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

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.wvgazettemail.com/section/APNews/News/ap0093r

Gazette Mail - Charlestown, West Virginia

July 8, 2004.

EPA says DuPont failed to report Teflon chemical risks

By RANDALL CHASE
Associated Press Writer

DOVER, Del. (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency will seek millions of dollars in fines against chemical giant DuPont for failing to provide information about the potential health and environmental risks of a chemical used to make Teflon, officials said Thursday.

The EPA alleges that DuPont repeatedly failed over a 20-year period to submit information the company had obtained regarding the synthetic chemical perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C8.

PFOA is used in the manufacturing of fluoropolymers, including Teflon products, at DuPont's Washington Works facility near Parkersburg, W.Va.

Officials said that from 1981 to 2001, DuPont failed to report information to EPA about the risk posed by PFOA to human health or the environment.

Companies are required by the Toxic Substances Control Act to report such information immediately. EPA has the authority to seek a penalty of $25,000 per day for violations occurring before Jan. 30, 1997, and up to $27,500 per day for violations occurring thereafter, for each day that DuPont failed to report the information.

The EPA is taking administrative action against DuPont for two violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act and one violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. DuPont faces a potential maximum fine of some $300 million, but Tom Skinner, head of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said the agency likely will not pursue such a figure.
"It is accurate to say that we will be seeking millions,'' Skinner said. "It's going to be a substantial amount of penalty that we are seeking.''

DuPont spokesman Clif Webb said the company, which maintains that PFOA is not harmful to human health or the environment, will file a formal denial to the EPA complaint.

"We did not see -- and have not seen -- harm to human health or the environment, and believe that we have complied with the reporting requirements in all three cases,'' Webb said.

EPA officials stressed that Thursday's action concerns only DuPont's failure to comply with reporting requirements. The EPA is conducting a separate investigation to determine what, if any, risks to human health or the environment are posed by PFOA. Skinner said a preliminary revised risk assessment may be ready for peer review sometime this fall.

According to federal regulators, DuPont observed PFOA in blood samples taken from pregnant workers at the Washington Works facility in 1981. In at least one woman, the chemical had transferred to the fetus.

DuPont research confirming the transplacental movement of PFOA, which the EPA said is associated with developmental effects and liver toxicity in animals, reasonably supports the conclusion that the chemical presents a substantial risk to human health and thus should have been reported, federal officials said.

"DuPont did not immediately submit, nor has it ever submitted, this human blood sampling information concerning the transplacental movement of PFOA, a chemical known then to be persistent, to demonstrate liver toxicity in animals and that DuPont was reviewing for possible birth defects,'' the EPA said in its complaint.

The complaint also alleges that DuPont detected the chemical in public water supplies as early as the mid-1980s in West Virginia and Ohio communities in the vicinity of the Washington Works facility. By 1991, the company had information that the chemical was present in water supplies at levels approaching 4 parts per billion in some samples, well above DuPont's own community exposure guideline of 1 ppb.

"These results ... indicate a substantial risk of widespread exposure to a chemical at a level of concern that requires informing the administrator immediately,'' the EPA complaint said.
Finally, according to federal regulators, DuPont failed to provide EPA with all toxicological information the company had regarding PFOA, specifically transplacental movement of the chemical in humans, despite a 1997 request for such information under the terms of an EPA-issued RCRA permit.

DuPont officials contend there is no legal basis for the EPA's allegations.

"We believe that a decision against DuPont in this matter would redefine TSCA and RCRA reporting requirements and would not prevail under the scrutiny of the courts,'' DuPont general counsel Stacy Mobley said in a prepared statement.

The EPA began taking a closer look at PFOA last year after the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research and advocacy organization, complained that DuPont should have turned over information about the chemical to EPA but had not.

The EWG relied in its complaint on an internal DuPont document that surfaced in a class-action lawsuit brought by residents living near the West Virginia plant. The residents contended their drinking water was contaminated by PFOA.

"A fine on the part of EPA would be to punish DuPont. It does not compensate people for injuries or illnesses sustained or developed because of their exposure to ammonium perfluorooctanoate over a period of many years,'' said Charleston attorney Ed Hill, who represents residents living near the plant who say their health and drinking water has been harmed by the chemical.

"It does signal to DuPont and others that the chemical that DuPont has been saying for years is not harmful to individuals may have some very serious health repercussions.''

The trial in the class-action lawsuit against DuPont is expected to start in September in state court in West Virginia.
------
On the Net:
EPA: http://www.epa.gov
EWG: http://www.ewg.org

DuPont: http://www.dupont.com