DEQ-CFW_00082666

From: Kritzer, Jamie [/D=[XCHANG[LAB5/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHF2]SPDLT)/CN=REOP|ENTS/CN=C[E9]C49D01445A]B541B8327DCDCD4O-JBKR|TZ[R]
Sent: 8/18/I0I79:54:41PW1
To: dmiUigan@Pwbtvcom
CC: Kritzer, Jamie [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=ExchangeAdministrative Group
(FYD|BOHFI]3PDLT)/cn=Kecipients/cn=cee93c49dO1445a]b54Ibb]I7dcdc84O-jbkhtzed
Subject: FVV: Interview request
Attachments: Dupont Brevard Fad|ity.pdf
Mr. Milligan,
I've been interacting with one of your reporters for a story on GenX. Nick Ochsner at your station had approached us
about doing an interview with someone in our agency. We tried to line him up with the head of our agency but were
unable todoso.
Here's the story: -cast-doubt-on-deg-secret� �,gen�x-state�ments
You can read through the full thread of our exchange below to get a better feel for how this story played out. But I just
wanted to bring this to your attention because vvefeel Nick should at least include our side of things in this report and
he has refused to do so. Much of our dismay centers around his noting in the story a May 5 meeting between our
secretary and the head of one of our divisions leading a cleanup at DuPont State Forest. Nick saw the reference to
Dupont in the secretary's calendar that was published a few/ days ago and | think he assumed it was referring tothe
Chemours (formerly DuPont) facility in Fayetteville. Problem is his assumption was wrong and I've tried to explain that
to him so that he would include our explanation for what that meeting was really about. Of course, an even better idea
would have been to not include the information until he had verified its relevance to the story. He chose not to do that
and instead imply that this meeting bore some relevance to the GenX situation.
| even attached the map ofthe DuPont State Forest area that's being cleaned upasdocumentation since hwas used to
explain this cleanup to the secretary of our agency in the May 5 meeting.
Still, he's not done anything about it and now your online readers have been left with the impression that something
nefarious was afoot when in fact this was a meeting that had absolutely nothing to do with the story he was covering.
| hope the story can becorrected promptly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
519-707-8602
01111461 PA�0�
S��x��:���
y�x�7�m/n�/m�u�������nY�Law/mn�/nay�wo�x�n��dynhhkdpmnO�n�

From: Kritzer, Jamie
Sent: Friday, August D8,JO175:J5PK4
To: Ochsner,Nick <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kritzer, Jamie ^jamie. kritzer@ncdenr.8ov»
Subject: RE: Interview request
Try asxvemight, sometimes people are not available tobeinterviewed.
Also, | don't ask that you provide me your questions before an interview. But the thing that continues to bother me is
that you have discounted us and our explanation by not putting it online with the information about the meeting — even
after you said you would do so if I provided an explanation for the substance of the meeting. I have done so now on a
few occasions. | even provided the document that Mr. Scott used toexplain the cleanup atDuPont State Forest and still
you say | have not provided documentation. Please again see the attached.
I certainly can appreciate being pressed to meet a deadline. When I was a reporter and was unable to substantiate facts
or at least put them into their proper context or able to give someone an opportunity to explain their side of things, |
would write around it or leave it out. Sometimes your assumptions are wrong. That is the case here. If you were sitting
where I am, you would see just how inaccurate and misleading portions of this story are.
Please understand, too, that by saying someone "claims" something means you don't think they're being truthful and
your reader shouldn't believe them either.
Jamie Kritzer
Co-it,imwiic-?tio-is DirectA
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
4119-707-8602
�-003MOM
Bn� �hlm
Ao/MOa/nf"na�u�6:�eco/c",xLaw/a//��, abw��a/b��
Fromm:0chsner, Nick
Sent: Friday, August l8,2Ol74:12PK8
To: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: RE: Interview request
It's unfortunate that you feel DEQ didn't have ample time to respond to our requestfor aninterview for this story; |feel
quite the opposite.
As I've made clear, we always make sure public officials about whom we are reporting have an opportunity to respond.
In this case --as in previous stories —your office declined to accept an opportunity to make Sec. Regan available to
answer questions. Furthermore, you didn't tell methe Secretary wouldn't beavailable to answer our questions until

