Class Action Suit - PFOA
Residents accuse DuPont of contaminating their drinking water
supplies with Ammonium perfluorooctanoate originating from

DuPont's Washington Works facility
in Wood County, West Virginia
 
 

See Newspaper articles and Documents related to this Class Action Suit
Return to PFOS / PFOA Index Page
Abstracts

DuPont's Washington Works Main Plant is located along the Ohio River in Washington, West Virginia, approximately-seven miles southwest of Parkersburg, West Virginia. PHOTO - New York Times.

The PFOA chemical at the heart of this Class Action lawsuit is Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate, commonly referred to as C8, C-8, or APFO. At this time in history, it is considered to be the PFOA derivative of greatest concern and with the most wide-spread use.

CAS No: 3825-26-1
Molecular Formula: C8-H-F15-O2.H3-N
Molecular structure:

Systematic Names:
Ammonium pentadecafluorooctanoate
Octanoic acid, pentadecafluoro-, ammonium salt

Synonyms:
Ammonium perfluorocaprilate
Ammonium perfluorocaprylate
Ammonium perfluorooctanoate
Fluorad FC 143
Pentadecafluoro-1-octanoic acid, ammonium salt
Perfluoroammonium octanoate
Perfluorooctanoic acid, ammonium salt

• For Updates see FAN's compilation of news articles and reports

Analysis of PFOA in the blood of people living near DuPont's West Virginia plant had levels 12 times higher than U.S. background blood levels.

See the Environmental Working Group's Analysis and Letter to US EPA of
November 17, 2004 at
http://www.ewg.org/issues/PFCs/20041117/index.php

About the Teflon chemical PFOA
PFOA is not only used to manufacture Teflon, but is also a breakdown product of chemicals used to coat food packaging, including fast food like McDonald's, and stain-resistant coatings for couches, carpets, and clothing. PFOA is broadly toxic. It does not break down in the environment, and is considered to be persistent over geologic time scales. It nearly universally pollutes human blood and has a half-life in the body of more than four years.
Ref: Environmental Working Group

On April 12, 2002, Judge George W. Hill of the Circuit Court of Wood County, West Virginia, granted citizens the right to proceed with a Class Action lawsuit against Dupont for the contamination of their drinking water with Ammonium perfluorooctanoate (C8) originating from DuPont's Washington Works facility; and also against the Little Hocking Water Association for providing drinking water contaminated with C-8 to aproximately 12,000 residences and businesses in Washington County, Ohio.

This Class Action has created a drama of Shakesperian proportion. The genesis of the Class Action arose from the allegation that DuPont's dumping of C8 in its Dry Run Landfill in Wood County, West Virginia, was responsible for the "wasting disease" that killed cattle on a farm near the landfill in the 1980s. The information generated from the lawsuit against DuPont for the cattle deaths revealed that
local drinking water supplies were contaminated with C8. According to a 2003 newspaper report:

... A mysterious wasting disease killed 280 cattle on the Tennants' farm near the Dry Run Landfill in the 1980s. The cause of the cattle deaths were never conclusively associated with chemical contamination from DuPont, but the company settled with the Tennant family for an undisclosed amount in light of the allegations.
Jim and Della Tennant claim that family members who worked with the herd and lived near the property also began to fall sick with sinus and respiratory problems and skin and other cancers. And, when the Tennants asked their attorneys to look into the cause of the illnesses and pursue action against DuPont, C8 is what they found.
In 1984 they sold an adjoining portion of their land to DuPont and it became the Dry Run Landfill. They moved from the location within seven months, but maintain rental property at the site.
Jim Tennant claims a difference in the land was noticeable within a year of the landfill acquisition.
"Shortly after, there were no minnows in the stream. There were deer carcasses lying around, and things were dying," Jim Tennant said. "There were problems."
But, those weren't the only problems the family would observe. After their herd of cattle began to die off, they claim the family members who worked with the cattle and lived near the farm were also becoming seriously ill.
... After 40 years of successful cattle ranching, they believe it was chemical contamination that devastated the herd within a span of 10 years.
The terms of the Tennants' settlement remain secret, and as a result of that action, they are not eligible as class members in the pending C8 suit.
Ref: Examining the water we drink: Family's lost herd led to revelations about C8.
By Callie Lyons. The Marietta Times (Ohio). September 27, 2003.

