3M’s chemical plant at Cottage Grove, Minn.
Sustained Outrage readers know we’ve been following a variety of issues surrounding C8 and other perfluorinated chemicals that have been widely used in out society, but are being found to be highly toxic. (See a collection of previous posts here).
So, I wanted to pass on some related news from two other states where these chemicals have been hot-button issues.
First, from New Jersey, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the state agency that has been warning about the dangers of C8-contaminated drinking water is being disbanded.
As I explained in a Gazette story last week, researchers from New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection published a peer-reviewed journal article that questioned whether a federal drinking water advisory for C8 was strong enough. As I explained in my story:
Researchers concluded that a long-term exposure limit for C8, based on the health studies EPA reviewed, would be about 0.04 parts per billion — 10 times more stringent that EPA recommended. And that level — 0.04 parts per billion — is the guidance level set by New Jersey authorities for drinking water in their state.
But the new paper also noted that EPA did not examine several animal studies that showed adverse health effects at lower levels, including effects on the liver, metabolism and the uterus.
“Evaluation of these studies could result in a short-term health-based concentration” below 0.4 parts per billion, the study concluded.
This was a very significant scientific paper, especially coming from researchers at the New Jersey DEP, where President Obama went to get his U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson.
And now, the N.J. DEP plans to eliminate its Division of Science, Research and Technology, the part of the agency whose scientists produced that study. According to the Inquirer story:
Since the fall, the DEP has been downgrading it to an Office of Science … Once a national leader in environmental research, the division has suffered under the budget cuts that have affected the entire DEP.
The Inquirer story didn’t mention the recent C8 report, instead focusing on another study by the division, calling for cuts in the amount of another toxic compound, hexavalent chromium, that should be allowed to remain on polluted sites. “The finding means several redevelopment projects in Hudson County and elsewhere may pose a health risk to residents who live nearby,” the paper said. The Inquirer report also said:
Among the critics of DEP’s changes are former division staff members, said Adam Liebtag, lead staff representative for Communication Workers of America Local 1034, the union that represents DEP scientists.
The department has shifted division employees into other programs and reorganized the division into smaller offices focused on issues such as climate change, he said.
“Employees within the division are not happy with the change and feel it is a blow to science-based decision-making within the department,” Liebtag said. “The employees in that division have served a unique role of doing research on cutting-edge science and providing that information as a resource to the overall department.”
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, trial has begun in a case against 3M Corp. over its pollution of local water supplies with perfluorinated chemicals from its Cottage Grove manufacturing facility.
There’s coverage in both local papers, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The Pioneer Press had a lengthy (and pretty pro-3M) story that tried to explain the history of the case. It’s not on their Web site anymore, but you can get a Google cached version of it by clicking here.
As I’ve explained previously on Sustained Outrage and in a Gazette story,
 For more than 50 years, 3M produced C8 and related chemicals used in popular products such as Scotchgard and Teflon.
In May 2000, 3M announced it was phasing out production of these chemicals. 3M officials took that step after learning of a DuPont Co. study in which monkeys exposed to C8 had to be killed because they were suffering from such severe health effects, according to government records. 3M also moved to phase out C8 production after being warned the EPA was considering more strictly regulating such chemicals.
There’s a more detailed explanation of the history suit also available from 3M’s annual SEC report here. The Environmental Working Group’s Chemical Industry Archives has a slightly different take on the history of 3M and these chemicals than that presented by the local media in Minnesota.
The judge in the Minnesota case, Mary Hannon, previously refused to certify the litigation as a class action (as U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin did in a similar case in federal court in Charleston against DuPont), and some other claims against 3M have also been thrown out. The local newspapers say the current case seeks punitive damages for negligence and continuing trespass. It applies to only four individuals, and was further narrowed when Hannon dismissed claims of nuisance and personal injury, according to those reports.
As I understand it the claims being litigated at trial include: Property damage, past and continuing trespass (the residents’ property and water), and — perhaps most significantly — punitive damages.
Subscribe to Sustained Outrage
Science may be shoved under the bus in the Garden State, but fortunately, it’s making a big come-back at the federal level. Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Thursday, May 21, 2009, she is re-establishing key internal scientific review procedures pertaining to harmful pollutants. In short she’s bringing back science to the office, and the Agency’s scientists will be issuing studies.
The polestar must be science, and not the science fiction often advanced in the shadows by lobbyists and conflicted “scientists” of certain rogue chemical conglomerates during the Bush business-friendly years.
…funfundvierzig..
Your May 11 report on a new study claiming that the U.S. EPA’s provisional health advisory for the chemical C8 in drinking water is not stringent enough may have caused undue alarm among readers subject to the EPA Site Specific Action Level for PFOA (C8), which sets a similar standard for drinking water in West Virginia and Ohio. The facts would suggest that there is no need for concern.
First of all, the levels of PFOA in human blood are down noticeably over the past 5-8 years now that a program to phase out its use is well underway.
Secondly, the new study is not reflective of the latest science, and the assumptions used in the development of the risk assessment appear inconsistent with those used by other regulatory agencies. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) preliminary guidance level of 0.04 parts per billion (ppb) is very low, neither justified by nor reflective of the latest science, and is also out of line with the other regulatory limits, which generally range from 0.3 ppb to 2.0 ppb, and were established using essentially the same toxicological data.
The EPA safety standard of 0.4 ppb – the equivalent of one second in 79 years – is widely recognized as sufficient to protect public health. It received a thorough review by experts within EPA before being released. It is just as stringent as the standards in such health-conscious states as Minnesota as well as in Britain.
The fact that New Jersey has a much lower guidance level for drinking water does not mean that the EPA standard is inadequate.
John Heinze, Ph.D.
Senior Science Advisor
Fluoropolymer Products Information Center
Washington, DC
John,
The study you criticize was published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
Perhaps you could provide us with citations and links to any peer-reviewed work that you have published which backs up your claims in this comment?
In addition, please explain to our readers the connections (financially in particular) between your “center” and the companies that make and use these chemicals.
Ken Ward Jr.
The Fluorpolymers Processors Information Center (FPIC) of Washington D.C. is described at the Center’s own website as follows:
“[FPIC] is sponsored by the principal processors of fluoropolymers in the U. S. a special purpose group of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc [SPI].”
SPI is a K-Street trade association group, made up of lobbyists and corporate operatives, bankrolled by corporations, such as E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.
When it comes to this extraordinarily toxic, likely cancer-causing, bio-persistent industrial chemical used to make Teflon, why in the world would you trust the public “information” dispensed by DuPont’s historically highly secretive and evasive executives or their front organisations and lobbyists?! Why should PFOA-contaminated citizens drinking PFOA-laced drinking water or working in PFOA-polluting Teflon factories from Parkersburg to Changshu, China or in Teflon fabricating shops, take comfort in the unspecified brand of “latest science” from the DuPont Company?!
Conflict of interest screams forth here.
…funfundvierzig..