4:30 the day the story aired. Our policy is to not provide questions in advance of an interview, eoitwould not bepart of
my regular practice to tell you ahead of any potential interview what I planned to ask the Secretary about. Again, had
Sec. Regan chose to grant our request for an interview or had you told me there wouldn't be an interview more than an
hour -and -a -half before our story aired, I could have posted questions about the May 5 1h meeting further in advance.
| have not implied your oranyone else atD8lisdishonest. Hoxvever,partofmyjobbtoverUydaimsmadebypub|ic
officials — that's what reporters do. At this point, you've made a claim that I'm attempting to verify. You've not provided
any documents to support that claim. Had Sec. Regan been made available for an interview in person, by phone or via
Skype, he would have had a chance to provide details about the meeting. Again, your office chose to not make him
available toanswer our questions.
Hope that helps clarify some of your questions.
Thanks -
Nick
From: Kritzer, Jamieit
Sent: Friday, August 18,2Ol73:59PK4
To: Ochsner, Nick
Cc: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: RE: Interview request
All I ever ask from any reporter is a fair shake. We did not receive that in this case. Parts of your story are unfair,
misleading and inaccurate.
The May 5 meeting referenced in the passage of the story reading "DEQ secretary met with DuPont" implies the meeting
was to discuss GenX with Dupont. It was not. It was a meeting between Michael Scott , director ofthe NI.Division of
VVasteK4ana8ement(part ofDE[),and DE{lSecretary ��ichae|Regan regarding the historyofDuPont State Forest in
Brevard. As the new/ secretary, Regan was receiving briefing on the state forest, the environmental cleanup of site
formerly owned by the DuPont Corporation within the forest, and information on the possible use of solar panels on the
MOM
We were not asked and did not have any idea you were interested in knowing more about the May 5 meeting until you
published the following passage in your online story after 5 p.m. yesterday: "it is not immediately clear what was
discussed during the meeting and there is not a specific topic for the meeting listed on the copy of the calendar obtained
by WBTV."
If you had wanted clarity on this meeting, why not at least ask me about it prior to publishing and I could provide you
with some information about the meeting and the fact that it was not related to the story you were publishing?
When you originally approached us with information about this story, you said were seeking an interview with someone
from DEQ to discuss issues related to our investigation of GenX and you did not mention anything about the calendar
items you were also planning to report.
Yousaidindhe|autemai|:"Dmyouhaveanymeetin0notesoraddkiona|infonnadonabuutdhemeebn8Sec.Re0anhad
with DuPont to support what was discussed during the meeting? If so, I'd be happy to update our story with that
information. If not ' I'llbe happy to update the story to include that your department claims the meeting was to discuss
the state forest sight but could not provide any documentation to support the daim."
I've always been honest with you, asI'm honest with all reporters. Toimply anything different isastounding. But soyou
can understand more about the substance of this meeting, I have attached a map Michael Scott, the division director,

provided toSecretary Regan during their May 5meeting. Mr. Scott informed meheused the map toillustrate that areas
that had been cleaned up and areas where cleanup is underway at the DuPont State Forest site.
Jamie Kritzer
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
419-707-8602
�0���",
'o �'t."w
cann0n:nn%�Lmw/an�xnn�b����n���h7�n�Y/xa���
Fromn:Ochsner, Nick
Sent: Friday, August 1O,2U17ll:57AM
To: Kritzer, Jamieit
Subject: RE: Interview request
HiJamie-
We standbyourreporting,inc|udin8theDuPontmeetng.TheSecretaryhadp|entyofbmeVVednesdayorThuroday
before our story aired to answer our questions —either in person, by Skype or on the phone —but your agency declined
to make him available. If your agency would like to have an opportunity to answer our questions in the future, I'm
always happy toarrange atime for aninterview.
Duyou have any meeting notes uradditional information about the meeting Sec. Regan had with DuPont tosupport
what was discussed during the meeting? If so, I'd be happy to update our story with that information. If not, I'll be happy
to update the story to include that your department claims the meeting was to discuss the state forest sight but could
not provide any documentation tusupport the claim.
From: Kritzer, Jamie
Sent: Friday, August Dl2U179:O7AM
Tb:Ochsner, Nick
Cc: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: Rw: Interview request
Importance: High
I was disappointed to read your online story last night. First, you stated that we baled on an interview and that simply
was not true. As I mentioned, I would see if the secretary was available. In the end, he was not and we were not able to
do an interview. But I did get a flavor for what your story was about from your email and, as I mentioned on the phone, I
said I would at least put together a statement to address what you had mentioned in the email. I did that. I'm glad you
included itinthe story.

But then I read in your story about a meeting Secretary Regan had to discuss DuPont. I confirmed with the secretary this
morning that the meeting you mentioned on May 5 was a briefing on the history of the DuPont State Forest site in
8revard. This is not related tothe [hemours orGenX. Your attempt to extrapolate information from a calendar and
include it in your online story without even bothering to ask us what the meeting was about is irresponsible and
misleading toyour viewers.
Frankly, we expect more from an investigative reporter with one of the larger TV stations in North Carolina. If you have
that kind of information in the future | would ask that you at least give us an opportunity during regular working hours
to explain our side of things. I hope you would remove that reference upon reading this email, but explain below the
story that the DuPont meeting referenced in earlier versions of the online story was related to the DuPont State Forest
and was unrelated tuthis story.
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
419-707-8602
�01WRIM",
'o Sis ts')��
N��h�ann0na�o�0���:nn%�Lmw/an�xnn�b����n���h7�n�Y/xa���
Fronm:Ochuner, Nick
Sent: Thursday, August l7,2Ol76:23PK8
To: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: RE: Interview request
One thing we plan to include in our web story (but did not report in our TV story that just ran) is that Sec.Regan took a
meeting with DuPont onMay 5~' A copy of the calendar I obtained for the Secretary shows he was scheduled to meet
with DuPont from 1-1:30.
Can you provide any level of detail on what was discussed during the meeting?
Thanks -
Nick
From: Kritzer, Jamie
Sent: Thursday, August 17,JO175:3]PM
Tb:Ochsner, Nick

