The PFOA contamination of tap water in Kibichuo town was caused by PFOA containing activated carbon that was abandoned by “Man-ei Industry” near the water source. The Man-ei Industry is a local activated carbon recycling company, and the abandoned activated carbon was previously handled by other companies.

While interviewing a former employee of Man-ei Industry, I found out the company trading PFOA containing activated carbon was a chemical manufacturer “Kuraray” originated in Okayama Prefecture.

Is the original owner of the activated carbon that Man-ei Industry left near the water source Kuraray?

When I sent a questionnaire to Kuraray, they answered, “We have determined that there is almost no possibility that our company was involved.”

However, the content that Kuraray showed as a ground was vague.

Man-ei: “History cannot be tracked,” Kuraray conducted an independent survey

Man-ei Industry gathered the PFOA-containing activated carbon from other companies and put it in the property ward next to the water supply, which became the source of the pollution. Residents were highly exposed as a result of PFOA seeping from activated carbon, which traveled from soil, river, dam, and into tap water.

I asked whether there was Kuraray’s activated carbon left at the property ward.

Although Man-ei Industry told us that the history of activated carbon use cannot be tracked, we can see from the following survey findings that our company’s involvement is very minimal.

“Used activated carbon” is an activated carbon that absorbs chemicals such as PFOA. When activated carbon is no longer able to absorb the pollutants, it becomes “used” and given to a recycling company. In order for activated carbon to be reused, the recycling company heat-treats it to eliminate PFOA before returning it to its original owner. Kuraray was outsourcing to Man-ei Industry.

Kuraray claims that following the pollution finding, Man-ei Industry reported that “we could not trace which company provided the activated carbon placed in the property ward.” Thus, Kuraray claimed to have carried out a survey.

What kind of survey was conducted?

Used activated carbon scattered in the property ward in Kibichuo, Okayama Prefecture

What is the record of the activated carbon that came back?

Man-ei Industry left a considerable amount of activated carbon to the property ward over a 15-year period, from 2008 to 2023. There were approximately 580 bags, with each bag having a capacity of one ton.

Kuraray is a major business partner of Man-ei Industry. I assumed that there was a large amount of activated carbon in the property ward that Kuraray handed over. Kuraray, however, denied it based on the three results of its own survey.

The first survey result was:

The outsourcing of regenerative coal processing by our company and Man-ei Industry started in 2004 and grew in 2010. There is no long-term inventory in the Man-ei Industry since it is expected that the used activated carbon, a raw material used in processing, will be recycled.

“The outsourcing of regenerative coal processing by our company and Man-ei Industry” refers to a transaction in which Man-ei Industry recycles Kuraray’s used activated carbon.

Man-ei Industry left the activated carbon for 15 years, from 2008 to when the pollution was discovered. Furthermore, Kuraray began outsourcing to Man-ei Industry around 2004 and expanded its trading operations around 2010. The timeline overlaps.

Nonetheless, Kuraray explained, “There is no long-term inventory in the Man-ei Industry since it is expected that the used activated carbon, a raw material used in processing, will be recycled.” In other words, the activated carbon delivered to Man-ei was recycled and sent back to Kuraray immediately, rather than being left in the property ward.

If so, is there a record of activated carbon that returned from Man-ei Industry? They did not mention that.

What about the sold activated carbon other than 2007?

Next, Kuraray explained the used activated carbon “sold” to the Man-ei Industry.

On the other hand, apart from the processing outsourcing, we sell used activated carbon as a raw material for regenerative carbon sold by Man-ei Industry.

 

Sales were about 10 tons in 2007, and several hundred tons from 2013 to 2015 and 2021 to 2022.

There are two types of used activated carbon transactions by Kuraray and Man-ei Industry: “recycle” and “sales.”

“Recycling” is the removal of PFOA from deposited activated carbon and its return to its owner, whereas “selling” is the sale of used activated carbon as a “resource.” Man-ei Industry decides what to do with the discarded activated carbon it purchased from Kuraray. It can be repurposed and sold to another company.

Here’s the survey results of the sold used activated carbon.

The used activated carbon sold in 2007 is used to treat raw water for drinking, and it is assumed that the risk of high concentration PFAS is low.

In short, Kuraray claims:

The sold used activated carbon was used to purify the raw water of drinking water, and is unlikely to contain PFOA. On the other hand, a high concentration of PFOA was detected from the activated carbon that Man-ei Industry left in the property ward. It is not the activated carbon we sold.

However, Kuraray said that the activated carbon used to treat raw water for drinking was only sold in 2007. Although the company reported sales of “about 10 tons in 2007, and several hundred tons from 2013 to 2015 and 2021 to 2022,” there was no explanation for activated carbon sold other than 2007.

Denied to connect to public relations department 

The last answer was completely unrelated to the reason for denying the involvement of this pollution.

In addition, we reviewed the overall reprocessed carbon management system in 2010, and we have since shifted to storing used activated carbon from items sold or commissioned for recycled carbon processing indoors to prevent PFAS from leaking into the soil.

I am not asking about the management of PFOA containing activated carbon in Kuraray.

There are many questions about Kuraray’s responses. They are missing the point too. With these answers, it is difficult to believe the previous statement: “that there is almost no possibility that our company was involved.”

Who created this response, and who was responsible for authorizing it to be Kuraray’s response? The department that responded was the “IR/Public Relations Department,” but no further information is available.

I searched for the contact details of the public relations department that would serve as the interview liaison when I was filling out the questionnaire. But it wasn’t publicly available. Kuraray did not even connect me to the public relations department when I called their main phone line.

What was guided was a general inquiry form.

The form did not allow the attachment of a questionnaire. Therefore, I uploaded the questionnaire to an external file-sharing site and included the URL in the inquiry form. In order to prevent it from getting lost in the plethora of questions, I also mailed it with a delivery confirmation.

The answer was received by email. But there is no signature. It is exclusively for sending and it cannot be replied.

The person in charge never appeared from sending a questionnaire to the answer.

Nonetheless, I can’t keep the questions as they are. I will continue to cover Kuraray.

To be continued.

(Originally published in Japanese on August 27, 2024. Translation by Mana Shibata.)

Polluted with PFOA: All articles