News Coverage
Chemical contamination widespread in eastern county's water
Published June 5, 2003
Much of eastern Athens County's water supply contains traces of the potentially toxic chemical C-8, and while water district officials and some residents say they are closely watching a related controversy unfold, many others appear unconcerned.
General managers of the Little Hocking Water Association and the Tuppers Plains-Chester Water District confirmed last week that several thousand people in Athens County probably rely on water from the two districts, which each have wellfields drawing from the Ohio River Aquifer.
Both of these water systems and other municipal and private wells between Belpre and Pomeroy contain C-8, mostly in small amounts.
The chemical, also known as perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, emanates from a DuPont plastics plant at Washington Bottom, W.Va., near Parkersburg. It is the focus of a contentious and far-flung class-action lawsuit. DuPont has used C-8 for several decades at its Washington Works plant as a surfactant and processing aid to manufacture Teflon and related polymers.
About 1,300 of the Tuppers Plains-Chester district's 4,800 customers live in Athens County, said General Manager Donald Poole.
In Athens County, Poole said, the district serves the communities of Hockingport, Stewart, Guysville, much of Troy, Carthage and Rome townships, and parts of Lodi and Bern townships, as well as portions of eastern Meigs County. The village of Coolville in Troy Township also buys its water in bulk from Tuppers Plains-Chester, he said.
Bob Griffin, who runs the Little Hocking district, said about 300 homes in the extreme eastern part of Athens County are on that system, which supplies approximately 4,100 customers overall. One Little Hocking production well has tested at 7.7 parts per billion of C-8, another monitoring well tested at 37 parts per billion, and a test bore revealed the chemicals presence at 78 parts per billion, Griffin said. The district's wellfield is directly across the Ohio River from Washington Bottom. As consumers of C-8-laced water, Griffin's customers are members of the plaintiff group involved in the class-action lawsuit "by default," he said.
Although his district has a filtration system in place, which Little Hocking does not, Poole said he knows of no way it can remove C-8, even if the system was retrofitted. "It just doesn't touch it," he said. "What's spooky is that when we ask what will take it out, we don't get any answers."
C-8 readings for the Tuppers Plains-Chester district's wellfield at Longbottom in Meigs County range from as low as .2 parts per billion to "just under one part per billion," Poole said. Longbottom is about 18 miles down the Ohio River from the Washington Works plant.
Wood County (W. Va.) Circuit Court Judge George Hill ruled May 1 that C-8 was toxic and ordered DuPont to pay for blood tests for anyone exposed locally to C-8 contaminated water. But for now, these tests are not an option because, as Poole pointed out, "with the same stroke of the pen," DuPont was given time to appeal. It did, stating that Hill's ruling was not based on sound science. Attorneys for the company also requested that Hill step down from the class-action case, Jack W. Leach, et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., because he lives in a neighborhood near Parkersburg affected by the C-8 releases.
That request marked the second time an alleged conflict of interest has fed the controversy. Last year it came to light that several scientists who had worked for DuPont directly or as consultants had, after becoming employees of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, become responsible for setting a safe public drinking water level for C-8.
When that safety level was set at 150 parts per billion, critics raised concerns because DuPont's own internal guideline for the chemical within its factory had been just 1 part per billion.
Hill rejected the motion to disqualify himself at a hearing May 29 that featured sharp exchanges in open court and wrangling over the question of what "contaminated" means in the case.
Mindful that the company's potential liability grows with a broader definition, DuPont attorneys Larry Janssen and Diana Everett called for clearer limits on who was part of the class action. Plaintiffs' lawyers Rob Bilott and Harry Deitzler, however, argued this has been already settled and DuPont was merely "judge-shopping."
But trying to get Hill to step down, which was a long shot, may have helped DuPont establish that Parkersburg residents won't benefit from C-8 litigation.
"I never thought I was affected," said Hill. "Contamination means quantifiable levels. The people of Parkersburg are not within that definition."
Hill issued a thinly veiled threat to impose a gag order, citing comments to the media by Janssen and "inappropriate and unethical" criticisms among the lawyers.
Washington Works has reduced its C-8 emissions into air and water significantly, plant officials say, and now manufactures the chemical itself in Fayetteville, N.C. 3M had long been C-8's sole domestic manufacturer, at a factory in Cottage Grove, Minn., but phased out production, citing concerns that the chemical persists in living tissue.
The emissions reductions, and the fact that DuPont runs the only laboratory qualified to test people's blood for C-8, were key factors in Hill's granting the injunction for medical monitoring.
The order read, in part:
"Because DuPont claims to be actively reducing its emissions of C-8 into the environment while this case is pending and claims that levels of C-8 in human blood decreases over time as exposure decreases, DuPont's effective control over the C-8 blood-testing process and continuing refusal to arrange for C-8 blood testing of the class members... (will deprive) plaintiffs of the evidence DuPont insists is necessary for plaintiffs to prevail on the merits of their medical monitoring claims."
Deitzler said at the May 29 hearing that C-8 levels in his clients' blood are also falling because they now drink bottled water.
The blood test appeal will come before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals later this month, and trial in the lawsuit is slated for Sept. 15.
Publicity wise, it's been tough going lately for Teflon, perfluorochemicals like C-8 and related consumer items. Nonstick and nonstaining wonder products, including Teflon and 3M's Scotchguard, have been increasingly implicated in studies showing that C-8 is highly biopersistent, and that many, if not most, people have measurable amounts of it in their blood. In recent weeks, these woes were eclipsed by news that Teflon-coated and other nonstick cookware, when overheated, emit toxic fumes that kill birds and may also harm people. The double irony of C-8 is that a chemical designed to keep nonstick substances from sticking to themselves in fact sticks around in humans for long periods of time.
