Thousands of people who drank Parkersburg city water contaminated with C8 cannot sue DuPont Co. in a class-action lawsuit over the company's pollution, a federal judge has ruled.

Chief U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin refused this week to certify a class of residents in a lawsuit that sought medical monitoring for C8-related illnesses.

The case is being closely watched around the country, as scientists continue to publish new studies that link C8 and a family of related chemicals to liver disease, elevated cholesterol levels and several types of cancer.

DuPont is facing a similar lawsuit in New Jersey and two dozen state-level class-action lawsuits alleging that C8 leached from Teflon-coated pans. In Minnesota, a state court judge more than a year ago refused to certify a similar class action against 3M Corp. over contamination of drinking water with a sister chemical.

In a 32-page opinion issued Tuesday, Goodwin said lawyers for Parkersburg residents "presented compelling evidence exposure to C8 may be harmful to human health, and the evidence justifies the concerns expressed by plaintiffs in this case."

However, the judge said he remained unconvinced that the lawsuit was proper for handling as a single class action, rather than many multiple individual lawsuits.

"The fact that a public health risk may exist is more than enough to raise concern in the community and call government agencies to action, but it does not show the common individual injuries needed to certify a class action," Goodwin wrote.

DuPont spokesman Dan Turner said the company was "very pleased" with "a significant decision," but declined further comment on the litigation.

C8 is another name for ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or PFOA. DuPont has used the chemical since the 1950s at its Washington Works plant south of Parkersburg. C8 is a processing agent used to make Teflon and other nonstick products, oil-resistant paper packaging and stain-resistant textiles.

Around the world, researchers are finding that people have C8 and other perfluorochemicals, or PFCs, in their blood at low levels. Evidence is mounting about the chemical's dangerous effects, but regulators have yet to set a federal standard for emissions or human exposure.

In September 2004, DuPont agreed to a $107.6 million settlement with residents of communities around Parkersburg. The money is funding two major studies of C8's health impacts, and DuPont could end up on the hook for another $235 million in medical testing costs if a link to illness is proven. DuPont also installed treatment systems to get the chemical out of local water.

Then-Wood Circuit Court Judge George W. Hill had certified those communities' case as a class action. At the time the settlement deal was made, though, C8 had not yet been found in the Parkersburg city water supply. Later, C8 was detected there, and a follow-up lawsuit was filed.

Under a 2005 federal law, the federal courts must handle proposed class actions that involve significant amounts of money or parties from different states. So the follow-up case against DuPont ended up in federal court. Goodwin was asked to allow the case to proceed on behalf of everyone who has been a Parkersburg water customer for at least one year since Nov. 1, 2005.

Thousands of people who drank Parkersburg city water contaminated with C8 cannot sue DuPont Co. in a class-action lawsuit over the company's pollution, a federal judge has ruled.

Chief U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin refused this week to certify a class of residents in a lawsuit that sought medical monitoring for C8-related illnesses.

The case is being closely watched around the country, as scientists continue to publish new studies that link C8 and a family of related chemicals to liver disease, elevated cholesterol levels and several types of cancer.

DuPont is facing a similar lawsuit in New Jersey and two dozen state-level class-action lawsuits alleging that C8 leached from Teflon-coated pans. In Minnesota, a state court judge more than a year ago refused to certify a similar class action against 3M Corp. over contamination of drinking water with a sister chemical.

In a 32-page opinion issued Tuesday, Goodwin said lawyers for Parkersburg residents "presented compelling evidence exposure to C8 may be harmful to human health, and the evidence justifies the concerns expressed by plaintiffs in this case."

However, the judge said he remained unconvinced that the lawsuit was proper for handling as a single class action, rather than many multiple individual lawsuits.

"The fact that a public health risk may exist is more than enough to raise concern in the community and call government agencies to action, but it does not show the common individual injuries needed to certify a class action," Goodwin wrote.

DuPont spokesman Dan Turner said the company was "very pleased" with "a significant decision," but declined further comment on the litigation.

C8 is another name for ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or PFOA. DuPont has used the chemical since the 1950s at its Washington Works plant south of Parkersburg. C8 is a processing agent used to make Teflon and other nonstick products, oil-resistant paper packaging and stain-resistant textiles.

Around the world, researchers are finding that people have C8 and other perfluorochemicals, or PFCs, in their blood at low levels. Evidence is mounting about the chemical's dangerous effects, but regulators have yet to set a federal standard for emissions or human exposure.

In September 2004, DuPont agreed to a $107.6 million settlement with residents of communities around Parkersburg. The money is funding two major studies of C8's health impacts, and DuPont could end up on the hook for another $235 million in medical testing costs if a link to illness is proven. DuPont also installed treatment systems to get the chemical out of local water.

Then-Wood Circuit Court Judge George W. Hill had certified those communities' case as a class action. At the time the settlement deal was made, though, C8 had not yet been found in the Parkersburg city water supply. Later, C8 was detected there, and a follow-up lawsuit was filed.

Under a 2005 federal law, the federal courts must handle proposed class actions that involve significant amounts of money or parties from different states. So the follow-up case against DuPont ended up in federal court. Goodwin was asked to allow the case to proceed on behalf of everyone who has been a Parkersburg water customer for at least one year since Nov. 1, 2005.

For a lawsuit to be a class action, a court must find four key elements: So many people that individual cases are impractical, common questions of law and fact, defenses by the representative parties that are typical defenses in all claims, and that the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

Under West Virginia law, a case seeking the costs of preventative medical testing can be pursued if the plaintiffs have been significantly exposed to a proven hazardous substance by someone else's wrongdoing. Plaintiffs also must show that the exposure put them at increased risk of suffering a serious illness for which medical monitoring would allow early detection and treatment.

Goodwin said his problem with the Parkersburg case is that the allegations involved "require individualized inquiries that are not conductive to common treatment" in a class action.

Lawyers for the residents presented evidence that Parkersburg city water has more C8 in it than the amount that prompted DuPont to settle the 2004 case. They also presented evidence about public health agency recommendations to limit C8 exposure, and that C8 levels in Parkersburg city residents' blood was higher than the general population.

However, Goodwin found that "this direct evidence does not demonstrate the plaintiffs can commonly prove each of the proposed class members has been significantly exposed to C8."

Goodwin said comparisons to DuPont's previous settlement "did not constitute a concession by DuPont about the quantity of C8 that must be in drinking water to effect a significant exposure."

Public health agency recommendations likewise "provide no comparison between the exposure of the proposed class and the general population," Goodwin said.

C8 blood levels of the named plaintiffs - the individuals representing the class - mean nothing, Goodwin said, because their lawyers did not "establish a relationship between the class' common characteristic (that is, a common source of drinking water) and the C8 levels in the named plaintiffs' blood."

Goodwin said the plaintiffs still might be able to pursue a class action if they could demonstrate a "class-wide need for medical monitoring," but the judge said he was not persuaded by a risk-assessment study performed by the plaintiffs' expert, and that such studies are of "limited utility" in toxic-chemical litigation.

"Risk assessments have largely been developed for regulatory purposes and thus serve a protection function in providing a level below which there is no appreciable risk to the general population," Goodwin wrote. "They do not provide information about actual risk or causation."

Read the judge's ruling at http://wvgazette.com/static/multimedia/images/C8Classruling.pdf

Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 348-1702.