Chemical giant DuPont has decided to sell a plant in southern Louisiana that emits a possible cancer-causing pollutant, citing “major concerns” that government agencies will regulate their emissions to protect the nearby community, according to internal documents seen by the Guardian.
The documents show the billion-dollar company worried in 2011 about the potential cost of offsetting its emissions of “probably human carcinogen,” chloroprene, and so moved to sell the plant, the Pontchartrain Works facility.
serial incorporation
The company named the sales code “Project Elm” in an apparent bid to keep the transaction secret, completed in 2015. It is also alleged that the company withheld details of its own research to offset emissions from new plant owners.
Residents in the town of Reserve, where the facility is located, described the disclosures as “terrible” and said DuPont was never informed of any potential emissions regulations.
According to the EPA, several census tract areas near the plant in the majority black community have the highest risk of cancer due to air pollution anywhere in the US, more than 50 times the national average, mainly due to chloroprene emissions. The community is the subject of a reporting project supported by the Guardian.
“They [DuPont] he should have told us. They have a good neighborhood policy, but they have not tried to change anything. They would go another 50 years if that [potential government regulation] it had not come to light, ”said Mary Hampton, a resident who lives a few hundred yards from the factory.
“They give priority to profits over people. They come to your neighborhoods and give you as little information as possible, “said Lydia Gerard, another resident who lost her husband to cancer in 2018.” For me, this shows that DuPont thought, ‘Let’s see how long we can get rid of it in this community before anyone finds out and says anything about it. ”
Gerard is the main plaintiff in a mass civil lawsuit against DuPont and the current owners of the plant, the Japanese chemical company Denka. Documents examined by the Guardian at a state court in St. John the Baptist Parish were used as evidence in this case. The plaintiffs accuse both companies of negligence and damage caused by continuous and historical air pollution.
Much of the case remains under the court’s seal, but a limited number of exhibits, including an internal DuPont note, are available for public viewing at a state court in St. John the Baptist Parish.
DuPont argued in court that he could not be held accountable because he no longer owned the factory, despite opening the plant and polluting the air with chloroprene for nearly half a century. In November, Judge Kirk A Vaughn ruled against DuPont. Last week, a state appeals court ruled against DuPont.
DuPont did not respond to detailed questions from the Guardian, but a spokesman said: “Although we do not comment on ongoing litigation, we will strongly defend our records on safety, health and environmental management.”
A Denka spokesman also declined to comment on detailed questions that raise ongoing litigation.
DuPont’s internal report from June 2011 highlights the company’s motivation for selling the plant. It was finally acquired by the Japanese company in November 2015, without any public mention of potential emission regulations.
The briefing memo was written by the company’s polymer president, Diane Gulyas, and was sent to the executive director’s office. It lists two “major concerns for the future” as the basic motivation for selling the plant.
The first point cites the EPA’s 2010 decision to list chloroprene as likely to be carcinogenic and states that: “Local regulatory agencies can use this new guidance change and set acceptable levels of occupational and community exposure.” The report warns that new compliance regulations could be implemented in 2012 or 2013, stating: “The measures required to achieve compliance may involve capital expenditure”.
In fact, the plant was not forced to regulate its emissions until it was sold to Denka. In 2017, Denka entered into a voluntary agreement with the Louisiana Department of the Environment to reduce stack emissions by 85%. The company says it has spent more than $ 35 million to modernize the plant. Emissions often continue to exceed the recommended 0.2 micrograms of chloroprene per cubic meter, although not required by the EPA, as a safe lifetime exposure limit.
The Japanese company said it was unaware of an EPA report on airborne toxic substances that highlighted the risk of cancer in the Reserve published shortly after the factory’s acquisition.
The 2011 memorandum notes that although sales of neoprene, synthetic rubber invented by DuPont and made using chloroprene, declined internationally, DuPont continued to maintain its “leading position in US markets” and played a significant role. ” in Europe. .
The note mentions supply chain issues as another reason for the 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 changes in the regulatory environment” and said there was a scenario. “Unlikely” in which he could pay even more. The company was prepared to lose up to $ 100 million in the sale valuation.
Lawyers working for residents claimed in court statements that DuPont examined offset emissions that cost up to $ 50 million to reduce emissions by up to 99%. DuPont did not pass on to the new plant owners the research it had ordered on offset chloroprene emissions, according to the allegations in the files.
The statement is supported by excerpts from the testimony of a senior DuPont employee, George Denny Wright. In a brief excerpt, reviewed by the Guardian, Wright states that the company wanted to explore a reduction in emissions and then added: “We knew we had to look at a very difficult number to reach, so we looked at every possibility. and for every option we have had. “
“It was a money decision to continue to contaminate a community, when in fact the technology was there to implement the controls to operate the facility safely. And they [DuPont] he chose not to do so because of the price, ”said Hugh Lambert, a lawyer who works for the plaintiffs in the case, echoing his claims in court.
Lawyers argued in the files that DuPont also maintained close ties with the plant’s new operators even after the sale and leased certain services to Denka as it continued to produce neoprene, including water, compressed air and nitrogen systems.
The documents also cite excerpts from the lease, showing that DuPont asked Denka to operate the plant in the same way it had previously done and needed “DuPont’s prior written consent” to change certain processes. production.
DuPont also owns the land on which the facility is built and operates a Kevlar production line in the same space.