One resident in the Class Action spoke of her concerns about her 6-year old daughter:

"We thought her teeth came in without enamel," Cochran said. Lauren had to have her teeth removed after they failed to develop properly. Recently Cochran has discovered that several other families in her area have experienced the same problem...
Ref: September 27, 2003. The Marietta Times (Ohio). Examining the water we drink: Concerns about C8 linger. By Callie Lyons

DuPont and West Virginia regulatory officials admit to destroying documents:

In a letter to the judge, DuPont acknowledged that Gerald R. Kennedy, the company's lead toxicologist on C8 issues, had destroyed "written and electronic documents'' about the chemical.
Ref: The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio). May 8, 2003. WEST VIRGINIA RULING. JUDGE: DUPONT CHEMICAL IS TOXIC. By Geoff Dutton.

... During her deposition on June 6 and 7,2002, [WV Department of Environmental Protection Science Advisor] Staats testified that she did not produce some documents in response to the Subpoena because she had destroyed or caused the destruction of certain documents which would otherwise have been subject to the Subpoena. During the hearing on June 12, 2002 counsel for Staats and the WVDEP [West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection] conceded that Staats and the WVDEP have destroyed and otherwise failed to save and preserve various records, documents, including drafts, correspondence, emails and other documents relating to the WVDEP’s investigation of C-8 all of which were subject to the Subpoena. Staats and the WVDEP further conceded that such destruction of documents and failure to produce in accordance with the Subpoena was the result of Staats and the WVDEP’s standard practice and policy of destroying documents they anticipate might be the subject of a subpoena in this litigation... - see more details below.
Ref:
June 25, 2002. INJUNCTION ORDER DIRECTED TO DEE ANN STAATS, PH.D. AND THE
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
.

The president of the Environmental Working Group, Kenneth A. Cook, wrote to the Governor of West Virginia about Department of Environmental Protection science adviser Dee Ann Staats stating she "made a career as an expert witness testifying against the concerns of communities fighting chemical and oil company pollution prior to coming to work for the state of West Virginia."
Ref: March 13, 2003. Charleston Gazette (West Virginia). C8 Study 'Tainted,' Group Says Governor Urged to Appoint an Independent Panel. By Ken Ward Jr.

DuPont's revolving door for their lawyers on C8 issues. They now work for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection:

It has come to our attention that Joe Dawley. formerly with the law firm of Spilman
Thomas & Battle in Charleston. West Virginia
. accepted the request of WVDEP's [West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection] Secretary, Michael Cailaghan. to become the new General Counsel for WVDEP... As you are aware. Mr. Dawley was working as one of the attorneys representing E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") in connection with ongoing C-8 issues and in defense of the claims asserted against DuPont in the referenced lawsuit. In particular, you may recall that Mr. Dawley represented DuPont in at least one meeting between WVDEP and Plaintiffs in the referenced lawsuit to discuss issues relating to WVDEP's compliance with the Wood County's Circuit Court's Order prohibiting WVDEP from destroying any C-8 documents and requiring WVDEP to try to retrieve electronic documents previously deleted from Dr. Dee Ann Staats' files. Mr. Dawley also appears to have had some Ievel of involvement while at Spilman in assisting DuPont in the negotiation and drafting of the November 2001 Consent Order entered between the State and DuPont on C-8 matters ( the "Consent Order"). (See Attachment B) We understand that Mr. Dawley was approached by Secretary Callaghan to become General Counsel for WVDEP while Mr. Dawley was working at Spilman.
We further understand that another former Spilman lawyer. Stephanie Timrnermeyer. also
recently left that law tirm to accept the position as Director of WVDEP's Division of .Air Quality
after Ms . Timmermeyer also had been working directly for DuPont on C-8 issues. and also
apparently had worked for DuPont in negotiating and drafting the Consent Order... We understand that the Director of WVDEP's Division of Water resources. Allyn Turner. also is a former Spilman attorney...
Ref: October 25, 2002. Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollster, 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; to Perry D. McDaniel, Esq, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Legal Services, 1356 Hansford Street, Charleston, WV 25301. Re: DuPon/C-8 Issues: Jack W Leach. et al. v. E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company and Lutbeck Public Service District Circuit Court of Wood Ctv, K'V. Civil Action No. 0 1 -C-608.

Note: Timmermeyer and Dawley have both recused themselves from C8 issues at DEP.
Ref: March 13, 2003. Charleston Gazette (West Virginia). C8 Study 'Tainted,' Group Says Governor Urged to Appoint an Independent Panel. By Ken Ward Jr.

Regulators protect Dupont with a "safe level" of C8 in drinking water.

