UN Probes DuPont, Chemours Over Human Rights Harms From PFAS (1)

A UN investigative office took aim at three companies tied to historical DuPont, along with the Netherlands and the US, for their role in violating human environmental rights due to PFAS released from a North Carolina factory, according to letters released on Friday.

Letters from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights Marcos A. Orellana to the three companies expressed alarm at the “blatant disregard for human rights and environmental protections” that DuPont de Nemours Inc., the Chemours Co. LLC, and Corteva Agriscience LLC have shown by releasing PFAS despite knowing the chemicals could be harmful.

The rapporteur’s comments are in five investigative letters sent to the three companies, the US government, and the Netherlands in September and made public on Friday. The letters invited information to address alleged violations of international human rights laws caused by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) released by a Fayetteville, N.C., plant.

Chemours’ detailed response described its adherence to international human rights principles and PFAS release control technologies it’s installed at its Fayetteville Works factory. These include a nearly one mile barrier wall that’s up to 100 feet deep to block the chemicals’ migration to local waters; air pollution control that destroys over 99.99% of the PFAS, and water treatment systems that have cost more than $200 million. It also provided data showing decreasing levels of PFAS found in the adjacent Cape Fear River.

Corteva said it’s a stand alone agricultural company that has never made, used, or sold the PFAS the UN office is investigating. Corteva spun off as an independent company after E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and the Dow Chemical Co. briefly merged in 2015, but it bears responsibility for some PFAS liabilities under a 2021 settlement.

The Netherlands’ response described actions it took to comply with international law as it asked the US EPA to allow a Chemours plant in that country to export its PFAS waste to Chemours’ North Carolina factory.

Orellana’s letter flagged such shipments as potentially contributing to the problem his office is investigating.

No letter from the US or DuPont was immediately posted on the UN’s website.

Inadequate US actions seem to have contributed to the local problem that’s part of “global PFAS contamination,” Orellana wrote to the US government. The country’s regulators failed to provide the affected North Carolina communities with the information necessary to prevent harm and seek reparation, he said.

Shortcomings by the EPA, North Carolina state Department of Environmental Quality, and the courts “undermine community members’ right to information and their right to an effective remedy.”

Indirect Impacts

The Special Rapporteur, an independent UN office, can’t compel actions. But its findings and recommendations can spur action, David Azoulay, a managing attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said in an interview after the allegations were presented to Orellana’s office, but before his investigations were known.

“No country likes to be identified as a place where human rights are being violated,” he said.

The findings also add to a body of soft law on people’s fundamental rights, Michael Hausfeld, chair emeritus at Hausfeld LLP and a class action litigator in the fields of human rights, discrimination, and antitrust law, said at the same time.

Orellana’s letters mostly summarize allegations against the companies and governments and additional concerns Orellana’s inquiries have raised. But they include initial impressions he made pending more information from the five parties.

DuPont and Chemours disregarded nearby communities through their “purposeful suppression and concealment of information on the toxic character of PFAS,” and disinformation they spread about the chemicals, Orellana wrote to all three companies.

“Even as DuPont and Chemours knew their discharges of PFAS to the environment were poisoning local drinking water sources and making people ill, at times fatally, the companies continued to produce, market, and profit from PFAS,” he wrote.

Ongoing ‘Disinformation Campaigns’

“We are shocked by reports that Chemours has applied to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality for an air permit to expand its PFAS production,” Orellana said. Chemours applied for an air permit in 2022 to increase its ability to make chemicals at the site. The permit remains under review.

Chemours described essential semiconductor, medical, and other products its chemicals, especially a PFAS called hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), provide.

The wastes its North Carolina plant will import from its Netherlands factory will serve the “the sole purpose of recycling, which will reduce emissions,” Chemours said. “The proposed expansion at Fayetteville Works under consideration by regulators will support green energy projects and has been designed to not increase overall PFAS emissions.”

But Orellana’s letter characterized industry statements that stress PFAS’ benefits as dismissing their significant negative health and environmental impacts.

“It promotes disinformation campaigns with respect to the adverse human rights and environmental impacts of some climate change mitigation technologies which exacerbate toxic pollution,” he said. “Chemours seeks to retain and grow its market share at the expense of the people and their right to science.”

PFAS released from Fayetteville warrant immediate attention, Orellana told both governments. “We urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to halt the alleged violations and prevent their reoccurrence.”