Fair enough. I thought I was clear, but I'm sorry I left that impression with you. We do try to make the secretary available
aumuch aspossible but sometimes things donot work inour favor.
I'm happy to continue trying, and will work to ensure your viewers understand the work we do.
Jamie Kritzer
Co-it,imwiic-?tio-is DirectA
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
4119-707-8602
�—MMMOM
Ao/MOa/nf"na�u�6:�eco/c",xLaw/a//��, abw��a/b��
Fromm:0chsner, Nick
Sent: Thursday, August 17,2U17S:l6PM
To: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: RE: Interview request
I walked away from our conversation with the impression Sec. Regan would be made available for an interview today. In
fact, I held off writing my TV piece until this afternoon specifically so we could include comments from the Secretary —
that put me and my producer quite behind.
If you'll recall, you also told me over the span of two different weeks that someone from DEQ would be made available
to discuss the coal ash developments we reported on last month. Ultimately, though, you told me nobody was available
due to scheduling conflicts —even though agency staff were made available for interviews with other outlets.
| try to be up front and open with the folks | work with but, honesty, | feel like | keep getting told one thing by you and
getting something different. I'd prefer to have a working relationship with DEQ that allows access to agency leaders to
discuss stories we're working on. That hasn't happened to date. If there's something I can do differently on my end to
better facilitate that, please let me know.
From: Kritzer, Jamie
Sent: Thursday, August 17,2Ol75:0DPK8
Tb:Ochsner, Nick
Subject: RE: Interview request
no
Your statement is inaccurate. At no point did | say the secretary would be available for an interview.
| said | would check to see ifvvewere available to do an interview. He was not available. And as | said this morning, if he
were not available |xvou|d send a statement based on the information you provided in the email.
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
OEQ-CFVV_00082671

N�Department ofEnvironmental Quality
919-707-8602
01111461ya���
�v`sad� ess iS &u����m
Ro:am/mndo,aybmx
Fromn:Ochsner, Nick
Sent: Thursday, August l7,2Ol74:I2PK8
To: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: Re: Interview request
HiJamie-
Your statement doesn't answer the specific questions related to our story. |1| besure to note that your office first said
the secretary would beavailable and then ultimately declined todoso.
This is the second time in recent months when you have told me you would make someone available for an interview
and then failed to do so. At what point should u stop taking your response seriously?
Thanks -
Nick
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Kritzer, Jamie wrote:
Nick,
In realizing the secretary was not available for an interview for your story, | wanted to provide you with
astatement from the agency for your story.
Secretary Regan said in the June 15 press conference it was too early to make any definitive statements
regarding the investigation, which had just started. The state's investigation is ongoing and we are
developing additional information to make a final determination about whether there were any
violations of the law.
As part of the state's investigation of GenX, we are taking a hard look at all aspects of Chemours' permit
and are conducting a review of the specific identifying information the company provided for the
chemicals it was discharging into the Cape Fear River. We will make public information regarding any
appropriate enforcement action.
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
N�Department ofEnvironmental Quality

£oa a6J`�eon�u��c���
8hrn�Canr�/e/�d�Jo�acun�aLas/and/naybeo�oo�aa��a�b���erb��
From: Ochuner,Nick
Sent: Wednesday, August 16,ZU176:O6PM
To: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: Re: Interview request
Wanted to make sure you got the VM I left for you earlier this afternoon. Our story runs tomorrow and
wanted to make sure DEQ/Sec. Regan has a chance to respond.
)Ia�Le.kritzerCq,lricderir.j?ov> wrote:
Nick,
|'U reach out toyou this morning.
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
519-707-8602
En�J PU is to0,
�ord7�a/n�}a�ub&�Reco/�oLam/aa�snaybad�o600ed6oPa/Vsa,
From: Ochsner,Nick
Sent: Tuesday, August 15,JO17S:41PK4
To: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: Interview request
Importance: High
Hope you're well. I'm working on a story that will run this Thursday about the GenX

theVVi|min8tonStapNevvson]une15"vvhatvvehavehereisashuadonxvherethe
company (Chemours) is not breaking the law," and other claims from state regulators
that Dupunt/Chemouowas permitted todischarge GenX.
Our story will include an interview with a science professor at UNCVVwho says none of
the company's permits allow discharge ofGenX. It will also point to notes in the DE{l
permit file from a June 2015 meeting in which it appears Dupont told regulators they
were not discharging [3 dimeradd into the river. That, of course, would appear to be a
false and misleading statement.
If possible, I'd like to do an on -camera interview with someone from DEQ tomorrow
(Wednesday). We're happy to come to Raleigh.
Feel free to give me a call on my cell if you'd like to discuss further.
am
Nick Ochsner|Investigative Reporter
VV:704.374.3941 1 [:704.641J538
NEWSROOM: 7043743691
<ima8e002jpg>