Document 93nD4qVyZVj2e9eD3qmpmLwK7

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 / Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 / Tel: 513.381.2838 / Fax: 513.381.0205 / www.taftlaw.com Cincinnati / Cleveland / Columbus / Dayton / Indianapolis / Northern Kentucky / Phoenix / Beijing Robert A. Bilott 513.357.9638 bilott@taftlaw.com February 4, 2010 VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL Scott Sherlock USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rois Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mail Code: 7408M Washington, DC 20460 Re: AR226-3820: May 29, 2008, Letter To USEPA And ATSDR o -n m 0 3 XJ JT' IX) cn -' T! O-pu c ~tr CJ o O rc cn c"' Dear Mr. Sherlock: 1 Pursuant to your request, we are writing to confirm the non-confidential status of the documents attached as "Exhibit C" to our referenced letter of May 29, 2008. At the time we submitted the letter and its attachments to USEPA and ATSDR, we noted in Footnote 11 to the letter that the excerpts from the deposition of Michael McCabe included in Exhibit C were all "non-confidential" and that "although several of the exhibits to the transcript are marked `confidential,' DuPont has since withdrawn its confidentiality claims over the ones attached." On July 22, 2008, pursuant to your request for additional confirmation that DuPont had, in fact, withdrawn its confidentiality claims over the exhibits to Mr. McCabe's deposition transcript that were attached in our Exhibit C, we forwarded to you a copy of the January 28, 2008, letter from DuPont's counsel expressly confirming that DuPont no longer made any confidentiality claim over any of the exhibits at issue (extra copy attached). We also explained in that July 22, 2008, e-mail that we had actually "received from DuPont copies of the documents without the confidentiality stamps." On January 26, 2010, in response to your e-mail noting EPA's remaining questions with respect to the whether DuPont asserts any confidentiality claim over the documents included in Exhibit C to our May 29, 2008, letter, we sent to you an additional copy of Exhibit C that included versions of documents previously marked "confidential" by DuPont, which we had since received from DuPont without any such confidentiality designations. We also requested that EPA replace the original version of Exhibit C with this new version. 11657762.1 CONTAINS NO CBI (3 J f e a r P-2 Scott Sherlock February 4, 2010 Page 2 After reviewing the revised version of Exhibit C that we sent on January 26, 2010, you noted that one or more of the documents still contain references to allegedly confidential information and requested written confirmation that, despite such references, the materials were produced to us without any confidentiality claims and without any restrictions on our ability to use or distribute the information. In response, we have discussed the matter again with counsel for DuPont and Mr. McCabe and can hereby reaffirm that neither DuPont nor Mr. McCabe (or any other party that produced any of the documents to us that are included in Exhibit C, including The Weinberg Group)), are asserting any confidentiality claim over any of those documents, and are not asserting that any of them are subject to any restrictions on their use or distribution under any Protective Order entered by any Court overseeing the discovery process in which they were produced to us. We hope that this letter clarifies the non-confidential status of the documents at issue and permits EPA to move forward with processing the materials as appropriate. RAB:mdm Attachment Robert A. Bilott 11657762.1 Libretta P. Srennes 202 429 8099 lstennes@steptoe.com S t e p t o e &Jo h n s o n ^ a t t o r n e y s at law P-3 FEB 01 2008 1330 Connecticut Avenue. NW Washington. DC 200361795 Tel 202.429.3000 Fax 202.429 3902 steptoe.com January 28, 2008 VIA E-MAIL Debra A. Donnelly Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public Corbett & Wilcox 230 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Richard A. Rotve, et aL v. E. /. du Pont de Nemours and Company Civil Action No. 06-1810-RMB-AMD Misty Scott, et al. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Civil Action No. 06-3080-RMB-AMD Dear Ms. Donnelly: The parties agreed that DuPont would review the draft transcripts and exhibits, for W. Michael McCabe, whose deposition was taken on December 7,2007, and Robert W. Rickard, whose deposition was taken on December 12, 2007, to designate testimony and exhibits as confidential subject to the protective orders in the following cases: William R. Rhodes, et al. v. E. /. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Civil Action No. 6:06-0530; Richard A. Rowe, et al. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Civil Action No. 06-1810-RMB-AMD; and Misty Scott, et al. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Civil Action No. 06-3080-RMB-AMD. DuPont has reviewed the draft transcripts and makes the following designations: McCabe testimony: No designations McCabe exhibits: Exhibit No. 33 (Bates no. 087-0164-0001748 through 753) Exhibit No. 57 (Bates no. 006-0133-0135635 through 652) Rickard testimony (30(b)(6)): No designations W A S H I N G T O N NEW YORK C H I C A G O PHOENI X I O S A N C H I S O N I t J R Y ( IIS L O N D O N RRI.' SSEIS P-4 Debra A. Donnelly January 28, 2008 Page 2 STEPTOE&JOHNSON"' Rickard Exhibits: Exhibit No. 7 (Bates no. 004-0219-0006500 through 506) Exhibit No. 8 (Bates No. 003-0236-0004480 through 90) Exhibit No. 9 (Bates No. 004-0236-0006365 through 71) Exhibit No. 14 (Bates No. 002-0235-0000158 through 71) Exhibit No. 15 (Bates No. 002-0235-0000620 through 27) Exhibit No. 18 (Bates No. 003-0236-0003679 through 83) Exhibit No. 19 (Bates No. 006-0133-0100748 through 56) Exhibit No. 32 (Bates No. 022-0233-0010126 through 144) Exhibit No. 41 (Bates No. 016-0236-0000679 through 697) Both witnesses have reviewed the transcripts, and 1have enclosed draft errata sheets. Upon receipt o f final transcripts, we will review promptly for these corrections or execute notarized errata sheets. Thank you. Sincerely, Enclosures VIA E-M A IL AND U.S. M AIL cc: Robert A. Bilott, Esquire Joseph A. Osefchen, Esquire Shari M. Blecher, Esquire VIA E-MAIL J. Steven Justice, Esquire Philip Stephen Fuoco, Esquire David B. Byme, III, Esquire R. Edison Hill, Esquire Larry A. Winter, Esquire Stephen P. DeNittis, Esquire Roy Alan Cohen, Esquire Libretta P. Stennes Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 18frc /Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 /Tel: 513.381.2838 /Fax: 513.381.0205 / www.taftlaw.com Cincinnati /Cleveland /Columbus /Dayton /Indianapolis /Northern Kentucky /Phoenix /Beijing Kathleen J. W elch 513.357.9472 welchk@taftlaw.com January 26, 2010 Scott M. Sherlock USEPA Environmental Assistance Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Taft, Stettinius & Hollister May 29, 2008 Submittal Dear Mr. Sherlock: In response to your e-mail to Rob Bilott, and as we discussed, I have enclosed a revised version of Exhibit C to our May 29, 2008 submittal (without the confidential labels that appeared on some of the McCabe deposition exhibits in the version of Exhibit C that we originally sent to you on May 29, 2008). Please replace the version of Exhibit C that we previously sent to you with the enclosed version. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, KJW:jl Kathleen J. Welch Paralegal 11632755.1 CONTAINS NO CBI P-6 rfSS8t3BGC3SOE33OE3RrSr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE Page 1 RICHARD A. ROWE, NICHOLAS R. DAGOSTINO, MARY L. CARTER, ) ) 1 MICHELE E. TOMARCHIO, REGINA ) TROUT, ALLEN K. MOORE, MARVA E. ) JOHNSON, CATHERINE A. LAWRENCE, ) and KATHLEEN K. LEMKE, as parent ) i and personal representative of DJL, Jr., a minor, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, ) ) ) ) j i j ) Plaintiffs, ) ) / v. ) Civil Action ) No. 06-1810-RMB-AMD E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS & COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) MISTY SCOTT, on behalf of herself ) and all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action ) No. 06-3080-RMB-AMD E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS & COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) j 1 \ I; i Deposition of W. MICHAEL McCABE, taken pursuant to notice at the law offices of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor, 1313 N. Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware, beginning at 10:05 a.m., on Friday, December 7, 2007, before Debra A. Donnelly, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public. CORBETT & WILCOX REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 230 N. MARKET STREET WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 (302) 571-0510 Corbett & Wilcox is not affiliated with Wilcox & Fetzer, Court Reporters p.7 1 APPEARANCES: 2 ROBERT A. BILOTT, ESQUIRE TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP 3 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 4 -and- 5 LARRY A. WINTER, ESQUIRE WINTER JOHNSON & HILL PLLC 6 500 Virginia Street, East United Center 7 P.O. Box 2187 Charleston, West Virginia 25328 8 for Rowe Plaintiffs 9 PHILIP STEPHEN FUOCO, ESQUIRE 24 Wilkins Place 10 Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033 for Scott Plaintiffs 11 LIBRETTA P. STENNES, ESQUIRE 12 STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW 13 Washington, D.C. 20036 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Page P-8 I Page 3 r 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 2 record. 3 This is the videotaped deposition of 4 W. Michael McCabe, taken by the Defendant in the case of 5 Richard A. Rowe, et a l .versus E.I. du Pont & Company -- 6 I'm sorry, takenby the Plaintiff in the case of 7 Richard A. Rowe, et a l .versus E.I. du Pont & Company, 8 and the case of Misty Scott, et al. versus E.I. du Pont & 9 Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the 10 District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, Civil Action 11 Nos. 06-1810 and Civil Action No. 06-3080. 12 Counsel for the Plaintiff is 13 Robert A. Bilott, Esquire. Counsel for the Defendant is 14 Libretta P. Stennes, Esquire. Other counsel are noted on 15 the stenographic record. 16 This deposition is being held at 17 1313 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware, on 18 Friday, December 7th, 2007. 19 My name is Mitch Berger, and I am the 20 video specialist from Forte Video in Claymont, Delaware. 21 The court reporter is Debi Donnelly from 22 Corbett & Wilcox in Wilmington, and she will now swear in 23 the witness. 24 P-9 1 W. MICHAEL McCABE, Page 4 2 having been first sworn on oath, was 3 examined and testified as follows: 4 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Please proceed. 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. BILOTT: 8 Q. Good morning. 9 A. Good morning. 10 Q- My name is Rob Bilott, and as indicated. 11 one of the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs in , 12 lawsuit styled Rowe, et al. versus DuPont pending in 13 Federal Court in New Jersey. 14 Would you state your name, please? 15 A. I'm Michael McCabe. 16 Q. And what is your date of birth, sir? 17 A. 4/22/52. 18 Q. And your current residential address? 19 A. Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. 20 Q. The street address? 21 A. 4 Normandy Drive. 22 Q . Is that your home address? 23 A. That is. 24 Q. Are you currently employed? p. 10 nreasr 1 A. I am. Page 5 2 Q. Who are you employed by? 3 A. Self-employed. 4 Q- Is there any particular name of the entity by 5 which you operate? 6 A. McCabe S Associates. 7 Q. And what is the business address of McCabe & 8 Associates ? 9 A. 4 Normandy Drive. 10 Q- In what city? 11 A. Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. 12 Q- Have you ever had your deposition taken 13 before, sir? 14 A. On this topic? 15 Q- On any topic? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How many times? 18 A. Several times. 19 Q. Can you give an estimate of how many times 20 you've been deposed? 21 A. Twice. 22 Q. When was the last time you had your deposition 23 taken? 24 A. I don't recall. p. 11 Page 35 1 During that period of time, was there a 2 particular area of the country that you were focusing on 3 as far as developing? 4 A. It was the Mid-Atlantic region. It was 5 historic properties. 6 Q. Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. 7 Correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. While working for Senator Joe Biden you were a 10 senior adviser on Delaware issues? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is that correct? 13 What was encompassed within "Delaware 14 issues"? Anything in particular? 15 A. Everything you can imagine. 16 Q. In 19 -- excuse me. In 1995 you became 17 Regional Administrator for U.S. Environmental Protection 18 Agency, Region 3? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Is that correct? 21 And you remained in that position 22 through August 3rd of 2000. Is that correct? 23 A. That may have been the actual date that the, 24 the commission took place for the Deputy Administrator p. 12 1 position. Page 36 I 2 Q. August 3 of 2000 is the date you were just 3 referring to. Correct? 4 A. It -- it might have been. I don't recall. 5 There was a period of time where I was Acting 6 Administrator and was no longer the Regional 7 Administrator, but I don't -- I don't recall the 8 transition period. 9 Q. Sometime during 2000 you became the O.S. EPA 10 Deputy Administrator- Correct? 11 A. I received a commission from the President to 12 be the Deputy Administrator. Before that I was Acting 13 Administrator. 14 Q. And this is President Clinton. Correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And then you remained in that position until 17 you resigned in January of 2001? 18 A. I believe -- was it January in 2001 or 19 February? It might have been early February. 20 Q. Of 2001? 21 A. 2001, yes. 22 Q. And after you left the O.S. EPA in 2001, did 23 you take on employment somewhere else? 24 A. I became self-employed. p. 13 Page 37 ! 1 Q. Did you form any business entity at that time 2 A. Describe "entity." 3 Q. Did you begin -- 4 A. I started my own firm. 5 Q. And what was the name of that firm? 6 A. McCabe & Associates. 7 Q- And have you remained involved with McCabe & 8 Associates continuously since that time? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q- I would like to back up a moment and go back 11 to 1995, when you became Regional Administrator for O.S. 12 EPA Region 3. Okay. Just verbalize. Okay? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q- Okay. What led you to the EPA at that point 15 in time? 16 A. What led me to the EPA? 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. My background in environmental issues. 19 Q- . And that background involved -- included your 20 work with Senator Biden in the Delaware -- 21 A. Correct. 22 Q- -- issues. Is that correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And were you asked by anybody to seek that 1 that included DuPont. Correct? Page 39 2 A. I may have been. I don't recall specifically 3 Q. Why did you leave EPA in 2001? 4 A. President Bush came to office. 5 Q. And why did that lead to you leaving? 6 A. I was a political appointee, and when a new 7 administration comes in, they generally move out the old 8 political appointees and move in new political 9 appointees. 10 Q. Were you asked to resign? 11 A. No. 12 Q. How did it come that you resigned? 13 A. It's generally understood that in a transition 14 to a new administration, the political appointees resign 15 and allow the new president to appoint his or her 16 political appointees. 17 Q. And Linda Fisher became the new Deputy 18 Administrator after you left. Correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Did you know Ms. Fisher before she became the 21 Deputy Administrator? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. How did you know Ms.Fisher? 24 A. Through various contacts. Ms. Fisher was well Page 1 regarded in Washington, had worked in the prior Bush 2 Administration, had an outstanding reputation as someone 3 who was very knowledgeable on environmental issues, both 4 from a legal and policy standpoint, and was highly 5 regarded. 6 Q. She was a lawyer at Latham & Watkins. Right? 7 A. She may have been, but that's not the context 8 that I knew her in. 9 Q. Had she ever worked with you at EPA? 10 A. Worked with me at EPA? 11 Q. Correct. 12 A. How do you -- 13 Q- Had you ever worked with her on any project at 14 EPA? 15 A. No, not on any specific project. 16 Q. When you left O.S. EPA in 2001, were you 17 required to sign any particular agreement of any kind 18 with the Agency regarding the nature of the kind of work 19 you could do after you left the Agency? 20 A. You don't have to sign anything, but there are 21 restrictions post employment on individuals in positions 22 that I held that limit your ability to work on certain 23 things. 24 Q. And what restrictions are those? p. 16 Page 41 1 A. You're going to have to look at the U.S. Code 2 on that. They're very specific, and they relate to 3 whether you were a principal decision-maker on the issues 4 that you might work on in the future. 5 Q- When you left the Agency, did you have an 6 understanding whether there were certain types of 7 projects that you could or couldn't work on for a 8 particular period of time? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What was yourunderstandingas to what kinds 11 of things you could not work on for a particular period 12 of time? 13 A. On issues that you were a principal 14 decision-maker on. 15 - Q. And in 2003, you began working, through 16 McCabe & Associates, for DuPont. Correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Had you discussed withDuPont any work for 19 them? Let me restate that. 20 Prior to the time that you started 21 working for DuPont in 2003, had you had any discussions 22 with DuPont about doing that kind of work? 23 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 24 THE WITNESS: Can you restate the p. 17 1 question? Page 42 2 BY MR. BILOTT: 3 Q. When's the first time you started any 4 communications with DuPont after you left the U.S. EPA? 5 A. 2003. 6 Q. What led to the initiation of those 7 communications at that time? 8 A. I was contacted by an individual in DuPont who 9 I believe was working on the emerging PFOA issue, and 10 they asked for a preliminary meeting to discuss whether I 11 might be able to help them in this area. 12 Q. And who was that? 13 A. It was a combination of individuals. I 14 believe Gary Spitzer, Steve Korzeniowski, Michelle 15 Reardon, and possibly one or two others. I don't recall. 16 Q. And the individuals you justmentioned were 17 DuPont employees at the time. Correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Prior to the -- thatcontact from DuPont, you 20 mentioned PFOA issue. 21 Had you been aware of any PFOA issue 22 prior to that contact? 23 A. No. 24 Q- What did you understand tobe DuPont's 1 interest in talking with you at the time those Page 2 conversations were initiated? 3 A. To understand better the process of how a 4 substance like this is handled within the Agency, what 5 kind of review it receives, what kind of process is 6 followed to address Agency interest in a chemical. 