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).

 

Inside EPA

July 1, 2004

EPA Decision To Study C-8 Signals Failure Of Agency Compromise

By: Neil Shah

EPA’s recent announcement that it will study how the
controversial chemical known as C-8 enters the human body is a
sign that the agency’s compromise with industry for developing
enforceable research agreements has failed, sources say.

The EPA decision is the latest development in a year-long effort
to encourage industry groups to generate data on the potential
public health risks of C-8, or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), after
a draft agency risk assessment determined the chemical likely
posed a risk to women of child-bearing age and children.
C-8 is used to manufacture a slew of consumer products,
including Teflon cookware, Stainmaster carpets and Gore-Tex
clothing.

At the time the draft risk assessment was uncovered, EPA
officials were considering invoking Section 4(f) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- a rarely used provision -- that
would force the agency to determine whether regulatory action
was warranted on C-8.

Instead, then-EPA toxics chief Steve Johnson announced that the
agency would pursue a series of consent decrees with industry
requiring new research into how the chemical finds its way into
the U.S. population. Johnson said at the time that the agency
decided not to pursue a 4(f) determination because of scientific
uncertainties contained in the draft risk assessment (see related
story).

However, EPA on June 24 announced that it will study how 13
“fluorinated telomers” potentially break down into C-8 in the
environment to find out how the chemical gets into human blood.
The agency rejected an industry proposal that included fewer
tests on only four chemicals, sources say.

“It’s just shocking” that industry will not provide the data, says a
spokesman for the Environmental Working Group. “Why are the
taxpayers going to have to pay for this?” the source asks.
The EPA study comes weeks after the agency backed down from
an enforceable agreement with DuPont in favor of a voluntary
“memorandum of understanding” to identify environmental
releases of C-8 at its manufacturing facility in West Virginia.

A spokesperson for DuPont supports EPA’s decision to research
the “degradation” or breakdown of telomers and says the
company “will share [its] expertise” to assist the agency,
according to a statement.

EPA officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Sources say EPA’s decision to conduct its own study on telomers
does not derail other ongoing talks with industry for enforceable
consent agreements on other chemicals related to C-8 exposure
and public health risks.

But one attorney closely involved with the issue says the
“category of data” EPA recently sought poses a challenge for
industry by possibly stirring public concerns about the presence
of C-8 without evidence of potential public health risks. Industry
has “understandable reluctance” to generate such data given
that so much still is not understood about where PFOA comes
from and how it affects the human body, the source says.

A group of residents in West Virginia has sued DuPont over
alleged health effects suffered as a result of exposure to C-8, but
a plaintiff attorney says EPA’s decision to conduct its own study
-- rather than requiring industry to provide the data -- will not
necessarily affect the civil suit. EPA and industry are
investigating the effects of exposure to low levels of the
chemical, while the citizens were allegedly exposed to relatively
high levels, the source says.

EPA is also investigating whether DuPont failed to report several
studies suggesting health effects as required by TSCA.