Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News
December 18, 2006
BYLINE: McMenamin, Helen
SECTION: Pg. 16(2) Vol. 35 No. 9 ISSN: 0146-0501
North Carolina 's Department of Water Quality (DWQ) Dec. 14 introduced an interim standard of 2 parts per billion (ppb) for perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) in groundwater.
The level is four times higher than the standard set by EPA for drinking water in an area contaminated with PFOA around DuPont's Washington Works facility near Parkersburg , W. Va. under a voluntary consent agreement (see PTCN, Nov. 27, Page 1).
The discrepancy between EPA's standard and that of North Carolina provoked outrage among some environmentalists, particularly Clean Water North Carolina . It believes the standard was pushed through very quietly and should not have been introduced without public input.
"This is a completely inappropriate action, and we believe DWQ acted at the bidding of DuPont," said Hope Taylor-Guevara, executive director of the group.
Clean Water NC plans a public records request to obtain records ofthe decision-making process.
Taylor-Guevara also suggested that, as the sole manufacturer of PFOA, DuPont should be held accountable for PFOA in the Cape Fear Riverabove DuPont's Fayetteville plant. Neither the Cape Fear Riverkeepers nor the Waterkeeper Alliance responded to requests for comment on this issue.
State's position
DWQ's supervisor of planning, Carl Bailey, noted that the interim maximum allowable concentration is for groundwater, not drinking water. Bailey's department has developed standards for 140 substances in groundwater and most are the same or lower than federal drinking water standards. Also, it must begin the process of developing a permanent standard, which includes public hearings, within three months of introducing an interim standard.
Bailey expects his group will develop additional knowledge of PFOAbefore a permanent standard comes into force. Unlike most states, which do not have groundwater standards or use federal maximum contaminant levels (MCL), which address drinking water quality, North Carolina develops its own standards to protect groundwater.
The need for a PFOA standard has arisen because an equipment malfunction at DuPont's Lafayette plant, where PFOA is manufactured, caused a release of the substance. Companies that have to deal with a waste product for which there is not a standard routinely ask for one to provide a target for clean-up efforts, said Bailey. DuPont is required to restore groundwater at the site of its release to the interim standard. If the permanent standard is lower, it will have to continue the clean-up.
The state's Department of Waste Management, which routinely works on Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites,has been overseeing the company's clean-up work. Its tests indicate the contamination is all within the boundaries of the plant and that PFOA is not detectable 500 feet beyond the unit where the release occurred.
Residents who live within a mile of the plant have been concerned about the safety of their drinking water and some have requested it be continuously monitored for PFOA. All DWQ tests have found either non-detectable or non-quantifiable amounts of PFOA, less than 12 parts per trillion in their wells.
According to DuPont spokesperson Dan Turner, the company is pleased the state has introduced its interim standard and with the selectedlevel. The company is confident PFOA levels in groundwater around all its sites are well below the 2 ppb limit.
Steelworkers charge DuPont hiding information
Meanwhile, the United Steelworkers (USW) continues to claim DuPontis withholding information on a recent epidemiological study of the company's Washington Works plant employees (see PTCN, Nov. 27, Page 1).
Turner told PTCN that DuPont has fulfilled the union's request, sending the complete report to the USW representative for the company'sNew Jersey employees. Although the full study has been available in EPA's Washington reading room for a few weeks, USW has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it. DuPont is working with EPA to fulfill that request, but has stressed that the material is copyright protected.
Turner called the flurry of press releases by USW on this issue part of a campaign the union has waged against DuPont since 2003. "The USW is using PFOA in attempts to discredit the company, as part of its corporate bargaining efforts for the 1,800 DuPont workers (across the U.S. ) it represents," he told PTCN.
--Helen McMenamin