7 Q. And, in fact, what had happened is U.S. EPA 8 had just released a draft risk assessment for PFOA in the 9 spring of 2003. Correct? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. And it was in reaction to that risk assessment 12 that you were approached by the folks at DuPont. Is that 13 correct? 14 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 15 THE WITNESS: Generally, yes. 16 BY MR. BILOTT: 17 Q. And at the time you were approached by DuPont, 18 did you look into whether or not there would be any 19 restrictions on whether you could provide the kind of 20 services DuPont was looking for at that time? 21 A. I don't recall whether I did specifically on 22 this. I know that on a couple of items where I had been 23 involved in the direct line of decision-making, I asked 24 for some guidance from the ethics counsel, but I don't p. 19 Page 44 1 recall whether I did on this because I had no involvement 2 in the PFOA issue at EPA. 3 Q. Had you ever heard of PFOA prior to that time? 4 A. No, I hadn't. I hadn't. 5 Q. And the folks that approached you at that 6 time, I think you mentioned Mr. Korzeniowski. Correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were they involved in the Teloraer side -- 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. -- of the DuPont business? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q- And one of the other individuals I think you 13 mentioned was a Gary Spitzer. Is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What did you understand to be his function 16 within DuPont at that time? 17 A. I wasn'treally sure of what hisfunction was. 18 Q. One of the other individuals Ithink youdealt 19 with at that time was also Bob Ritchie. Is that correct? 20 A. Correct. Yes. 21 Q. What did you understand to be his function at 22 DuPont? 23 A. He seemed to be in a management position above 24 Korzeniowski and Spitzer, dealing with the Telomer aspect Page 45 1 of PFOA. 2 Q. And one of the things you were asked to do was 3 to try to get some insight from the folks at U.S. EPA as 4 to where they were heading with their work on PFOA. 5 Correct? 6 A. I was asked to get a better understanding of 7 what the process might be for addressing the PFOA issue 8 within EPA. 9 Q. So one of the -- one of the first things you 10 did was you contacted Charlie Auer at the Office of 11 Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPT. Correct? 12 A. Possibly. I don't recall the sequence of 13 contact. 14 Q. But at one point, though, early in your work 15 with DuPont you set up a meeting between the DuPont folks 16 involved in the Telomer business and some of the 17 individuals at U.S. EPA's OPPT office to let the 18 individuals at DuPont hear what the U.S. EPA's concerns 19 were. Correct? 20 A. That is correct. 21 Q. And that meeting included Charles Auer of EPA? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Correct? 24 And had you worked with Charles Auer W. Michael McCabe a Page 53 j i 1 developed or had been produced, I forget the timing. I j 2 believe also that there was a request for letters of 3 intent from the various manufacturers, producers who used 4 PFOA as a product. And there was some general discussion 1 5 about that, but it was -- it was very general. 1 6 Q. Did U.S. EPA convey the point to DuPont during 7 this meeting that they were intending to move forward 8 aggressively with investigating PFOA? 9 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 BY MR. BILOTT: 12 Q. And the folks at DuPont were concerned about 13 that after that meeting. Correct? 14 A. The folks at DuPont wanted to make sure that 15 they were communicating with EPA in a way that provided 16 EPA with the kind of information they needed on a 17 complicated issue. 18 Q. And one of the things that was dqne after that 19 meeting by DuPont was to set up a plan for how to 20 organize communications with EPA on PFOA. Correct? 21 A. Set up a plan, can you describe that? 22 {McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 7 was 23 marked for identification.) 24 BY MR. BILOTT: www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 54 1 Q. During the course of your work with DuPont on 2 any PFOA issues, were you ever working with any, any j I 1 j 3 individuals employed with DuPont Consulting Solutions? 4 A. DuPont Consulting Solutions? I don't recall 5 that, that entity. 6 Q. After the meeting with EPA in which they 7 expressed their concerns about PFOA to DuPont in 2003, 8 were you involved in discussions among DuPont personnel 9 on how to manage the flow of information about PFOA? 10 A. I was involved in discussions on how to comply 11 with EPA requests for information and how to be as 12 responsive as possible. 13 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 14 marked as Exhibit 7, and ask you to take a look at that 15 and tell me if you recall ever seeing this document 16 before from April of 2003 entitled Managing the PFOA 17 Issue? 18 A. I don't recall seeing this. 19 Q. At the time that you started your work with rnmnnsnsBon 20 DuPont on PFOA issues, were you aware that a lawsuit was 21 then pending against DuPont involving claims that 22 drinking water was contaminated with PFOA outside 23 DuPont's facility in Wood County, West Virginia? 24 A. And what time frame are you talking about? www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 55 1 Q. At the time you started working for DuPont in 2 2003. 3 A. At some point during the early part of the 4 time I started working with DuPont, I became aware of it. 5 I'm not sure when that was. 6 Q. If you could take a moment to look at 7 Exhibit 7, this particular document is titled up at the 8 top that it's from DuPont Consulting Solutions. 9 Do you see that? 10 A. Yes, I do. 11 Q. Do you recall ever seeing any documents from 12 DuPont Consulting Solutions? 13 A. No. 14 Q. If you look on the second page, there is a -- 15 under the heading Key Assumptions there is a statement, 16 the -- "This issue has moved beyond the Wood County, West 17 Virginia class action suit. And below that, "Attack by 18 the Environmental Working Group on our brands and our 19 corporation could quickly escalate to a corporate crisis 20 if media traction develops." 21 Do you see that? 22 A. I see that. 23 Q. Do you -- and on the next page, under the 24 heading Basic Proposal, there is a statement at the top, w w w .corbettreporting.com W-UU..... . W. Michael McCabe Page 56 1 "Convene a meeting of the appropriate parties at the }! 2 earliest possible time." 3 Do you see that? 4 A. You are reading that to me, and I see it in 5 this document. 6 Q. All right. Were you involved in any efforts 7 by DuPont in April of 2003 to convene meetings of any 8 parties to discuss how to manage PFOA concerns by EPA in 9 connection with the West Virginia class action lawsuit? 10 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 11 THE WITNESS: I was -- I was involved in 12 arranging the meeting that we discussed earlier at EPA, 13 but that was in how to communicate with EPA on the PFOA 14 issue and how to provide them with the information that 15 they were seeking. 16 It did not involve a West Virginia suit. 17 BY MR. BILOTT: 18 Q. If you look on the next page of this document 19 under List of invitees to meeting, do you have that page? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You will notice one of them is Bob Ritchie. 22 Do you see that? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And that was one of the individuals you were www.corbe 11reporting.com 3RSBS3BSsa9nRnBtRtsBas)CTg?wSsarnia>r W. Michael McCabe 1 working with. Correct? Page 57 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Did Mr. Ritchie mention to you that he was 4 involved in any work to try to set up a meeting or a team 5 of any kind to handle PFOA issues? 6 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't recall 8 specifically, but I know that he was involved in 9 discussions with a number of people in the company on 10 this issue. I don't know whether it was part of a group 11 that hadbeen set up specifically for that purpose. 12 BY MR. BILOTT: 13 Q. But you do recall, don't you, that in April of 14 2003 you started participating in discussions with 15 individuals at^ DuPont in connection with setting up a 16 communications plan for dealing with regulators in 17 connection with PFOA? Correct? 18 A. I recall having discussions with people in 19 DuPont, and this primarily was at the Telomer end of 20 things, about how to -- how to communicate primarily with 21 EPA. 22 Q. And you were involved in activities to try to 23 develop a plan for DuPont so that they would know who to 24 call at EPA and when and on what issues related to PFOA. www.corbettreporting.com | in n in n | | | ' | | | | | | | | | | |1 1 |||||| l||l||H I II H I H I II 11 H i l l IIH111 III II III! 1 I II. . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . i -- .............................................. ................. .............. W. Michael McCabe Page 58 1 Correct? 2 A. I believe -- 3 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 4 THE WITNESS: We were trying to, to 5 identify the appropriate people within EPA that had 6 responsibility for this issue so that they could be kept 7 informed and that we could be, DuPont could be responsive 8 to their requests. 9 BY MR. BILOTT: 10 Q. So one of the things, though, that you were 11 asked to do was to try to identify who the proper people 12 would be at U.S. EPA for DuPont to be dealing with on 13 PFOA issues. Correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 8 was 16 marked for identification.) 17 BY MR. BILOTT: 18 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 19 as Exhibit 8, and I ask if you take a look at that and 20 tell me if you identify this as an e-mail chain that you 21 forwarded to Michelle Reardon at DuPont during the 22 regular course of your business on April 28th, 2003? 23 A. This appears to come from me. 24 Q. In the e-mail that you are forwarding here* EE3SSB52BBB www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 78 1 thought could inform DuPont's strategic planning on any 2 issue relating to PFOA at that time? 3 A. I don't recall. This appears to have been 4 sent at the end of May. I don't know where that falls 5 within the context of the ECAprocess. Iseem torecall 6 having conversations with Charlieand others about how to 7 make sure that the communications flow between DuPont and 8 OPPT, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, was 9 facilitated so that there wouldn't be a communication 10 glitch, breakdown, misinformation. 11 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 18 was 12 marked for identification.) 13 BY MR. BILOTT: 14 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 15 marked as Exhibit 18, and I ask if you identify this as 16 the proposal you prepared and submitted to DuPont 17 outlining the scope of the services you would provide 18 DuPont on PFOA work? 19 A. I have seen this before. 20 Q. This is one you prepared. Correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. And is this the proposal DuPont accepted? 23 A. I believe it was. I'm not sure that there 24 any discussion of this other than the submission of the www.corbe 11 repo rting.com W. Michael McCabe 1 scope of work and then our retention by DuPont. Page 79 2 Q. In the last paragraph of this document you 3 reference a retainer fee of $7500 per month. 4 Do you see that? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And is that what was agreed to with DuPont? 7 A. That was what was agreed to at that time. 8 Q- Has that changed at any point in time? 9 A. The nature of the contract has changed. 10 Q- How has it changed? 11 A. It is -- it has -- it has allowed for more 12 payment to be received as the time involved with this has 13 increased. 14 Q. And how has that payment changed? 15 A. What specifically are you asking? 16 Q- Is it still $7500 per month? 17 A. It is still $7500 per month as a base fee. 18 Q. All right. And then you are allowed to add to 19 that additional time spent on the matter during that 20 month? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q- And have you done that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. At what point did that change start? www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 80 1 A. I don't recall. I don't recall. I just don't 2 recall. 3 Q. Do you have an understanding of what the total 4 amount that you have billed DuPont is? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Any idea? 7 A. No. 8 Q. But you bill on a monthly basis? 9 A. I do. 10 Q- And do you send those bills to DuPont? 11 A. I do. 12 Q. Do you maintain copies of those bills? 13 A. I do. 14 Q. Were those bills included within the documents 15 that you gave to DuPont's counsel for production to us in 16 this case? 17 A. I don't recall. 18 Q- Do you have those bills? 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. BILOTT: We would ask for production 21 of them. 22 BY MR. BILOTT: 23 Q. During the course of your work on PFOA, did 24 you become familiar with an individual named Ward P- www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 88 1 A. I -- I vaguely recall that. 2 Q. Do you have an understanding as to why she did 3 not get that position? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you have an understanding of the extent to 6 which Ms. Horinko is being paid by the 3M Company to 7 advocate on issues relating to perfluorochemicals? 8 A. I didn't know that she was being retained by 9 them. 10 Q. Have you had any discussions with Ms. Horinko 11 dealing with any issue relating to perfluorochemicals? 12 A. No. And, in fact, I've had extensive 13 discussions with Ms. Horinko on a number of issues, but 14 not relating to PFOA or perfluorochemicals. 15 MR. BILOTT: I think we have to take a 16 break to change the tape. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going off 18 the record. This completes tape No. 2. 19 (Brief recess taken.) 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back on 21 the record. This commences tape No. 3. 22 BY MR. BILOTT: 23 Q. Mr. McCabe, I think we had mentioned earlier 24 that you were familiar with a woman by the name of Linda \ w w w .corbettreporting.c om p. 31 W. Michael McCabe 1 Fisher. Correct? Page 89 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And at one point in time she became Deputy 4 Administrator of U.S. EPA. Correct? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. It was after you leftthe position? 7 A. That's right. 8 Q. And she then left U.S. EPA a couple of years 9 later. Correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And after leaving U.S. EPA,she became 12 employed by DuPont. Correct? 13 A. Eventually, yes. But I think that there was a 14 period of time when she wasn't employed by DuPont. She 15 didn't immediately go from EPA to DuPont. 16 Q. Do you know where she went in the intervening 17 period of time? 18 A. No. 19 Q. But at some point in time she then became 20 employed by DuPont. Correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And was it your understanding that Ms. Fisher 23 had had any involvement with PFOA or Teflon issues while 24 at U.S. EPA? w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 90 1 A. It is my understanding that she did. 2 Q. Was it your understanding that Ms. Fisher 3 would also have had some sort of restriction on the | 4 extent to which she could be involved in issues that she 5 had worked on at EPA after she went into private 6 practice? 7 A. She would be governed by the' same restrictions 8 that any political appointee has as far as directly 9 getting involved with the Agency on those issues. 10 But from an informational standpoint, 11 from a standpoint of providing information to a potential 12 client, there aren't those restrictions. 13 Q. But it was your understanding there would be 14 restrictions on the extent to which she could deal 15 directly with U.S. EPA on issues she was involved in 16 while she was at the Agency? 17 A. She would be -- she would be governed by the 18 same restrictions that any political appointee are 19 governed by post employment? 20 Q. And at some point in time after Ms. Fisher 21 joined DuPont, you participated in a meeting with her to 22 discuss what was going on with DuPont and PFOA. Correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 {McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 21 was www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe 1 marked for identification.) Page 91 2 BY MR. BILOTT: 3 Q. Mr. McCabe, I 'm handing you what's been marked 4 as Exhibit 21. I ask if you identify this as a 5 memorandum you prepared while you were doing work for 6 DuPont, dated March 7th, 2004? 7 A. This does appear to be a memo I prepared. 8 Q. And this memo deals with some of the issues 9 that came up during a meeting with Linda Fisher in March 10 of 2004. Correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And in the first paragraph of this memo on the 13 last line, do you see there is a reference to an overview 14 of the "P~issueM? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And at the bottom of the page there is a 17 heading entitled Silver Bullet, and on the second line 18 under that heading again there is a reference to 19 essentially eliminates P, and then three asterisks. 20 Do you see that? 21 A. I see that. 22 Q. You are referring to PFOA? ! 3 S 23 A. Yes, I am. 24 Q. Why were you referring to PFOA in this way? www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 92 1 A. I don't recall. 2 Q. Do you recall there being any guidance given 3 to you at any point in time to not refer to PFOA or C8 in 4 that way in writings you were preparing on the issue? 5 A. I don't recall any guidance being given, and I 6 think, as you've seen from the documents you produced 7 before, that I referred to it as PFOA. 8 Q. Did you ever have any discussions with folks 9 at DuPont involving issues relating to connecting the 10 dots on various issues relating to PFOA and different 11 DuPont sites? 12 A. And different DuPont sites? 13 Q . Mm-hmm. 14 A. Can you restate that question? 15 Q. Did you ever have any discussions -- let me 16 restate that. 17 Did you ever participate in any i 18 communications with individuals at DuPont regarding to -- 19 regarding concerns about connecting the dots on PFOA 20 issues? i 21 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 22 BY MR. 8IL0TT: 23 Q. Did you ever hear that phrase used? 24 A. I actually used that phrase myself, but w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 93 1 connecting the dots basically means helping people 2 understand the, the information and relationships between 3 information, the context, and the substance of an issue. 4 Q. Did you ever participate in any discussions 5 with folks at DuPont relating to their concerns that 6 third parties would connect the dots between PFOA issues 7 and various sites across the country where PFOA was used? 8 A. I don't recall any specific discussion about 9 specific sites. 10 Q. I would like to refer you to the subheading at 11 the bottom of the page here where you reference the 12 Silver Bullet? