Return to FAN's Pesticide Homepage

Return to PFOA Class Action Suit

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).


Online at: http://www.mariettatimes.com/c8/medrecords.html

May 17, 2003

The Marietta Times

DuPont officials file a request to protect its medical records

Staff Writer

PARKERSBURG — A motion from DuPont to block the release of certain medical records of employees beyond testing for the presence of C8 was filed in Wood County Circuit Court Friday afternoon.

Steve Fennell, an attorney with Steptoe and Johnson in Washington, D.C., the firm representing DuPont, said the company is not seeking to prevent the release of blood tests to determine the presence of the additive, but to prevent the further release of what the company calls ‘‘private employee medical records’’ and the identities and place of residence of the tested employees.

‘‘We have over the years tested samples from our employees for C8 and we have been able to show no adverse effects,’’ he said. ‘‘No names were given and only the general location of residences were given to keep the records confidential.’’Fennell said the plaintiff counsel wanted access to the underlying medical records that did not pertain to the tests for C8.

Fennell said DuPont considers the information confidential and the release could be harmful to those whose records would be released.

In the filing the company asked the court to ‘‘enter a protective order regarding certain confidential medical records and personal information requested by the plaintiffs.’’

Fennell said the company has not objected to the release of the blood test results, but it does object to releasing other medical records.

‘‘We had asked the plaintiff counsel to wait until Friday to file their motion so employees could be notified by mail of the release of the blood tests and not learn about it in the newspapers,’’ he said. ‘‘They filed their motion Thursday.’’

According to the request filed with the court, the company has requested the court enter an ‘‘appended protective order shielding the medical records of these employees from production to plaintiffs.’’

‘‘In the alternative should this court determine plaintiffs are entitled to review any or all this information, DuPont asks the court enter an appended protective order on confidential medical information...to assure adequate protection of privacy of these employees,’’ the filing states.

Friday’s filing by the DuPont counsel is in response to an order filed Thursday where counsel for the plaintiffs asked Judge George W. Hill to force DuPont to turn over medical documents.

In 2001, a group of Lubeck and Washington residents filed suit against the chemical company and the Lubeck Public Service District. Earlier, the PSD settled its portion of the suit.

In the civil action the plaintiffs allege DuPont discharged C8 into water supplies in excess of the plant’s own guidelines and concealed it from the public

.Plaintiffs allege C8 exposure has made them ill, including increased risks of cancer and other diseases.

They are seeking money from DuPont for medical testing and monitoring for possible health problems as a result of C8 exposure and damages they claim were incurred from injuries and property damage.