Chemical giant DuPont decided to sell a plant in southern Louisiana that emits a probable cancer-causing pollutant, alleging “major concerns” that government agencies would regulate its emissions to protect the nearby community, they reveal the Guardian’s internal documents.
Documents show the multimillion-dollar company worried in 2011 about the potential cost of offsetting its emissions of the “likely human carcinogen,” chloroprene, and moved to sell the plant, the Pontchartrain Works facility.
embedding the series
The company codenamed the sale “Project Elm” in an apparent bid to keep the deal secret, which ended in 2015. The company is also believed to have withheld the details of its own investigation to offset new owners ’emissions. of the plant.
Residents of the town of Reserve, where the facility is located, described the revelations as “horrible” and said DuPont had never informed them of any potential emissions regulation.
According to the EPA, several census tracts next to the mostly black community plant have the highest risk of cancer due to air pollution anywhere in the U.S., more than 50 times the national average, primarily due to emissions of chloroprene. The community is the subject of an information project supported by The Guardian.
“They [DuPont] he should have told us. They have a good neighbor policy, but they weren’t trying to change anything. They would go 50 more years if that were the case [potential government regulation] it hadn’t come to light, ”said Mary Hampton, a resident who lives a few hundred yards from the plant.
“They prioritize 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.” To me this shows me that DuPont thought, “Let’s see how long we can get out of this. In this community before anyone finds out and says anything about it.”
Gerard is a main plaintiff in a civil lawsuit of mass crimes against DuPont and the current owners of the plant, the Japanese chemical company Denka. Documents reviewed by the Guardian in a state court in St. John the Baptist parish were used as evidence in the case. Plaintiffs accuse both companies of negligence and damage due to continued and historic air pollution.
Much of the case remains under judicial seal, but there are a limited number of exhibits, including an internal DuPont note, available for public viewing in a state court in St. John the Baptist parish.
DuPont has argued in court that it cannot be held responsible because it no longer owns the plant, despite opening the facility and polluting the air with chloroprene for nearly half a century. In November, Judge Kirk A Vaughn ruled against DuPont. A state appeals court also ruled against DuPont last week.
DuPont did not respond to detailed questions from the Guardian, but a spokesman said, “While we do not comment on pending litigation, we will vigorously defend our history of safety, health and environmental stewardship.”
A Denka spokesman also declined to comment on detailed issues citing ongoing litigation.
DuPont’s June 2011 internal note highlights the company’s motivation to sell the plant. Finally, it was purchased by the Japanese firm in November 2015 without making public mention of the regulation of potential emissions.
The briefing note was written by the then polymer president of the company, Diane Gulyas, and was sent to the chief executive’s office. He lists two “big worries about the future” as a rationale for selling the plant.
The first point cites the 2010 EPA decision to classify chloroprene as a likely carcinogen and states that: “Local regulatory agencies can use this new change of direction and set acceptable levels of exposure in the workplace and community “. The note warns that new compliance regulations could be established in 2012 or 2013, stating: “The measures needed to achieve compliance may involve capital expenditures.”
In fact, the plant was not forced to regulate its emissions until after the sale to Denka. In 2017, Denka signed a voluntary agreement with the Louisiana Department of the Environment to reduce battery emissions by 85%. The company says it spent more than $ 35 million renovating the plant. Emissions often continue to exceed the recommended 0.2 micrograms of chloroprene per cubic meter, although the EPA does not require it, as a sustained lifetime exposure limit.
The Japanese firm has said it was unaware of an EPA air toxic report reporting the cancer risk in Reserve published shortly after buying the plant.
The 2011 note notes that while sales of neoprene, the synthetic rubber invented by DuPont and made of chloroprene, have been declining internationally, DuPont still maintained its “position as a major supplier to U.S. markets. “and played an” important role “in Europe.
The note cites supply chain problems as another selling point. The neoprene unit was valued at $ 190 million at the time, but DuPont estimated it could have to pay up to $ 30 million to “comply with changes in the regulatory environment” and believed there was a scenario. ” unlikely “in which he could pay even more. The company was willing to lose up to $ 100 million for the sale valuation.
Lawyers working for residents have argued in court statements that DuPont had examined offset emissions costs that cost up to $ 50 million to reduce emissions by up to 99%. DuPont did not transmit any new research it had commissioned on offset chloroprene emissions to the new plant owners, according to the allegations in the files.
The allegation is supported by excerpts from affidavits of deposition by 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 later adds, “We knew we had to look at a very difficult number to achieve, so we looked at all the possibilities and all the options I had “.
“It was a monetary decision to continue polluting a community, when in fact the technology was there to implement the controls to operate the facility safely. And them [DuPont] he decided not to do so because of the price, ”said Hugh Lambert, a lawyer who worked for the plaintiffs in the case, echoing his lawsuits.
Lawyers have argued in the records that DuPont also maintained close relationships with the plant’s new operators, even after the sale, and rented certain services to Denka as it continued to manufacture neoprene, including water systems, compressed air. and nitrogen.
The submissions also directly cite excerpts from the lease, which allegedly showed that DuPont required Denka to operate the plant in the same manner as it had previously done and that it needed “DuPont’s prior written consent” to change certain manufacturing processes. .
DuPont also owns the land where the facility is built and operates a Kevlar production line on the same premises.