Published on Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006, in the Raleigh News & Observer

Emissions in groundwater add to DuPont's tasks

Wade Rawlins, Staff Writer

FAYETTVILLE -- By the time the DuPont plant here became the nation's sole producer of a compound used in making Teflon, the chemical was already a suspected health hazard. Such concerns prompted DuPont to spend $7 million on environmental controls at a state-of-the-art manufacturing plant that opened in 2002, designed to keep the man-made compound -- perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C-8 -- out of the environment.

Within months, however, PFOA was detected in groundwater, and its levels have been growing since then. DuPont officials have found the chemical in more than 25 monitoring wells scattered around the 2,200-acre property, in surface water and, in increasing levels, in the blood of workers. Last month, traces were found in a residential well about a mile away, spurring a new round of area water-testing and installation of air monitors.

Still unclear is how the chemical is getting into the groundwater.

"We've been trying to determine the cause," said Barry Hudson, DuPont plant manager. "We can't conclude yet."

The widening investigation of PFOA contamination at the DuPont's Fayetteville Works plant comes as federal environmental officials are pressing manufacturers to eliminate all emissions of PFOA from the environment within 10 years because of health concerns.

The chemical is a processing aid used in making not only high-performance nonstick plastics such as Teflon but also grease-resistant coatings such as those in microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes. The Fayetteville plant ships the chemical to other DuPont plants for use and sells it to another manufacturer.

Dispute over studies

The Environmental Protection Agency, which began investigating the chemical in 2000, says studies so far are "suggestive" of cancer risks. Studies have shown that it causes developmental problems and tumors in animals. Last month, an independent science panel that advises the EPA called for stronger language, saying the chemical is a "likely" carcinogen to humans. DuPont disputes the science panel's recommendation.

Worries about PFOA's health risks are relatively recent. The chemical has been on EPA's radar screen only since 2000, when a previous manufacturer, 3M Co., reported that the chemical lingers in the environment and collects in people's bodies. Recent studies show it is even found in the blood of newborn babies.

DuPont says its studies show no adverse health effects from exposure to the chemical, not even among workers with much higher levels than detected in the general population.

Nonetheless, the EPA took sweeping action last month in calling on eight manufacturers, including DuPont, to reduce emissions of the chemical and trace amounts in consumer products by 95 percent by 2010 and to eliminate them by 2015.

Last year, the EPA obtained a $10.3 million fine for DuPont's failure to report information about the chemical's effects -- the largest fine it has ever collected on an environmental law violation.

DuPont has agreed to reduce PFOA emissions as part of the voluntary EPA pact, and its goal is to do that before the EPA deadlines. Still, the company plans to continue manufacturing it as an essential part of a billion-dollar industry in Teflon and other products.

"We've used PFOA for over 50 years," Hudson said. "Our health studies and 3M's studies have come to the same conclusion that there are no health effects."

Although 3M, which sold the chemical to DuPont, maintains there are no adverse health effects, the company began phasing out its production of PFOA and related compounds in May 2000, citing principles of responsible environmental management. Its scientists had alerted the EPA to the prevalence of a related chemical in wildlife and its tendency to remain in the environment.

Golden opportunity

DuPont, a large user of the chemical, seized the opportunity to produce the chemical compound in a liquid form, and it built a $23 million plant in Fayetteville and began production in October 2002. It is now the only manufacturer of PFOA in North America.

DuPont officials noted that $7 million of the plant's cost was spent on environmental controls to prevent release of the chemical. The company had plenty of incentive to contain emissions. Last year, it agreed to pay $107 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought in 2001 by Ohio and West Virginia residents whose drinking water was contaminated with PFOA.

DuPont also agreed to provide a state-of-the-art water treatment system designed to reduce the level of PFOA in the water supply and provide medical monitoring.

Additionally, the EPA brought actions against DuPont in 2004 for failing to report information about PFOA's potential risks and for withholding information since the mid-1980s about the chemical's presence in water supplies near its Parkersburg, W.Va., plant. It was this case that led to the record EPA fine; the agency and DuPont settled late last year.

In 2002, DuPont's Fayetteville Works plant began testing employees at its PFOA plant to check levels of the chemical in their blood.

The Fayetteville plant

The plant, highly automated, employs just 15 people. Technicians produce the chemical from a control room packed with video screens that show the manufacturing process.

The concentrations in blood taken from 17 workers who had some contact with the plant averaged 11 parts per billion in 2002 -- a little more than twice the level found in the general population. The average concentrations in blood samples of 29 workers increased to 217 parts per billion in 2003, then to about 450 parts per billion in 37 workers in 2005, according to DuPont.

Dr. Robert Rickard, DuPont's chief science officer, said the levels were lower than those of workers at some other plants and were no cause for concern. "We haven't seen any health effects in workers, and that includes workers with significantly higher exposures," he said. He said he did not expect the levels would continue increasing.

