News Coverage
DuPont to appeal Wood Co. judge's order in C8 case
Published May 7, 2003
DuPont officials intend to appeal a court order filed by Wood County Circuit Court Judge George W. Hill in a case involving exposure to the chemical called C8, which is used at the company's Washington, W.Va., plant.
The order indicates that because of potential widespread public health concerns, DuPont is obligated to provide exposed people with blood testing to determine contamination without delay. Implementation of the order was delayed for 30 days to allow DuPont time to appeal.
Hill ruled on May 1 that the chemical is toxic and hazardous to humans, based on court documents submitted from both sides.
The chemical, also known as PFOA, is under review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine its toxicity to humans.
Bob Griffin, general manager of the Little Hocking Water Association, will be traveling to Washington, D.C., to attend an EPA public meeting on June 6. Like many Little Hocking area water consumers, Griffin is waiting to see what determination the agency will make about the dangers of C8. He predicts that many area people will be interested in undergoing blood testing to determine their level of exposure.
Traces of C8 have been found in some area water systems.
"A lot of people would like to know if it is in their blood and how much," Griffin said. "We know it is toxic, depending on the level of exposure. The question becomes: At what level?"
DuPont officials said the science and facts of the case have been put aside by unsubstantiated claims made by the plaintiff's attorneys.
"Judge Hill's order makes findings of fact without the benefit of any scientific testimony," said Larry Janssen, counsel for DuPont. "His actions directly contradict his earlier guidance calling for the absolute need to hear from qualified scientific experts in order to decide whether C8 presents any human health hazard at all."
Janssen said there is no scientific evidence to support Hill's conclusions that the plaintiff's claims are warranted.
"Nothing in DuPont's 50 years of experience with C8 indicates it is a hazard and nothing in the toxicity testing for C8 suggests the class members are at any risk whatsoever," Janssen said.
Hill was not available to comment on the orders which were entered into court records on May 1, but members of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit environmental research and advocacy group, agree with Hill's assessment.
"The judge has given a clear opinion," said Heather White, the group's general legal counsel. "An important point is that DuPont is arguing that medical monitoring is not reliable. Yet, DuPont was using medical monitoring of its own employees for years. It is a viable way of determining potential health risks."
In a second court document, Hill ordered DuPont to pay monetary sanctions for violating discovery obligations, including violations of court orders dated Feb. 1, 2002, April 4, 2002, and Aug. 8, 2002. Hill determined DuPont repeatedly failed to provide required information and, in at least one instance, destroyed scientific evidence pertaining to the case.
The violations are of particular concern to the environmental group's researchers and scientists.
"It is not rare for a company to be sanctioned," White said. "It is rare for toxicologists to destroy evidence."
White said Teflon, which needs C8 in its manufacturing process, is DuPont's "chemical cash cow," which the company will go to great lengths to defend, even to the extent of destroying evidence.
The exact amount of the sanctions to be levied against DuPont is still being determined.
"That is something we are working on now," said Attorney Robert Billot, who represents the plaintiffs in the class action suit against DuPont. "It will be attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred since the case was filed."
Lauren Sucher, communications director for the environmental group, said the Mid-Ohio Valley is "ground zero" in the legal battleground over regulation for C8.
"This is a national problem," Sucher said. "C8 has been found in the bloodstream of more than 92 percent of adults and 96 percent of children. It's unfortunate, but the community is an unlucky ground zero for this chemical pollutant."
Sucher said the nation will be looking to the class action court case in Wood County as a precedent for the handling of C8 and the PFOA family of chemicals.
"It is legally important because we are looking at a persistent organic pollutant like other chemicals that have had to be banned through legislation," White said. "Hopefully, the outcome will include compensation, restitution, and cleanup for the community."