The Depths of Chemical Valley

Background on PFAS

Odds are, it’s already inside you. You encounter it every day. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) 95 percent of people in the United States have it in their bodies.

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are chemicals found in food packaging, household items, stain-resistant furniture, nonstick cookware, outdoor gear and firefighting foam. Teflon is a common example of a PFAS that is interacted with daily.

These chemicals are present in our day-to-day lives now more than ever. An investigation into the effects of PFAS and similar chemicals began in the 1970s with DuPont, a chemical manufacturing company in Wood County, West Virginia.

In the early 1950s, DuPont used Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) also referred to as C-8, in the manufacturing of Teflon-related products. The chemical C-8 is a part of the broader PFAS group, but contains variations in its molecular structure, but is used for the same purpose in the creation of Teflon to be sold to manufacturers. 

The CDC claims that 95 percent of people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bodies.

Potentially including my own hand.

 

The lid and straw of a Chick-Fil-A cup. PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, is a chemical that can be found in food packaging including fast food container products.

 

 

A pan and butter. PFAS can be found in nonstick cookware. Teflon is a chemical that was produced by DuPont plants that resulted in high traces of C8 coming from the cookware when used. Teflon was created as an alternative for cooking with less butter and oil to make pans nonstick.

 

 

 

Cleaning chemical. PFAS can be found in household cleaners.

 

A rain jacket coated and boots with a water-repellent coating. PFAS can be found in the coating used to create water-repellant clothing. 

 

 

 

Lipstick. PFAS can be found in makeup. 

 

 

 Residents have switched to only using plastic bottles for fear of C-8 exposure through tap water.

 

The entrance to the DuPont Employee Recreation Center park in Washington, WV.

Legal Action

According to the lawsuit Tennant v. E.I. du Pont do Nemours and Company filed by Robert A. Bilott in March of 2001, DuPont was attempting to buy several hundred acres of the Tennants’ land to build a solid waste landfill area near Dry Run Creek in West Virginia. The Tennants were apprehensive at first with the concern of how it could affect their cattle.

DuPont gave verbal and written confirmation to the Tennants that no harmful chemicals would be disposed at the site and that their cattle were allowed to graze along the adjacent Dry Run Creek. According to the lawsuit, the Tennants agreed and sold the land to DuPont and in 1982, construction began on an “unlined, non-hazardous, solid waste landfill.” Landfill operations began in 1984.

The lawsuit also claims that in 1984, DuPont had received results that C-8 had soaked into the groundwater surrounding the Washington Works plant and into the local Lubeck Public Service District’s drinking wells. It is said from the lawsuit that this was caused by the dumping of C-8 sludge into three unlined anaerobic digestion ponds at the Washington Works site.

According to the lawsuit, DuPont had done internal sampling and confirmed that C-8 was detected in the Lubeck drinking water at 1.5 parts per billion (ppb) and even as high as 2.2 ppb in 1988. These levels exceeded DuPont’s own requirement of 1 ppb.

With these high levels of C-8 detected, DuPont decided the best option was to remove the sludge from the three ponds and move it to a new location, according to the lawsuit. DuPont submitted data to the West Virginia Division for Environmental Protection (WVDEP) claiming that the sludge was non-hazardous. The WVDEP gave permission to DuPont to move the 7,100 tons of sludge to the unlined Dry Run Landfill, which was completed in 1988. The document also claims that DuPont confirmed levels of C-8 in the sludge to be as high as 610 parts per million (ppm) during this time.

To fix the problem of C-8 in the Lubeck drinking wells, DuPont purchased the well property and had them moved two miles down-gradient from the Washington Works site, according to the lawsuit.

Furthermore, the document claims that DuPont began to upgrade its regulation of waste disposal to stay within the requirements of the WVDEP. DuPont also sought out building a new landfill called Letart Landfill. Levels of C-8 also began to rise in the Dry Run Creek according to sampling done by DuPont. Their hopes were to move the chemicals from Dry Run Landfill to Letart Landfill.

