Polluted with PFOA

Daikin Prepares Osaka Prefecture Press Release Draft / Describes Prefectural Guidance Policy on PFOA contamination

2025.02.03 7:35 Nanami Nakagawa

Handouts from the “10th Kanzaki River Waters PFOA Countermeasures Liaison Meeting” between Daikin Industries, Osaka Prefecture, and Settsu City. The “Proposal for revising the publication on the Osaka Prefecture website” states that it was “created by Daikin Industries.”

Daikin Industries prepared the text of the Osaka Prefecture press release. Tansa obtained documents through a request for disclosure of information to the prefecture, including a sentence that was clearly written “created by Daikin Industries.”

This press release was issued by the prefecture in 2012. It concerns PFOA contamination caused by Daikin’s Yodogawa Plant in Settsu City, Osaka Prefecture. It not only outlines the company’s efforts, but also the prefecture’s guidance policy.

The prefecture has determined that the Yodogawa Plant is the “main cause of the pollution.” It should have conducted a rigorous investigation and independently presented its policy as the prefecture that oversees Daikin. The fact that Daikin wrote the content of the prefecture’s press release symbolizes the collusion between the administration and the company that causes pollution.

There are many other examples that show the collusion between the two parties.

Twenty years have passed since the contamination was discovered, but progress on preventing the spread of the contamination and removing it has been slow.

Adopting Daikin’s proposed text

The text of the press release was among the materials distributed at the 10th three-party meeting on September 12, 2012, and was obtained by Tansa through a request for information disclosure to Osaka Prefecture.

The three-party meeting is the “Kanzaki River Waters PFOA Countermeasures Liaison Meeting” held by the prefecture, Settsu City, and Daikin. It was launched in October 2009 after the world’s highest concentration of PFOA contamination was discovered around the Yodogawa Plant in 2004. It is still ongoing and has held a meeting 27 times so far.

At the 10th meeting, Daikin presented two proposals.

The first is “Proposal for revising Daikin’s website.” Daikin said it would review the content of the pollution prevention measures posted on its website.

The other was a draft for the Osaka Prefecture press release, which was to be provided to media outlets and also uploaded to the prefecture’s website.

Proposal for revising the publication on the Osaka Prefecture website

 

The Yodogawa Plant of Daikin Industries, Ltd. has lowered the amount of PFOA handled in 2011 by more than 99% as compared to 2000 by strengthening the maintenance and administration of treatment equipment and increasing the frequency of analysis of treated wastewater. Furthermore, by the end of 2012, the company intends to phase out the usage of PFOA entirely.

 

(Going forward, monitoring of PFOA concentrations in wastewater will be entrusted to the company, but the prefecture will continue to monitor the company’s efforts and provide guidance as necessary.)

This Daikin proposal goes beyond Daikin’s current efforts, and even touches on the prefecture’s guidance policy. I wondered if the prefecture adopted this proposal. I checked the press release issued by the prefecture following the meeting.

It was almost exactly the same as Daikin’s proposal (the bold text is the same as the draft prepared by Daikin).

The Yodogawa Plant of Daikin Industries, Ltd. has lowered the amount of PFOA handled in 2011 by more than 95% as compared to 2000 by strengthening the maintenance and administration of treatment equipment and increasing the frequency of analysis of treated wastewater. Furthermore, by the end of 2012, the company intends to phase out the usage of PFOA entirely. In the meantime, it will continue to monitor PFOA concentrations in wastewater. The prefecture will continue to monitor the plant’s efforts and provide guidance as necessary.

Osaka Prefecture / Daikin’s first response: “There is no truth to this”

The administration has involved the person it is instructing in the process of creating a press release. They then publish the content of the press release almost verbatim. This is unprecedented.

I sent a letter of inquiry to Osaka Prefecture and Daikin, asking whether it was appropriate for Daikin to write the content of the prefecture’s press release regarding PFOA contamination.

The prefecture responded to the inquiry via Kubota, an official of the Business Guidance Division and a participant in the current three-party meeting. I repeatedly asked the Public Information Division, which is responsible for public relations of the prefecture, to respond, but the questionnaire was forwarded to the Business Guidance Division.