The “safe level” standard for C-8 has been a rather fluid number that periodically increases exponentially. Initially, the “safe level” was said to be 1 ppb, which was DuPont’s internal Community Exposure Guideline. This number eventually changed after detections of C-8 in the Little Hocking Water Association wells far exceeded it. Later, the U.S. EPA Consent Order with DuPont cited 14 ppb as the interim "action level" for C-8. The Little Hocking Water Association has a monitoring well which has C-8 levels that are more than twice 14 ppb. Now, based on the announced CAT Team findings, the “safe level” is 150 ppb.
Ref. and see for more detail:
LITTLE HOCKING WATER COMMENTS. OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING. COLUMBUS, OHIO. July 24,2002.
Also see analysis by Kristina Thayer, Ph.D. of the Environmental Working Group

Some of DuPont's practices at its West Virginia facility identified for contaminating the area's drinking water supplies:

The Letart Landfill is located just north of the town of Letart in Mason County, West Virginia (Figure 4.0). The landfill covers approximately 17-acres of a 205-acre parcel of land owned by DuPont Washington Works. It was in operation firom the early 1960s to 1995. The landfill was operated and closed under West Virginia Solid Waste /National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. WV 0076066. Letart Landfill received waste was from the Fluoropolymcr manufacturing process at the plant that consisted primarily of scrap product, scrap metal, wood pallets and bins, and miscellaneous trash. Approximately 5,000,000 pounds of waste per year were disposed in the landfill. This waste is believed to be the source of C-8 in the historical groundwater and surface water samples collected fiom on-site locations. The Letart Landfill was permanently closed by installing an engineered multi-layer geosynthetic and soil cap (DuPont, 2001).

The Dry Run Landfill is located west of the town of Lubeck, in Wood County, West Virginia (Figure 5.0) and is about eight miles southwest of the Washington Works main plant and the Local Landfill. The Dry Run Landfill covers approximately 17-acres of a 535-acre parcel of land owned by DuPont. The landfill began operation in 1986 and is still active at present. The landfill is operated under West Virginia Solid Waste /National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No.WV 0076244. The landfill was constructed within the drainage basin of Dry Run, a tributary of the North Fork of Lee Creek, which is a tributary of the Ohio River. The Dry Run Landfill has no compacted or synthetic bottom liners. However, natural soil present under the landfill material is composed of clay and weathered shale. The Dry Run Landfill receives waste from the main plant consisting of non-hazardous waste including scrap product, scrap metal, wood pallets, fly ash and bins, and miscellaneous trash. Approximately 50,000,000 pounds of waste per year have been disposed in the landfill. Currently, the C-8 source is believed to be the sludges from the closure of the main plant anaerobic digestion ponds that were landfilled at Dry Run in 1988. The Dry Run Landfill remaining capacity calculations for 2001 show 4.4 years of remaining life on the existing cell based on a 128,000 yd3/yr net fill volume consumption (DuPont 2000).

Riverbank Landfill: The Riverbank Landfill is about 4,500-feet long and lies along the northern edge of the site near the Ohio River. It was operated between 1948 and the late 1960s and received powerhouse ash, incineration ash, plastics, rubble, and plant trash. After closure, it was covered with 6 to 35 inches of soil. Currently, the Riverbank Landfill is covered with dense vegetation (on the sloped area) or by buildings and pavement in the manufacturing area.

Anacrobic Digestion Ponds: Three former digestion ponds are co-located within a portion of the Riverbank Landfill. One pond dates from the 1950s and two others from the 1970s. The ponds received waste from the fluorocarbon manufacturing process (including C-8) until 1988, when the pond contents and upper few feet of clay liner and pond berm material were removed and disposed of off-site. The pond area was backfilled and capped with topsoil, and the area is currently vegetated with grass.

Polyacetal Waste Incinerators: The former Waste Incinerators consisted of two brick-lined pits in the western portion of the manufacturing area. The Waste Incinerators operated between 1959 and 1990. The Waste Incinerators have been excavated and backfilled with clean soil.

Burning Ground: The Burning Ground is located in the central portion of the manufacturing area and was operated between 1948 and 1965. Since 1990, the Burning Ground has been leveled, backfilled with clean fill and gravel, and covered by buildings and asphalt.

The Local Landfill is located immediately adjacent to the main plant off the southern perimeter. The Local Landfill consists of three separate closed cells located on the heavily wooded 250-acre site. The cells were operated from 1964 to the middle 1380s under West Virginia/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WVNPDES) Permit No. 0076538. The permit is currently undergoing renewal and is expected to be effective in January 2002. Materials landfilled included scrap product, scrap metal, wood pallets and bins, and Powerhouse ash. Approximately 144 tons of waste per year were disposed in the landfill. Powerhouse ash comprised about 70 percent of the total waste. The specific source of C-8 in historical groundwater and surface water samples collected from on-site locations has not yet been determined. The cells were closed and covered with approximately two feet of low permeability soil.
Ref: January 2002. DuPont. COMPILATION OF HISTORICAL C-8 DATA.
DUPONT WASHINGTON WORKS MAIN PLANT AND LANDFILLS
. Project KO: D6WW7423. (171 pages)

DuPont's description of APFO (C8) Use:

DuPont uses APFO as a reaction aid in the production of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) co-polymers. The process utilized at DuPont’s Washington Works for making PTFE and co-polymers consists of polymerizing TFE (and other co-monomers if desired) in an aqueous media with a small amount of APFO to aid in the reaction.

