DuPont denies Invista claims

By Jimmy LaRoue

Published: May 16, 2008

By Jimmy LaRoue
The News Virginian
Citing “grossly exaggerated” claims, DuPont on Friday filed a motion in U.S. District Court to have dismissed Invista’s $800 million lawsuit seeking damages over non-compliance with environmental and safety regulations.
DuPont has filed counterclaims seeking reimbursement for losses, and says that Invista itself has not observed the purchase agreement. DuPont attorneys also filed a second counterclaim due to the two companies’ dispute over interpretations of each company’s responsibilities, under the purchase agreement, for any current or future claim.
In a statement, DuPont spokesman Anthony Farina said Invista’s claims are without merit.
“We believe Invista’s claims are not supported by the facts or the law,” Farina said. “Invista’s suit is based on a contract that we contend Invista violated. In addition to denying the breadth and extent of Invista’s claims, DuPont believes Invista cannot recover on their claims as a result of their contract violation. We are confident in our position.”
Mary Beth Jarvis, an Invista spokeswoman, said the company’s lawsuit was an effort to protect employees and the environment, and said Invista “consistently did the right thing” in reporting non-compliance issues to regulators and removing faulty equipment from service.
“Our lawsuit, our complaint, was a last resort after trying since 2004 to get DuPont to live up to its responsibilities,” Jarvis said.
According to Invista’s original lawsuit, the company’s Waynesboro plant is one of 14 former DuPont factories out of compliance with pollution and safety laws.
Jarvis said she did not expect an out-of-court settlement of the case, based on what she said were previous failed efforts to work with DuPont. She expects the case to last several months.
Invista, in its lawsuit, alleges violations at the Waynesboro plant, including modifying two broilers between 1999 and 2000 but not bringing them into compliance with National Fire Protection Code; failing to complete corrective action on upgrading the control system at the wastewater treatment plant, violating its Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; violating its VPDES permit by not sampling discharging through one of its outfalls; failure to have an appropriate stormwater discharge permit, as well as the facility not complying with VPDES requirements, the Virginia Waste Management Act and the Virginia Solid Waste Management Act.
DuPont denies all the allegations in the lawsuit with reference to the Waynesboro plant, except admitting to replacing burners on two boilers. It said in the lawsuit that it “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Invista is undertaking a project to upgrade the safety features of the broilers.”
DuPont says in its filing that it “has performed all of its duties and obligations under the purchase agreement,” signed in November 2003.