DEQ-CFW_00084756

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/I0I79:32:26PW1
To: Lane, Bill F[/h=ExchangeLabs/ou=ExzhanXeAdministrative Group
(FYD|8OHFZ33PDO)/cn=Redpient$cn=a4db93cf656d476a978a4db84ObI59fd'bflane]
Subject: FVV:FY| vaughn?s
i,ee feedback from Noelle.
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
519-707-8602
01111461 PA�0�
�a S��x��:���
y�x�7�m/n�/m�u�������nY�Law/mn�/nay�wo�x�n��dynhhkdpmnO�n�
From: Talley, Noe||eS
Sent: Monday, September18, 20174:58PM
To: Kritzer, Jamie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FYI vau0hn?s
Let me call you before you use this.
this case remains in active and many ofthese questions will likely be part ofthe ouae so we are Unudod
inwhat vrucan say u1this
Then offer a statement something like:
Df%)remains focused onprotecting people's water from harmful discharges.A1[)EQ`orequest, the court ordered
Chemours to not discharge GenX and Nafion by products l&2into the otate`owaterways. The consent order entered at
l)20`erequest also ensures that Chun/our will provide the necessary information &xDB()toaid the Department in
Sent from my Whone

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
N.[Department ofEnvironmental Quality
919-707-8602
Bn� lo �iS ""s to0�
Pu,bfo"Peco/c"'xLaw/a//�xnmy""""ec���x��/o0�z
From: Talley, Noe||eS
Sent: Monday, September 18,ZOl74:21PM
To: Kritzer, Jamie
Subject: RE: FYI vaughn?s
Will get you feedback shortly.
Noe||eTaUey
Deputy Communications Director
Office ofGovernor Roy Cooper
Office:919'814'ZlO1
Mobile: 919J1Q'1JS5
From: Kritzer, Jamie
Sent: Monday, September 18,ZOl73:51PM
To: Talley, NoeUeS
DEOstands byits actions inthis matter. |nissuing the 60-daynotice 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 is active litigation.
1) What is DEQ's legal authority for its threat outlined in Zimmerman's Sept. 5 letter to revoke
Chemours' NPIDES 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 apermit renewal, etojnot apply inthis case?

3)Chemousalleges that DBQwas not responsive torequests for records. Has D8Iprovided all the
records requested by Chemours? If it did, when? If not, will those records be supplied? When?
4) Chemours states it is complying with the terms of its permit, including as they pertain to disclosure of
pollutants. In the Sept. 5 letter cited above, DEQ states "We have found no evidence in the permit file
indicating that Chemoursor DuPont (Chemours' predecessor) disclosed the discharge tosurface water
ofGenX 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, Chemours cites a June
29, 2017, StarNews article in which you said the description of the manufacturing process constituted
disclosure.
Asfar au|know, the Sept. 5statement that GenXwas not disclosed iuthe first time since June 29that
DEQ has 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[\pursue against
[hemoursregarding this failure todisclose?
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
aunique case?
6) Chemours states that it asked for an additional seven days to analyze the situation regarding the
Nafion byproducts, but that DEQ refused. Is this correct? If so, why did DEQ refuse the request?
7) Chemours makes a number of broader allegations in the letter, including that the state is violating the
company'sdue'pnocess rights, acting in a "capricious" and "arbitrary" manner toward [hemours, making
demands regarding discharges that are not science -based and not following state laws and regulations
regarding this process. Any response tothose?
8) What's the status of the information Chemours agreed to provide in the partial consent order?
Jamie Kritzer
Communications Director
N.C.Department ofEnvironmental Quality
919'707'8602
£oa a6J`�eon�u��c���
8hrn�Canr��e�u��o�acun�aLas/and/naybeo'iooh',�aa��a�b���erb��

d thi,_ No:`h
surli,
DEQ-CFW-00084759