Digital Video Forums  

Go Back   Digital Video Forums > Other > Archive (Closed) > Archived Posts > Latest News (Archive)

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 15 Dec 2005, 03:45 AM   #1
Super Moderator
jmet's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East, TX
Posts: 8,697
Default DuPont Fined More Than $10M

DuPont Co. has agreed to pay $10.25 million in fines and $6.25 million for environmental projects to settle allegations by the Environmental Protection Agency that the company hid information about the dangers of a toxic chemical used to make the non-stick coating Teflon, officials said Wednesday.


EPA officials said the settlement represents the largest civil administrative penalty the agency has ever obtained under any federal environmental statute.

"Frankly, we could have litigated this thing for several years," said DuPont general counsel Stacey Mobley. "We wanted to get this thing behind us so we could move forward."

The settlement involves EPA action taken against Dupont for allegedly withholding information about the potential health and environmental risks posed by perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, under provisions of both the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The EPA alleged that DuPont withheld information for more than 20 years about the health effects of PFOA, also known as C-8, and about the pollution of water supplies near the company's Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, W.Va.

Among other things, the EPA said that DuPont withheld test results indicating that the chemical had been found in at least one pregnant worker from the Washington Works plant and had been passed on to her fetus.

"This sends a strong message that companies are responsible for promptly giving EPA risk information associated with their chemicals," said Granta Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance.

The supplemental environmental projects involved in the settlement include funding for a research program to evaluate the potential for bio-degradation of chemicals such as PFOA and funding for microchemistry and green chemistry programs in West Virginia schools.

Susan Hazen, EPA's principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances said the studies should produce valuable information that will help scientists better understand the presence of PFOA "and any potential risks it poses to the public."

Lawyers for DuPont and EPA told an administrative law judge Nov. 23 that they had reached a final agreement, but details were not released until Wednesday.

The settlement, which must be approved by the EPA Environmental Appeals Board, resolves four counts of reporting violations filed by the EPA last year. Four additional counts raised by the agency this year also were resolved, according to DuPont, which did not make any admission of liability.

"To date there is no human health effects that we know about that are caused by PFOA ... We've seen nothing," Mobley said. Credit: Yahoo News

Under federal law, DuPont faced a potential fine of more than $300 million for not reporting that the chemical posed a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.

"Our interpretation of the reporting requirements differed from the agency's. The settlement allows us to put this matter behind us and move forward," said Mobley, who noted that the company has cut PFOA emissions from U.S. plant sites by 98 percent and hopes to reduce emissions even further by 2007.

DuPont, which previously set aside $15 million to cover the costs of the EPA lawsuit, still faces a federal criminal investigation of its actions concerning PFOA.

In February, the company agreed to pay more than $107 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in 2001 by Ohio and West Virginia residents who claimed that DuPont intentionally withheld and misrepresented information about the human health threat posed by PFOA.
jmet is offline  
Old 15 Dec 2005, 09:11 AM   #3
Super Moderator
jmet's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East, TX
Posts: 8,697

Yea, I'm sure they got a "chuckle" out of the ruling.

"Pocket Change" for them!
jmet is offline  


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT +10. The time now is 05:48 AM.

Kirsch designed by Andrew & Austin

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Digital Digest

Visit DivXLand   Visit