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.mariettatimes.com/news/story/0813202004_new07dupculin813.asp

August 13, 2004

The Marietta Times (Ohio)

DuPont wants hearing to challenge EPA ruling

By Randall Chase, The Associated Press

DOVER, Del. - The DuPont Co. has requested a hearing before an administrative law judge about a government complaint that the company failed to provide information about the potential health and environmental risks of a chemical used to make Teflon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alleged last month 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 C-8.

The EPA is seeking millions of dollars in fines from DuPont for two violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act and one violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

In a 57-page response filed Wednesday, DuPont said it had no legal obligation to provide information to the EPA about PFOA levels it found in the blood of pregnant employees at its Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, W.Va., and in nearby drinking water supplies.
"DuPont fully and promptly reported to EPA all of the information it was supposed to report," attorneys for the company wrote.

EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said Thursday that the agency is still reviewing DuPont's response.

"The agency remains committed to pursuing an appropriate resolution of DuPont's failures to report information regarding PFOA to EPA," she said in a prepared statement.

According to federal regulators, DuPont learned from blood sampling of pregnant workers in 1981 that the chemical had transferred through the placenta of at least one woman to her fetus.

The government contends that information confirming the transplacental movement in humans 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 under TSCA.

DuPont argues in its response that the EPA knew chemicals such as PFOA are likely to pass through the placentas of animals. The company also said "the trace amount of PFOA found to have crossed the placenta would pose no risk to human health" and thus did not trigger the reporting requirement.

The EPA also alleges that DuPont had learned by 1991 that PFOA was present in public water supplies in West Virginia and southeast Ohio near the Washington Works facility at levels approaching 4 parts per billion in some samples, well above a voluntary community exposure guideline of 1 ppb that DuPont set that year.

DuPont contends that the voluntary exposure guideline did not amount to a reporting threshold. It also notes that a C-8 toxicity assessment team that included EPA representatives settled on a health screening level of 150 ppb in 2002.

DuPont general counsel Stacey Mobley said the EPA is using voluntary company guidelines to suggest that DuPont violated government reporting requirements.

"I look at this thing as no good deed goes unpunished," he said.

Tim Kropp, a senior scientist with Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group, said DuPont's failure to report what it knew about PFOA amounts to "a massive violation, both of law ... and good conscience."

"Comprehensively, they had a lot of information about potential adverse health effects ... and they didn't divulge that information to anyone," Kropp said.
While seeking administrative penalties against DuPont, the EPA is conducting a separate investigation to determine what, if any, risks to human health or the environment are posed by PFOA.

The EPA began taking a closer look at PFOA last year after the Environmental Working Group, relying on an internal DuPont document that surfaced in a class-action lawsuit by residents living near the West Virginia plant, complained that DuPont should have turned over information about the chemical to EPA but had not.

The trial in the West Virginia lawsuit is scheduled to begin next month.