In January 2003, DuPont sampled some wells about a third of a mile from the new plant as part of a continuing investigation of various contaminants. They were surprised that one test showed the presence of PFOA.

"That made no sense to me," said Michael Johnson, DuPont's environmental manager. "We'd been producing it for a month."

Follow-up tests two months later confirmed the first result. DuPont informed the state of its finding in June 2003.

The state and a coalition of environmental groups known as the North Carolina C-8 Working Group urged the company to test for the chemical more widely. "We wanted to go ahead and have that area tested even though DuPont didn't," said Dexter Matthews, director of the N.C. Division of Waste Management.

DuPont officials said the contamination came from a leak in a cistern beneath another production building and was unrelated to the new plant. State officials agreed to allow the company to do its own investigation and provide copies of the data.

What DuPont found

DuPont detected PFOA in low concentrations in standing water in a drainage ditch elsewhere on the plant campus in 2005 but did not test area groundwater until the fall. When it did, it got the highest levels to date. A well next to the plant showed 147 parts per billion in October. Two months later, it showed 765 parts per billion. Other monitoring wells around the PFOA plant showed low concentrations.

In November, DuPont also tested a private well in the East Point subdivision and another area around nearby Marshwood Lake. The well near the 14-acre lake showed a trace amount of the chemical. DuPont officials say the water is safe to drink.

Jason Thomas, 34, a home inspector who lives near Marshwood Lake, said the tests so far show low levels of the chemical, but he wants monitoring to continue to make sure the levels don't increase.

"My biggest concern is everything so far has been inconclusive as far as testing on humans," said Thomas, who said his own blood test showed concentrations of PFOA at about twice the average for the general population. "I have two kids growing up at home. What is it going to do to them down the line?"

Glenda Minges, 53, a retired teacher whose father and uncle built homes around Marshwood Lake, said DuPont officials had met with neighbors and provided information, but she still had questions.

"They kept telling us there were no harmful effects," Minges said. "If there were no harmful effects, why do you keep testing the well water?"

Minges said she would like independent testing of neighbors' wells -- something the state so far has declined to do.

Investigators for the state and the EPA took water samples from two churches and a convenience store, and from a private well in another area to try to determine the extent of PFOA contamination.

"They haven't been able to contain this stuff," said Rick Abraham, a Texas-based environmental consultant working with the United Steelworkers Union, which has expressed concerns on behalf of its members who work at DuPont plants in other areas. "That is clear. They don't even know where it is coming from."

Abraham criticized DuPont for taking two years to sample around the PFOA plant, saying the groundwater contamination would have been found sooner.

Hudson, the plant manager, said plant officials think the low concentrations of PFOA in groundwater near the plant are coming from smokestack emissions. He can't explain the high reading of 765 parts per billion. DuPont has installed six air monitors, and an initial round of testing showed low concentrations of PFOA, Hudson said. Another round of air sampling is planned next month, he said.

Found six miles away

While DuPont has been searching for the source of the chemical in groundwater at its plant, the North Carolina C-8 Working Group has done testing off site. It detected PFOA in four of seven samples taken from the Cape Fear River. The highest concentration was from a sample collected about six miles from the plant.

"All the indications are -- just as was found at other sites -- that it is out in the environment without an adequate explanation of how it got there," said Hope Taylor Guevara, executive director of Clean Water for North Carolina and member of the working group.

Taylor Guevara acknowledged that the test results showing a higher level farther from the plant were confusing.

"We believe that is likely to be indicative of air deposition and how far-flung this might be," she said.

Hudson said he doesn't believe the PFOA found six miles from the plant came from the DuPont plant. Given the widespread use of the chemical over the years and its tendency to stay in the environment, the source may not be determined.

"We don't believe in any way that is related to our operations at Fayetteville Works," Hudson said.

Staff writer Wade Rawlins can be reached at 829-4528 or wrawlins@newsobserver.com.


Elsie Dew, left, and her sister, Glenda Minges, near their homes on Marshwood Lake, adjacent to DuPont's plant complex in Fayetteville. DuPont gives the sisters information about possible pollution. Minges says she still has many questions.

Staff Photos by Corey Lowenstein

Chemical is key to nonstick industry WHAT IS PFOA?

PFOA (also known as C-8, ammonium perfluorooctanoate [APFO] or perfluorooctanoic acid), is used in the manufacturing process of fluoropolymers, including Teflon products, at DuPont's Washington Works facility in Washington, W.Va.

WHAT ARE FLUOROPOLYMERS?

Fluoropolymers impart desirable properties, including fire resistance and the ability to repel oil, stains, grease and water. They are used to provide nonstick surfaces on cookware and waterproof, breathable membranes for clothing.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Related Content
CDC: Perfluorooctanoic acid
EPA: Perfluorooctanoic acid
DuPont: Teflon