We are informing you that there is no such fact.

Daikin responded through public relations officer Akihiro Tokuchi.

There is no fact that our company wrote the content of this press release.

Both have denied the fact themselves.

However, I have the draft of the press release, which clearly states “created by Daikin Industries.” Moreover, it is a document that the prefecture itself disclosed in response to a request for disclosure of information. It is incontrovertible evidence.

I sent the questions to both of them again, attaching the scanned evidence to the email.

Osaka Prefecture’s second response: “We received a proposal from Daikin”

As in the previous exchange with Osaka Prefecture, I received a response from Kubota of the Business Guidance Division.

There are no facts as your company claims.

 

Generally, when matters relating to individuals or companies are included in documents prepared by the prefecture, not just press releases, it is common practice to confirm the facts of the content with the individual or company in question to ensure there are no factual errors.

 

Therefore, we believe that there is no problem with checking with Daikin Industries in advance when including their progress in its efforts in the prefecture press release.

 

In addition, the “Material created by Daikin Industries” presented at the Kanzaki River Waters PFOA Countermeasures Liaison Meeting in September 2012 was proposed by Daikin Industries as a draft for the 2012 press release, taking into account Daikin Industries’ efforts and the content posted on its own website.

 

The prefecture took into consideration Daikin Industries’ efforts and the contents of their public announcements, and instead of adopting the materials prepared by Daikin Industries as is, prepared the 2012 press release materials under the prefecture’s responsibility. This can be seen by comparing the press release materials for 2011 and 2012.

 

As stated above, there is no fact that the prefecture had Daikin Industries prepare press releases.

As before, they are denying the facts, saying, “There are no facts as your company claims.” As a reason, they say that ” it is common practice to confirm the facts,” but I am questioning the fact that the text was “created by Daikin Industries.” This is an irrelevant point.

But there is one big difference from the first answer.

The prefecture acknowledges that it was “proposed by Daikin Industries as a draft for the 2012 press release.” The first response was just one sentence: “We are informing you that there is no such fact.” It seems that they backed off their response after being shown the evidence.

Daikin’s second response differs from Osaka Prefecture’s answer

Daikin’s second response is as follows:

There is no fact that our company wrote the content of this press release.

 

At the request of Osaka Prefecture, we explained the details of our PFOA countermeasures to the prefecture.

 

However, we have no knowledge of how this explanation was handled within Osaka Prefecture.

This response from Daikin is at odds with the second response from Osaka Prefecture, as the prefecture acknowledged that it was “proposed by Daikin Industries as a draft for the 2012 press release.”

Moreover, in the second question sent by email, I attached a draft document marked “created by Daikin Industries,” which not only included Daikin’s PFOA countermeasures but also a description of the prefecture’s guidance policy.

I sent the following email to Daikin: 

You replied that, “There is no fact that our company wrote the content of this press release,” but as you can see in the attachment to my previous email, the document showing the text of the press release was marked “created by Daikin Industries.” This document is a public document that I obtained from Osaka Prefecture through an information disclosure request. 

Osaka Prefecture has also acknowledged that this is your proposal.

I believe that your company is making claims that are contrary to the facts, and I request that you improve your public relations efforts.

Daikin’s third response, order to Tansa’s editing

I received a third reply from Public Relations Officer Tokuichi.

Since the document you provided states “created by Daikin Industries,” we assume that this is being interpreted as “Daikin prepared the Osaka Prefecture release.”

 

At the request of Osaka Prefecture, we have explained the details of our PFOA countermeasures to Osaka Prefecture. However, we understand that the decision as to whether and how the details of our explanation were reflected in the press release was ultimately made by Osaka Prefecture, and we have no knowledge of how the details of the explanation were handled within Osaka Prefecture, including this.

 

The above response in its entirety constitutes our company’s response to your questions regarding the materials you provided. If you would like to use our response in an article, please include the entire response without cutting out any parts or amending it based on your own interpretation.

