DuPont 2007 Annual Report Download - page 86

PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), until the science
panel determines that PFOA does not cause disease or until applicable water standards can be met without such
treatment. The estimated cost of constructing, operating and maintaining these systems is about $20 of which $10
was originally placed in an interest-bearing escrow account. In the fourth quarter 2007, the water treatment system
for the LHWA was brought online. At December 31, 2007, the reserve balance relating to the funding of the
independent science panel health study and the water treatment systems was $21, including $6 in interest bearing
escrow accounts.
The settlement resulted in the dismissal of all claims asserted in the lawsuit except for personal injury claims. If the
independent science panel concludes that no probable link exists between exposure to PFOA and any diseases,
then the settlement would also resolve personal injury claims. If it concludes that a probable link does exist between
exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then DuPont would also fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program to
pay for such medical testing. In this event, plaintiffs would retain their right to pursue personal injury claims. All other
claims in the lawsuit would remain dismissed by the settlement. DuPont believes that it is remote that the panel will
find a probable link. Therefore, at December 31, 2007, the company had not established any accruals related to
medical monitoring or personal injury claims. However, there can be no assurance as to what the independent
science panel will conclude.
In June 2007, the LHWA notified DuPont that it intends to file suit under RCRA alleging “imminent and substantial
endangerment to health and or the environment” based on detection of PFOA in its wells. DuPont denies any such
endangerment exists and intends to vigorously defend itself if a lawsuit is filed.
In September 2007, LHWA refiled the suit it originally filed in Ohio state court and voluntarily dismissed in 2006. The
suit claims that perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, allegedly released from the Washington Works plant
contaminated LHWA’s well fields and underlying aquifer. LHWA’s complaint seeks a variety of relief including
compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction requiring DuPont to provide a new “pristine” well field and the
infrastructure to deliver it.
In the second quarter 2006, three purported class actions were filed alleging that drinking water had been
contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged releases from certain DuPont plants. One of these
cases was filed in West Virginia state court on behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but was
removed on DuPont’s motion to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The other two
purported class actions were filed in New Jersey. One was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals who allegedly
drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont’s Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey. The second
was filed in state court on behalf of customers serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department and
was removed to New Jersey federal district court on DuPont’s motion. The New Jersey cases have been combined
for purposes of discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that drinking water had been
contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04 ppb. The company intends to defend itself vigorously against these
lawsuits alleging contamination of drinking water sources.
While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to
those matters discussed above for which it has established accruals, a range of such losses, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time.
F-29
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (continued)
(Dollars in millions, except per share)