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.ewg.org/news/story.php?id=3010

August 13, 2004

Columbus Dispatch

DuPont denies keeping its reports on chemical from EPA
C8 was in water but posed no health risk, company again says

By Spencer Hunt

Faced with penalties that could top $200 million, chemical giant DuPont denied federal charges that it illegally withheld information about possible health risks associated with a chemical it uses to make Teflon.

DuPont attorneys filed a response Wednesday to charges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced last month.

The company's response reaffirms its position that the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid, or C8, poses no health risk to humans. It also argues that EPA officials already knew C8 could be transmitted to a human fetus, and it disputed the agency's authority to demand internal company studies.

The EPA charges that DuPont failed to disclose reports showing C8 was getting into human blood and drinking water along the Ohio River. Because the violations go back 20 years, DuPont faces huge fines.

DuPont spokesman Clif Webb said the company wants a hearing before an EPA judge.

"We've made it pretty clear that our case is strong," Webb said yesterday. "We are going to vigorously defend this case."

DuPont has used C8 for 50 years, most recently to help make Teflon coatings for dozens of popular household products, including nonstick pans, stain-resistant carpets and water-resistant clothing.

The chemical has been found in the drinking water in five Ohio towns and at least as many towns in West Virginia along the Ohio River. Past studies have found at least 90 percent of U.S. citizens have some C8 in their blood.

C8, which does not break down in blood, has also been detected in animals in the Great Lakes and near the Arctic Circle.

Industry studies have shown C8 causes cancer and liver damage in lab rats. The government is also conducting its own studies to see whether C8, which is unregulated, poses health risks to humans.

The EPA's July complaint focused on a 1981 DuPont company study that showed the chemical was getting into human blood, including the blood of eight pregnant women and one fetus.DuPont also should have shared tests dating to 1991 that showed C8 in local drinking water, the agency argued.

A third count accuses the company of failing to provide this information when the EPA requested it in 1997.

In its response, DuPont said that the blood report did not show a link to a health risk. DuPont also argues that the EPA doesn't have the authority to punish the company for not reporting possible health risks, since DuPont doesn't think there are any.

The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization based in Washington that pushed the EPA to take action against DuPont, said the company is repeating old arguments.

"That should bolster the agency to move quickly to hold a public hearing and to levy the maximum fine possible," said Lauren Sucher, spokeswoman for the group.