As per Daikin’s request, I have published the full text of the response, but they have not answered whether they have prepared the press release and proposed it to Osaka Prefecture.

Although the response is incoherent, it is interesting that they are asking the editors of Tansa’s article not to take only parts of it or add our own interpretation. Daikin itself knows that it is making a poor defense, and is probably desperate to protect its reputation.

Daikin keeps the administration quiet about world trends

What makes the problem serious is that the collusion between Osaka Prefecture and Daikin goes beyond the 2012 press release.

For example, at the first three-party meeting held on October 23, 2009, 15 years ago, Daikin was already aware of the global trend regarding PFOA regulations. The Daikin representative asked the prefectural and city officials to “keep quiet.”

“At this stage, we would like you to keep this information within the liaison meeting, but it seems that the US EPA is moving to ban PFOA in 2015.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the government agency that has jurisdiction over PFOA. In 2000, it announced the dangers of PFOA, and in response, 3M, the world’s leading manufacturer of PFOA, announced that it would withdraw from the market. 3M was Daikin’s former PFOA trading partner.

Furthermore, at the meeting that day, Daikin made the following request regarding the publication of the results of water quality surveys conducted by Osaka Prefecture:

“We would like to hold a liaison meeting before the announcement and be given an opportunity to coordinate opinions.”

Daikin knew about contamination but told a resident “There was no problem”

At the 8th meeting on June 23, 2011, groundwater contamination was on the agenda.

Water containing high concentrations of PFOA has accumulated in the basement of the Yodogawa Plant. Daikin pumps up the groundwater, purifies it, and releases it into the sewer after lowering its concentration. Osaka Prefecture has asked, “Will you continue to treat the groundwater in the future?”

Daikin stated, “As long as the water is treated, it will continue to be discharged into rivers,” and continued:

“Because the groundwater is connected to areas outside the site and is highly contaminated, we believe it is necessary to take measures to prevent the groundwater from spreading and to remove the contamination.”

In other words, Daikin is clearly aware of the risk of water contaminated with high concentrations of PFOA spreading underground outside the plant premises. In fact, a nationwide survey by the Ministry of the Environment found that the highest concentrations of PFOA were detected in groundwater in Settsu City, where the Yodogawa Plant is located, and in the neighboring Higashiyodogawa Ward of Osaka City.

Nonetheless, Daikin has not acknowledged the groundwater contamination outside the plant for a long time. In response to Tansa’s investigation, it finally admitted in 2022 that “our company may be one of the causes.”

When Daikin’s PFOA contamination first began to be widely reported, the company did not communicate the seriousness of the groundwater contamination, even when it received inquiries from a citizen. At the 18th meeting on December 25, 2019, Daikin reported as follows:

“We received one inquiry from a person living near a temple in Higashiyodogawa Ward of Osaka City asking if there was any problem with the groundwater they were spraying on their fields. We answered that there was no problem.”

The wish of residents

The situation in which Osaka Prefecture is looking out for Daikin rather than its residents continues to this day.

In June 2024, the Osaka PFAS Contamination and Health Study Group, consisting of doctors and affected residents, submitted a petition to the governor of Osaka Prefecture. They asked the prefectures, an administrative body in a position to guide companies, to pressure Daikin to take action.

Nevertheless, the prefecture shared the petition itself with Daikin. An information disclosure request revealed that it had been distributed at the 27th meeting on September 3, 2024.

When I asked the group’s secretary general, Fumio Nagase, he said that the information had been shared without permission. Nagase also learned of this fact through a request for information disclosure he made to the prefecture.

On November 28, 2024, Nagase and other members of the group met with the Osaka Prefectural Business Guidance Division. The Business Guidance Division showed the petition at the three-party meeting and told them that they had made a “request” to Daikin.

Residents have already submitted a petition to Daikin, asking them to address the contamination.

The reason for submitting a separate petition to the prefecture is not because they want the prefecture to make a “request” to Daikin.

They want the prefecture to provide guidance and supervision to the company that causes pollution.

(Originally published in Japanese on December 19, 2024. Translation by Mana Shibata.)

Polluted with PFOA: All articles