This was not actually done, and the sludge was moved to a different location in the Dry Run Landfill in 1991, according to the lawsuit.

In 1993, according to the lawsuit, inspectors with WVDEP found “excessive amounts of sediment and discoloration” in ponds on the Dry Run Landfill property filled with leachate, a contaminated liquid that is created through water filtering through a solid waste disposal site. Due to this leachate collection in the ponds, DuPont had the ponds drained into the Dry Run Creek from where the Tennants’ cattle had been drinking. According to the lawsuit, DuPont knew of the high levels of C-8 in the leachate that was being drained into the creek.

During this time, the WVDEP asked DuPont to submit toxicity samples of the leachate from the ponds. DuPont had waited four months for the ponds to drain into the creek before taking samples, which in the end revealed a 15% mortality rate, according to the lawsuit.

As this was happening, several of the cattle owned by the Tennants had died along the creek, and the Tennants themselves were exposed to C-8, according to the document. 

Two banners promoting a mural project sponsored by DuPont chemicals hang along the Parkersburg Flood wall at Point Park in Parkersburg, WV.

An unfinished mural sponsored by DuPont chemicals along the Parkersburg Floodwall at Point Park in Parkersburg, WV.

In the fall of 1994, DuPont began to dump more C-8 waste into the Dry Run Creek Landfill as the Letart Landfill was going to close. In their own analysis, this waste contained 930 ppb of C-8. In the spring of 1995, the lawsuit claims that “discolored, foul-smelling water” was flowing from the Dry Run ponds into the creek, creating suds and foam along the creek bed, assumed to contain C-8 by DuPont. During this time, more of the Tennants’ cattle were dying.

The WVDEP had forced DuPont to address the discharge going into the creek and upgrade the landfill. After no changes were being made, the Tennants went to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the issue, according to the lawsuit.

Additionally, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources informed DuPont that there had been reports of dead or dying deer near the Dry Run Creek. According to the lawsuit, DuPont did not inform the Tennants that there was C-8 in the creek, or that the cattle could be harmed from drinking the water.

In 1997, the EPA released its Ecological Risk Assessment Report of the Dry Run Landfill to DuPont. In the report, it stated that though there was a harmful impact to various species of animals and plants, the EPA was not able to identify a chemical that caused these issues. DuPont suggested a collaborative effort with the EPA to further investigate.

Along with further investigation, in 1999, DuPont put together a team of three veterinarians selected by DuPont and three selected by the EPA to further investigate the death of the hundreds of dead cattle owned by the Tennants. During this investigation, the lawsuit claims that DuPont did not inform the EPA veterinarians that C-8 was a “toxic animal carcinogen” which was confirmed by a study that DuPont had performed on monkeys. As a result, the EPA veterinarians did not consider looking for C-8 in their findings, though DuPont knew of its effects.

Since the findings of the pollution of DuPont has become publicized, more lawsuits have been filed for reparations due to health effects individuals claim to have experienced due to drinking water that contained C-8.

A Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) was created on April 9, 2013, to settle over 3,500 cases of individuals claiming they have sustained personal health issues or cases of death due to the consumption of drinking water contaminated by C-8.

These individuals claimed the possibility of health issues because of a 2005 settlement, Leach v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. A panel was put together to study the possible health effects of C-8 on humans. The settlement class was around 80,000 people who had consumed water from six water districts that claimed they were contaminated due to the C-8 leakage from the Washington Works plant.

A panel was constructed of three epidemiologists who conducted research to try and find any possible connections between PFOA exposure and diseases. The panel posted their reports between December 2011 and October 2012. The panel found that there is a probable link between PFOA exposure and high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

The Multidistrict Litigation known as E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. C-8 Per. Injury Litig. was settled on May 13, 2019. In this civil action lawsuit, DuPont and The Chemours Company, a spin-off from DuPont agreed to pay $671 million to the 3,500 plus claims of health issues related to the C-8 panel study. 

