FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
PESTICIDE PROJECT

Return to FAN's Pesticide Homepage

Return to PFOA Class Action Suit

Return to Newspaper articles and Documents related to PFOA Class Action

C8 or C-8: PFOA is perfluorooctanoic acid and is sometimes called C8. It is a man-made chemical and does not occur naturally in the environment. The "PFOA" acronym is used to indicate not only perfluorooctanoic acid itself, but also its principal salts.
The PFOA derivative of greatest concern and most wide spread use is the ammonium salt (
Ammonium perfluorooctanoate) commonly known as C8, C-8, or APFO and the chemical of concern in the Class Action suit in Ohio.

Ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO or C8)
CAS No. 3825-26-1. Molecular formula:

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8)
CAS No: 335-67-1
. Molecular formula:

The DuPont site where APFO is used as a reaction aid is the Washington Works (Route 892, Washington, West Virginia 26181) located along the Ohio River approximately seven miles southwest of Parkersburg, West Virginia.

The Little Hocking Water Association well field is located in Ohio on the north side of the Ohio River immediately across from the Washington Works facility. Consumers of this drinking water have brought a Class Action suit against the Association and DuPont for the contamination of their drinking water with DuPont's APFO, which residents and media refer to as C8.

PFOA is used as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers to produce hundreds of items such as non-stick surfaces on cookware (TEFLON), protective finishes on carpets (SCOTCHGUARD, STAINMASTER), clothing (GORE-TEX), and the weather-resistant barrier sheeting used on homes under the exterior siding (TYVEK).

 

The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)

November 25, 2004

EPA raises C-8 reporting concerns

By Jeff Montgomery

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to cite the DuPont Co. for one or more new toxic substance reporting violations involving a chemical used to make Teflon, expanding an earlier claim that the same compound caused undisclosed pollution and health concerns.

EPA spokesman Rich Hood confirmed Wednesday that the agency had on Monday requested a delay, later denied, in an earlier enforcement case against DuPont that charged the company with violations at its Washington Works plant along the Ohio River in West Virginia.

In July, the federal agency accused DuPont of failing for years to report evidence of human risks from perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), sometimes referred to as C-8. The allegations could expose DuPont to a maximum penalty in excess of $300 million, although federal officials have said they intend to seek a lesser fine.

DuPont said in a prepared statement issued late Wednesday that it was cooperating with the EPA's studies. The company also disputed claims that it failed to report required information.

"Should the agency decide to file an additional complaint, we will contest their decision and defend our position," DuPont's statement said.

The EPA's initial charges were prompted in part on documents in a class action lawsuit filed by people who live near the West Virginia plant, and brought to light by Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. The group earlier this month said that a DuPont document filed in that class action lawsuit provided clear evidence that C-8 had contaminated the bloodstreams of 12 people who drank water tainted with C-8.

In a court document, the EPA said the blood test report "supports a conclusion of a substantial risk of injury to human health," obliging the company to report the findings immediately.

PFOA and related chemicals have become targets of intense EPA scrutiny in recent years, after studies found traces of the chemicals in the blood of humans and animals around the globe. Some researchers have warned that the chemicals may never break down in the environment and might increase risks of birth defects, developmental or other health problems such as cancer based on tests on laboratory animals.

Hood said Wednesday that the EPA was aware of the blood test concerns before Environmental Working Group made them public. An EPA document filed with a federal administrative law judge said the agency had obtained "information sufficient to allege that DuPont has committed a new violation" of toxic substance reporting requirements.

"EPA intends to file a claim for penalties for this new alleged violation in addition to the penalties sought" earlier, the document noted. "Moreover, EPA will soon begin evaluating a substantial amount of new information that DuPont is presently submitting to the agency, and that DuPont will continue to submit to the agency through December 2004, which may support additional claims for violations ... relating to PFOA."

Environmental Working Group President Kenneth A. Cook said late Wednesday that DuPont and other companies need to find ways to make Teflon and similar compounds without PFOA-type ingredients.

"The underlying problem is: Even if this had been reported in a timely fashion, how is it that we can have a chemical that ends up in all of us, that's used for decades, that's the underpinning of a multibillion-dollar DuPont business and that never breaks down, and yet we have minimal information on its toxic properties?" Cook said.

DuPont recently offered to settle a class action lawsuit over PFOA pollution in West Virginia and Ohio drinking water supplies for $340 million, in a deal that could involve blood testing for tens of thousands of residents. A hearing on a portion of the EPA's July complaint is scheduled for Dec. 16.