Following the polymerization step, the polymer dispersion is either dried to remove water and APFO or concentrated (removing some of the APFO), stabilized and sold as an aqueous dispersion. The dried polymer contains very little, if any, APFO. The APFO removed from the polymer is recovered for recycle, captured and destroyed off site in an incinerator, captured and sent to an offsite industrial landfill, and/or emitted to air or water at the Washington Works. The stabilized polymer dispersions are sold by DuPont to industrial customers (both in the US and outside the US) for a variety of uses, internally transferred to the DuPont Spruance Plant for the production of Teflon@ fibers and PTFE coated synthetic fibers, or internally transferred to the DuPont Parlin Plant for the production of Teflon@ Finishes. A small amount of non-hazardous waste polymer, water, APFO and other additives generated at Washington Works is treated in a wastewater treatment facility at DuPont’s Chambers Works. This material is either emitted in the Chambers Works water discharge or captured on carbon and landfilled in a secure landfill. The internal process at the DuPont Spruance Plant to produce Teflon@ fibers involves, for most of the product, a “sintering” step in which the APFO contained in the product is destroyed by the following reaction: CF3(CF2)6C0O'NH4+ -arrow- CF3(CF2)5CF2H + C02 +NH3
Ref. and see for more detail: Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) (revised January 2001).

DuPont's Washington Works Main Plant is located along the Ohio River in Washington, West Virginia, 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 Washington Works facility.

DuPont Site where APFO is used as a reaction aid:
Washington Works, Route 892, Washington, WV 26181

DuPont Sites where APFO containing products made at Washington Works are processed:
Parlin Plant, Cheesequake Road, Parlin, NJ 08859
DuPont Spruance Plant, 5401 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Richmond, VA 23234

DuPont Site which disposes of waste containing APFO:
Chambers Works, Rte. 130, Deepwater, NJ 08023

Some uses and exposure routes for the general population from PFOS-related chemicals:

Applications Use 2000: Estimated Global production
Surface Treatment

personal apparel, home furnishings, leather, fabric/upholstery, carpet, automobile interiors

These applications are undertaken in industrial settings by customers such as textile mills, leather tanneries, finishers, fiber producers, and carpet manufacturers and also used in aftermarket treatment by the general public or professional applicators

2,160 metric tons
Paper Protection

food contact applications (plates, food containers, bags, and wraps)
non-food contact applications (folding cartons, containers, carbonless forms, and masking papers)

The application of sizing agents is undertaken mainly by paper mills and, to some extent, converters who manufacture bags, wraps, and other products from paper and paperboard

1,490 metric tons
Performance Chemical

fire fighting foams, alkaline cleaners, floor polishes, photographic film, denture cleaners, shampoos, chemical intermediates, coating additives, carpet spot cleaners, and as an insecticide in bait stations, mining and oil well surfactants, acid mist suppressants for metal plating and electronic etching baths, photolithography, electronic chemicals, hydraulic fluid additives.

Note from FAN:
PFOS and PFOA chemicals were approved for use in pesticides by US EPA. Several were used as "List 3 Inerts." The public is denied the right to know what specific pesticides "inerts" are in, or on what food crops they were used. "Inerts" can account for over 99% of a pesticide product. EPA only mandates that the "active ingredient" be identified. Since 2000, EPA has said it would remove PFOS and PFOA from use as "inerts" in pesticide products. However, EPA has stated the insecticide, Sulfluramid, would be allowed for use in bait stations up until the year 2016.

831 metric tons

Of this volume, approximately 151 metric tons will be used in fire fighting foams.
Ref: November 21, 2002. Hazard Assessment of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and its Salts. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Environment Directorate. Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology. ENV/JM/RD(2002)17/FINAL. - Page 13.

A multi-city study designed by Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus and analyzed at Centre Analytical Laboratories Inc., State College, Pa., indicates small, but measurable, quantities of PFOA residue can be found in such foods as milk, ground beef, bread, fruits and vegetables, whether or not the items were obtained in a city with known exposure to the manufacturing chemical via plant emissions.
Ref: September 27, 2003. The Marietta Times (Ohio). Examining the water we drink: Local C8 exposure tough to sort out. By Callie Lyons.