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you see that? 15 You say, "I have always believed that 16 the way out of this quagmire is to publicly roll out the 17 product process changes that essentially eliminates 18 p * * * W 19 Do you see that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Again, that was PFOA. Right? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. So it was your understanding as of March 7th, 24 2004, that there was some sort of product process change www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 94 1 being discussed at DuPont that could eliminate PFOA? 2 A. Yes. Part of what I have advocated and was, I 3 think, part of the discussion that had evolved to that 4 point was to do everything the company could to reduce 5 exposure to PFOA, to reduce emissions, and to do it in a 6 way that was public and that was in consort with an 7 understanding by EPA. 8 Eventually that developed into the 9 voluntary stewardship program which EPA announced in, I 10 think, 2005, 2006. I forget. 11 Q. But as of this time, back in March of 2004, 12 was it your understanding that DuPont was aware of ways 13 that they could reduce or eliminate PFOA from certain 14 products? 15 A. I think that they were looking at all of their 16 products and processes to see how they could reduce 17 emissions, reduce exposure, and come up with alternatives 18 to PFOA. 19 Q. And you were recommending that -- you were 20 recommending at this time that DuPont talk to Linda 21 Fisher and try to get her ideas about how to use that 22 kind of product change to help DuPont's position on PFOA. 23 Correct? 24 A. My recommendation was, was how to make these www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 95 1 advances public, how to share that information with EPA 2 so that they understood that DuPont was taking an active 3 role in addressing issues that EPA had expressed concern 4 about and had set up an ECA process for. I wanted to 5 make sure that this information was integrated into the 6 ECA process. 7 Q- And it was your hope that if DuPont was able 8 to announce that it was going to start eliminating or 9 phasing out the use of PFOA, EPA might take a less 10 aggressive approach to its risk assessment or other 11 upcoming possible regulatory action on PFOA. Correct? 12 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 13 THE WITNESS: Restate that. Because 14 there is an assumption, I think, in that question which I 15 want to understand better. 16 BY MR. BILOTT: 17 Q. In your discussion here under the heading of 18 Silver Bullet -- 19 A. Mm-hmm. 20 Q. -- you mention that you wanted to solicit 21 Linda Fisher's ideas about how to best, to use the 22 developments about product process changes, to one of the 23 things being influence the risk assessment and, second, 24 influence how EPA characterizes the risk assessment and www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 96 1 the ECA process to date. Correct? 2 A. That's what this says. 3 Q- All right. And so your understanding was if 4 DuPont could somehow publicly come forward and announce 5 that it was going to phase out with PFOA, this could be 6 the silver bullet to helping DuPont control this 7 regulatory process on PFOA. Correct? 8 A. I -- I look at it in a different way. I think 9 that your assumption is that somehow it was to get EPA to 10 back off of the regulatory process. 11 The problem with EPA's regulatory 12 process and with TSCA itself, which is the law that 13 governs chemicals, the Federal law that governs 14 chemicals, is that it's a very cumbersome process. It's 15 one that doesn't address emerging contaminant issues, 16 issues of concern, and chemical -- and chemicals that are 17 getting a lot of attention, and it takes ages for TSCA to 18 work. 19 My feeling was that because DuPont was 20 so committed to reducing exposure, to eliminating 21 emissions, to changing product and processes, that they 22 were on track to actually move forward with a process 23 that was much more robust than could have been afforded 24 by TSCA, and that that was something that they needed to www.corbettreporting.com 3!5rCTRQrc353l3!3)&B3SSir W. Michael McCabe Page 97 1 communicate with the Agency and that the Agency needed to 2 embrace so that the Agency, in effect, could, could get 3 what they wanted in terms of PFOA exposure reduction. 4 Q. So you were advocating back in the spring of 5 2004 that DuPont come forward with this plan to eliminate 6 PFOA. Correct? 7 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 8 THE WITNESS: I -- I was recommending at 9 the time that they come forward with a plan to work with 10 EPA to have emissions reductions, and eventually it 11 evolved into a suggestion, since the progress was 12 developing so rapidly on emissions reductions and 13 reformulation of products and processes, that the 14 eventual elimination be accepted as well. 15 BY MR. BILOTT: 16 Q. And this memo which, which deals with your 17 conversation with Linda Fisher, indicates that you 18 discussed these issues with Linda Fisher at DuPont. 19 Correct? 20 A. I -- I'm not sure that Linda Fisher was 21 actually employed by DuPont at this point. She may have 22 been. I just, I don't know the relationship. I know 23 that she's currently employed. She may have been 24 employed on a consultancy basis with them. But I felt www.corbet treporting.com u n tatim - W. Michael McCabe Page 98 1 that it was important to have Linda's insights on this. i 2 Q. Soon after this you started initiating 3 discussions with Susan Hazen -- 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. -- of U.S. EPA. Correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Why did you start communicating with her at 8 that time? 9 A. I believe that Susan was either in the Deputy 10 position or Acting position after Steve left to become 11 Deputy Administrator, and Susan was now the functional 12 head of OPPTS, which is the Office of -- you spell it 13 out. I'm acronym based. 14 Q. And did you have an understanding as to 15 whether Ms. Fisher had any kind of relationship with 16 Ms. Hazen? 17 A. Well, Ms. Fisher had been the Assistant 18 Administrator under Bush 1 for this, this program, this 19 part of the Agency. So she had relationships with many 20 people that worked in that division. 21 Q. Were you ever involved with efforts by DuPont 22 to retain Holt Regulatory Consultants to advise on 23 international PFOA developments? 24 A. I was not directly involved. w w w .corbettreporting.com p. 41 W. Michael McCabe Page 99 1 Q. Were you involved indirectly in any way? 2 A. Only that I had heard very positive things 3 about this individual and thought that it would be useful 4 to have his expertise. 5 Q. Did you ever sit in on any meetings with Rick 6 Holt relating to PFOA? 7 A. I have sat in on many meetings with Rick Holt. 8 Q. Relating to PFOA? 9 A. Relating to PFOA. 10 Q. When did those meetings start? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. And it's your understanding that Rick Holt and D 13 Holt Regulatory Consultants were eventually retained by 14 DuPont to, to serve as a consultant on international PFOA 15 issues. Correct? 16 A. That's my understanding. 17 Q. In the summer of 2004, the U.S. EPA filed a 18 lawsuit against DuPont alleging violations of TSCA, 19 Section 8{e). Correct? 20 A. I believe that's when it was filed. I don't 21 remember the dates. 22 Q. Did you have any discussions with anyone at 23 U.S. EPA regarding that enforcement action before that 24 lawsuit was filed? www.corbettreporting.com p. 42 W. Michael McCabe Page 101 1 (Brief recess taken.) 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Please proceed. 3 BY MR. BILOTT: 4 Q. Mr. McCabe, were you involved in any 5 discussions with anyone at DuPont relating to whether or 6 not to settle the case that was brought against DuPont 7 involving drinking water contamination in Wood County, 8 West Virginia? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Were youinvolved in any aspect of the 11 decision about whether to settle that case? 12 A. No. ') 13 Q. In November of2004, you had some 14 conversations with an individual named Peter Robertson 15 trying to come up with a more broad, more proactive 16 strategy for dealing with PFOA on behalf of DuPont. 17 Correct? 18 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't recall 20 specifically when or what the context was. 21 BY MR. BILOTT: 22 Q. And it was your understanding that Peter 23 Robertson had once worked for U.S. EPA. Is that correct? 24 A. That is my understanding. www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 102 1 Q. And what was his position at EPA, the last 2 position he held, to your knowledge? 3 A. I think his last position was Acting Deputy 4 Administrator. 5 Q. And he was a lawyer or is a lawyer. Correct? 6 A. That's my understanding. 7 Q. It's your understanding that he was, after he 8 left EPA, he was retained by DuPont to represent DuPont 9 in the EPA enforcement case involving the TSCA alleged 10 violations. Correct? 11 A. That's my understanding. 12 Q- Why were you having any conversation withthat 13 lawyer about PFOA? 14 A. To give him context and, and assistance on 15 understanding the evolution of EPA involvement on the 16 PFOA issue. 17 Q. Were you involved in any discussions with him 18 relating to developing any sort of strategy for how to 19 resolve the EPA's TSCA enforcement case against DuPont? 20 A. I don't recall that I was. I don't have a 21 legal background, and I don't believe I have provided any 22 assistance in that area. 23 {McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 22 was 24 marked for identification.) 5 \ ! 1 w w w .corbettreportipg.com W. Michael McCabe 1 BY MR. BILOTT: Page 103 j 2 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you a document 3 marked as Exhibit 22, and ask if you can identify this as 4 a November 9th, 2004, e-mail from Linda Fisher at DuPont? 5 A. That's what it says. 6 Q. In this e-mail she mentions, quote, I spoke 7 with both Peter Robertson and Mike McCabe today, and have 8 asked them to hold their calendars for Tuesday meeting. 9 They think it is a great idea that we begin to think 10 through a broader more proactive strategy, and are glad 11 to help us develop it. 12 Correct? 13 A. That's what this e-mail says. 14 Q. Did you help develop such a broader, more 15 proactive strategy for DuPont? 16 A. I'm not sure what the context of this is, but 17 in the work that I was doing for DuPont, it was to, as I 18 think I just said in my answer to the previous question, 19 it was to address how to get the information out that 20 DuPont was actively reducing emissions, changing products 21 and processes to reduce exposure. 22 So it wouldn't have been out of the 23 question that I would have had this, this discussion. 24 Q. Do you recall that in January of 2005 the U.S. www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 104 1 EPA issued a revised hazard -- I'm sorry, risk assessment 2 for PFOA? 3 A. I don't recall the exact date, but I do know 4 that they issued a revised risk assessment. 5 Q. And you -- you learned that that was going to 6 happen before EPA officially released it. Correct? 7 A. I don't recall specifically. It wouldn't be 8 unusual that I would learn about that. 9 Q- And how would -- 10 A. That kind of thing is generally publicly 11 known. 12 Q. How would you learn about EPA's release of a 13 risk assessment before it was officially released? 14 A. Well, when EPA developed its first draft that 15 was released in 2003, they specifically said that they 16 would be updating it. So it was public information. 17 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 23 was 18 marked for identification.) 19 BY MR. BILOTT: 20 Q. Do you recall receiving a heads-up from 21 anybody at U.S. EPA that they were about to release the 22 revised risk assessment in January 2005 before it was 23 actually released to the public? 24 A. I don't recall. 99ES355S3&r3 w w w .corbettreporting.com nXRKBET W. Michael McCabe Page 105 1 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as 2 Exhibit 23, and ask if you can identify this as an e-mail 3 from Linda Fisher to you on January 11th, 2005, which is 4 including an e-mail from you to her of the same date? 5 A. This appears to be an e-mail from Linda Fisher 6 to me, with an e-mail from me to Linda Fisher, or 7 forwarding something. Yeah, I'm not sure what the chain 8 of, of communication was. 9 Q. First of all, do you see that there is 10 information that appears to be blacked out on this page? 11 A. I see that. 12 Q. Did you black that information out? 13 A. I did not. 14 Q. Do you know who did? 15 A. I don't know who did. 16 Q. Do you know what information was on this 17 document -- 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. -- that has been blacked out? 20 In this particular e-mail from you to 21 Linda Fisher, you state, quote. If there is anything I 22 can help with on the release of the risk assessment 23 tomorrow, please let me know. 24 Do you see that? w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 106 1 A. I see that. 2 Q. Does that refresh your under -- your 3 recollection that you were aware of the release of EPA's 4 risk assessment a day before it was going to be released 5 by EPA? 6 A. As I said, I think it was pretty well known 7 that -- through public information that EPA was going to 8 have a revised risk assessment released. 9 Q. How did you know the date EPA was going to 10 release it? 11 A. EPA may have indicated that in some way. 12 Q. Did you have discussions with anyone at U.S. 13 EPA about what was going to be in their revised risk 14 assessment before it was released? 15 A. 1 don't think I did, no. 16 Q. You also reference here, I hope all went well 17 with Chad in the presentation. 18 Do you see that? 19 A. I see that. 20 Q. That's a reference to Chad Holliday, the CEO 21 of DuPont. Correct? 22 A. I would assume that that's who that reference 23 is to. 24 Q. Do you know why Linda Fisher was having some www.corbettreporting.com p. 48 W. Michael McCabe Page 113 1 activities and DuPont science on this subject, and they 2 were always appreciative of those discussions. 3 Q. I guess what I'm asking about specifically, 4 though, is at this point in time, in February of 2005, 5 what did you learn from U.S. EPA as to how things were 6 going to play out on PFOA? 7 A. I don't think it was about how things were 8 going to play out on EPA. 9 This took place in the context of a 10 workshop and plenary session that was part of the ECA 11 process, and I'm fairly confident, but I don't recall the 12 specifics, that this was about how the ECA would play o 13 out, how the enforceable consent agreement process would 14 play out. Because that was still undetermined. 15 Q- Do you recall at some point in time while you 16 were providing services to DuPont being asked to assist 17 in communications with the State of New Jersey's 18 Department of Environmental Protection relating to PFOA? 19 A. I do recall that. 20 Q. And do you recall learning in 2005 that the 21 State of New Jersey was planning on coming up with its 22 own guideline for PFOA in drinking water? 23 A. What was the date, the dates that you were 24 talking about? www.corbettreporting.com 3 W. Michael McCabe Page 114 1 Q. 2005. 2 A. And what were they going to come up with? 3 Q. A -- some sort of guideline or number for PFOA 4 in drinking water? 5 A. I do recall that they had engaged in a 6 process. 7 Q. Do you recall participating in a meeting with 8 the Commissioner of the New Jersey DEP in February or 9 March of 2005 to discuss that topic? 10 A. I don't recall whether there was a specific 11 meeting to discuss that topic. 12 Q. Did you participate in any efforts to set up 13 the initial meetings with New Jersey DEP to discuss PFOA 14 issues? 15 A. I had a number of discussions with New Jersey 16 DEP to ask them about what information would be useful to 17 them as they move through this process, and to provide, 18 provide background on the science that DuPont had been 19 working on, on this with EPA,and to also inform them 20 about the context of the work that was ongoing at EPA in 21 relationship to PFOA. 22 Q. And DuPont was advocating to the State of New 23 Jersey's EPA back in 2005 that the State adopt the West 24 Virginia CAT Team numbers for PFOA in drinking water. www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 118 1 A. I believe that that's the case. 2 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 28 was 3 marked for identification.) 4 BY MR. BILOTT: 5 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 6 as Exhibit 28, and ask if you identify this as an e-mail 7 chain from April 2005, including an e-mail from you to 8 Susie Hazen at O.S. EPA on April 15th of 2005? 9 A. This appears to be an e-mailchain from me to 10 Susie Hazen and Susie to me. 11 Q. In the e-mail from -- in the e-mail from you 12 to Ms. Hazen at EPA you say, quote, Could I get your 13 insights into the 8(e) case? 14 Do you see that? 15 A. I see that. 16 Q. And you are referring to the case that the 17 U.S. EPA had brought against DuPont alleging TSCA 8(e) 18 violations. Correct? 19 A. I believe so. 20 Q. Why are you asking Ms. Hazen at O.S. EPA for 21 insights into a pending enforcement case? 22 A. I would suspect that ray query, and I don't 23 recall the specific nature of this, was to see whether it 24 affected EPA's communications with DuPont, whether it rr-rnr-tw^h-- t '-i'iT-'ih w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 119 ! 1 affected the relations in some way, which was part of | 2 what I was employed to, to build on. 3 I know that I had no discussion on the, 4 the legal aspect of this, because I wouldn't have. 5 Q. In Ms. Hazen's response to you right above 6 that, she says to call next week, but that she's limited 7 in what she can share. 8 Do you see that? 9 A. Yeah. 10 Q. Did you call her and discuss this issue with 11 her? I S | 12 A. I don't recall, but I wouldn't be surprised if 13 I, I did. I 14 Q. What do you recall learning as far as the 15 extent to which EPA's TSCA 8(e) case affected any of the 16 communications it was having with DuPont? 17 A. I'm very fuzzy on this, so I don't totally [ 18 recall. I do know that there was general concern within 19 the Agency about this case, and they felt that it was a 20 very serious case. And that may have been communicated 21 in this communication. I don't know. 22 (McCabeDeposition Exhibit No. 29 was | 23 marked foridentification.) \ 24 BY MR. BILOTT: | s MW ., aLa|i.iM --taftio fW !w a g g B a B E a p ^ g a B S 5 B E B S J r, r ra vs. www.corbettreporting.com I W. Michael McCabe Page 122 1 A. I think that any time a company is involved in 2 a court case with a major agency, they, they seek to 3 address the concerns that are brought up with, with the 4 enforcement issue, establish a better relationship with 5 the agency that's not bogged down in a, an enforcement 6 issue. And it just, it made sense to me that they wanted 7 to, to get this resolved and move beyond it so that it 8 wasn't -- it wasn't there as something that they had to 9 worry about. 10 MR. BILOTT: Why don't we take a lunch 11 break. 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going off 13 the record. 14 (This concludes tape No. 3.) 15 (Luncheon recess taken.) 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back on 17 the record. This commences tape No. 4. 