A deer roams in the DuPont Employee Recreation Center park in Washington, WV.

A drain owned by Chemours along DuPont Rd. near the employee park.

A New Spin-Off

In a press release on July 1, 2015, The Chemours Company announced itself as a spin-off from DuPont and that it is an “independent, publicly traded corporation” on the NYSE. Chemours claims that it is an organization focusing on “titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions.”

"We think of Chemours as a 200-hundred-year-old start-up,” Mark Vergnano, the president and CEO at the time, said in the press release. "We bring to the market a rich heritage based on our DuPont legacy and built on industry leadership and innovation adding the energy and agility of a customer-centered, global business fresh out of the starting gate. Our businesses are already known for pioneering application development and world-class product stewardship and safety.”

The DuPont Washington Works plant became one of 10 plants under the Chemours Co.

In a 2019 report by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), the Chemours company ranks 16 out of the top 100 water polluters index in the United States.

Out of the 10 Chemours plants in the United States, the Washington Works plant ranks at seventh for the percent of total company hazard at 0.02%. The PERI data also states that the pounds of toxic waste transfers (POTW), or pounds of toxic chemicals released directly into surface water, ranks the Washington Works plant at zero pounds for the 2019 data.

In an EPA report, the Chemours Washington Works Plant has had a significant violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the past 11 out of 12 quarters, but there were no violations for the Clean Air Act (CAA). The violation for the CWA means that the Chemours plant had not adhered to standards set by the EPA.

Data reported by the EPA shows that nine chemicals were released into the Ohio River by the Chemours Co. in 2021. The information states that 334,152.62 pounds of chemicals were released into the water. Nitrate compounds made up a large majority of the chemicals at 216,603 pounds, with Ammonia being the second at 92,098 pounds. 

A barge moves along the Ohio River. Industry along the river is very active with large amounts of traffic going through the water on a daily basis.

A painted mural of W. VA. and a faded type of “Let’s Be Friends” along the Point Park flood wall in Parkersburg, WV.

Local Impact

When Roland Dean moved into his home near the Washington Works plant with his wife, he didn’t expect to have to sign a document acknowledging the possibility of C-8 in his tap water.

A woodworker, Dean spends much of his time creating handmade wooden heirlooms, wall art or custom orders for his business Crow’s Creek Customs.

Along with his business, he creates fishing lures that he uses along the Ohio River, which he originally created in Tennessee, where he grew up.

Now living in West Virginia, when Dean uses his custom lures to catch fish, he is apprehensive to eat some of the fish he catches from the river.

“I’ll eat fish out of the river, but I won’t eat anything that is south of the Chemours plant,” Dean said.

To combat the possibility of consuming water containing C-8, Dean had a water filtration system installed in his home.

Industry along the Ohio River connects the surrounding communities including Belpre, Ohio and Parkersburg, West Virginia. Barges move cargo along the Ohio River, fishermen spend their afternoons hoping for a bite and locals enjoy the ever-changing view of the river.

Roland Dean walks towards his car after it begins to rain while he is fishing along the Ohio River.

Roland Dean works in his home workshop.

Robert Watkins spends his free afternoons fishing along the Ohio River as well from his boat. As he walks his dog Diamond along the river at Point Park in West Virginia, he recounts how the river has changed and where the fish move over time. He keeps his honey hole where the largest bass are in the area, a secret to himself.

Growing up in Lubeck, Ohio, Watkins drank from the faucet just like everyone else. He grew up in a time where it was claimed that C-8 had leaked into the local drinking wells. Watkins battles with thyroid issues and is a cancer survivor.

“I’m just happy to be alive,” Watkins said.

