PFOA stories

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In his deposition, Karrh reported that a DuPont epidemiologist namedBill Fayerweather had proposed in April 1981 to do a detailed study of apotential link between C8 exposure and facial birth defects.Fayerweather estimated that the rate of such birth defects in thegeneral population was about two in every 1,000 people. If DuPont foundtwo such problems in 10 children of plant workers, the rate would be"significantly higher" than that of the general population, Fayerweatherfound.When he examined Washington Works employees, Fayerweather found twobirth defects out of eight live births.One child was born with an "unconfirmed eye and tear duct defect," theDuPont study found. The other was born with "one nostril and eyedefect," the study said.During a deposition, Rob Bilott, a lawyer for Wood County residents,showed Karrh photos of the children and asked him to describe them."The child has only one nostril," Karrh said of one of the children."Apparently, the right nostril is absent and it looks like there's somegrowth on the inner surface of the right eye, on the medial surface."Karrh said that when he learned of the children years ago, he askedanother DuPont doctor to look into the matter."He went back and did the evaluations that were asked of him, that Iasked for him to make," Karrh testified. "He came back to me and he wassatisfied that it was not workplace related."The other doctor never prepared a written report, and Karrh said he"didn't recall speaking with him about how he made that decision.""He satisfied me, and we moved on to other things that we were doing,"Karrh said.Just a month before Fayerweather proposed his study, 3M told DuPont thatit had found facial birth defects in baby rats exposed to C8.For years, 3M had supplied DuPont with the C8 it used. In 2000, 3Mstopped making the product, citing safety and environmental concerns.The DuPont birth-defect data has been made public before. But details ofDuPont's decision not to continue its study have not previously beendisclosed.
In April 2003, the Washington-based Environmental Working Group wrote tothe EPA to demand an investigation by the agency of DuPont's handling ofC8 issues.Among other things, the organization cited a 1981 internal company studythat found similar facial birth defects in two of eight women studied byDuPont. In a letter, group President Ken Cook complained that DuPontwrongly did not report the study results to the EPA.Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, companies must tell theEPA when they find information "that reasonably supports the conclusionthat [a chemical] presents a substantial risk of injury to health."In its lawsuit against DuPont, the EPA cited the same 1981 studydocument.But the agency did not mention the birth-defects findings. Instead, theEPA focused on blood sampling that showed that C8 was able to move frommothers to babies through the umbilical cord. Agency lawyers noted that,a year later, in March 1982, DuPont did tell the EPA about similarmovement of C8 from mother to baby in rat studies.The EPA said that if it had known DuPont found C8 being transferred frommother to baby in humans sooner, federal officials could have moved morequickly to study the issue and perhaps take steps to protect the public.DuPont has said, "there is no legal basis for the EPA's allegations.""The company contends that it has fully complied with statutoryreporting requirements and disputes any association between <strong>PFOA</strong> andharmful effects on human health or the environment," DuPont officialssaid in a prepared statement.In March 1982, 3M and DuPont met with EPA officials to discuss 3M's ratstudy. No one from DuPont mentioned the human birth-defects data."We did not see that there was evidence that there was a substantialrisk in those two possible cases of birth defects that could be relatedto C8 exposure," Karrh testified. "So, therefore, we made the conclusionthat there was not a reporting requirement on that."But it turned out that DuPont never really did the study that might haveturned up that evidence.By July 1981 - just three months after it was proposed - the C8birth-defects study was listed in company documents as being "on hold."
Page 5 and 6: animals through ingestion, inhalati
Page 8 and 9: Staff Welfare Introduction of a wel
Page 10 and 11: Publication: THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE
Page 12 and 13: Publication: THE SUNDAY GAZETTE-MAI
Page 14 and 15: Finally, someone from the EPA regio
Page 18 and 19: Funded through a four-year grant fr
Page 20 and 21: Emmett's C8 findings highlight what
Page 22 and 23: Jessica Greathouse, the DEP's curre
Page 24 and 25: "I just spoke with Ann [Bradley], w
Page 30 and 31: "There were so many other things go
Page 32 and 33: internal corporate records uncovere
Page 34 and 35: In the interview, Evers said he was
Page 36 and 37: middle, level - which would be less
Page 38 and 39: the public. Scientists, activists a
Page 40 and 41: "During her presentation last week,
Page 42 and 43: "These data do, however, establish
Page 44 and 45: A timeline or exact plan for doing
Page 46 and 47: DuPont has used the worker health s
Page 48: "I think the level of evidence prod

PFOA stories

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?