18 Please proceed. 19 BY MR. BILOTT: 20 Q. Mr. McCabe, you mentioned that you created an 21 entity McCabe & Associates after you left EPA. Correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And you mentioned that one of the clients 24 that, that you were working for through McCabe & www.corbettreporting.com p. 53 W. Michael McCabe 1 Associates is DuPont. Correct? Page 123 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And are you currently still working for 4 DuPont? 5 A. I currently am still working for DuPont. 6 Q- Have you ever had any employees, other than 7 yourself, of McCabe & Associates? 8 A. I've not had any employees. I've had 9 subcontractors. 10 Q. Who have you had as subcontractors? 11 A. A number of individuals. 12 Q. Any that have been employed elsewhere at the 13 time -- well, let me -- who have you had? 14 A. Ciara O'Connell, Tom Voltaggio, Brian Reardon 15 and there may be more. 16 Q. Now, are any of those individuals former EPA 17 employees? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. How many of them? 20 A. One 21 Q. Which one? 22 A. Tom Voltaggio. 23 Q. And what was his position with EPA? 24 A. He was Deputy Administrator, Deputy Regional Mbhaa H l.iaWgp.tyH5K? www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 126 1 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 30 was 2 marked for identification.) 3 BY MR. BILOTT: 4 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 5 marked as Exhibit 30 and ask that you take a look at this 6 document and tell me if you can identify this as an 7 e-mail from Susan Stalnecker at DuPont from August 1, 8 2005? 9 A. This appears to be an e-mail from Susan 10 Stalnecker. 11 Q. And in this particular e-mail she is talking If 12 about preparation for a meeting the next day, and in the 13 objective for the meeting she states, quote, Create a 14 strategy which will enable the EPA to create regulatory 15 clarity for PFOA and other potential compounds and is 16 actionable in 2005. Put another way, how do we actualize 17 the, quote, 8 box strategy, close quote, and drive it 18 further, faster? 19 Do you see that? 20 A. I see that. 21 Q, And under Context she references a couple of 22 bullets down to create a level playing field. 23 Do you see that? 24 A. I see that. assn www.corbettreporting.com sfF j J p. 55 W. Michael McCabe Page 127 1 Q. And a couple bullets down below that, 2 "Neutralizes impact of potential derailer influences." 3 Do you see that? 4 A. I see that. 5 Q- Does this refresh your recollection of 6 Ms. Stalnecker's initiation of activities in August of 7 2005 to try to move forward with some strategy for 8 getting regulatory clarity on PFOA in a quicker way than 9 what had been happening before? 10 A. I think that this must have been about the 11 time that Susan came on, and I think that the strategy to 12 which she refers was our general -- the discussions that 3 13 we had had about how to -- how to understand better what 14 the, the so-called end game was on the ECA process, the 15 enforceable consent agreement process, what the outcome 16 of the risk assessment would be, and where EPA would go 17 with that. What DuPont was doing to reduce emissions and 18 exposure. 19 So it was all part of all of the 20 different activities that DuPont was involved in in 21 addressing the PFOA issue. 22 Q. Are those all within the 8 box strategy that's 23 referenced here? 24 A. I'm not specifically familiar with the 8 box www.corbettreporting.com fSBBEBSHS W. Michael McCabe Page 128 1 strategy. DuPont uses a lot of jargon in terms of some 2 of their, their different approaches to things. The 8 3 box strategy, if it was something that was a concept 4 initially, it certainly didn't carry forward. 5 Q. And one of the things -- 6 A. In that -- in terms of that, that 7 nomenclature. 8 Q. But one of the things Ms. Stalnecker did was 9 to in -- was to involve Linda Fisher of DuPont in getting 10 the strategy together. Correct? 11 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 31 was 14 marked for identification.) 15 BY MR. BILOTT: 16 Q- Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 17 marked as Exhibit 31, and ask if you identify that as an 18 August 3, 2000, e-mail from Susan Stalnecker to Linda 19 Fisher of DuPont? 20 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 21 THE WITNESS: This appears to be a, an 22 e-mail from Susan Stalnecker to Linda Fisher. 23 BY MR. BILOTT: 24 Q. And this, this e-mail, dated just two days w w w .corbettreporting.com mnvuiuuuumuBauuiuuuuuiui p- W. Michael McCabe Page 129 1 after the last document we looked at, indicates that 2 she's providing, quote, a blend of what we said 3 yesterday. 4 Do you see that in the very first 5 sentence? 6 A. I see that. 7 Q. And there is a reference to, No. 1, 8 "Would the Agency be amenable to a DuPont plan with 9 respect to (1) emissions reductions even further than the 10 January commitment (2) cap on PFOA in DuPont products, 11 and (3) virtual elimination of PFOA in all" products -- 12 "DuPont products by 2010." Right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And what this is reflecting is DuPont's 15 development of the proposal to go to EPA and propose to 16 do the phase-out of PFOA in its products by 2010. 17 Correct? 18 A. I don't -- canyou restate the question? 19 Q. This is referring to oneof the meetings in 20 which DuPont was trying to develop its plan for how to 21 approach U.S. EPA and make the proposal for phasing out 22 of PFOA from its -- from its products. Correct? 23 A. I assume that that's what this was about, and 24 was probably part of our discussion to take some www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 130 1 leadership in the industry and propose emissions 2 reductions and virtual elimination. 3 Q. And one of the things DuPont wanted to do in 4 this regard was make sure that there would be a, quote, 5 level playing field, close quote. 6 A. That's right. 7 Q . On this kind of a plan. Correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. So if DuPont was going to go to U.S. EPA and 10 offer to phase out production, they wanted to make sure 11 that that kind of phase-out would be implemented 12 industrywide and not just with DuPont. Correct? 13 A. I think you are putting an emphasis on 14 phase-out of production, and the voluntary stewardship 15 program was initially proposed to reduce emissions and 16 thereby reduce exposure, and if the -- if the direction 17 of your question is to ensure that other manufacturers, 18 other producers were, were playing by the same set of 19 rules, yes, that was -- that was the objective. 20 Q. And one of the -- 21 A. But it was also an objective not only for 22 domestic producers, but for international producers where 23 there are not the controls that we have in this country. 24 Q. And one of the -- one of the concerns DuPont www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 131 j 1 had was making sure that their initial discussions with 2 EPA about this kind of a proposal would be kept 3 confidential until anything was agreed on. Correct? j | } [ j 4 A. Confidential I d o n 't recall. I mean, it's 5 very difficult to ask the Agency to keep things 6 confidential. Things are FOI-able, it's a public agency. 7 I don't recall there being any, any request that things 8 be kept confidential. 9 Q. In Ms. Stalnecker's e-mail to Linda Fisher 10 that we are looking at here, paragraph No. 3, "Would 11 appreciate your thoughts as to the legal process to 12 accomplish this." And the next sentence, "Essential that j 13 this first step be a confidential process between EPA and 14 DuPont, but then would provide a framework to be 15 applicable to all other producers." 16 Do you see that? [ 17 A. I suspect that what she was saying, and I 18 don't recall this, was that DuPont would initiate the 19 discussions, the discussions would be between EPA and 20 DuPont, and then broaden to a wider group, it would not j 21 automatically start off with a wide group. That that 22 would be a formula for a much slower, more difficult 23 process. j 24 I think that we had some specific ; www.corbettreporting.com RBannsRanBDRaBBCsnscRSsasBnBirsnnisiBroffsnRacsniRsr W. Michael McCabe Page 132 1 thoughts in mind, felt that if we were able to approach 2 EPA, that this, this could then be introduced to other 3 industry individuals. 4 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 32 was 5 marked for identification.) 6 BY MR. BILOTT: 7 Q. One of the things that was of concern at 8 DuPont in the summer of 2005 was the negative publicity 9 that was being generated about Teflon and PFOA at the 10 time. Correct? 11 A. There was concern about misrepresentations 12 that were being made in the press regarding PFOA and -- 13 PFOA in general. 14 Q. And one of the things that, that became 15 identified, to your knowledge, by DuPont as very 16 important to DuPont is to get some sort of public 17 statement from EPA reassuring the public about the safety 18 of PFOA or products made with PFOA. Correct? 19 A. I think as part of the risk assessment process 20 it was understood that whatever risk assessment, whatever 21 evaluation EPA was doing be put in proper context. And 22 EPA was in the best position to put that in context, but 23 they had to -- they had verbalize it or communicate it in 24 some way. w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 133 1 Q. And, in fact, one of the things DuPont 2 identified as a critical need in connection with getting 3 a level playing field and regulatory clarity on PFOA was 4 obtaining such a clarifying statement directly from EPA. 5 Correct? 6 A. I'm -- I'm not sure that it was part of the 7 level playing field context. It was in the interest of 8 not unduly alarming the public. 9 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 10 marked as Exhibit 32, and ask if you recall ever seeing 11 this Risk Management Plan Draft from August 3, 2005, 12 which was produced to us from Holt Associates? 13 A. I don't recall seeing this. 14 Q. It was your understanding that in August of 15 2005 one of the consultants working for DuPont on PFOA 16 issues was Holt Regulatory Consultants. Correct? 17 A. I don't know when he was engaged, but I know 18 that he has been engaged. 19 Q. You'll notice here on this particular plan the 20 objective of the plan is, quote, Create a plan which will 21 enable the EPA to create regulatory clarity for PFOA. 22 This plan will actualize the ,8 box strategy and allow 23 DuPont to drive it further and faster. 24 Do you see that? w w w .c o r b ettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 134 1 A. I do see that. 2 Q. Which is the same, the same objective that was 3 referenced in that last memo we just saw from 4 Ms. Stalnecker. Correct? 5 M S . STENNES: Objection to form. 6 THE WITNESS: Correct. 7 BY MR. BILOTT: 8 Q. If you look in the Plan Context -- if you look 9 at the Plan Context, again one of the bullets is Creates 10 level playing field. Correct? 11 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 12 THE WITNESS: Thereis one bullet that 13 says "Creates a level playing field." 14 BY MR. BILOTT: 15 Q. Right below that, "Provides confidence to 16 consumers and customers that our products are safe." 17 Do you see that? 18 A. There is a bullet that says that. 19 Q. Does that refresh your recollection about one 20 of the critical components of DuPont's plan to approach 21 EPA and suggest this reduction plan we've been talking 22 about, is to get statements from EPA that would reassure 23 customers and consumers on the safety of PFOA? 24 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. www.corbettreporting.com iii.'rartlTl W. Michael McCabe Page 135 1 THE WITNESS: I think that I just said 2 that in ray answer prior to this, or in one of the answers 3 prior to this. 4 BY MR. BILOTT: 5 Q. On the third page of this draft plan, if you 6 could look at that page, it's Holt 02936. Do you have 7 that page in front of you? 8 A. Not yet. Okay. 9 Q. Second bullet from the bottom, "We are going 10 to proceed with these plans regardless of the outcome. 11 But" we "will not agree to legally binding steps without 12 cooperative agreement with EPA that meets our objectives 13 and expectations." 14 Do you see that? 15 A. I see it. Let me read it. 16 I see that. 17 Q- Do you recall there being discussion at DuPont 18 that if there were -- if DuPont was going to go forward 19 and propose this kind of a reduction plan to EPA, one of 20 the requirements in exchange would be these commitments 21 by EPA to make public statements reassuring the public 22 and consumers about the safety of PFOA? 23 A. There was never that agreement or 24 understanding with EPA as part of -- as part of the www.corbe ttreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 136 1 proposal to go forward with the stewardship program. 2 Q. Do you see on the last page of this 3 document -- 4 A. This is 2938? 5 Q. Yes. 6 Do you see under Team Capabilities and 7 Staffing, you are listed as the facilitator and 8 translator for this process? 9 A. I see that. 10 Q. And you acted in that capacity. Correct? 11 A. I did, yes. 12 Q. And the negotiator/fair broker was Susan 13 Stalnecker. Correct? 14 A. It depends on how you define negotiator/fair 15 broker. 16 I think also, to the extent that I am 17 listed in this document, the facilitator role that I 18 played was in the context of a broader discussion, which 19 I mentioned, that would form the voluntary stewardship 20 program. My recollection, I do not recall this document 21 or the specificity of it. 22 Q. In this particular document there is 23 identified "Needs From EPA: A binding agreement but in 24 exchange we" will "need certain critical things." w w w .corbettreporting.com I I I W. Michael McCabe Page 137 1 Number one, right below that, "Positive 2 statement that current exposure levels do not pose any 3 adverse health effects." 4 Right below that, "Updated and positive 5 declaration that current products (chemicals and consumer 6 products) are safe for use." 7 Do you see that? 8 A. I see that. 9 Q- And DuPont did, in fact, ask EPA to make those 10 statements. Correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And it was done as part of this proposal and 13 program. Correct? 14 A. It was done as part of this proposal and 15 program, but it was not a quid pro quo. 16 Q. In fact, you recall there being discussion by 17 DuPont about the extent to which this was considered a 18 quid pro quo. Correct? 19 A. I don't recall that. 20 Q. Do you recall seeing the memos where it was 21 discussed the extent to which getting EPA to make these 22 statements was required in order for DuPont to agree to 23 this program? 24 A. I recall that it was seen as important to have www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 140 1 A. Can you restate that? 2 Q. Are you familiar with this terminology, 3 Case la? 4 A. No, I'm not. 5 Q. If you look at the objective here, Create 6 regulatory clarity for PFOA. Actualize the "8 box 7 strategy," drive it further, faster. 8 Do you see that? 9 A. I see that. 10 Q. That's the same program we were just 11 discussing previously. Correct? 12 A. It's a -- 13 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 14 THE WITNESS: It's a characterization of 15 a, an approach, but it was not the common usage that we 16 talked about, this 8 box strategy. 17 BY MR. BILOTT: 18 Q. Under the Plan elements, do you see the very 19 last one is referenced as "Legally binding: EPA 20 statements re meeting regulatory responsibilities, 21 product safety, no adverse health effects." 22 Do you see that? 23 A. I see that. 24 Q. And, in fact, one of the things DuPont made p. 66 3 i www.corbettreporting.com 3 W. Michael McCabe Page 141 \ 1 clear to EPA was that they would like EPA to make \ j | 2 reassuring statements about the alleged lack of health 3 effects from exposure to PFOA? 4 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 5 BY MR. BILOTT: 6 Q. Correct? 7 A. In what context? 8 Q. In the context of moving forwardwith this 9 particular plan to reduce PFOA? 10 A. DuPont, throughout itsdiscussions with EPA, 11 from the time that the risk assessment was developed as 12 part of the ECA process, as part of the development of 13 this proposal, asked EPA to put the health effects in 14 proper context. It was not something that they asked 15 specifically as a quid pro quo for this process or this 16 program. It was an ongoing request. 17 Q. Ongoing request for EPA to make statements 18 publicly about an alleged lack of health effects? 19 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 20 THE WITNESS: To, to put into proper 21 . context whatever health information, whatever health 22 information they had on PFOA. 23 BY MR. BILOTT: 24 Q. In fact, DuPont even drafted some of the w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 142 1 proposed statements for EPA to make in that regard. 2 Correct? 3 A. I, I don't know what you're referring to. 4 Q. Do you recall ever seeing documents prepared 5 by DuPont suggesting the language U.S. EPA should use 6 when making public statements about the safety of PFOA or 7 Teflon? 8 A. I would have to see what you're referring to. 9 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 34 was 10 marked for identification.) 11 BY MR. BILOTT: 12 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been ! i I 13 marked as Exhibit 34, and ask you to take a moment to s I 14 look at this and tell me if you recall ever seeing this 15 document before? 16 A. I don't recall seeing this document. 17 Q. You see thisparticulardocument dated i Ii [ I i 18 August 24, 2005, references a draft release at the top? 19 A. Yes. I ! 20 Q. And do you see the first several -- well, do 21 you see six paragraphs down there is a statement, "EPA 22 continues to believe that products currently in the 23 market are safe for consumer use"? 24 A. I see that. www.corbettreporting.com ,,I  MMIIWMJMmfJiJUUtiyiUlllUUtUll t M l B .J I U .t llU IIIUUJ p. 69 W. Michael McCabe i Page 143 [ 1 Q. Were you ever involved in any activities by 2 DuPont drafting that kind of a statement for submission 3 to EPA for the purpose of having EPA make that statement 4 publicly? 5 A. I was not involved in, in drafting anything 6 that was communicated to EPA to make that statement. 7 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 35 was 8 marked for identification.) 9 BY MR. BILOTT: 10 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 11 marked as Exhibit 35, and ask you to take a moment to 12 look at that document and tell me if you recall ever 13 seeing this DuPont presentation before entitled EPA 14 proposal, dated August 29th of 2005? 15 A. I may have seen this, but I don't recall 16 specifically. 17 Q. You recognize this, though, as a document put 18 together by DuPont in connection with the proposal to EPA 19 about PFOA reduction? 20 A. I recognize this as a document that deals with 21 some of the issues that we were discussing about how to 22 approach EPA. 23 Q. If you'd notice, on the fourth page of this 24 document there is a chart entitled Desired Outcome? :rxJi...tUiihUj www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 144 1 A. Yes. And when was this document? I'm sorry. 2 Q. The first page references August 29, 2005. 