i S
Surface Water Protection Section
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
_ a
TO:. .
FROM:.
Paul Rawls
ACTION
or Your Information ❑ Prepare Reply for my signature
❑ Note and Let's Discuss @-773Ee- Appropriate Action
❑ Per Our Conversation ❑ Per Your Request
❑ For Your Approval ❑ For Your Comments (written)
❑ Investigate and Report ❑ .
Please take action noted by:
Comments: .
15
�-� l-ReAs,..Aa..�.
Pltc,,s '6� �� n�ta�F- �.. 44-%.5 C� cap.
1.5 217SC�ss ¢t1�j. �C�(a
.
A I OLALC
rate,Unauthorized Dischargds
the appropriate persons within
ty, the only location in the
ou may know, Cs
e, works was discovered several
tee that time, C8 contamination
The source(s) of this
r was transported out of the
s claim are not available to the
explain the presence of C8
ocated near the Wastewater
lafion area and in groundwater
ation for its NPDES discharge "
iom the new APFO Plant in
complex. It was anticipated that
discharged each dayA i
ins for the APFO Plant. ,
wastewater. One option was to send it through the Wastewater Treatment 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 NPD,ES 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
�b
DEQ-CFW 00001463

s HAY 1 1 2006ot
E `01 PR0T.QIl�,II &RCW CAROLINA C8 WORKING GROUP
' ATER
f�"�^4 ;�+iATER PROTEC'1�'�$!
2009 CHAPEL HILL ROAD, DURHAM, NC 27707
May 5, 2006 MAY a
Alan Klimek, Director ON. OF NATM QUAl=
Division of Water Quality mo
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 DuPonfs 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 beenfound in new areas of the plant and in off -site locations. The source(s) of this
contaminationhas 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 Naf on 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 Treatment.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
�b
DEQ-CFW 00001464

Treatment Plant when it chose to do so. Even though DuPont was granted the permit it had been ,
requesting since May of 2001, the company promptly notified DENR that it no, Ionger wanted
authority to discharge APFO Plant wastewater. The DENR changed the permit accordingly on
February 3, 2004 and references to Outfall 007 and APFO Plant discharges were removed.
DuPont began operating its APFO Plant in late 2002, well before it received the permit.
authorizing APFO plant discharges. Discharges occurring before the effective date of the permit.
would have been a clear violation of the Clean Water Act, as would have been discharges
occurring after the permit was changed on February 3, 2004. DuPont claims that it has never
discharged wastewater from the APFO Plant. According to DuPont, all C8 wastewater has been
trucked to its facility in Deepwater, New Jersey, to a hazardous waste incinerator in El Dorado,
Arkansas, or to other locations.
For some reason DuPont chose the more expensive option of trucking its wastewater off -site and
out-of-state, over the less expensive option of discharging it to the Cape Fear River.(4) We
believe that it is possible that DuPont discharged APFO Plant wastewater when it first began C8
production and stopped doing so when it discovered or suspected C8 was escaping into
groundwater or surface water. DuPont claims its first sampling of groundwater for C8 took place
in January 2003.
DuPont had a possible economic incentive to begin discharging before receiving authorization to
do so. It was unlikely that APFO Plant discharges, mingled with discharges from other
manufacturing plants, would be noticed by the Division in the absence of specific sampling and -
analysis. DuPont may also have assumed, and correctly so, that DENR would be issuing the
NPDES permit authorizing the discharges anyway.
The following indicates that deliberate unauthorized discharges may have occurred:
4 When DuPont first applied for permission to discharge from the APFO Plant, the company
wanted to be able to bypass the Wastewater Treatment Plant because fluoride and fluorocarbons
in the wastewater would cause settleability problems in the clarifiers. However, DuPont was also .
concerned that APFO Plant wastewater that did not go through the Wastewater. Treatment Plant
(WWTP) might exceed permitlimitations for BOD. Accordingly, DuPont proposed to bypass the
WWTP unless BOD approached the permitted limits.
• In November of 2002, DuPont exceeded its permitted monthly discharge limits for BOD. This
was the first such exceedance in the site's thirty year history_ .(5) The exceedance resulted in a
slime appearing in the clarifiers.(6 When DuPont applied for their NPDES permit, the company
indicated that a yet to be identified Biocide would be used in the APFO Plant's scrubber.(7)
DuPont blamed the BOD exceedance of November 2002 on a new plasticiser that had been used
in the Butacite, Plant without incident most of the year.
• Although DuPont would -later inform the DENR that the APFO Plant did not begin operating
until November 23, 2002, a hews article in the Fayetteville Observer, which included interviews
with the plant manager, states that the plant began producing C8 in October 2002.(8) The news
reporter could havebeen mistaken about the October startup date, :but comments in a DENR
regional report_ also reflect a startup date of October of 2002.
• The same DENR inspection report that identified the APFO Plant startup date of October 2002
also stated that the plant only operated for a couple of months before shutting down until June of
DEQ-CFW 00001465

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 CS 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,
2004
the wastewater could still cause or contribute to the C8 contamination, in the Nafion area. aons
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 00001466

DEQ-CFW 00001468