DEQ-CFW_00078402

From: jamie.l<[e-mail] [[e-mail]]
Sent: 6/16/2017 2:09:27 PM
To: Vaughn Hagerty [[e-mail]]
CC: Munger, Bridget [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=c54elf650cea49968a5aba689c2O4f6l-bcmunger]; Sink, Maria
[/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=14436cdf33fl47acad62db9cb7dcf8lb-Marla.Sink]
Subject: Re: One more question regarding GenX
I'll be in touch.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 16, 2017, at 8:48 AM, "Vaughn Hagerty" <vaughn.ha.ge y@ rt gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, guys. So, since Chemours *does* say this applies and I'm going to be writing a story about
this with a deadline of this afternoon, I thought I'd take another shot at seeing if DEQ wants to
comment. Just to be clear, we're talking about a situation where EPA insists that Chemours keep
99 percent of GenX from entering the environment when it manufactures it but has no such
requirement when it is produced as a byproduct in a separate operation. Both of those are
occurring at Chemours Fayetteville Works plant, according to the company.
Does DEQ agree with Chemours that the exemption applies in this case?
Regards,
Vaughn Hagerty
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:58 At\/I, Vaughn Hagerty <vaughn.hagenty com> wrote:
@1 1
Thanks, Bridget. I have asked EPA, but they generally take several days to get back on specific
questions. The exception I quoted is part of what EPA calls a consent order boilerplate. I'm
guessing it's part of most, if not all, consent orders, so I assumed DEQ staff comes across it on
occasion in other consent orders.
Is that not the case? Does DEQ not deal with EPA consent orders in any way? I'm asking those
questions mainly because I get the impression that the one governing the GenX manufacture is
going to come up quite a bit, at least for the next several days. Knowing how DEQ is and is not
involved in them will probably save both of us a lot of time.
Regardless, on this specific question, the other reason I asked is that I'm guessing DEQ staff deal
with this sort of language in general, especially those in the CFR citations, which I suspect are
key in interpreting this. I'm just trying to avoid making a stupid mistake and misinforming
people.
So, without referencing GenX or Chemours specifically, could staff there say whether this
exception, which is part of the EPA boilerplate, applies to a fairly narrow set of circumstances in
which byproducts might occur (which, if this is boilerplate, seems plausible)? And, if so, could
they at least summarize what those circumstances are? If not, is it fairly broad? Or is this just an
instance where DEQ doesn't know?
DEQ-CFW-00078402

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Munger, Bridget wrote:
I've checked in with DEQ staff who agree that this is a question for the EPA as their agency issued the
consent order. EPA staff would be most familiar with the intent of that provision of the document.
Public Information Officer
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Division of Water Resources
a �-f I �* 11•-
bridget.mungerQncdenr.gov
1612 Mail Service Center
From: Vaughn Hagerty [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 12:10 PM
To: Munger, Bridget <[e-mail]>
Subject: One more question regarding GenX
Hi, Bridget. I'm wondering if DEQ could help me interpret one more thing. I apologize for the
long preamble, but like everything else in this story, it's complicated. I'm hoping to get this
online later today and into tomorrow's paper. I have asked EPA, but nothing as of yesterday
morning.
DEQ-CFW-00078403

As you probably know, Chemours manufactures GenX under an EPA consent order that
stipulates various things Chemours must do, including how efficient it needs to be in preventing
releases to the environment.
It also includes this exception (which is apparently part of EPA's boilerplate for these
documents):
(3) Byproducts. The requirements of this Order do not apply to the PNIN substances when they
are produced, without separate commercial intent, only as a "byproduct" as defined at 40 CFR
720.3(d) and in compliance with 40 CFR 720.30(g).
Here are those federal reg entries:
40 CFR 720.3(d) Byproduct means a chemical substance produced without a separate
commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical
substance or mixture.
40 CFR 720.30(g) Any byproduct if its only commercial purpose is for use by public or
private organizations that (1) burn it as a fuel, (2) dispose of it as a waste, including in a
landfill or for enriching soil, or (3) extract component chemical substances from it for
commercial purposes. (This exclusion only applies to the byproduct; it does not apply to
the component substances extracted from the byproduct.)
One major unanswered question we have is, how is GenX getting into the Cape Fear River,
especially since the process they describe which appears to be the GenX manufacture states that
wastewater is *not* discharged.
One possibility we're looking at is whether it is a byproduct of other processes whose wastewater
is discharged.
my auestion is:
Regards,
DEQ-CFW-00078404

Vaughn Hagerty
DEQ-CFW 00078405