DuPont 2006 Annual Report Download - page 96

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 96 of the 2006 DuPont annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 123

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123

In one of the three cases involving allegations that Benlate»caused birth defects to children exposed in utero
pending before it, the Delaware state court granted the company’s motion to dismiss due to insufficient
scientific support for causation. Plaintiffs appealed and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal in
September 2006. The remaining two cases, which were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, may be
activated. It is uncertain what impact, if any, the Delaware Supreme Court decision will have on the two
remaining cases.
Twenty-six cases involving damage to shrimp are pending against the company in state court in Florida. The
company contends that the injuries alleged are attributable to a virus, Taura Syndrome Virus and in no way
involve Benlate»OD. One case was tried in late 2000 and another in early 2001. Both trials resulted in
adverse judgments of approximately $14 each. The intermediate appellate court subsequently reversed the
adverse verdicts and, in the first quarter of 2005, judgments were entered in the company’s favor in both cases.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking sanctions for alleged discovery defaults in all of the cases, including the
two cases in which judgment has been entered for the company. Hearings regarding the motion for sanctions
have concluded, but a ruling has not been issued as of December 31, 2006.
The company does not believe that Benlate»caused the damages alleged in each of these cases and denies the
allegations of fraud and misconduct. The company continues to defend itself in ongoing matters. As of
December 31, 2006, the company has incurred costs and expenses of approximately $2 billion associated with
these matters. The company has recovered approximately $275 of its costs and expenses through insurance and
does not expect additional insurance recoveries, if any, to be significant. As of December 31, 2006, the
company has reserves of $1.5 related to Benlate»litigation matters.
PFOA
Environmental Actions Involving the Washington Works Site and Surrounding Area
In November 2006, DuPont entered into an Order on Consent under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishing a precautionary interim screening level for
PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) of 0.5 parts per billion
(ppb) in drinking water sources in the area around the DuPont Washington Works site located in Parkersburg,
West Virginia. As part of the Order on Consent, DuPont will conduct a survey and perform sampling and
analytical testing of certain public and private water systems in the area. DuPont is required under the
agreement to install water treatment systems if PFOA levels at or above 0.5 ppb are detected.
In 2001, DuPont and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) signed a
multimedia Consent Order (the WV Order) that required environmental sampling and analyses and the
development of screening levels for PFOA that is used or managed by the Washington Works plant. As a
result, in 2002, the WVDEP established a screening level of 150 micrograms PFOA per liter screening level
for drinking water, a soil screening level of 240 parts per million, a screening level of 1 microgram per cubic
meter for air and a screening level of 1360 ppb for aquatic life. Under the WV Order, sanctions could be
imposed if any of the screening levels were exceeded. Based on sampling through 2006 and air dispersion
modeling, DuPont has not exceeded these screening levels. The company has agreed to conduct annual
sampling in 2007 for the City of Parkersburg. In addition, environmental sampling of the PFOA levels in the
groundwater and drinking water has been conducted across the Ohio River pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding among DuPont, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the WVDEP and the Division of
Health and Human Resources, (the Ohio MOU). Additional monitoring was conducted in Ohio through 2006.
In late 2005 DuPont and EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (EPA MOU) that requires DuPont
to monitor PFOA in the soil, air, water and biota around the Washington Works site. At December 31, 2006,
DuPont has established reserves of about $1 to fund its activities under the WV Order, EPA MOU and Order
on Consent.
F-33
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share)