Though information has been released that C-8 can cause health effects that he has dealt with, Watkins doesn’t believe that they are necessarily related to the water he drank growing up. He describes how his improper use and lack of personal protection equipment while working with harmful chemicals over the course of his life could have also contributed to his health. Upon learning more about C-8 and understanding how it could be in local drinking wells, Watkins now only drinks from water bottles and not from the faucet. 

Robert Watkins poses for a portrait with his dog, Diamond at Point Park in Parkersburg, WV.

Chemours Workers

Sierra Gard is a Value Stream Specialist at the Washington Works plant. She began working for Chemours in 2011 while she was enrolled in a master program at West Virginia University and was approached by the company to work as a research analyst.

Gard’s work today consists of identifying, creating and streamlining existing processes at the plant to make the work for her fellow employees more efficient and increase production for the business.

“Day-to-day can vary quite a bit,” Gard said. “I am mostly working with computer applications and data of all kinds; but I could just as easily be out in the production area auditing, canvassing and in general engaging and listening for potential opportunities for improvement.”

She notes how working for Chemours has had a positive impact on her life.

“How much can having a steady career, that you enjoy, impact your life?” said Gard. “Chemours allows me the flexibility to raise my children in my hometown, to care for my father as he ages and to provide for both—all while doing work I enjoy.”

Gard mentions how Chemours has worked to be involved with the local community in a variety of ways, including a partnership with the United Way of the Mid-Ohio Valley through monetary donations and volunteering where efforts are needed. She notes how scholarships are awarded to local high school students who are pursuing careers in STEM or technical schooling. Additional volunteer opportunities through an elementary outreach program called “Fun with Science” that focuses on STEM projects. The company participates in food, coat and shoe drives when those needs are identified in the community, as well as working with the Community Advisory Panel to work on building connection with the community.

“In my recent memory, one of the most impactful programs was a partnership with the United Way and the Mountaineer Food Bank, where we utilized our site as a distribution point for food during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Gard said. “We served over 600 families each time. It literally gives me chills to remember the experience.” 

A water pump building in Belpre, Ohio, as the Chemours Plant, stays active at dusk.

Two water towers in Belpre, Ohio. Once the information was released that C8 was in the local water supplies, local towns spent money to upgrade their filtration systems for local water distribution.

Nicole Cavlovich is a fifth-year chemical engineering student at Ohio University. Originally from the Pittsburgh area, Cavlovich developed an interest in chemistry during her high school career. She had developed a relationship with her chemistry teacher and had taken all the courses related to chemistry at her school.

In the summer of 2021, Cavlovich started a process engineering co-op with Chemours after they had approached her to apply for the position. She notes how Chemours has a long-standing relationship with Ohio University for recruiting students because they think there is a higher retention rate if they are hiring students from nearby communities.

Cavlovich worked the co-op through summer 2021 and was asked to join part time as an engineer during the school year. She accepted and has continued to work for Chemours, averaging around 22 hours a week, while balancing school and extracurricular activities.

As she has worked more at Chemours, her responsibilities have changed. Her focus now is transitioning to a full-time role after graduation, where she will be responsible for understanding a specific process area.

She notes how in her role at Chemours, she is regularly trained on understanding updated safety measures of the plant in meetings called process safety management (PSM). These trainings are common among high hazard chemical plants. Additional training is done through process hazard analysis (PHA) to prioritize safety and to review documents and hazards of specific processes.
Another aspect of her job is to recognize and develop ways to keep withing the regulations of the EPA. Since most of her coworkers and mentors were also DuPont employees, they are familiar with the frequently changing regulations.

“It’s not like a dirty little secret though, it’s not a taboo subject to discuss,” Cavlovich said. “I recognize that I also have the privilege of being on technical staff, so we look at it from a more technical aspect.”

Cavlovich’s work for Chemours focuses in reducing emissions put out by the company.

“I’m all for sustainability,” Cavlovich said. “I lean more towards the energy and environmental track of chemical engineering, as many of my colleagues do. But I think what gets often misconstrued is that I feel like the public has a general consensus that Chemours is hiding something or that they aren't doing everything in their power to reduce emissions.”

