Athens Messenger, Callie Lyons
Published January 18, 2006
Some residents of North Carolina are petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for an expanded investigation of the chemical C8.
Elevated levels of the Teflon manufacturing substance C8, which is known to scientists as PFOA or perfluoroctanoic acid, have been found in groundwater near a Fayetteville, N.C., plant. Some people who live there don't feel like the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources is doing all it can to protect them. And, they are afraid of suffering the same kind of contamination that has impacted six West Virginia and Southeastern Ohio water districts as a result of emissions from DuPont's Washington Works plant near Parkersburg.
DuPont officials maintain that in 50 years of handling the substance they have seen no indication that C8 causes health problems for humans.
"The weight of scientific evidence, based on published, peer-reviewed health and toxicological studies, show that PFOA does not pose a human cancer risk and does not pose a health risk to the general public," said Barry Hudson, DuPont's Fayetteville site manager, in a statement released Tuesday. "To date, no human health effects are known to be caused by PFOA. DuPont is committed to continued safe and environmentally sound operations."
However, last June the EPA's Science Advisory Board called C8 a "likely carcinogen."
And, late Tuesday afternoon, Environmental Working Group Director of Public Affairs Lauren Sucher issued one of the strongest statements on record about the human health effects of C8.
"DuPont's Teflon chemical C8 has been linked in worker studies to elevated cholesterol, increased risk of stroke and leukemia," Sucher said. "Those are human health effects."
Tim Kropp, senior scientist for the environmental group, said the chemical is so important because it has properties that raise concerns.
"It does not break down - ever," Kropp said. "It also accumulates in people. We are able to absorb it and we have a very difficult time getting rid of it. If we were exposed to no more of it, it would take about two decades to get rid of 95 percent of it."
In 2002, DuPont moved all of its C8 production activities to one state-of-the-art facility in Fayetteville. The $23 million plant was reported by company officials to be "leak-proof." Since October 2002, it has been the company's routine to produce C8 in Fayetteville and then ship it to Washington Works.
However "leak-proof" the facility was expected to be, an internal DuPont report reveals that as early as January 2003 the company detected C8 in surface water and groundwater near the Fayetteville plant.
"DuPont has taken approximately 60 samples from groundwater monitoring wells during the last three years," Hudson said. "All of the results, with the exception of one well location, have been less than 3 parts per billion. One well, adjacent to the APFO plant, had a result of 765 ppb. While we are continuing further investigation and sampling, we are making very good progress in understanding the cause for this result in this one monitoring well."
People who live near the Fayetteville plant have formed a coalition called the North Carolina C8 Working Group and they are asking the U.S. EPA to step in and take over the local investigation. Four organizations have rallied to their cause, including Clean Water for North Carolina, North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Project, the Waterkeeper Alliance and Cape Fear River Watch Inc.
"Given the long history of DuPont's undisclosed C8 contaminated drinking water supplies in other states, we are deeply concerned with the very limited nature of the investigation at the Fayetteville site," said Hope Taylor-Guevara, a spokeswoman for North Carolina C8 Working Group.
The group launched its appeal to the EPA at a news conference on Tuesday. It wants to know how C8 got into the groundwater so quickly after DuPont began C8 production. And, they want to know if water supplies have been contaminated.
"The people of North Carolina deserve better than this," Taylor-Guevara said. "We cannot let this get to the point where other states have reached with the public unknowingly drinking contaminated water for years."
In part, the North Carolinians are dissatisfied because the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has been content to let DuPont conduct its own internal investigation.
In a 2004 memo, state agency officials told DuPont they were pursuing internal testing - without oversight from any federal or state agency - while awaiting the forging of a plan between DuPont and EPA headquarters.
It's a story familiar to some Mid Ohio Valley residents. In an interview last week, David Altman, attorney for the Little Hocking Water Association, was critical of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's local efforts.
"I have said as an environmental lawyer the OEPA has not been as helpful to us in terms of making sure things are done in a more protected way," Altman said. "Erring on the side of safety and health, we've really been on our own."
Customers of the Little Hocking Water Association have been provided with alternative sources of water for consumption, courtesy of DuPont. However, the agreement did not come about through the intervention of the state agency. The water association independently negotiated the agreement for bottled water.
"We didn't have any help with getting the bottled water," Altman said. "The OEPA could have helped. If Little Hocking could do that, we would think an Ohio agency could."
Officials from the Ohio EPA say they are awaiting guidance from the federal agency before they take any further investigative or enforcement action.