Of special note:

On May 16, 2000, 3M annnounced that "it is phasing out of the perfluorooctanyl chemistry" after internal studies raised concerns about its persistance and toxicity. However, DuPont continues to use C-8 and in October 2002 it began to make C8 at its new facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Historically, DuPont purchased C-8 from 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) for use as a raw material in its various fluoropolymer production processes, including the manufacture of Teflon@.

• The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has been actively engaged in the PFOA issue. They published a comprehensive online report on Perfluroinated Chemicals that includes a searchable database to hundreds of documents.

Some correspondence of the law firm representing plaintiffs in the Class Action and some Civil Court Rulings

November 1, 2001 - 4 pages

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollster, 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; to governmental agencies. Re: Leach, et al. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company et al.
(Circuit Court of Kanawha Cty, WV, Civil Action No. 01 42-25 18) Public Health Concern Involving Drinking Water in Wood Countv. West Virginia

... As indicated in the attached summary chart, exhaustive, detailed analysis of the health
studies conducted to date with respect to APFO using standard USEPA risk assessment
methodology and DuPont's own data confirm that no "acceptable" level of APFO in human
drinking water can be scientifically or realistically justified at any level any higher than 0.2 parts
per billion (ppb) of APFO. As indicated in the attached chart, the factors used in deriving this
0.2 ppb level are based upon the exact same data and analysis that has been used by DuPont and the 3M Company in previous, similar attempts to determine a "safe" level for APFO and PFOS in drinking water. As you most-likely are already aware, APFO levels have consistently and continuously exceeded 0.2 ppb in the LPSD drinking water supply since at least 1984, with DuPont's own lab confirming APFO levels as high as 3.9 ppb in the early 1990s...
Included in this document is the "Drinking Water Health Advisory determination for Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO)"

March 8, 2002 - 4 pages

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollster, 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; to governmental agencies. Re: Public Health Concern Involving C-8 Drinking Water Contamination In
West Virginia And Ohio

... our clients are concerned that there is a current, imminent, and substantial threat to their health based upon the past and current presence of excessive levels of C-8 in local drinking water supplies. We have asked the Circuit Court in West Virginia to order, among other things, appropriate medical monitoring for those who have been exposed to C-8 in their water...
... As indicated in the attached document prepared by Tetra Tech, which has thoroughly
reviewed the same information referenced and relied upon in DuPont’s Environ report
, our
clients believe that the 14 ppb number selected by Environ is in error and substantially
underestimates the potential health threat to those drinking C-8 contaminated water. The current data actually confirms that C-8 levels in excess of 0.3 ppb in human drinking water may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.
Thus, on behalf of our clients, we request that your agency consider the issues raised in the attached document from Tetra Tech before agreeing to any Order with DuPont that does not require DuPont to immediately provide alternate drinking water to those exposed to C-8 levels in excess of 0.3 ppb.
• Included in this document is the Tetra Tech, Inc., document titled: Discussion points relating to the assessment of health risk from exposure to Ammonium perfluorooctanoate (PFOA).

March 18, 2002 - 3 pages

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollster, 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; to 2 West Virginia governmental agencies. Re: Consent Order Between WV and DuPont (Order No. GWR-2001-019): DuPont's January 2002 Report Entitled "Compilation of Historical C-8 Data DuPont Washington Works Main Plant and Landfills"

... We understand that, under the terms of the referenced Consent Order entered between the State of West Virginia and DuPont on November 14,2001, DuPont is required to submit to the Groundwater Investigation Steering Team ("GIST") a Report providing a "compilation of all available ground watedsurface water monitoring and hydrogeologic characterization data for" DuPont's Washington Works facility and Local, Letart, and Dry Run Landfills, as described in Table A-1 .a of the Consent Order. We have reviewed a copy of a January 2002 document made available to us by WVDEP on March 7. 2002, prepared by DuPont entitled "Compilation of Historical C-8 Data DuPont Washington Works Main Plant and Landfills," which we assume is the report that DuPont was required to prepare in this regard. Upon review of the data summarized in that Report, it becomes evident that the Report inexplicably omits references to a substantial amount of C -8 data within DuPont's possession...

March 26, 2002

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollster, 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; to governmental agencies. Re: Jack W. Leach, et al. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company et al. (Circuit Court of Wood Cty. WV. Civil Action No. 01-C-608).

