News Coverage
EPA says C8 could pose potential health risk
Published January 13, 2005
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's announcement that the chemical used to make Teflon is considered a health risk is being met with resignation by some and with concern by others.
The EPA on Wednesday said exposure to even low levels of perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, known as PFOA or the chemical trade name of C-8, could pose "a potential risk of developmental and other adverse effects."
Officials emphasized their draft risk assessment was not conclusive.
The issue is important to many in the area because the chemical is used at DuPont's Washington, W.Va., Works plant near Parkersburg and has been found in several area water systems. The chemical was also the subject of a civil suit, which was settled last fall for $343 million.
"From what I've seen, this really does not change anything. It's what we told customers back in June. At this point it's a potential health risk, and right now there is nothing conclusive," said Bob Griffin, general manager of the Little Hocking Water Association, one of the systems where the chemical has been detected.
Charles Auer, director of the U.S. EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said the draft report, based on animal studies, would be sent to a science advisory board for help in determining the risks.
DuPont and EPA have been sparring over C8, which is used to make many of the company's most popular products, which range from auto fuel systems, firefighting foam and phone cables to computer chips, cookware and clothing.
The agency said in a statement it "has concerns with respect to the potential nationwide presence of PFOA in blood and with the potential for developmental and other effects suggested by animal studies." But it also said there are "significant uncertainties in the agency's quantitative assessment of the risks of PFOA."
Chemical maker DuPont Co., which is based in Wilmington, Del., and produces the chemical at a plant in Fayetteville, N.C., declined to make a comment on Wednesday. In a statement from the company, DuPont said it welcomed EPA's report and was trying to minimize people's exposure to the chemical.
"Although, to date, no human health effects are known to be caused by PFOA, the company recognizes that the presence of PFOA in human blood raises questions that should be addressed," DuPont officials said in a statement.
Ed Hill, one of the Charleston, W.Va.-based lawyers representing the citizens in the class action lawsuit against DuPont, said the EPA assessment will have no bearing on the lawsuit, but it confirms what thousands in the community who are exposed to the chemical have known all along.
"I think the scenario demonstrates the value of our civil justice system, which allows claims to be brought into court and the truth to be brought out," Hill said.
"It indicates that C8 may pose a serious health threat, but it is not confirmed yet."
The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that brought DuPont's record on PFOA to EPA's attention, said it believes EPA ignored its own scientific advice on defining the cancer-causing potential of the chemical to benefit DuPont.
"At every turn in this important process, EPA officials favored DuPont," said Ken Cook, EWG's president.
Hill said the EWG's complaints have substance, particularly because these health concerns would never have been brought to light if left up to the U.S. EPA.
"In fact, EPA has subpoenaed information from our lawsuit to finally get where they are with DuPont on this issue," Hill said.
PFOA meets three of five criteria that make a chemical considered carcinogenic, while only one criteria is needed for the label, according to the U.S. EPA's internal guidelines, said Tim Kropt, senior scientist for the EWG.
"Many of the effects were just thrown out without explanation by the EPA," Kropt said. "The public deserves a fair and honest look at what the risks might be and they didn't get that."
The U.S. EPA's announcement comes one day after DuPont announced the initial results of a study conducted on more than 1,000 of its employees at its Washington Works plant. That study showed few links between C8 and human health other than possibly slightly higher cholesterol counts.
Some residents in Little Hocking, are waiting for another study to be completed before making a decision on the dangers of C8.
"The University of Pennsylvania is doing a study on C8," said Molly Varner, a Little Hocking Water customer for 12 years. "I'm waiting to see what that study says because it measures C8 levels in the Little Hocking Water Service area."
That study has examined more than 300 people in the water district and also has an advisory committee of 20 residents.
Last June, Little Hocking Water issued a consumer confidence report to its 4,200 customers saying that there could be a potential health risk from drinking the water with the chemical in it.
While the U.S. EPA has yet to determine a new standard for a safe level of the chemical in drinking water, a team put together by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection determined a safe level was 150 parts per billion. But that level has not been adopted as a universal standard.
Recent tests of the Little Hocking water wells from September show that the amount of the chemical in the water has increased, and new test results from November are due within the next few weeks.
All wells have tested at less than 150 parts per billion.
"But it is increasing. It's not going down, and these last test results show a pretty good jump," Griffin said.
A hearing to approve the final settlement in the civil case is scheduled for Feb. 28.