PFOA 2005
May 28, 2005. Board wants more review of DEP's C8 deal.
By Ken Ward Jr. Charleston Gazette

Return to
PFOA Class Action Suit
Newspaper articles and Documents related to PFOA Class Action

See brief introduction to PFOA and PFOS


May 28, 2005

The Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)

Board wants more review of DEP's C8 deal

By Ken Ward Jr.

State Environmental Quality Board members declined Friday to immediately approve a settlement that rewrites permits for a toxic waste dump at DuPont Co.'s Wood County plant.

Board members said that they wanted more information about the deal, and asked their lawyer to review the details.

"I'd like to have some more time to digest this," said Ed Snyder, the board chairman.

The settlement would resolve DuPont's appeal of the Department of Environmental Protection's renewal of water pollution and waste management permits for the company's Dry Run landfill.

In early March, DEP renewed the permits and added several provisions meant to tighten oversight of the dump's discharge of the toxic chemical C8.

The settlement would weaken those provisions and eliminate at least one of them: A limit on the landfill discharge's toxic effects on aquatic life.

Wendy Radcliff, the board's lawyer, suggested that the public should get a chance to comment on permit changes made by the settlement.

"There has been a heightened public concern and awareness of this permit," Radcliff said.

Since 1951, DuPont has used C8, or ammonium perfluorooctanoate, at its Washington Works plant south of Parkersburg. DuPont uses C8 to make its popular Teflon products, and to make other similar nonstick products it sells to other manufacturers of consumer goods.

Fueled in large part by internal DuPont documents uncovered by lawyers for Wood County residents, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun a detailed study of the chemical and sued DuPont for allegedly hiding information about C8's dangers.

In its lawsuit last July, EPA alleged that DuPont had caused "widespread contamination" and created a "substantial risk of injury to health or the environment."

Earlier this month, DuPont said that it had reached a settlement with EPA of that lawsuit. Details have not been made public.

DuPont has also agreed to pay at least $ 107.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed against the company by thousands of residents whose drinking water was poisoned with C8.

The 17-acre Dry Run dump, about four miles southwest of the community of Lubeck, remains at the center of the C8 controversy.

Since the dump was opened in 1984, DuPont has disposed of large amounts of C8-contaminated wastes in the Dry Run facility.

By April 1990, DuPont tests confirmed that C8 was leaching from the landfill into Dry Run Creek at concentrations as high as 1.6 parts per million -- more than 100 times the company's own limit for C8 in water.

In August 2001, the company settled out of court a lawsuit brought by Wilbur and Sandra Tennant, Dry Run landfill neighbors who said that C8 pollution killed their cattle and made their family sick.

The most recent data on file with DEP shows C8 concentrations of more than 80 parts per billion.

That's far more than the 1-part-per-billion company limit that DuPont set years ago for drinking water.

But, it is far less than the 150 parts per billion that DEP in 2001 agreed to as a "screening level" for whether DuPont must replace local drinking water supplies.

In a 2002 study, the Washington-based Environmental Working Group reported that DEP's 150-part-per-billion number was "seriously flawed" and greatly underestimated C8's dangers. The group says that studies show C8 is linked to heart attacks, breast cancer, testicular cancer and other ailments.

The latest DEP permits do not limit the amount of C8 that DuPont can discharge from the landfill.

But, after being urged by area residents to limit the discharges, DEP added language to govern the conditions under which the agency might eventually restrict C8 emissions.

DuPont appealed those additions to the permit, and the board was scheduled to hold an appeal hearing Friday in Charleston.

At a Friday board meeting, DuPont lawyer Ann Bradley said that DuPont appealed the DEP permits because the company was upset that it did not have an opportunity to comment on the provisions DEP added.
"DuPont felt some clarification was needed," Bradley said.

Amanda Waters, a lawyer for the DEP Division of Water and Waste Management, said that the settlement made only minor changes in the permits.

"The language was changed only slightly from what was in the final permit," Waters said.

Bradley and Waters both said that the settlement ensures a more stringent permit than the one that DEP previously published for public comments.

But under the deal, worked out privately between DuPont and DEP, several provisions added by the state after the public comment period would be weakened: A numeric limit on test results that estimate toxicity to aquatic life would be removed. Instead, DuPont would conduct those tests for informational purposes.

If four consecutive semi-annual tests showed no adverse effects on aquatic life, the company could petition DEP to eliminate the testing requirement. The deal allows that to be a minor permit change that would not be subject to public review.

Bradley said that the testing "was just a step to confirm the findings of the past that there was no toxicity to aquatic life."

Waters agreed that previous tests gave "no indication there are any problems here." Rather than spelling out specific steps DuPont must take to mitigate C8 pollution from part of the landfill, the settlement gives the company broad leeway in how it handles the clean up. Added to a list of requirements is the phrase, "other options for mitigation may be evaluated and proposed." It makes unclear the question of at what point DuPont must have a C8 discharge limit imposed on the landfill.

Initially, DEP required DuPont to modify its permit -- to limit C8 discharges -- whenever federal regulators finalize a "risk assessment" study of the chemical.

Under the settlement, DuPont would not have to do so until the EPA issues a "reference dose/screening level" for C8.

Bradley indicated that the change essentially implements DuPont's position that an actual regulatory limit -- as opposed to guidelines from a scientific study -- must be in place before DEP could limit DuPont's emissions.

"When this is developed as a regulatory standard, it would be incorporated into the permit," Bradley said.

Fluoride Action Network | Pesticide Project | 315-379-9200 |