... the law firms of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, PLLC and Winter Johnson & Hill PLLC of Charleston, West Virginia, are representing the Plaintiffs in a lawsuit currently pending against E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and the Lubeck Public Service District ("LPSD") in State Court in West Virginia in which claims have been asserted against DuPont and the LPSD in connection with contamination of human drinking water supplies with ammonium perfluorooctanoate ('"C-8") originating from DuPont's Washington Works facility in Wood County, West Virginia. On Friday, March 22,2002, Judge Hill of the Wood County Circuit Court agreed to certify Plaintiffs' claims to proceed as a class action against DuPont and the LPSD on behalf of all persons whose drinking water is or has been contaminated with C-8 attributable to releases from DuPont's Washington Works facility. (This class currently includes thousands of Ohio and West Virginia residents.) Our law firms will, therefore, be pursuing the Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of all members of that class of individuals...
Our law firm has been receiving and reviewing a substantial amount of internal correspondence and internal, unpublished reports from DuPont and 3M concerning C-8 since the surnmer of 2000, when our law firm began receiving C-8 documents from DuPont in connection with discovery related to claims that C-8 being discharged from DuPont's Dry Run Landfill in Wood County, West Virginia, was killing hundreds of head of cattle who were drinking from the Dry Run Creek. As of today's date, we have received and reviewed approximately 185,000 pages of documents from DuPont and 3M relating to the toxicity and effects of C-8...
... our consultants' assessment of the available C-8 toxicology data differs substantially from the information that the CAT Team apparently has been provided to date by DuPont, as memorialized in the analysis set forth in the January 2002, report from Environ that was prepared for DuPont. As indicated in our prior correspondence, we believe that the available C-8 data does not justify or support the analysis advocated by DuPont through the Environ report. Because the United States EPA, nevertheless, agreed to use the 14 ppb standard advocated in that Environ report in its recent Consent Order with DuPont, we are concerned that your agencies may not be receiving all of the available C-8 data...

April 10, 2002:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
JACK W. LEACH, et al.,
PIaintiffs,
v.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
and LUBECK PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-C- 608
(Judge George W. Hill )
ORDER ON CLASS CERTTFICATION AND RELATED MOTIONS

... Based upon the oral argument of the parties during a hearing on all of these Motions on March 22, 2002, along with careful consideration of all of the filings of the parties on each of these issues, including all submitted affidavits, the Court herby rules as follows:
1) the Court GRANTS Plantiffs' Motion for Class Certification and hereby CERTIFIES this case to proceed as a class action on behalf of a class of all persons whose drinking Ivater is or has been contaminated with amiionium perfluorooctanoate (aka "C-8") attributable to releases from DuPont's Washington Works plant (hereinafter "the Class") with respect to all issues relating to Defendants' underlying liability and Plaintiffs' claims for equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief, including liability for punitive damages; all damage issues iiivolving any deterimination of individual harm of the Class members and the amount of any punitive damages are hereby STAYED and RESERVED for later litigation, pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure;
2) the Court DENIES DuPont's Relief Motion; and
3) the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings Against DuPont.
The undisputed procedural background, undisputed findings of fact, and the Court's conclusions of law supportiiig each of these rulings is summarized below...

III. FINDINGS OF FACT (Excerpt)
Plaintiffs submitted to the Court a lengthy statement of facts. Neither DuPont nor LPSD
submitted any statement of facts for the Court to consider. The Court, therefore, finds the following facts in support of its rulings on the Motions at issue:

This case involves claims arising froin the alleged contamination of human drinking wrater
supplies with, among other things,[2] a chemical known as ammonium perfluorooctanoate (a/k/a APFO/PFOA/ FC-143/C-8) (Chemical Abstract Services # 3825-26-1) (hereinafter "C-8"). C-8 is a chemical DuPont has used at its Washington Works facility in Wood County, West Virginia (the Washington Works") since approximately 1951. Historically. DuPont purchased C-8 from the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company ("3M") for use as a raw material in its various fluoropolymer production processes, including the manufacture of Teflon@. C-8-containing wastes from the Washington Works have been discharged into the air, the Ohio River, various landfills, and soils and groundwater at the Wasliington Works. Although C-8 is identified and regulated as a toxic or hazardous substance in a number of other jurisdictions, none of the environmenttal discharge permits ever issued to DuPont for its Washington Works by any Federal or State agency have ever contained any limits on DuPont's releases of C-8 into the environment. Consequently, DuPont has released C-8 into the environment from its Washington Works since the early 1950s without any govermental permit limits or restrictions of any kind. Although 3M annnounced in May of 2000 that it would stop making C-8 after internal studies raised increasing concerns about the biopersistance [3] and toxicity of the chemical. DuPont continues to use C-8 and recently announced that it would begin to make its own C-8 at a DuPont plant in North Carolina...