3 In this particular page there is a 4 reference to desired outcome, quote, Regulatory closure 5 pending risk assessment indication of need for further 6 risk reduction. 7 Under the second bullet, EPA public 8 acknowledgment. 9 Do you see that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And if you could refer to the -- two more 12 pages back, there is a separate slide entitled EPA Public 13 Acknowledgment? 14 A. Sorry, two pages back or forward? 15 Q. Forward, page 6. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. One of the bullets beneath that is, quote, To 18 date there are no adverse health effects from PFOA and 19 EPA continues to believe that DuPont products currently 20 in the market are safe to use. 21 Do you see that? 22 A. I see that. 23 Q . Does that refresh your recollection of 24 discussions at DuPont to propose language to EPA for them www.corbe 11 reporti ng .com a'oi.'i-UjJM.iijiij W. Michael McCabe Page 145 1 to make publicly reassuring the consumers and the public 2 about the safety of PFOA and products made by DuPont? 3 A. I think that that was a desired outcome. As I 4 said, as part of this process, and the ongoing process 5 with EPA, we wanted to make sure that EPA put the health 6 effects from PFOA in proper context. So it doesn't 7 surprise me that this was an outcome approach. 8 Q. And, in fact, you were one of the ones who met 9 with EPA to officially make the proposal to U.S. EPA on 10 this program in September of 2005. Correct? 11 A. I seem to recall, yes. 12 Q. During that meeting with U.S. EPA, DuPont made 13 its proposal about reducing PFOA emissions; correct, the 14 meeting in September of 2005? 15 A. As I recall, and I'm a little fuzzy on the 16 dates, DuPont made the proposal, made the presentation, 17 made a presentation on its efforts to reduce emissions, 18 and it also -- well, I believe that it made its, its 19 presentation and suggested that similar reductions would 20 be useful for all of industry. 21 Q. During that meeting, do you recall discussion 22 of what DuPont would like from EPA to help support this 23 program going forward? ! 24 A. I think that it was a recognition that DuPont j f www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 146 1 was addressing this issue in a constructive way, that it 2 was providing leadership within the industry. 3 I think that it was all part of the work 4 that had been done all along by DuPont to address general 5 issues involving PFOA in the context of EPA's risk 6 assessment, enforceable consent agreement, and now moving 7 into this voluntary program which, in effect, allowed 8 industry to move faster and more effectively than if we 9 had just waited -- if EPA had just waited to somehow 10 enforce the law or had to wait until the risk assessment 11 process was complete. 12 Q. And one of the -- 13 A. Which would have taken years. 14 Q- And one of the things DuPont suggested to EPA 15 was that it would like some public statement 16 acknowledging DuPont's leadership on this program. 17 Correct? 18 A. I do recall that. 19 Q- And U.S. EPA eventually agreed that this was a 20 good program to pursue. Correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you then participated in discussions on 23 behalf of DuPont with U.S. EPA to try to get this program 24 moving and finalized. Correct? www.corbettreporting.com -- - ---------- ------- W. Michael McCabe 1 A. Yes. Page 147 2 Q. And in those discussions DuPont essentially 3 confirmed its commitment to a, an eventual phase-out of 4 production of certain products using PFOA by a certain 5 date. Correct? 6 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 7 THE WITNESS: Can you restate that? 8 BY MR. BILOTT: 9 Q. This, this program turned into what you 10 referred to earlier as the voluntary emissions -- 11 A. Stewardship program. 12 Q. -- stewardship program. Correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And DuPont confirmed its commitment to 15 implement that program back in the fall of 2005. 16 Correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And one of the things DuPont explained to EPA 19 was that it needed EPA's assistance in getting other 20 industrial companies who were using or making PFOA to 21 participate in the same program. Correct? 22 A. It was recommended that other companies be 23 included in this because it was a good program. It was 24 something that would address this issue much more rapidly w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 150 1 Do you recall that? 2 A. I, I recall participating in these meetings. 3 I'm not sure what the date was. 4 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 36 was 5 marked for identification.) 6 BY MR. BILOTT: 7 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 8 marked as Exhibit 36, and ask you to take a moment to 9 look at that and tell me if yourecognizethis as slides 10 that DuPont put together in connection witha meeting 11 with U.S. EPA October 8th, 2005? 12 A. This appears to be the slides. I'm not 13 familiar with the notesthat are attached to this. 14 Q. I would like to refer you to a slide that's on 15 slide number -- page No. 14, has a Bates number at the 16 bottom 066-0002-0002813. 17 A. 2813. Okay. 18 Q. Do you have that page in front of you entitled 19 Critical Needs? 20 A. I, I have a page in front of me entitled 21 Critical Needs. 22 Q. And do you see the second bullet from the 23 bottom on this chart under Critical Needs is, quote, EPA 24 restate safety of products and no health effects? www.corbettreporting.com p. 75 W. Michael McCabe 1 A. I see that. Page 151 2 Q. Do you recall participating in a meeting with 3 EPA in October 2005 where one of the items discussed with 4 EPA was DuPont's critical need for EPA to restate the 5 safety of products and no health effects in connection 6 with PFOA? 7 A. I, I recall the meeting where these slides 8 were presented and a number of items were discussed. The 9 critical needs were expressions of interest and outcomes, 10 desired outcomes. 11 Q. I guess what I'm asking is: In particular, do 12 you recall discussions with EPA on the need for EPA to o 13 restate the safety of products and no health effects? 14 A. We -- DuPont continually, throughout this 15 process, over the years that the risk assessment was 16 being developed, the ECA process, and, and this process 17 was, it was requested that EPA put in context any 18 information that they had about the relative safety of 19 these products. 20 Q. And DuPont -- 21 A. This was -- this was a communication that was 22 consistently made to EPA, and understood that it was 23 important for EPA in its role as the government agency 24 charged with protecting health and the environment to put www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 152 1 this in proper context. 2 Q. And DuPont suggested what they thought the 3 proper context would be. Correct? 4 A. I think that there was discussion about what 5 what EPA felt that the context was, and I'm, I'm not -- I 6 think what you're asking is, did DuPont give EPA language 7 to, to state what that context was? And, no, DuPont did 8 not give EPA language to, in my recollection, to 9 communicate this. EPA communicated this through their 10 own review process. 11 Q. Do you remember that after EP -- after DuPont 12 had discussed with EPA moving forward with this program 13 and there was general agreement to do so, several months 14 passed and DuPont became concerned with the lack of 15 movement by EPA to finalize this agreement? 16 A. This all happened pretty quickly. 17 Q. Do you recall that DuPont initiated contact 18 with the White House at one point? 19 A. I do recall that there was some communication 20 with the Office of Management and Budget, I think, which 21 is part of the White House. 22 Q. And why did that occur? 23 A. As part of any process between EPA and other 24 parts of the Executive Branch, you want to have www.corbettreporting.com ----- ---- -------------------------------- W. Michael McCabe Page 153 f 1 communication with, with the different parts of the |!: 2 Executive Branch that are involved in these decisions and i 3 these issues. i | j 4 And OMB, the Office of Management and j 5 Budget, has very direct involvement with a number of 6 things that EPA does, including issuing regulations, 7 reviewing regulations, doing economic assessments of 8 regulations. In fact, there is a dedicated office within 9 the Office of Management and Budget that, that deals with 10 these issues. 11 So it is not unusual to communicate with 12 them as you might communicate with the Food and Drug 13 Administration or Department of Health to let them know 14 what's going on and to encourage their review and 15 participation. 16 Q . In fact, DuPont at one point wanted to get the 17 message to U.S. EPA that the Bush Administration was 18 supportive of DuPont's proposal. Correct? 19 A. In, in all likelihood, yes. 20 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 37 was 21 marked for identification.) 22 BY MR. BILOTT: 23 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as \ } 24 Exhibit 37, and ask if you can identify this as an e-mail i www.corbet treporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 154 1 from Susan Stalnecker at DuPont to a number of 2 individuals, including yourself, from November 8th of 3 2005? 4 A. This appears to be an e-mail from Susan 5 Stalnecker to a long e-mail chain. 6 Q. She mentions an agenda for tomorrow, and the 7 first entry is 30/60/60 plus. 8 Do you see that? 9 A. I see that. 10 Q. Do you have any understanding as to what 11 that's referring to? 12 A. The only thing I can think is it would be a 13 timeline. 14 Q. Under open issues, there is a reference to 15 White House interaction, more critical now, three 16 question marks. 17 Do you see that? ! 5 II I 18 A. I see that. I 19 Q. Do you have anunderstanding as to why 3i I 20 interaction with the White House was referenced in this 21 way in November of 2005? 22 A. I suspect that it was part of ongoing efforts 23 to inform a wide range of people within the 24 Administration about the proposal, the approach that was w w w .corbettreporting.com p.79 W. Michael McCabe 1 being taken. That would be my, my guess. Page 155 2 Q. And, in fact, DuPont did initiate discussions 3 with the Administration. Correct? 4 A. I believe they did. 5 Q. Did you participate in those discussions? 6 A. No, I did not. 7 Q. In fact, Chad Holliday of DuPont did. 8 Correct? 9 A. I don't recall. 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me. There was 11 audio interference. Can we go off the record. 12 (Discussion held off the record.) 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: W e 're back on the 14 record. 15 BY MR. BILOTT: 16 Q. Did you, in fact, participate in any of those 17 discussions? 18 A. No, I did not. 19 Q. Do you -- is ityourunderstanding Chad 20 Holliday of DuPont did? 21 A. I don't recall. 22 Q. All right.Do you recall everhearing any 23 discussion in connection with your work for DuPont on 24 PFOA issues involving the establishment of a level for w w w .corbe t t r e p o r t i n g .com W. Michael McCabe Page 159 j 1 Paul Noe worked for the Office of Management and Budget 2 or was somehow affiliated with the Administration? j ! I I \ 3 A. That might have been why his name is familiar. j 4 I don't know the individual. li ! | 5 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 39 was 6 marked for identification.) | i j 7 BY MR. BILOTT: j 8 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 9 marked as Exhibit 39, and ask on this one simply whether 10 this -- you recognize this as an e-mail chain that you 11 forwarded to Susan Stalnecker and Michael Parr at -- and 12 others at DuPont on December 1, 2005, while you were 13 performing services for DuPont? } \ j I \ i i 1 | 3I i .14 A. This appears to be an e-mail from me to Susan I 15 Stalnecker. 16 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 40 was 17 marked for identification.) 18 BY MR. BILOTT: 19 Q. Do you recall there being a concern at DuPont I ! 20 that DuPont wanted to be able to announce this PFOA r 1 21 reduction program prior to the time that EPA was going to 22 announce any sort of action on the TSCA 8(e) enforcement 23 case? 24 A. I don't recall there being any connection w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 160 1 between the announcement of the voluntary stewardship 2 program and the TSCA 8(e), any timing issue. 3 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 4 marked as McCabe 40, and ask if you recognize this as an 5 e-mail you received from Susan Stalnecker on 6 December 5, 2005? 7 A. It appears to be an e-mail from Susan to a 8 number of people. 9 Q. And Ms. Stalnecker says, quote, Susie Hazen 10 has recommended we submit the docket materials before the 11 8(e) goes public, which means ASAP. 12 Do you see that? 13 A. I see that. 14 Q. Do you know what she's referring to here? 15 A. Let me take a closer look at this. 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me, counsel. 17 We need to take a break to change tapes. This completes 18 tape No. 4. 19 (Brief recess taken.) 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We arenow back on 21 the record. This commences tape No. 5. 22 Please proceed. 23 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 41was 24 marked for identification.) w w w .corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 165 j 1 e-mail. I am just referring to, do you recall that prior 2 to the public announcement that EPA would be seeking 3 industry commitment to this PFOA reduction program, 4 DuPont had become aware that the Science Advisory Board's 5 draft report was about to be released? 6 A. I don't recall that sequence. 7 Q. And that there was a concern that DuPont 8 wanted to announce this PFOA reduction plan before the 9 Science Advisory Board draft got released? 10 A. I don't recall that there was a connection 11 between the two. 12 Q. Do you recall discussions between DuPont and 13 EPA where DuPont asked EPA to make sure that the Science 14 Advisory Board draft did not get released until they had 15 a -- the parties had a chance to publicly announce the 16 PFOA reduction program? 17 A. I don't recall that. And the Science Advisory 18 Board acts as an independent entity, and they set their 19 own schedule. So I'm not sure that if EPA had asked for 20 that, that it would have necessarily had an impact. 21 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 42 was' 22 marked for identification.) 23 BY MR. BILOTT: 24 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been www.corbe 11 repo rting .com J.ILUi W. Michael McCabe Page 166 1 marked as Exhibit 42, and ask if you can recognize this 2 as an e-mail chain that Susan Stalnecker forwarded to a 3 number of individuals, including yourself, on 4 January 17th, 2006? 5 A. Yes, it appears to be an e-mail from Susan 6 Stalnecker. 7 Q. And included in this e-mail chain is an e-mail 8 from Susan Stalnecker to Susie Hazen at U.S. EPA dated 9 January 17, 2005 -- 2006. Correct? 10 A. That's the date, yes. 11 Q. In the second paragraph of here-mail, 12 Ms. Stalnecker states that "The purpose of my call is to 13 describe our plans for next week, and make sure they are 14 aligned with EPA's interests." 15 And in that regard, she's talking about 16 the plans to publicly announce the PFOA reduction 17 program. Correct? 18 A. I believe so. 19 Q. Further on in that paragraph, Ms. Stalnecker 20 states, quote. It is our hope, and that has been 21 confirmed from time to time, that we could imbed a quote 22 from you in that release. Having made the, quote, ask, 23 close quote, it is clear that other than some 24 presentations, you have nothing in writing regarding our p. 83 www.corbett repo rtin g .com ! W. Michael McCabe 1 commitment. Page 167 2 Do you see that? 3 A. I see that. 4 Q. Do you recall participating in any discussions 5 where DuPont was seeking a particular quote from U.S. EPA 6 that it could include in a DuPont press release? 7 A. I think it's customary any time that industry 8 or a nongovernmental organization works with the Agency 9 on a particular project, that if that group or 10 organization is going to issue a press release, they ask 11 EPA for a quote. So it wouldn't surprise me that that 12 was requested. 13 It is always understood and stated that 14 EPA does not negotiate press releases, and certainly not 15 the content of their press releases. So while there may 16 have been an ask, I think that it probably was that 17 without any, any arrangement or prior understanding that 18 it would be contributed. 19 Q. But DuPont, in fact, forwarded a draft press | 20 release to U.S. EPA, including a quote from U.S. EPA, 1 21 prior to the time that DuPont issued its release in 22 January 2006. Correct? | f j 23 A. Would you restate that? 24 Q. Do you recall -- or let me restate that. j i i [ www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 168 1 Were you aware that DuPont drafted a i ! 2 press release to be issued by DuPont that included a 3 quote from U.S. EPA and sent that draft to U.S. EPA ahead 4 of time asking for approval? 5 A. It's possible that DuPont did send a draft 6 press release to EPA. It wouldn't surprise me that for 7 the purposes of letting EPA know what DuPont was going to 8 say, that they would send a draft press release. 9 If there was a quote by -- a quote 10 inserted that might have been an EPA quote, it could have 11 come from existing public statements that EPA had made. 12 It could have been something that just was filler. I 13 don't recall the context of it, of that quote that was in 14 the draft press release. 15 {McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 43 was 16 marked for identification.) 17 BY MR. BILOTT: 18 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 19 marked as Exhibit 43, and ask if you would take a moment 20 to look at this and tell me if you recognize this as a 21 January 20, 2006, e-mail from a Daniel Turner at DuPont 22 to various individuals, dated January 20, 2006, subject 23 being Materials faxed to Hazen today? 24 A. That does appear to be an e-mail from Dan www.corbettreporting.com p. 86 W. Michael McCabe 1 Turner. Page 169 2 Q. And what was Dan Turner's position at DuPont, 3 to the extent you are aware, at that time? 4 A. Dan Turner was part of the communications team 5 that was dealing with PFOA issues. 6 Q. On the second page of this exhibit, you will 7 see that there is a letter from Kathleen Forte, Vice 8 President of DuPont Public Affairs, to Susan Hazen at 9 U.S. EPA. 10 Do you see that? 11 A. I do see that. 12 Q. And you will see that Kathleen Forte is o 13 forwarding to Ms. Hazen, as she says in the second 14 sentence, two versions of documents for EPA to look at. 15 Do you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And the next page is one of the versions 18 referenced as Plan A, and it's a draft press release. 19 Do you see that on the next page? 20 A. I see Plan A. And yousay that the draft 21 press release is on the nextpage? Yes, I see that. 22 Q. And you'll see there is some bolded language 23 in italics midway through the page that is some proposed 24 quotes to be attributed to Susan Hazen. w w w .corbettreporting.com 1 W. Michael McCabe Page 170 1 Do you see that? 2 A. I see that. 3 Q . Your understanding, Susan Hazen hadn't 4 actually made those comments. Correct? 