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 Parkersburg News (West Virginia)

November 24, 2004

Judge approves preliminary settlement on C8 lawsuit

By Pamela Brust

PARKERSBURG - Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill has approved a preliminary settlement in the C8 lawsuit against DuPont Washington Works.

During a hearing Tuesday afternoon, Charleston attorney Harry G. Deitzler, on behalf of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed in August 2001 by residents of the Lubeck/Washington area, outlined the lengthy settlement reached with the attorneys representing DuPont.

The plaintiffs had alleged DuPont intentionally withheld and misrepresented information concerning the nature and extent of the human health threat posed by the C8 from DuPont's Washington Works plant into area drinking water. Plaintiffs claimed their health was harmed by C8 contamination and they are at risk for additional health problems because of the C8 in area water supplies. The chemical is used in manufacturing Teflon. The suit was given class action status. The plaintiffs were seeking money for medical monitoring and testing.

DuPont has contended that C8, a detergent-like substance, has no harmful human health effects.

In May 2003, the court ordered mediation in the case, and after extensive negotiations, the parties reached a tentative agreement Sept. 4. The case had been set to go to trial Oct. 12.

"We have concluded this settlement of the claims as outlined is in the best interests of the plaintiffs. We believe it is fair, adequate and reasonable for the members of the class," Deitzler said.

Deitzler said the benefits to the class of the settlement for the consideration offered by DuPont were weighed against the significant risks of recovery, delay and costs that continued prosecution of the lawsuit would entail.

"We also considered the problem of proof and possibility of modifications in the law and believe the certainty and amounts of recovery, combined with the benefits of providing C8 water treatment now for the affected human drinking water supplies and completion of the community health study, strongly support the settlement," Deitzler told the judge.

"We have not found anyplace else in the literature of science where such a detailed study of this magnitude involving this many people has ever been done, so it's unprecedented," Deitzler said.

"While DuPont denies any liability or wrongdoing relating to the matters alleged in the complaint and we have at all times and continue to believe to this day that this controversy is best decided on the basis of the best possible science, we believe this is a well-negotiated settlement. No disrespect to the court; this case cries out to be decided on the science," said DuPont counsel Larry Janessen.

"This court approves this preliminary agreement and congratulates all parties for a job well done. I hope it works out well. I think this settlement saves the judicial system and the community a lot of expense if this is finalized," Hill said.

Now that the judge has approved the preliminary settlement, the parties will be notified in writing by mailings sent by Garden City Communications Group. Public notices will be printed in newspapers covering the areas where class action members live.

A fairness hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. Feb. 28 at which the parties can present their views/objections and the court will consider whether final approval should be given to the proposed settlement. Those in the class would have the chance to opt out.

The class as referred to in this settlement will be defined as individuals who lived at least one year up until and including the date of the first notice issued under the settlement, have consumed drinking water containing .05 parts per billion or greater of C8 attributable to the releases from the DuPont plant or six specified water districts and private water sources within the water districts that are the sole source of drinking water.

As part of the settlement, DuPont agreed to remove the ammonium perfluorooctanoate or PFOA, commonly referred to as C8, from six water districts where the chemical was detected at a cost of about $10 million. The company agreed to operate and maintain state-of-the-art water treatment plants for public service districts at Lubeck and Mason County in West Virginia and Little Hocking, Belpre, Tuppers Plains and Pomeroy in Ohio.