April 15, 2002

Letter from CHRISTOPHER D. NEGLEY, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; to Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

I have the opportunity to discuss your letters of March 26, 2002 and March 29,2002 with
DEP staff members. Please allow this letter to serve as the DEP’s answer. Initially, you asked whether the state of West Virginia intends to establish a second laboratory to verify the C8 water testing. The answer to that question is no. Exygen, as you are probably aware, is the only laboratory in the United States that can analyze the results of the C8 testing to approved standards. Furthermore, the state of West Virginia has independently certified the Exygen lab after a rigorous QAQC inspection by the DEP’s Office of Water Resources. As a final check, sampling is always done in the presence of DEP employees for consistency purposes. Based on these factors, the DEP sees no reason at this time to establish its own laboratory.

As a second matter, you have requested representation at the upcoming CAT toxicologists
meeting for an expert of your choosing. As you know, this would require a modification to the
Consent Order. I do not see any benefit in modifying the agreement at this time for this request. However, the CAT is interested in reviewing any information that you may have in your possession that will aid them in their determination. In that light, please contact me if you desire to have your expert speak to the panel. I have been authorized to allow your expert a small window of time to share any information he or she may have on this issue. ...

April 19, 2002

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, to Christopher D. Negley, Associate Counsel, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

This letter responds to your letter of April 15,2002, responding to my letters of March 26
and March 29,2002. Based upon your letter, we understand that the State of West Virginia does not intend to take any steps to independently verify any of the C-8 results obtained by DuPont's contractor, Exygen. Thus, we understand that the State of West Virginia does not intend to implement any mechanism through which any member of the public can independently verify any of the C-8 results obtained by DuPont's contractor, even though we understand that the sampling methodology that currently is being used by Exygen has been made available to the State, and that the State could take those steps necessary to arrange for independent verification of Exygen's results.
Second, with respect to our request to appoint a representative to participate as a member
of the C-8 Assessment of Toxicity Team ("CAT Team") under the referenced Consent Order, this confirms our understanding that our request has been denied.
Rather than being offered any opportunity to participate in any substantive aspect of the C-8 CAT Team proceedings, we understand that we have been asked to, instead, voluntarily share whatever information we "may have in our possession" that "will aid" the CAT Team "in their determination." ...

June 25, 2002

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
JACK W. LEACH, et al., Plaintiffs, V. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 01-C- 608 (Judge Hill)
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
and LUBECK PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, Defendants.

INJUNCTION ORDER DIRECTED TO DEE ANN STAATS, PH.D. AND THE
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

On June 12,2002, the plaintiffs appeared by their counsel R. Edison Hill, Robert A. Bilott.
and Lany A. Winter, defendant E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company appeared by its counsel, Laurence F. Janssen, Charles L. Woody and Heather Jones, defendant Lubeck Public Service District appeared by its counsel, John R. McGhee and Richard A. Hayhurst, and the deponent Dee .4nn Staats, Ph.D. and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection appeared by their counsel Christopher Negley for a telephonic hearing on plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") and Dee Ann Staats, PH.D. ("Staats") from destroying records relevant to the C-8 investigation. Plaintiffs have argued in essence that Staats and the WVDEP failed to comply with this Court's Civil Case Subpoena issued on June 6, 2002 ("Subpoena") which required Staats to produce to plaintiffs at her deposition on June 6, 2002 all documents and tangible things in her possession, custody and control which were described in an attachment to the Subpoena. During oral argument. counsel for Staats and the WVDEP confirmed that Staats did not produce all of the documents described in the attachment to the Subpoena in part because some of those documents were destroyed.
Findings of Fact:
... 4. During her deposition on June 6 and 7,2002, Staats testified that she did not produce
some documents in response to the Subpoena because she had destroyed or caused the destruction of certain documents which would otherwise have been subject to the Subpoena. During the hearing on June 12, 2002 counsel for Staats and the WVDEP conceded that Staats arid the WVDEP have destroyed and otherwise failed to save and preserve various records, documents, including drafts, correspondence, emails and other documents relating to the WVDEP’s investigation of C-8 all of which were subject to the Subpoena. Staats and the WVDEP further conceded that such destruction of documents and failure to produce in accordance with the Subpoena was the result of Staats and the WVDEP’s standard practice and policy of destroying documents they anticipate might be the subject of a subpoena in this litigation. Staats argued that it has been her routine practice to destroy drafts, documents and email correspondence for many years particularly when she anticipated such documents might be subpoenaed. She further argued that she is not required by law to produce her records for this litigation, notwithstanding the service of the Subpoena, and that in the absence of an injunction she intends to continue her routine practice of destroying documents and email correspondence relating to the JWDEP’s investigation of C-8.
5 . Staats and the WVDEP further argue that since she is not a “party” to this litigation,
she is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore not subject to its orders.
Conclusions of Law:
1. ... Staats’ arguments regarding the lack of jurisdiction over her are meritless.
2. The admitted practice of Staats and the WVDEP of destroying documents which she
anticipated would be subpoenaed in this litigation constitutes obstruction of justice in this Court which is subject to the inherent power of this Court to police and punish.
It is therefore accordingly. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Dee Ann Staats, Ph.D. and the WVDEP are enjoined from destroying any and all documents and things related to the WVDEP’s investisation of C-8. including but not Iimited to the documents and things plaintiffs identified in the attachment to the Subpoena and all notes and draft reports prepared and/or possessed by Staats, TERA and the WVDEP and all persons under the control of Staats and the WVDEP.
2. Dee Ann Staats, Ph.D. and the WVDEP are enjoined from destroying emails and are ordered to preserve both their internal computer data relating to the investigation of C-8, and all such data stored not only on WVDEP desktop and laptop computers, but any and all personal laptop computers, including but not limited to the personal laptop computer of Staats.
3. Plaintiffs are hereby authorized to engage computer experts to be selected and paid
by the plaintiffs to examine the laptop computers and in-house computers utilized by Staats and the WVDEP in order to retrieve any and all information pertaining to C-8 that has been deleted or for which attempts have been made to delete the data and/or information, and Staats and the WVDEP shall immediately make all such laptop computers and in-house computers available to plaintiffs and their experts for such document retrieval purposes upon plaintiffs' request.