5 A. My understanding is that she had not made 6 those comments? Is that your question? 7 Q. Yes. 8 Not yet. She had not yet made those 9 comments, but DuPont was proposing to use them in a press 10 release. Correct? 11 A. I don't recall whether she'd made those 12 comments or not. What this looks like is, is just a 13 block where EPA might insert a, a statement like this, or 14 similar to this. And this, this is DuPont's press 15 release, this is not EPA's press release. 16 Q. On the second pageof this draft press 17 release, there is again some bolded italicized language, 18 which again is a proposed quote from Susan Hazen. 19 Do you see that? 20 A. I see that. 21 Q. Where the proposed quote is, quote, EPA 22 continues to believe that the consumer products on the 23 market today are safe, close quote. 24 Do you see that? p. 87 n www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 174 1 increasing amount of negative publicity coming out about 2 PFOA and DuPont products using PFOA. Correct? 3 A. Yes. Yes. 4 Q. And there was an increasing level of concern 5 at DuPont that something needed to be done to stop all of 6 the negative publicity that was coming out in the spring 7 of 2006 with respect to PFOA. Correct? 8 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 9 THE WITNESS: There was an increasing 10 awareness that there was a lot of information that was 11 coming out that focused on the, the SAB report or 12 possible SAB report, and DuPont understood that there, 13 there needed to be some context put around this. 14 BY MR. BILOTT: 15 Q. And, in fact, that negative publicity was 16 starting to negatively impact DuPont sales. Correct? 17 A. I, I am not familiar with their, their sales 18 status. 19 Q. You became -- you were informed, however, by 20 folks at DuPont that this negative publicity was 21 impacting their business in a negative way. Correct? 22 A. I heard that there was some negative impacts. 23 Q. And, in fact, you were asked to try to set up 24 communications with folks high up at U.S. EPA to try to www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 175 1 get them to make some more definite reassuring public 2 statements about PFOA at that .time. Correct? 3 A. I -- I don't recall the sequence. As, as I've 4 said before, part of my role was to continually 5 communicate with EPA and to get them to put the 6 information that they were receiving on a variety of 7 issues relating to PFOA in context. 8 Q. And, in fact, you helped set up a call between 9 Chad Holliday* the CEO of DuPont, and Stephen Johnson, 10 then the Administrator of U.S. EPA, to discuss the issue 11 of the negative publicity around PFOA. Correct? 12 A. I recall helping facilitate a, a call between ! 13 Steve Johnson and Chad Holliday, but I'm not sure what 14 the, the various topics were. 15 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 45 was 16 marked for identification.) 17 BY MR. BILOTT: 18 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 19 marked as Exhibit 45, and ask if you can identify this as 20 an e-mail chain, including an e-mail sent to you from 21 Susan Stalnecker on February 16th, 2006? 22 A. This appears to be a, an e-mail from Susan to j 23 an e-mail chain. And while I don't see my name on it, it 24 says Mike in the cc's. ! www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 176 1 Q- I'm referring to the e-mail chain that starts 2 directly below the bolded -- 3 A. Oh, I see. I see what you're saying, yes. 4 Q . Do you see that there is a -- this is an 5 e-mail from Susan Stalnecker to you? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q- On February 16? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. The subject is URGENT, all capped. 10 Do you see that? 11 A. I see that. 12 Q . And she's saying, "Mike and the cc's, please 13 review the attached. I plan to send to Chad and ask him 14 to call Steve Johnson." 15 A. I see that. 16 Q- Correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And it's your understanding Chad is a 19 reference to Chad Holliday, the CEO of DuPont? 20 A. That would be my understanding, yes. 21 Q . Steve Johnson was then the Administrator, is 22 the Administrator of U.S. EPA. Correct? 23 A. He is now. 24 Q. All right. And on the attached "Situation W ^H B nnR H B R O B fH B R B IJW llW iA aU U B IST O B PflO fW H www ..corbettreport ing.com p. 91 W. Michael McCabe Page 177 1 analysis" on the next page, "Publicity around SAB report 2 has linked the Teflon brand to cancer. Coverage has been 3 broad in print and network media. Significant 4 disruptions in our markets and are consumers are very, 5 very concerned." Correct? 6 A. That's what this says. 7 Q- And the -- the, quote, Ask, close quote, "In 8 our opinion, the only voice that can cut through the 9 negative stories, is the voice of EPA. We need EPA" "to 10 quickly (like first thing tomorrow) say the following." 11 And then there are two statements to be said. 12 Do you see that? 0 13 A. I see that. 14 Q. And DuPont, in fact, asked Steve Johnson to 15 have EPA make these statements. Correct? 16 A. Let me read these statements. 17 Q. Including the first statement being "Consumer 18 products sold under the Teflon brand are safe." 19 And the second statement being, 20 "Further, to date, there are no human health effects 21 known to be caused by PFOA"? 22 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 23 BY MR. BILOTT: 24 Q. And my question is: It's your understanding www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 178 1 that DuPont asked EPA to make those statements. Correct? 2 A. That is what this says. I don't know what 3 exactly was communicated between Chad Holliday and Steve 4 Johnson. I know that there was concern that, that EPA -- 5 that the SAB report was being viewed as an EPA document, 6 and that this SAB report did not actually reflect some of 7 the statements that had been made by EPA in the past 8 about the safety of products containing PFOA. And as I 9 recall, the "ask," as it's said in this, in this e-mail 10 was to continue to put this issue in context. 11 Q . Are you familiar with somebody named Marcus 12 Peacock? 13 A. Yes, I am. 14 Q. Who is that. 15 A. He is the Deputy Administrator. 16 Q. And it's your understanding Linda Fisher of 17 DuPont directly contacted Marcus Peacock at EPA and 18 expressed to Mr. Peacock DuPont's concerns about PFOA and 19 the need to have EPA make the statements that DuPont 20 needed said. Correct? 21 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 22 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. When did 23 that happen? 24 BY MR. BILOTT: m n -- n r u r 'm i ii-- w w w .corbettreporting.com P W. Michael McCabe 1 Q. February 17th, 2006. Page 179 \ 2 Does that refresh your recollection of 3 Ms. Fisher directly calling EPA on PFOA issues? 4 A. I don't recall. 5 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 46 was 6 marked for identification.) 7 BY MR. BILOTT: 8 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 9 marked as Exhibit 46, and ask if you recognize this as a 10 February 17th, 2006, e-mail from Susan Stalnecker at 11 DuPont to Chad Holliday of DuPont, subject EPA? 12 A. That appears to be a, an e-mail from Susan to 13 Chad Holliday. 14 Q. In the first sentence, "Linda has contacted 15 Marcus Peacock and got him to understand our need" to "be 16 prepared to do something. The concern is a broad 17 statement about product safety. She stressed that all we 18 want is to restate what they have said." She goes on. 19 Do you see that? 20 A. I see that. 21 Q. And it's your understanding EPA soon 22 thereafter made the statements that DuPont asked for. 1 23 Correct? 2 24 A. I don't recall the sequence. I recall that w w w .corbettreporting.com p- W. Michael McCabe Page 180 1 EPA has, throughout the PFOA process, whether it was in 2 the context of risk assessment or the enforceable consent 3 agreement, or the stewardship program, has made 4 statements, and I think in the context of the SAB, too, 5 has made statements putting the, the health effects 6 impact of PFOA in context. 7 Q- Is it your understanding that Linda Fisher 8 would be permitted to have discussions with current EPA 9 officials about PFOA? 10 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 11 THE WITNESS: I, I don't recall this, 12 this interchange. 13 BY MR. BILOTT: 14 Q- I'm not asking whether you recall the 15 interchange. I guess I'm asking whether it's your 16 understanding, from your knowledge of what the rules are 17 as far as what former EPA people can do, whether Linda 18 Fisher would be -- would be permitted to be having 19 contacts with current EPA officials about PFOA? 20 A. You would have to check with Linda on what the 21 limitations on her post-employment restrictions are. 22 Q. Are you familiar with the extent to which 23 DuPont explained to U.S. EPA that their own Epidemiology 24 Review Board had told them that they could not be making www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 181 1 statements that there were no health effects associated 2 with PFOA in February of 2006? 3 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 4 THE WITNESS: Would you restate that and 5 give me some time parameters on that. 6 BY MR. BILOTT: 7 Q. At the time DuPont was approaching U.S. EPA in 8 February 2006, asking for these broad statements of 9 safety and no health effects be made, do you know whether 10 DuPont was disclosing to EPA during those conversations 11 that its own Epidemiology Review Board disagreed with 12 statements like that? 13 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 14 THE WITNESS: I have not been involved 15 with the Epidemiology Review Board, and have not 16 communicated anything to EPA about any, any statements 17 that they've made. 18 So to the extent that I would have 19 communicated that, I didn't, and at the time I was 20 unaware that there was any communication on this by the 21 Epi Board. 22 BY MR. BILOTT: 23 Q . That was going to be my next question. 24 Do you know, were you aware that www.corbettreporting.com W. Michael McCabe Page 184 1 Q. Do you know whether DuPont had any of its 2 consultants ever prepare draft talking points for EPA on 3 PFOA issues? 4 A. I don't recall that. 5 Q. In fact, soon after the communications between 6 DuPont and EPA in February 2006, where DuPont expressed 7 its concerns and need for EPA to make some public 8 statements about PFOA, EPA made those statements in a 9 telephone conference on March 2nd, 2006. Correct? 10 A. I'm not sure about the dates. I know that EPA 11 all along had been making public comments about the 12 health effects of PFOA. 13 Q. Susan Stalnecker had a good working 14 relationship with Susie Hazen at EPA. Correct? 15 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 16 THE WITNESS: I would say she did. 17 BY MR. BILOTT: 18 Q. And, in fact, your understanding was that they 19 talked frequently on the phone. Correct? 20 A. I can't characterize the frequency. 21 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 47 was 22 marked for identification.) i ! 23 BY MR. BILOTT: 24 Q. Do you recall hearing that after DuPont made www.corbettreporting.com \ .) l8VB8lnRR5<D5S3*CCBnB3iC? W. Michael McCabe Page 185 1 its contact with EPA asking for more definite statements 2 about the safety of PFOA and the products, that Susan 3 Hazen of EPA agreed to make those statements? 4 A. Would you ask that question again? 5 Q. Do you recall hearing that after DuPont asked 6 EPA to make statements about PFOA safety in February 7 2006, that Susan Hazen of U.S. EPA agreed to make those 8 statements for DuPont? 9 A- I seem to recall that there was an agreement 10 to, to put into context the prior EPA statements on, on 11 PFOA. 12 Q. And you were not involved in any of the 13 discussions with EPA prior to a March 2nd, 2006, 14 teleconference to discuss what would be said in that 15 regard? | 16 A. I'm not sure. I need to have more sequential | 17 information. 18 Q. Mr. McCabe, I've handed you what's been marked 19 as Exhibit 47. 20 A. Excuse me. Yes. 21 Q. And ask if you identify that as a transcript 22 of an EPA dial-in press conference on EPA's PFOA Global 23 Stewardship Program from March 2nd, 2006? 24 A. That's what this says, yes. www.corbettreporting.com i ' l 'T r'iifffi W n - j i Tt t i T r W. Michael McCabe Page 186 1 Q. And it's your understanding that since March 2 of 2006, DuPont has repeatedly quoted (J.S. EPA's 3 statements from this press conference in DuPont's press 4 releases regarding PFOA. Correct? 5 A. That's my understanding. 6 Q- What was the need for EPA to hold this press 7 conference on March 2nd, 2006? 8 A. I don't specifically remember what the, the 9 context of this was. 10 Q. Is it -- is it your understanding that in the 11 spring of 2006, after the Science Advisory Board report 12 came out, draft report, that there was also then a 13 petition that got filed seeking to have PFOA listed on 14 the California Proposition 65 list? 15 A. I don't recall what the date was, but I do 16 recall that there was a petition. 17 Q. And because of the increasing amount of 18 adverse publicity surrounding PFOA and DuPont products, 19 DuPont started the creation of a new communications team 20 to take a much more aggressive proactive approach to its 21 communications on PFOA. Correct? 22 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 23 THE WITNESS: Can you give me more 24 specifics? w w w ,corbettr e p o r t i n g .com P- W. Michael McCabe 1 BY MR. B I LO TT : Page 187 2 Q. Were you involved in establishing a PFOA 3 communications team in the spring of 2006? 4 A. I was involved at various times in 5 communications on PFOA. And whether it was part of a 6 newly constituted team or just part of the ongoing effort 7 to have good communications with EPA and the public on 8 this issue, I, I just don't recall. 9 Q. It's your understanding that during the U.S. 10 EPA's TSCA ECA process that we talked about earlier that 11 started back in 2003, there was a group of companies that 12 participated in that process that together referred to 13 themselves as the Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group, or 14 FMG. Is that correct? 15 A. Yes, that is correct. 16 Q . And were you involved in, in that group's 17 efforts to set up a Communications Working Group or CWG? 18 A. I was generally not involved with the 19 Fluoropolymers Working Group. 20 Q. Okay. So were you involved -- 21 A. Or manufacturer's group. 22 Q. Were you involved in any of the efforts by the 23 FMG or its Communications and Working Group to actively 24 retain third-party spokespersons to speak in favor of www.corbettreporting.com p.100 1 PFOA beginning in 2006? Page 188 2 A. I don't -- I don't recall being involved in 3 any FMG activity on that part. 4 Q. Do you have an understanding as to whether or 5 not a strategy was adopted in 2006 referred to as "Clean 6 Hardball" for communicating on PFOA issues? 7 A. I think I heard the term. 8 Let me just say that in about four 9 minutes, I'm going to have to step out for a very quick 10 call, because I was expecting to be on a conference call, 11 and I'm going to have to get out of it. 12 MR. BILOTT: Okay. 13 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 48 was 14 marked for identification.) 15 BY MR. BILOTT: 16 Q. Mr. McCabe, I 'm handing you a document marked 17 Exhibit 48 from DuPont. It just has on the front "Clean 18 Hardball." I'm going to ask if you ever recall seeing 19 this document before? 20 A. I'm not sure whether I've seen this or not. I 21 do recall the term. 22 Q. And, in fact, DuPont, beginning in 2006, 23 adopted a new strategy on PFOA of taking a more 24 aggressive approach in responding to media reports on p. 101 Page 189 1 PFOA that it thought were inaccurate or misleading in 2 some respect. Correct? 3 A. Yes, I think that that's correct. 4 Q. And also adopted an approach of taking a much 5 more aggressive approach in responding to third parties, 6 such as the Environmental Working Group, or others, that 7 they thought were misrepresenting facts relating to PFOA. 8 Correct? 9 A. I think that at thatpart they-- at that 10 point they were actually speakingdirectly with the 11 Environmental Working Group. 12 Q. In fact, one of the things that DuPont did at 13 this same period of time was to try to initiate 14 discussions with the Environmental Working Group to 15 obtain their support for this new PFOA reduction program. 16 Correct? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. And DuPont did have meetings with the 19 Environmental Working Group in that regard. Correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 MR. BILOTT: Take a break. 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going off 23 the record. 24 (Brief recess taken.) vj p. 102 Page 190 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back on 2 the record. 3 BY MR. BILOTT: 4 Q. Mr. McCabe, we were talking about events back 5 in the spring of 2006, and I'd like to go back to that 6 period of time. 7 You were talking about the new "Clean 8 Hardball" approach? 9 A. No, you were talking about that. 10 Q. I was talking about that. 11 One of the things that also occurred at 12 that period of time was DuPont's perception of an 13 increased level of activity by union members. 14 Do you recall that? 15 A. I do recall. 16 Q. Do you recall some concern about something 17 called the Blue Green Alliance? 18 A. There was discussion of that. 19 Q. And, in fact, there was also some concern that 20 these groups that DuPont considered activist groups were 21 focusing on PFOA water contamination issues at various 22 DuPont sites. Correct? r 23 A. I believe that that was one of the, the areas 24 that they were focused on. p. 103 Page 191 1 Q. And one of the things you participated in at 2 that time was setting up a meeting with U.S. EPA to 3 discuss DuPont's concerns with this new level of what it 4 perceived to be activism at its sites and get a read on 5 how EPA was responding to what these groups were doing at 6 these various sites. Correct? 7 A. I don't recall that being the purpose of a 8 specific meeting. 9 Q. Do you recall setting up a meeting with U.S. 10 EPA in the spring of 2006, and one of the issues 11 discussed with EPA at that time was how EPA was reacting 12 to what was occurring at the various DuPont sites with 13 respect to union environmental activists? 14 A. 1 -- 15 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't recall it being a 17 specificmeeting that was set up. It may have been a 18 discussion point in a meeting. But I don't -- I don't 19 recall specific. 20 {McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 49 was 21 marked for identification.) 22 BY MR. BILOTT: 23 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 24 mapked as Exhibit 49, and ask if you can identify this as Page 192 1 an e-mail that was sent to you and others from Susan 2 Stalnecker regarding a, an outline for a meeting with 3 U.S. EPA on March 30th of 2006? 4 A. This, this does appear to be an e-mail from 5 Susan Stalnecker to a long list. 6 Q. And in her Overall Objectives for the meeting, 7 about the fourth bullet point down is a statement, quote, 8 Get information about the reaction to the activists 9 attacks at our sites. 