Before working for Chemours, Cavlovich had similar feelings to those opposing the company due to its history with DuPont and the troubles to community faced with C-8.

“Now that I'm within the company, it is very interesting to see the fact that we are meeting the EPA’s goals, we are meeting these regulations,” Cavlovich said. “But the regulations themselves just were not strict enough at that time. Of course, the company has fault in that as well, but I think there's a misunderstanding there, that there's some like shadiness going on, or that the process isn't being looked at in an environmental standpoint.”

She is currently working on a project for relief valves for a pressure vessel where if it were to overpressure from a buildup of process gas or even air, a disk will lift and release some of the pressure to where it is vented, such as a furnace where it is destroyed or the atmosphere if it is a safe gas.

In one part of the plant, refrigerant is used as a gas seal. Cavlovich said that if it were to become overly pressurized, the relief valve opens and vents to a safe location. Sometimes when it closes, it won’t seal all the way if it is a metal seal. She is working to replace the seals with plastic gaskets, so it seals better.

“(The pollution) is a minuscule, fractional amount of refrigerant that we're saving from an environmental deviation, but those efforts are being made by every engineer that I know if new projects are getting put in,” Cavlovich said. “There's a whole environmental aspect that you have to go into.”

Part of the process of hazard analysis meetings that Cavlovich attends is done to explicitly make recommendations based on any environmental deviations that might have been found or make any necessary changes.

“I'd say it's a constantly evolving process, and we have a long way to go, but much better than where we were,” Cavlovich said. “Any outfalls that we have, are heavily monitored and deviations are reported internally and externally. Most of our waste is handled, usually by incineration, thermal oxidation, so there have been great efforts.”

Cavlovich’s mentor at Chemours, Ken Kelch has worked for the company since 1981 as a manufacturing Technology Fellow. He focuses his time on ways to handle waste, such as PFAS, which come from hazardous acids, like hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid. Cavlovich said Kelch has worked for Chemours in creating a new part of the plant where the acid is neutralized and treated with lyme and then can be used again commercially instead of being dumped or burned, ultimately creating greater environmental issues.

“I would say (the efforts are) a great push behind the scenes to find different ways to utilize our waste,” Cavlovich said. “Not even just PFAS. The issue with PFAS is, it's created because of its durability, because that is deemed a good quality to the consumer that it lasts as long as it does that it survives. So, I think breaking it down, isn't really the option so much is just preventing the exposure in the first place.”

Deer roam in a field in Belpre, Ohio as the Chemours Plant sits along the Ohio River.

As Chemours works towards limiting the exposure of hazardous chemicals in the community, Cavlovich believes these efforts are helping with developing trust in the area.

“I think there was just a lot of mistrust that happened from the PFAS incident, but I would say previous to that, and even now we’re really building that relationship up again,” Cavlovich said.

Though she feels that Chemours is heavily audited by the EPA, she believes there is still a good relationship with them, contrary to what might be reported publicly.

“I don’t blame the EPA, because I can very clearly see both sides, but they’re always precautionary in nature,” Cavlovich said. “They’re always going to say some ridiculous standard and hope that everyone can meet it. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing. ‘Do I own Chemours in the business?’ No, if I owned the company, I’d probably have a different perspective, but from my little two feet on the ground, I’m fine.”

In Cavlovich’s experience working for Chemours, she has come across a variety of opinions on the past and present of the company. She notes how DuPont companies get almost triple the number of applicants than Chemours does, just because of the name. Much of the paperwork and technology guides she uses are DuPont branded.

“I wouldn’t say that they’re ashamed of the DuPont portion of their history whatsoever, but it’s more revered as a time of incredible engineering, incredible technology, which it was, with much less of the focus on PFAS,” Cavlovich said.

 

 

Using Format