Chemicals giant DuPont decided to sell a plant in South Louisiana likely to emit a carcinogen, citing “grave concern” that government agencies would regulate emissions to protect the community living nearby, internal documents issued by the Guardian reveal seen.
The documents show that in 2011, the multi-billion dollar company was concerned about the potential cost of offsetting emissions of the “likely human carcinogen,” chloroprene, and therefore began selling the plant, the Pontchartrain Works facility.
embed series
The company code-named the sale “Project Elm” in an apparent effort to keep the deal, finalized in 2015, secret. It is also alleged that the company withheld details of its own investigation to offset emissions from the plant’s new owners.
Residents of the Reserve City where the facility is located called the revelations “terrible” and said they had never been informed by DuPont of potential emissions regulations.
According to the EPA, several censuses in addition to the factory in the majority of the black community have the highest risk of cancer from air pollution anywhere in the US, more than 50 times the national average, mainly from chloroprene emissions. The community is the subject of an ongoing reporting project by the Guardian.
“They [DuPont] should have told us. They have a good neighborhood policy, but they didn’t try to change anything. If so, they would last another 50 years [potential government regulation] hadn’t come to light, ”said Mary Hampton, a resident who lives a few hundred yards from the factory.
“They prioritize profit over people. They come to your neighborhood and give you as little information as possible, “said Lydia Gerard, another resident who lost her husband to cancer in 2018.” To me, this shows that DuPont thought, ‘Let’s see how long we can get away with it. in this community before anyone finds out and says something about it. “
Gerard is a lead prosecutor in a civil lawsuit against DuPont and the plant’s current owners, Japanese chemical company Denka. The documents reviewed by the Guardian in a state courthouse in St. John the Baptist parish were used as evidence in the case. The plaintiffs accuse both companies of negligence and damage from persistent and historic air pollution.
Much of the case remains under the seal of the court, but a limited number of exhibits, including an internal DuPont memo, are available for public inspection in a state courthouse in St. John the Baptist parish.
DuPont has argued in court that it cannot be held liable because it no longer owns the factory, despite opening the facility and polluting the air with chloroprene for nearly half a century. In November, Judge Kirk A Vaughn ruled against DuPont. Last week, a state court of appeal also ruled against DuPont.
DuPont did not respond to detailed inquiries from the Guardian, but a spokesman said, “While we will not comment on pending lawsuits, we will vigorously defend our reputation for safety, health and environmental management.”
A Denka spokesperson also declined to comment on detailed questions citing pending lawsuits.
DuPont’s internal June 2011 memo highlights the company’s motivation to sell the plant. It was eventually bought by the Japanese company in November 2015 with no public mention of possible emissions regulations.
The briefing memo was written by the then president of polymers, Diane Gulyas, and was sent to the chief executive’s office. It cites two “major concerns for the future” as a background reason for the sale of the plant.
The first point cites the EPA’s 2010 decision to list chloroprene as a likely carcinogen, and states that: “Local regulators can use this new directive amendment and determine acceptable exposure levels in the workplace and in the community.” The memo warns that new compliance rules could be introduced in 2012 or 2013, stating, “Actions needed to achieve compliance may involve capital expenditure.”
In fact, the factory was not obliged to regulate its emissions until after the sale to Denka. In 2017, Denka entered into a voluntary agreement with the Louisiana Environmental Department to reduce chimney emissions by 85%. The company says it spent more than $ 35 million on retrofitting the factory. Emissions often remain above the 0.2 micrograms of chloroprene per cubic meter recommended, but not required by the EPA, as a safe lifetime exposure limit.
The Japanese company has said it was unaware of an EPA air toxicity report highlighting Reserve cancer risk published shortly after it purchased the plant.
The 2011 memo notes that while sales of neoprene, the synthetic rubber invented by DuPont and manufactured with chloroprene, have declined internationally, DuPont still maintained its ‘position as the leading supplier to the U.S. markets’ and played an ‘important role’ in Europe.
The memo cites supply chain problems as another reason for sale. The neoprene unit was valued at $ 190 million at the time, but DuPont estimated it would have to pay up to $ 30 million to “comply with regulatory changes” and believed there was an “unlikely” scenario where it could do even more. Pay. The company was willing to lose $ 100 million on the sale valuation.
Attorneys working for residents have argued in lawsuits that DuPont had explored emission compensation costs of up to $ 50 million to reduce emissions by 99%. According to allegations in the documents, DuPont did not pass the investigation it ordered into offsetting chloroprene emissions to the new owners of the plant.
The allegation is supported by extracts of the statement from an affidavit from a senior DuPont employee, George Denny Wright. In a brief excerpt, reviewed by the Guardian, Wright states that the company wanted to investigate a reduction in emissions and later adds: had. “
“It was a monetary decision to continue infecting a community, when in fact the technology was there to run the controls to keep the facility operating safely. And they [DuPont] chose not to because of the price tag, ”said Hugh Lambert, a lawyer who works for the plaintiffs in the case, echoing his claims in court.
Lawyers have argued in documents that DuPont maintained close ties with the new operators of the plant after the sale and leased certain services to Denka as it continued to produce neoprene, including water systems, compressed air and nitrogen.
The filings also directly include extracts from the lease, allegedly showing that DuPont required Denka to operate the plant in the same manner as before and that it required “prior written consent from DuPont” to change certain manufacturing processes.
DuPont also still owns the land on which the facility is built and operates a kevlar production line on the same site.