10 Do you see that? 11 A. I see that. 12 Q. Does that refresh your recollection of one of 13 the items on the agenda for meeting U.S. EPA in the 14 spring of 2006 was DuPont's concern with respect to what 15 it perceived to be activists' attacks at its sites? 16 A. Well, it -- it's part of a long list, but 17 it's -- it does not appear to be the focal point of the 18 meeting. 19 Q. On the second page of this particular 20 document, first bullet point, there is the statement, and 21 this is under the heading of Messages for the meeting 22 with EPA, quote, We are concerned by the continued level 23 of activists at our sites. And then a sentence after 24 that is, "The perspective has shifted to safety of p. 105 Page 193 i 1 drinking water and the testing includes a broad suite of I 2 chemicals. We are taking steps to verify such tests and I 3 include the broader ranges. We are also indicating 1 4 alternative sources for the levels. (Cape Fear river | 5 example)." 6 Do you see that? 7 A. I do see that. 8 Q. Do you recall a meeting with U.S. EPA in 2006 9 in which DuPont discussed with EPA its concerns in this 10 regard? 11 A. I do recall that there was discussion over a 12 number of activities at different sites. And 1, I think 13 that -- I think that it was brought up, but I don't 14 recall it being the focal point of the meeting. 15 Q. But it was one of the items that was 16 discussed. Correct? 17 A. I seem to remember that it was. If it had 18 been a focal point, I would have remembered it more 19 clearly. 20 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 50 was 21 marked for identification.) 22 BY MR. BILOTT: 23 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 24 marked as McCabe Exhibit 50, and ask if you can identify j j j j nH naBaenaaaaM m H M am naaaM nm B B nnm H M nnB nM M aaB B B em B aM ananB saB aB aB B m m B B aB B I 1 p. 106 Page 194 1 this as an e-mail chain including an e-mail of Susan 2 Stalnecker of April 3rd, 2006, the subject being EPA 3 Meeting? 4 Do you see that? 5 A. I see that. 6 Q- In the first paragraph, quote, Bobby Rickard, 7 Mike McCabe and I met with the EPA (Susie Hazen and 8 Charlie Auer) last Thursday. And then the next sentence 9 is, "We had several things on the agenda, but one was 10 activities and activists at our sites." Correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. What do you recall, if anything, that EPA said 13 to DuPont with respect to those types of activities at 14 its sites? 15 A. As I recall, I think that they basically just 16 listened to, to Susan's report on some of the activities 17 that had been going on at the sites. 18 I think that, if I recall correctly, 19 because of the number of different EPA regions that were 20 involved, we thought it was important that they be made 21 aware of this. At headquarters, often there is not the 22 relationship between the regional offices and 23 headquarters that might communicate some of this 24 information. And because of DuPont's desire to be in, in 1 p. 107 Page 195 1 good communication with EPA on what was going on in this 2 area, I think that it was felt that it was useful to 3 communicate this. 4 Q. Did DuPont ask for any assistance from U.S. 5 EPA in dealing with what it perceived to be activists at 6 its sites with respect to PFOA? 7 A. As I recall, I think that DuPont did ask that 8 OPPTS share with the regional offices information on what 9 OPPT, OPPTS was doing, had done in this area. 10 They're -- of all of the divisions, 11 departments, assistant administrators within EPA, OPPT, 12 OPPTS has the least relationship with regional offices. 13 The communications are generally very poor, if existent 14 at all. Part of that is because of the nature of the 15 pesticides regulation and the fact that the states don't 16 take that responsibility on, unlike air, water and some 17 of the other delegated authorities. 18 So DuPont felt that it was particularly 19 important that this, this department reach out to the 20 regional offices and share with them information that had 21 been collected so that, again, the public wouldn't be 22 alarmed, that there could be context put around the 23 information that EPA had developed, and that it could be 24 communicated to the public in general. p. 108 Page 196 1 Q. Do you remember, in connection with DuPont's 2 revised approach to be more proactive on PFOA 3 communications, in the spring of 2006 DuPont's adoption 4 of something called the "No Free Shot Plan"? 5 A, No free shot. I don't recall that. Was that 6 part of the "Clean Hardball" plan? 7 Q. That's what I'm asking you. 8 Do you recall any discussion about the 9 "No Free Shot Plan" or what that was? 10 A. I don't recall. 11 Q. In -- do you recall that in April, soon after 12 this, in April 2006, a new lawsuit was filed against 13 DuPont involving contamination of drinking water with 14 PFOA in New Jersey? 15 A. I did hear about that, yes. 16 Q. And then soon after that a lawsuit was filed 17 against DuPont involving contaminated drinking water in 18 West Virginia in Parkersburg. Correct? 19 A. I*m a little confused about that. I generally 20 recollect. 21 Q. And it was, in fact, the day after a newspaper 22 story appeared in the Parkersburg paper referencing the 23 fact that Parkersburg city water had PFOA in it above the 24 level DuPont had agreed to provide clean water for under 1 p. 109 1 the -- let me restate that. Page 197 2 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 51 was 3 marked for identification.) 4 BY MR. BILOTT: 5 Q . Mr. McCabe, I 'm going to hand to you what's 6 marked as Exhibit 51, and ask you to take a moment to 7 look at this and tell me if you recognize this as a 8 DuPont internal e-mail from May 22nd, 2006, including a 9 posting from a newspaper article entitled "Parkersburg is 10 Contaminated, Too"? 11 A. This appears to be an e-mail from David Boothe 12 forwarded to a number of people. 13 Q- And you will notice that David Boothe forwards 14 this on May 22nd, 2006. Correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 52 was 17 marked for identification.) 18 BY MR. BILOTT: 19 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing to you what's been 20 marked as Exhibit 52. I would like you to take a moment 21 and look at that, and tell me if you recognize that as an 22 e-mail from the very next day, May 23rd, 2006, to you 23 from David Boothe regarding EPA water? 24 A. This does appear to be an e-mail chain. Let p. 110 1 me look at it. Yes. Page 198 2 Q. And this includes an e-mail to you from 3 Mr. Boothe the very next day from the exhibit we were 4 just looking at, where there is a reference to meeting 5 with EPA on water issues? 6 A. There is a reference in this on having a 7 meeting on a conference call on Thursday. 8 Q. And, in fact, you were asked to set up a call 9 with U.S. EPA to try to initiate discussions with the 10 Agency to come up with a EPA water number for PFOA in 11 drinking water. Correct? 12 A. We had discussed internally the advisability 13 of setting an EPA standard, of exploring what would be 14 required to set a standard. 15 Given the fact that the -- that risk 16 assessment that normally leads to a water standard being 17 set was not moving forward, that this issue was one that 18 was not coming to closure, and we wanted to have a 19 discussion with the Water Office, and anybody else that 20 the Water Office invited at EPA, to see what some of the 21 possibilities were, what some of the legal regulatory 22 possibilities were. 23 MR. BILOTT: We have to go off the 24 record for the tape. 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going off 2 the record. This completes tape No. 5. 3 (Brief recess taken.) 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back on 5 the record. This commences tape No. 6. 6 BY MR. BILOTT: 7 Q. We were talking about events back in May of 8 2006, and I'd like to go back to that for a moment. 9 By May 24th, 2006, there had been two 10 new lawsuits filed against DuPont, one in New Jersey and 11 one in Parkersburg, West Virginia, involving PFOA in 12 drinking water. And within a day of the Parkersburg 13 lawsuit being filed, David Boothe had asked you to set up 14 a meeting with EPA to discuss -- 15 A. No, that's inaccurate. 16 Q. All right. You set up -- you called EPA to 17 set up a meeting. Correct? 18 A. I had been working on setting up a meeting 19 long before that. 20 I think what this e-mail indicates is 21 that, that it wasn't a meeting, it actually was a 22 conference call, with EPA Water Office had been set up 23 for the Thursday that is indicated here. But as anybody 24 who works with EPA knows, you don't set these things up, 1 particularly when you are trying to get a number of 2 offices together, in a day or two, that it takes time, 3 and I had initiated this long before any of this 4 information came out. 5 Q. It was your understanding, though, that you 6 initiated this because DuPont wanted to get a new number 7 from U.S. EPA for dealing with PFOA in drinking water 8 different from the 150-part-per-billion number under the 9 old CAT Team standard. Correct? 10 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 11 THE WITNESS : My understanding was that 12 as we were discussing a whole range of options on how to 13 deal with PFOA/ that one option was to get a water 14 standard set. It's the logical outcome of a process that 15 involves a draft risk assessment. And we had always 16 targeted on the draft risk assessment as being a process 17 that informed of that eventual number, and we had heard 18 that the draft risk assessment was not moving forward. 19 This would give some regulatory certainty, so we decided 20 to look at -- to initiate this, this discussion with the 21 Water Office about what some of the options were. / 22 BY MR. BILOTT: 23 Q. And this discussion with the Water Office was 24 initiated right after the lawsuit was filed in p. 113 WMHmaiua 1 Parkersburg. Correct? Page 201 2 A. It may have been, but that's purely 3 coincidental. 4 Q. In fact, that's what Susan Stalnecker told the 5 CEO of DuPont two days later, that that's why it was -- 6 those discussions were initiated with EPA. Correct? 7 A. I don't know. 8 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 53 was 9 marked for identification.) 10 BY MR. BILOTT: 11 Q. Mr. McCabe, I 'm handing you what's been marked 12 as Exhibit 53, and ask if you can identify this as an 13 e-mail from Susan Stalnecker to various individuals at 14 DuPont, including Chad Holliday, from May 27th, 2006? 15 A. This looks like a, an e-mail from Susan 16 Stalnecker. 17 Q. Where Ms. Stalnecker says, "We have just 18 commenced discussions with the Water Division of EPA. 19 They know very little about PFOA and we have agreed to 20 work with them and OPPTS." Correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. And she says this as she's forwarding an 23 e-mail from Timothy Ireland regarding the Parkersburg 24 lawsuit having just been filed. Correct? p. 114 Page 202 1 A. That -- that is appended to her e-mail. 2 Q. And you personally were involved in the 3 discussions with U.S. EPA to try to arrive at a new water 4 number. Correct? 5 A. It was to arrive at a water number. It was 6 not to arrive at a new water number. To our knowledge, 7 there was no national water number. This was a 8 discussion about a national water number. 9 Q. It was your -- was it not your understanding 10 that DuPont was already operating under a consent order 11 with the State of West Virginia? 12 A. That was West Virginia specific. 13 Q. But where it required DuPont already to 14 address any drinking water contamination above a certain 15 level? 16 A. In West Virginia. 17 Q- And that U.S. EPA had issued a Safe Drinking 18 Water Act order to DuPont in 2002 that had adopted that 19 number? 20 A. In West Virginia. 21 Q- Was it not your understanding that that was a 22 consent order issued by U.S. EPA Regions 3 and 5 in 2002? 23 A. That's my understanding. 24 Q. So if there was already a U.S. EPA order to p. 115 s Page 203 1 DuPont that established at what level DuPont was to S3M BSSB2 2 provide clean drinking water, why was there all of a 3 sudden this need to develop a new number? 4 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 5 THE WITNESS: Because, because that was 6 a region-specific number addressing the concerns of a 7 specific community. 8 BY MR. BILOTT: 9 Q- The number that was eventually agreed to under 10 the new consent order with DuPont announced 11 November 22nd, 2006, specifically indicated that it also 12 was specific to that facility. Correct? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. So what's the difference? 1 1 15 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what your 17 question is. 18 BY MR. BILOTT: 19 Q. You mentioned -- how is this number that EPA 20 came up with under the November 22, 2006, consent order a 21 national number? 22 A. I'm not saying it is. But the e-mail that you 23 are referring to here of May the 22nd, where we had a 24 conference call scheduled with the EPA Water Office, is .| i j Rssm essssr p. 116 Page 204 1 not related to the Parkersburg issue, was not related to 2 any suit that had been filed. 3 It was in the context of a broad review 4 of regulatory options on whether a water level could be 5 established, a national water level could be established, 6 either as part of or in advance of a risk assessment 7 being completed. 8 Q. And are you aware of any documents reflecting 9 some earlier initiation of a discussion on that level 10 before May 23rd of 2006 that you've ever seen? 11 A. Ask that again. 12 Q- Are you aware of ever seeing any documents 13 that reflect that DuPont was having any discussion on the 14 topic you just described, a national water standard, 15 before May 23rd, 2006? 16 A. I don't recall, but I wouldn't be surprised if 17 there wasn't some discussion. We were looking at a 18 number of different options. 19 Q. Had DuPont ever met with U.S. EPA and 20 discussed a national water standard for PFOA prior to 21 May 23rd of 2006? 22 A. I don't recall that we did, and I'm almost 23 positive that we didn't do it with the Water Office. 24 Q. What was your understanding -- let me ask you p. 117 n8*B5SRfK3Rnrs*9Baiss!nEanBr 1 this. Page 205 2 A. And the Water Office would be the appropriate 3 entity within EPA to work on a water standard. 4 Q. Did you have an understanding as to at what 5 level of PFOA in drinking water DuPont had agreed to 6 provide water treatment or bottled water under its 7 settlement of the lawsuit against DuPont in West Virginia 8 state court? 9 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 10 THE WITNESS: Are you talking about the 11 class action suit that was brought? 12 BY MR. BILOTT: 13 Q- Correct. 14 A. I believe that, yes, I was aware of a number. 15 Q- And it's your understanding that what DuPont 16 had agreed to under that settlement was that it would 17 provide clean water if the water -- if the level of PFOA 18 in the water was above 0.05 parts per billion. 19 MS. STENNES: Objection. 20 MR. BILOTT: Let me just finish the 21 question. 22 Q. Correct? 23 A. I believe that that is the number. 24 Q. Have you participated in any discussions with f 3 ! i 5 \ ] p. 118 Page 206 1 DuPont about whether or not to simply provide water 2 treatment or clean water to the City of Parkersburg, 3 which was also contaminated with PFOA above 0.05 parts 4 per billion? 5 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 6 THE WITNESS: Would you ask that, that 7 question again? 8 BY MR. BILOTT: 9 Q. Have you ever had any discussions, I mean, 10 have you ever participated, I should say, in any 11 discussions with anyone at DuPont about whether to simply 12 provide the same kind of water treatment for the City of 13 Parkersburg that DuPont had already agreed to provide for 14 other communities around Parkersburg with PJTOA in their 15 water above 0.05 parts per billion? 16 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 17 THE WITNESS: I have not had that 18 discussion. 19 BY MR. BILOTT: 20 Q. Are you aware of anybody ever having that 21 discussion at DuPont? 22 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 23 THE WITNESS: There may have been, but I 24 wasn't party to those discussions. p. 119 1 BY MR. BILOTT: Page 207 2 Q. Same question with respect to New Jersey. 3 Have you ever heard of any discussions 4 about DuPont evaluating whether to simply provide clean 5 water to communities in New Jersey where the level of 6 PFOA in the water is above the same 0.05 part per billion 7 level that DuPont agreed to use under the class action 8 settlement in West Virginia? 9 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 10 THE WITNESS: i don't believe that 11 haven't been part of any discussion to provide water at 12 those levels. 13 BY MR. BILOTT: 14 Q- It's your understanding thatDuPont is 15 providing clean water to communities in Ohio and West 16 Virginia where PFOA was found above 0.05 parts per 17 billion. Correct? 18 A. That's my understanding. 19 Q- And based on your understanding ofPFOA and 20 the regulatory issues surrounding PFOA, is it your 21 understanding that that is the wrong thing to be doing? 22 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 23 THE WITNESS: It appears that at 24 that level it's -- that levels well above that level are Page 210 1 THE WITNESS: My, my personal opinions 2 on this are irrelevant. 3 BY MR. BILOTT: 4 Q. Well, the Court will decide what's irrelevant 5 or not. 6 I'm just asking, what is your opinion? 7 What is your personal opinion? 8 A. My opinion is that there is a process that is 9 in our Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act laws 10 that is followed by EPA and delegated to the states in 11 appropriate situations, and that's how we determine our 12 water -- our water levels. 13 Q. Yes or no. Do you agree with DuPont's 14 decision to provide clean water to those communities? 15 A. I'm answering it -- 16 Q. Yes or no? 17 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 18 THE WITNESS: I am answering it in the 19 context of the laws that I am familiar with. 20 BY MR. BILOTT: 21 Q. And you can't answer that yes or no? 22 A. I am not going to answer it yes or no. 23 Q. You refuse to answer that? 24 A. I -- I've given you ray answer. p. 121 1 Q. Okay. I think that's clear. Page 211 2 So you, then, participated in 3 discussions with U.S. EPA Regions 3 and 5 to develop a 4 water number for PFOA. Correct? 5 A. We eventually engaged in discussions with 6 Region 3 and 5. The discussions were initiated with, 7 with Headquarters, and Region 3 and 5 were brought into 8 the discussion because of their experience with the 9 consent order, consent decree that had been arrived at 10 in, what, 2002, 2003? I forget the date. 11 Q- During those discussions, did anyone from 12 DuPont disclose to EPA the existence of lawsuits against 13 DuPont claiming that the level of PFOA in water in West 14 Virginia in Parkersburg was above 0.05 parts per billion? 15 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't specifically 17 recall, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had not. 18 BY MR. BILOTT: 19 Q. But you don't know? 20 A. I don't recall. 21 MS. STENNES: You are talking about the 22 same lawsuit that you just referenced earlier, just for 23 the record? 24 MR. BILOTT: I'm talking about a lawsuit 1 4 1 \ p. 122 1 in Parkersburg. Page 212 2 MS. STENNES: Filed in Federal Court? 