News Coverage
DuPont accused of deceit on C-8
Published November 18, 2004
A national environmental organization accused The DuPont Co. on Wednesday of again failing to report potential human health impacts from a chemical used to make Teflon. The new charge comes four months after the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that DuPont violated notification laws involving the same compound, a finding that could lead to millions of dollars in fines.
The Environmental Working Group cited tests commissioned by DuPont that in July found higher-than-normal levels of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, in the blood of 12 residents who live near a company plant in West Virginia. Levels of PFOA, also called C-8, were nearly a dozen times higher in the group than typical readings for the general population, according to a report provided to the company.
All 12 individuals live in the area of DuPont's Washington Works plant along the Ohio River, and all were plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over PFOA pollution in West Virginia and Ohio drinking water supplies, DuPont said. The company recently offered to settle the case in a deal worth $340 million.
Yet DuPont failed to notify the EPA of the human health concern as required by federal laws governing toxic substances and "substantial" health risks, Environmental Working Group spokeswoman Lauren Sucher said.
"As soon as they had this information, they were duty-bound to give it to the EPA," Sucher said. Instead, DuPont gave the results to the plaintiffs' attorneys Aug. 5.
Stacey Mobley, senior vice president and general counsel for DuPont, described the group's report as "irresponsible and alarmist" in a prepared statement issued late Wednesday.
"DuPont is cooperating fully with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is providing all appropriate information to the agency about PFOA, whether required by a statute or not," Mobley said in the statement. "The [Environmental Working Group] is doing all it can to mislead the public on this issue."
The environmental group previously had accused DuPont of failing for years to report evidence of human risks from PFOA. That claim led to EPA rulings against DuPont that could have a maximum penalty in excess of $300 million. Federal officials have said they intend to seek a lesser fine; a hearing is scheduled before an administrative law judge next month.
In both cases, the group's accusations involve a type of compound used to make DuPont's flagship nonstick product that is the subject of a study by EPA scientists. Scientists became concerned over its unexpected, widespread presence in the environment and its potential for health risks including increased risk of birth defects, developmental or other health problems such as cancer.
Federal officials are working with industry to develop tests to determine how PFOA and related chemicals break down and reach the environment and living tissues.
According to DuPont's test results, levels detected in the 12 residents average 67.5 parts per billion, well above the national average of 5.6 parts per billion. Three of the results were the highest ever measured in humans, the group said. DuPont said an attorney for those who filed the suit provided the results to the EPA in September. None of the results exceeded workplace safety limits, DuPont said.
"While the Environmental Protection Agency conducts what the agency has termed 'the most significant scientific assessment ever conducted' because of their concerns over human exposures [to PFOA], DuPont has apparently chosen to suppress data that could be critical in the agency's efforts to protect public health," a statement by the environmental group said.
DuPont's operations release PFOA into the air and water in West Virginia and at the company's Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, N.J. The releases in New Jersey are at far lower and declining levels.
Earlier studies have found the same chemical - which is not a naturally occurring substance - in humans and animals around the globe.
DuPont said it would have a better understanding of public exposures to the chemical after the completion of an employee study and a University of Pennsylvania community study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, due early next year.