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.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/mascitti/08172004.html

The News Journal (Delaware)

August 17, 2004

For DuPont, the C-8 controversy is going to stick around

By AL MASCITTI

The DuPont Co. should issue its executives boots lined with Kevlar, the fabric used in bulletproof vests. Every time the subject of C-8 comes up, they shoot themselves in the foot.

They did it again last week by challenging Environmental Protection Agency allegations that DuPont failed to tell regulators about health and environmental dangers posed by perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as PFOA and C-8.

The EPA contends DuPont should have reported concerns that arose as long ago as 1981 about the chemical, which the company uses in the manufacture of Teflon. DuPont responded as it has for several years - that it did nothing wrong, and that it will fight the EPA's claims.

DuPont's position rests on a legal technicality. According to a statement by General Counsel Stacey J. Mobley, the level of contamination the company detected wasn't considered a human health risk, and so, "in the absence of substantial risk of harm, the information is simply not required to be reported."

That argument might prevail before an administrative law judge. But in the court of public opinion it bumps up against internal documents made public in a West Virginia class-action lawsuit by people whose drinking water is tainted with C-8.

In August 2000, DuPont lawyer Bernard Reilly sent an e-mail to six DuPont lawyers and scientists in which he wrote: "Our best story is that there have been no impacts on human health even at high levels, yet we have not done a first-rate peer-reviewed study in recent history on our workers and retirees."

Two months later, DuPont assured customers whose drinking water contained C-8 that the company "is confident these levels are safe."

DuPont's only public response to Reilly's e-mails has been a statement that the documents "express [Reilly's] personal opinions and ... do not represent an informed position on C-8."
(These and other documents can be read on the Web site of the Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org).

In November 2000, another company lawyer, John Bowman, summed up his view of the company's liability in an internal memo to Reilly and others:

"My gut tells me the biopersistence issue will kill us because of an overwhelming public attitude that anything biopersistent is harmful. We are going to spend millions to defend these lawsuits and have the additional threat of punitive damages hanging over our head. Getting out in front and acting responsibly can undercut and reduce the potential for punitives."

Bowman also wrote that the company should "keep [the] issue out of the press as much as possible" - good advice his bosses ignored in filing this challenge to the EPA. Because even if DuPont wins in court, it's going to lose.

Every step of the fight will generate news stories, and every story will contain the words "Teflon," a brand DuPont has spent 40 years and untold billions of dollars building, and "toxic." Each repetition of those two words in tandem creates a link in the public's mind. No study has ever proven Teflon dangerous, but already stores in China have pulled nonstick pans from their shelves because consumers won't buy them anymore.

A couple of years of this and Teflon could go the way of Benlate.

Kevlar boots, anyone?

Al Mascitti's Web log, First Statements, appears at www.delawareonline.com. Reach him at 324-2866 or amascitti@delawareonline.com.