Perfluorochemicals are used in coatings for carpets, clothing, cookware and food packaging, so many possible pathways exist for human ingestion, especially as wear and tear occurs in these products.
Various studies have demonstrated C-8's harmful effects on the kidneys and livers of rats, as well as possible carcinogenicity and reproductive problems. But clear and cohesive evidence of it hurting humans either doesn't exist, or is still being put together. Now that Judge Hill has ruled C-8 is toxic to humans, Griffin pointed out, "the big question is at what level."
IN HOCKINGPORT, SEVERAL PEOPLE said they hadn't heard much about the issue or weren't familiar with it at all. Scott Ashcraft, who lives in Washington County but works in Hockingport, wasn't aware of the recent court ruling for DuPont-paid blood monitoring of C-8. His house gets Little Hocking water, but he doesn't drink the tap water anyway. "It's just nasty smelling, so I don't fool with it," said Ashcraft, who added that his wife and kids do mix it with tea or juice.
"We drink it and forget it," said one woman, who preferred not to be identified.
Jeffrey Kimes of Reedsville in Meigs County also works in Hockingport. He said he knows a lot of people who eat fish from the Ohio River despite warnings not to, so water pollution is not considered a big deal. "People around here don't worry about that kind of thing," said Kimes.
One Rome Township couple, however, said C-8 is very much on their minds. "In reality, you're only as good as your drinking water," said Michael Blake. "It's a concern. You get a company that's not being forthright. That's almost scarier than the actual stuff."
Blake's wife, Penny Wolverton-Blake, said the chemical's presence made her wary of tap water, even when Tuppers Plains-Chester water lines were finally extended to their home last year. After many years of dealing with a balky cistern, she still wasn't sure. "I didn't want the city water at first because of it," she said.
DuPont's alleged lack of full disclosure, which Blake and others mention, involves internal company memos that appear to show that Washington Works officials began testing area water supplies at least 20 years ago and detected C-8. Public knowledge of C-8's presence in groundwater, however, was not widespread until after news media outlets reported litigation and regulatory agency involvement in 2001. Prior to the pending lawsuit, DuPont settled out of court another claim by a Wood County couple, Wilbur and Sandra Tennant, for an undisclosed sum of money. The Tennants alleged that a herd of cows had been sickened by creek water near the plant. Terms of the settlement included the couple not disclosing its details to the media.
Potentially damaging memos and data concerning secret testing were first reported or posted by the Charleston Gazette, Mother Jones magazine and the Web site of the Environmental Working Group, a national organization based in Washington, D.C. The EWG also exposed documents detailing DuPont's removal of female employees of childbearing age from the Teflon production unit in 1981 after one had a child born with a birth defect.
DuPont, however, has repeatedly stressed its cooperation and transparency in the matter, and started its own Web site in March 2002. Washington Works plant manager Paul Bossert posted a message there to all of his 2,200 employees on March 7, 2003 in which he states: "The idea that DuPont would ever knowingly put the people in the communities in which we operate in harm's way is preposterous and contrary to the culture of DuPont."
Another posting on the company's site explains that the women were transferred from working closely with C-8 as a precaution after 3M and DuPont studies suggested possible C-8-related developmental defects in children. Further research showed no link, it says, and they were returned to the Teflon unit. There was no evidence that the one birth defect was related to occupational exposure, the Web site asserts.
Coolville resident Nives Knisely said she thinks the issue has been flying under a lot of people's radar in her area, and wonders about Athens County water supplies that have not been tested. "I don't think people here even know about it," said Knisely. "I'd be concerned if there are private wells around here, and if people would know if they needed to be tested."
Door-to-door canvassing did occur, according to an Ohio EPA employee, but not in Athens County. "DuPont, in conjunction with Ohio EPA and the Ohio Department of Health, has sampled private wells within a two-mile radius (of Washington Works)," said hydrogeologist Steve Williams. "If there was a well, it was sampled." These tests included spring-fed and cistern systems, but possibly not some systems that are unused or buried, he added.
"Generally, readings (of C-8) were higher within the one-mile area as opposed to the two-mile area," said Williams. Ninety-four percent of private wells within one mile of the DuPont plant contained the chemical, compared to 77 percent within two miles, and levels at individual sites ranged from 0 to 23.6 parts per billion, the data revealed. Athens County lies just to the west of the two-mile sample area.
"The intent in the future is to select a subset of those which were tested and continue sampling them quarterly for one year," said Williams.
OPINIONS VARY WIDELY ABOUT the usefulness of talk and media attention about the issue. Another longtime resident of Hockingport who asked not to be identified said the whole controversy has been overblown. She noted that the Tuppers Plains-Chester water won a national safety award a few years ago.
Blake, however, said, "It's encouraging that it's even come up as an issue" and that relies on the news media for information because C-8 is not a big topic of discussion among his neighbors.
Poole said he pays close attention to help "make sure there's no sleight of hand.
"We need to keep the iron to the fire," he said.
The controversy is fed by high levels of uncertainty and the sheer number of participants as citizens, litigants, environmental advocacy groups, the government and the media all angle to gather information, advance their positions or just do their jobs.
At issue is not just the extent of contamination, but the question of whether C-8 even presents a health risk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a comprehensive risk assessment of perfluorochemicals and indicated it might consider adding C-8 to the Toxic Substances Control Act, thus placing the substance under federal regulatory control.
Representatives of Poole and Griffin's water districts attended a public meeting friday in Washington, D.C. where the federal EPA and participants shared information about potential C-8 toxicity.
Meanwhile, area residents are keeping any risks in perspective. "There's been people drinking it a heck of a lot longer than us," said Blake, who, like a few others, said he'd be more concerned if C-8 had clearly made people ill. And as Poole recently said to some of his customers, you can drink bottled water but "you don't know what's in it."