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 this Class Action

http://www.mariettatimes.com/news/story/079202004_new01dupfcfns.asp

Friday, July 9, 2004

The Marietta Times (Ohio)
 
DuPont faces millions in fines

By Brad Bauer, bbauer@mariettatimes.com

The DuPont company will be fined millions of dollars by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to report health risks associated with C8, a chemical produced at its Washington, W.Va., plant that contaminates several local water systems.

The U.S. EPA announced on Thursday that it would take action against the company over the issue, which has a great impact on people in the Mid-Ohio Valley who live near the plant and have the chemical in their drinking water.

According to the U.S. EPA, DuPont failed for more than 20 years to report information as required concerning information the company had learned about the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as PFOA or C8.

No fine had been issued as of Thursday, however EPA officials said any fine levied against the chemical giant would be significant enough to send a signal to DuPont and other companies that failing to report information will not be tolerated.

"It is accurate to say that we will be seeking millions," said Tom Skinner, head of EPA's Office of Enforcement. "It is too early to say if it will be millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions."
The exact amount of the fine will be determined when U.S. EPA officials meet with DuPont.

DuPont disputes that it failed to report the health risks associated with C8, saying it has fully complied with reporting requirements and disputes any association between C8 and harmful effects on human health or the environment.

"DuPont has provided substantial information to EPA supporting our conclusion that we have followed the law," said DuPont General Counsel Stacey J. Mobley in a statement issued Thursday. "We will take action to respond to the agency's complaint and will vigorously defend our position."
The people with the highest concentrations of the chemical in their water are the customers of the Little Hocking Water Association, which has about 4,000 customers in western Washington County.

Little Hocking Water Association General Manager Bob Griffin said the action taken against DuPont strengthens a decision last week to issue a warning to his water customers.

Customers in the water district were issued a notice of contamination advising them to drink or use Little Hocking water at their own risk.

"It just reinforces the fact there may be health effects," Griffin said. "This shows the U.S. EPA also thinks there could be something there."

Little Hocking's water wells are in Ohio, immediately across the Ohio River from the DuPont Washington Works plant.

The EPA has the authority to seek a penalty of up to $25,000 per day for violations occurring before January 1997, and up to $27,000 per day for violations occurring thereafter. It could mean a fine of nearly $300 million, but Skinner said it was not likely the EPA would seek such a penalty.
"This complaint is intended to send a very clear message to other companies that they'd better comply," Skinner said.

All U.S. EPA fine money goes to the U.S. Treasury. But sometimes the U.S. EPA will allow companies to do an environmental project in lieu of paying the entire fine.

Specifically, DuPont is accused of two violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act and one violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These violations consist of multiple failures to report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment.

The first offense dates back to 1981, when DuPont observed C8 in blood samples taken from pregnant workers at the plant showed at least one woman had transferred the chemical to her fetus.

Also, DuPont stands accused of failing to report it had detected C8 in local public water supplies as early as the mid-1980s.

The EPA further alleges that in 1991, DuPont had information the chemical was in water supplies at a greater level than the company's exposure guidelines indicated would be without any effect to members of the community.

"This is not about the safety of our products," Mobley said. "It's about administrative reporting."
Mobley said the company plans to file a formal denial to the EPA complaint within 30 days.

DuPont has used C8 at the Washington Works plant near Parkersburg for more than 50 years in the production of Teflon and other products. It is unknown how the fine will affect a class action lawsuit filed by citizens who live near the plant, which is scheduled to go to trial in Parkersburg this September.

Attorneys for the citizens were not available on Thursday.

The EPA is conducting a separate investigation to determine the health risks posed by the chemical. It likely will be ready by this fall.C8 timeline

DuPont began monitoring public water supplies for C8 as far back as 1984, but local water consumers were unaware of its presence until 2001, when it was discovered as a result of testing for a lawsuit brought by neighbors of the Washington, W.Va., plant.

• 1938 - Teflon discovered by Roy J. Plunkett.

• 1949 - DuPont introduced Teflon.

• 1981 - DuPont found C8 in the blood of female plant workers at Washington Works; 50 women reassigned after two of seven children born to female plant workers between 1979 and 1981 had birth defects.

• 1984 - DuPont found PFOA or C8 in the tap water of the Little Hocking Water Association and other area public water supplies.

• 1999 - EPA receives new data on PFOS, a related chemical used by 3M Co. in Scotchgard products. The EPA begins an investigation of PFOA and related fluorochemicals.

• May 2000 - 3M Co. announces the phaseout of PFOS products.
June 2000 - EPA identifies possible concerns with PFOS and PFOA.

• July 2000 - The Telomer Research Group meets with the EPA for the first time to announce a voluntary program to research telomer products.

• August 2001 - A class-action suit is filed in Wood County Circuit Court against DuPont on behalf of as many as 50,000 people affected by C8.

• January 2002 - A public announcement is made that C8 is discovered in the Little Hocking Water Association system.

• April 2003 - EPA releases Preliminary Risk Assessment on PFOA.

• May 2003 - Judge George W. Hill orders DuPont to pay for blood testing to monitor exposure in affected people. Hill calls C8 "toxic and hazardous." DuPont appeals the ruling and asks Hill to dismiss himself from the case.

• June 2003 - EPA holds first public meeting to engage interested parties in talks to achieve enforceable consent agreements with regard to testing for the toxicity of PFOA.

• March 18, 2004 - Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill rules three DuPont documents previously sealed should be unsealed in the pending C8 case.

• April 29, 2004 - DuPont announces it will undertake an employee health survey to determine if the chemical C8 has an adverse health effect on its workers.

• May 7, 2004 - The West Virginia Supreme Court votes to unseal DuPont internal documents that indicate that company employees had concerns for years about health issues surrounding C8.

• June 17, 2004 - The U.S. EPA announces it is investigating alleged violations by DuPont for failure to report health related information regarding C8.

• July 8, 2004 - The U.S. EPA announces that DuPont will be fined between $1 million and $300 million for failing to report the health information about C8.

Source: EPA and staff research