July 22, 2002

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, to US EPA Region III and Region V officials. Re: Request To Speak With USEPA/ATSDR Members Of CAT Team
Regarding C-8 Issues

As you are aware, we have asked on several occasions for the opportunity to speak with
USEPA's and ATSDRs representatives to the C-8 Assessment of Toxicity Team ("CAT Team") established under the Consent Order between E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and the State of West Virginia. The CAT Team met in Cincinnati on May 6-7, 2002, for the purposes of selecting "screening levels" for C-8 in environmental media and announced "screening levels" for C-8 in air and soil later that week. As of today's date, we have not received any confirmation from you that we may proceed with discussions with any of USEPA's or ATSDRs representatives to the CAT Team... Please confirm as soon as possible, in writing, whether USEPA or ATSDR will agree to either: (1 ) allow us to speak informally with any of the USEPA or ATSDR members of the CAT Team with respect to C-8 issues; or (2) agree to produce any of the USEPA or ATSDR CAT Team members for a formal deposition to discuss such matters. in addition to agreeing to respond to a subpoena for documents possessed in connection with the C-8 issues.

October 29, 2002 - 119 pages

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollster, 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; to Ohio governmental agencies. Re: Emissions Of Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (C-8) Into Ohio Air From DuPont's Washington Works Facilitv In Wood County, West Virginia

... Although C-8 is not specifically regulated in either West Virginia or Ohio in terms of air emissions, Year 2000 air emissions modeling data generated by DuPont and the State of West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection indicate that the emissions of C-8 from DuPont's Washington Works have resulted in concentrations of C-8 in the air over communities in Ohio at levels far exceeding all known regulatory standards for C-8 air emissions. More specifically, our research to date indicates that those jurisdictions that actually have established regulatory standards for C-8 in air consistently have adopted standards of between 0.01 mgh3 and 0.1 mg/u3 as the appropriate safety level for C-8 in air (typically ''healthy''worker populations). (See Exhibit A (copies of air emissions standards from California, Michigan, New Hampshire, Canada (Saskatchewan, Ontario, and British Columbia), Belgium, New Zealand, and Holland).) DuPont's own Year 2000 air modeling data confirms levels of C-8 in local community air in Ohio as high as 0.8 mgh3 and over 2 mgh3 at DuPont's fence line. (See Exhibit B.) Residents in some of these communities also are receiving additional doses of C-8 in their drinking water, which has been contaminated by C-8 releases from DuPont's Washington Works facility, and may be exposed to C-8 in soils. (See Exhibit C.)... WVDEP's lack of action contrasts dramatically with the new "high priority'' level of concern being expressed by USEPA with respect to C-8 toxicity, particularly given its recently-confirmed reproductive and developmental effects. (See Exhibit F) ...

November 27, 2002

Letter from Robert A. Bilott of Taft, Stettinius & Hollster, 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; toMary Dominiak, US EPA, Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics Chemical Control Division, Washington, DC 20004. Re: Documents For Inclusion In Administrative Record 226: Information Relating To PFOA

• See Newspaper articles and Documents related to this Class Action Suit

 
Fluoride Action Network | Pesticide Project | 315-379-9200 | pesticides@fluoridealert.org