C8. Sept 10, 2004. Settlement in DuPont water suit. By Michael Janofsky. New York Times.

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK PESTICIDE PROJECT

Return to Newspaper articles and Documents related to this 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).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/business/10chemical.html

September 10, 2004

New York Times

Settlement in DuPont Water Suit

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

ASHINGTON, Sept. 9 - DuPont has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit in which West Virginia residents accused the company of having contaminated local water supplies with an important chemical used to make Teflon products.

The settlement, which is subject to approval from a circuit court judge, would include cash payments and other expenditures valued at $85 million as well as $22.6 million in legal fees and as much as $235 million for a medical monitoring program if an independent panel finds a link between the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and human health.

"After two years of discussions, we are pleased to reach an agreement that places our combined priorities where they belong - on the community and not on lengthy and contentious legal proceedings," Stacey J. Mobley, general counsel for DuPont, said in a statement, adding that the settlement implied no admission of liability by DuPont.

But Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an organization that has focused on what it says are the adverse affects of chemicals used in making Teflon and a critic of DuPont, contended that the company would not have settled "if officials didn't think they were guilty of polluting local tap water and the people themselves."

The settlement grew out of a 2001 lawsuit against DuPont filed on behalf of people living in or near Parkersburg, W.Va., where DuPont has been making Teflon for 50 years. The suit accused the company of knowingly contaminating the land, air and water around the plant and said that excessive amounts of PFOA had been found in drinking water.

The company responded by saying neither PFOA nor Teflon posed any health risks to human beings.

In addition to the financial terms of the settlement, DuPont has agreed to provide six water districts in the Parkersburg area with water-treatment equipment to reduce the amount of PFOA to levels prescribed by the water districts. Also, the company has agreed to create a panel that will study any potential link between PFOA and human illness.

Under the settlement, DuPont would be relieved of financial burdens for personal injury claims and for water-treatment technologies if no link is found.

DuPont, meanwhile, faces other legal challenges to its Teflon-making operation. In July, in response to a complaint by the Environmental Working Group, the federal Environmental Protection Agency cited the company for two violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act and one violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The company, which is contesting the E.P.A. charges, is facing fines of $25,000 a day for violations before Jan. 30, 1997, and up to $27,500 a day for violations occurring after that date.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company