3 MR. BILOTT: Yep. 4 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 54 was 5 marked for identification.) 6 BY MR. BILOTT: 7 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 8 as exhibits -- Exhibit 54, and ask if you can identify 9 that as charts from a meeting between DuPont and U.S. EPA 10 on June 22nd, 2006? 11 A. This appears to be charts that were provided 12 to EPA. 13 Q. And you participated in that meeting. 14 Correct? 15 A. I did. 16 Q- And one of the things you eventually 17 participated in was a discussion looking at what would be 18 the impact to DuPont of picking different thresholds for 19 the new water number. Correct? 20 A. State that again. 21 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 55 was 22 marked for identification.) 23 THE WITNESS: What was your question? 24 BY MR. BILOTT: p. 123 Page 213 1 Q. Let me ask you to take a look at this. 2 Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 3 55, and ask if you can identify that as your e-mail to 4 Susan Stalnecker and Linda Fisher and others at DuPont 5 regarding your -- a follow-up to your meeting with U.S. 6 EPA in June 2006? 7 A. This does appear to be an e-mail from me to 8 Susan Stalnecker. 9 Q- And you're talking about preparation of next 10 stage of discussions with EPA regarding the water number. 11 Correct? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q- And one of the items you reference here that 14 will be done is, quote, assess the impact of different 15 threshold levels. 16 Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q- Now, what different threshold levels did 19 DuPont consider? 20 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 21 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to recall. 22 think that this followed a discussion where DuPont 23 presented to EPA the pharmacokinetic impacts of 24 consumption of, of water and blood levels associated with i j l j I i \ ? p. 124 __________________________________________________________________ 1 that consumption. Page 214 2 There was a range within that 3 pharmacokinetic assessment that represented what might be 4 determined threshold levels, and they corresponded to, to 5 blood levels. I think that that's what I was referring 6 to. 7 BY MR. BILOTT: 8 Q. Do you recall whether DuPont looked at what 9 the impact would be if the new number was 0.05 parts per 10 billion? 11 A. It wasn't relevant because it had no 12 relationship to the pharmacokinetic relationship between 13 water consumption and blood levels. 14 Q- So that was not one of the numbers DuPont 15 considered? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you recall that during the time that DuPont 18 was discussing this issue with U.S. EPA, DuPont also 19 learned that the State of New Jersey was planning on 20 issuing its own number for PFOA in drinking water? 21 A. I forget the, the time sequence, but it might 22 have been around this time. 23 Q. And DuPont, to your knowledge, had some 24 concern that the number from New Jersey might be i 1 inconsistent with the number that DuPont was discussing 2 with EPA. Correct? 3 A. The inconsistency was that the number, the 4 range that New Jersey was discussing didn't have any 5 relationship to the latest scientific information. 6 Specifically, the pharmacokinetics. 7 Q- And the State of New Jersey disagreed with 8 that assessment, though. Correct? 9 A. They disagreed with what? 10 Q - The State of New Jersey disagreed with 11 DuPont's suggestion that their, the State of New Jersey's 12 assessment was not consistent with the pharmacokinetic 13 information? 14 A. The State of New Jersey introduced a number of 15 assumptions into their calculation, which included a 16 range of factors that, as they indicated, one, did not 17 include human health data, the latest human health data, 18 or the most updated scientific data. So, in fact, they 19 were operating on outdated information. 20 Q. And, in fact, at one point you drafted a 21 letter -- let me restate that. 22 You drafted a memo to be sent to the 23 State of New Jersey's Department of Environmental 24 Protection laying out those arguments on behalf of DuPont p. 126 1 as to why the State of New Jersey's analysis was Page 216 2 incorrect? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. And the State of New Jersey received that 5 memo, which actually went out under Bobby Rickard's name. 6 Correct? 7 A. The final version did. I did the initial 8 draft. 9 Q. And the State of New Jersey, through Gloria 10 Post, reviewed that memo and then sent a letter back to 11 DuPont disagreeing with the DuPont analysis. Correct? 12 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 13 THE WITNESS : They, they took issue with 14 some aspects of it, but they did acknowledge that they 15 did not have the most up-to-date information. 16 BY MR. BILOTT: 17 Q. The State of New Jersey did not change its 18 analysis, though, based on the memo. Correct? 19 A. No, they didn't change their analysis. 20 Q. And, in fact, during the discussions with 21 Du -- with EPA about the water number, it was DuPont 22 that actually proposed that EPA use 0.5 parts per billion 23 as the number. Correct? 24 A. The discussions with EPA involved a range of p. 127 1 numbers. EPA actually came up with the numbers Page 217 2 themselves. DuPont's number, which was an analysis that 3 Bobby Rickard spelled out for EPA, ranged from 1 to 3 4 parts per billion, and that was based on the 5 pharmacokinetics. 6 EPA came back and said that they needed 7 a, a lower number, and they came back with a range. 8 Q. What did they say as to why they needed a 9 lower number? 10 A. They felt that it, it added an additional 11 level of, of conservative calculations. 12 Q. Do you recall, though, that it was DuPont that 13 suggested the 0.5 number? 14 A. I -- in, in our range of discussions, there 15 were a number of numbers that were discussed. My 16 recollection i& that DuPont all along said that 1 to 3 17 parts per billion was the prudent number based on 18 pharmacokinetics. 19 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 56 was 20 marked for identification.) 21 BY MR. BILOTT: 22 Q- After these discussions occurred for a while, 23 there was a point in time where U.S. EPA prepared a draft 24 consent order to lay out the agreement with DuPont and 1 submitted that to DuPont for review. Correct? Page 218 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And DuPont was upset when it saw the draft 4 because U.S. EPA included language under the Safe 5 Drinking Water Act referencing that there would be an 6 imminent and substantial endangerment to human health 7 from PFOA in drinking water above the 0.5 number. 8 Correct? 9 A. I think, as you've mentioned before, the 10 consent order that was agreed to that set the CAT number 11 at 150 parts per billion was based on a 1431 Imminent and 12 Substantial Endangerment order. 13 EPA-felt that they needed to amend that 14 order and keep that order in place. It included that 15 language, as all 1431 consent orders do. 16 Q. But DuPont was not happy when that -- when 17 that language was included in the first draft, and 18 specifically told EPA that the deal was that DuPont would 19 agree to the number as an interim exposure level and did 20 not want it tied to any imminent and substantial 21 endangerment language. Correct? 22 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 23 THE WITNESS: It was felt that by 24 including that language, there would be undue alarm and 1 confusion in the community, and that DuPont had done a 2 lot of work at addressing community concerns about this, 3 and to restate that language, particularly in the context 4 of a new level that was significantly lower by many, many 5 orders of magnitude, would unduly concern and confuse the 6 community. 7 BY MR. BILOTT: 8 Q. So DuPont did express concerns about having 9 that kind of language in the order. Correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I'm going to hand to you what's been marked as 12 Exhibit -- as Exhibit 56, and ask you to take a moment to 13 look at that, and tell me if you recall ever seeing this 14 document before? 15 MS. STENNES: For the record, it's not a 16 complete copy of the document that you've given him. 17 MR. BILOTT: In what way is it not 18 complete? It's the document in the version produced to 19 us by DuPont. I recognize it starts on page 7, but 20 that's how it was produced to us. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't recall this 22 specific document, but I am familiar with some of the 23 discussion and arguments that are made in the document. 24 BY MR. BILOTT: p. 130 1 Q . Did you draft this document? Page 220 2 A. No. 3 Q. Referring to the.very first page, first 4 sentence, under the heading DuPont's July 2006 Proposal 5 to EPA, there is the statement, "Based on these 6 considerations, DuPont proposed in July of 2006 to lower 7 the screening level from 150 parts per billion to an 8 exposure-based level of 0.5 ppb in drinking water." 9 Do you see that? 10 A. Based on these considerations, DuPont 11 proposed. 12 I see that. 13 Q- Does that refresh your recollection that it 14 was DuPont who proposed that number to EPA? 15 A. As I said, this was all part of discussions 16 with EPA where there was a range of numbers discussed, 17 and the final number that EPA came up with was .5 parts 18 per billion. 19 Q. So that the statement we just referred to is 20 consistent with your understanding of that process, then? 21 A. It is consistent with the process, yes. 22 Q- One of the individuals that was part of the 23 discussions on EPA's side was Dr. Chris Weis. Correct? 24 A. Yes. Page 221 1 Q. Do you recall there being discussions between 2 DuPont and EPA about the extent to which any public 3 comment or public participation would be allowed in 4 connection with the new drinking water number? 5 A. Ask that again, please. 6 Q. Do you recall any discussion between DuPont 7 and EPA regarding the extent to which the public could 8 comment on or have any involvement in this new number? 9 A. There was a discussion about what kind of -- 10 upon what comment period, if any, was necessary for a 11 revision to an existing 1431 order. 12 Q- And what was EPA's position with respect to 13 the extent to which the public should be allowed to have 14 any comment on it? 15 A. I don't recall specifically, but I think that 16 the understanding was that since this was a significant 17 revision downward, and that there had been comment 18 afforded in the first order, that it wasn't necessary to 19 have a public comment period for this. But I'm -- I'm -- 1 20 I don't recall the specifics. 21 Q. What was DuPont's position with respect to 22 whether public comments should be allowed? 23 A. I think our position was that since this was 24 so significantly lower, that public comment wasn't p. 132 Page 222 1 necessary, and it was a revision of an existing order. 2 Q. Do you recall that after DuPont received the 3 initial draft of the proposed consent order with this new 4 number, and DuPont was unable to get the EPA officials it 5 was dealing with to agree to change the language on the 6 imminent substantial endangerment issue, that DuPont 7 initiated discussions with Headquarters to try to get EPA 8 to change the language? 9 A. Ask that again. 10 Q. Do you recall that after DuPont was 11 unsuccessful in persuading EPA at the regional level to 12 change the language of the consent order to take out the 13 imminent and substantial endangerment language, DuPont 14 initiated discussions with people at EPA headquarters to 15 try to get that done? 16 A. I do recall that. 17 Q. Were you part of those discussions? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Who did you call? 20 A. Oh, I'm sure I called a number of people. I 21 think I called a number of people at EPA. I don't recall 22 specifically who. 23 Q- Were you given any guidelines from DuPont as 24 to what you were to achieve by your calls? p. 133 Page 223 1 A. Well, what we were seeking to achieve is to 2 remove language that we thought would unduly alarm the 3 community, and particularly since this was being taken 4 down to a level that was highly protected from a 5 pharmacokinetic standpoint, and we didn't think it was 6 necessary to have this as part of the overall message and 7 order that went out. 8 EPA countered by saying it's a 1431 9 order. It's got to be part of the order, because that's 10 what we're basing the order on, and that's the basis for 11 this new level. So they stuck with that. EPA -- EPA's 12 the one that interprets the laws unless you want to 13 challenge it. 14 Q- So what happened during that last negotiation 15 meeting in November of 2006 where DuPont met with EPA to 16 try to get a final agreement on this consent order 17 language and was still seeking to get that imminent and 18 substantial endangerment language out, how -- let me 19 restate that. 20 Why did DuPont accept that imminent and 21 substantial endangerment language in this consent order? 22 A. I think there were a number of reasons. 23 One is that DuPont felt comfortable with 24 the eventual number that was arrived at. They also felt 1 that EPA understood, in fact, EPA initiated some Page 224 2 discussion about concerns about the public 3 misinterpreting the imminent and substantial endangerment 4 language in that final discussion. And it was felt 5 that -- and that EP -- and that DuPont and EPA agreed on 6 language where DuPont was going to disagree with some of 7 the scientific conclusions that EPA had reached in 8 setting this level. 9 So I think that, as with any 10 negotiation, you win some, you lose some, but that it was 11 felt that, particularly as regards imminent and 12 substantial endangerment, that EPA understood the context 13 of that and had no interest in, in alarming the community 14 unduly. 15 Q- Do you recall any discussion about the extent 16 to which the new number under the consent order would, 17 would have any impact, if at all, on the Parkersburg 18 lawsuit? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do yourecall there being any discussion about 21 the extent to which thenewnumber would impact the New 22 Jersey lawsuit against DuPont? 23 A. No. 24 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 57 was p. 135 1 marked for identification.) Page 225 2 THE WITNESS: Now I'm going to need to 3 take a break. And I'm actually going to need some 4 assistance, because this, this restroom has a double door 5 that makes it very difficult for me to get in and out of. 6 MR. BILOTT: Sure. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going off 8 the record. 9 (Brief recess taken.) 10 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 58 was 11 marked for identification.) 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the 13 record. 14 BY MR. BILOTT: 15 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 16 as Exhibit 57, and ask if you can identify that as an 17 e-mail from Andrea Malinowski at DuPont to a number of 18 folks, including yourself, forwarding an e-mail from 19 Susan Stalnecker to U.S. EPA with several documents 20 attached? 21 A. This appears to be an e-mail forwarded by 22 Andrea Malinowski. 23 Q. And it's your understanding that the documents 24 attached here are documents that DuPont sent to U.S. EPA p. 136 Page 226 | 1 in October 2006 during the discussions leading up to 1 2 finalizing the consent order on the 0.5 parts per 3 billion. Correct? 4 A. Let me look at this. 5 Yes, that appears to be what it is, 6 although I haven't looked at all of the documents. 7 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 59 was 8 marked for identification.) 9 BY MR. BILOTT: 10 Q. And, Mr. McCabe, it's your understanding that 11 one of the things DuPont proposed to EPA was that rather 12 than memorialize this new number through a Safe Drinking 13 Water Act consent order, that the Agency consider 14 entering into a Memorandum of Agreement instead, correct, 15 to avoid the imminent substantial endangerment issue? 16 A. That was one of the options discussed. 17 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 18 as Exhibit 58, and ask if you can identify that -as a 19 proposed -- Outline of Proposed Memorandum of Agreement 20 that DuPont sent to EPA in October of 2006 as part of 21 this proposal we have been discussing? 22 A. That looks like what this is, but I haven't 23 reviewed it thoroughly. 24 Q- But it's your understanding DuPont sent a i p. 137 Page 227 1 proposed Memorandum of Agreement to EPA. Correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And EPA did not accept thatform for 4 memorializing the agreement. Correct? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And insisted on it being a Safe Drinking Water 7 Act order. Correct? 8 . Correct. 9 Q. During your involvement with negotiation of 10 this consent order between DuPont and U.S. EPA, did you 11 have any dealings with a Mike Steinberg of Morgan 12 Lewis & Bockius, attorney for DuPont? . 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And what's your understanding as to what he 15 was -- was he involved throughout the entire course of 16 these discussions? 17 A. I believe that he was, but whether he was at 18 every stage of the discussion, I just don't recall. I 19 know that he was providing counsel. 20 Q- And it's your understanding that during the 21 negotiations, when it became clear that EPA was insisting 22 upon a Safe Drinking Water Act order, including the 23 imminent substantial endangerment language, that DuPont 24 prepared a list of concerns with respect to what the 1 impact of such an order would be? Page 228 2 A. I seem to recall that. 3 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 4 marked as Exhibit 59, and ask if you can identify this as 5 an e-mail from David Boothe at DuPont to a number of 6 individuals, including yourself, forwarding an attached 7 list of concerns? 8 A. This is an e-mail from David Boothe to a long 9 list of recipients, including myself. And attached to it 10 are concerns. 11 Q. The third -- and you have seen these concerns 12 before. Correct? 13 A. It looks.familiar. 14 Q. The third bullet point down under the 15 Concerns, the attached Concerns are, quote, Positioning 16 0.5 ppb as a threshold of 'imminent and substantial 17 danger' implies (from PK) no Margin of Exposure or, at 18 best, an MOE of 10 for the world population. 19 Do you see that? 20 A. Yes, I see that. 21 Q. And do you recall discussions between U.S. EPA 22 and DuPont on that point? 23 A. I believe that we did have discussions. 24 Q. And what was EPA's position with respect to 1 that point? 2 A. Let's see. I think that their -- I think 3 that, as I recall, their position was that -- I think 4 that their position was that they felt comfortable with 5 that level, and that that was one that they felt could be 6 supported in the -- in the order. 7 Q- Do you recall EPA ever stating that they 8 disagreed that that would be the implication from 0.5 9 ppb? 10 A. That they disagreed with what? 11 Q. That an implication of this nature being 12 implied from 0.5 ppb? 13 A. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what the 14 concern. 15 Q. The implication -- do you -- do you have an 16 understanding as to whether EPA ever said that it 17 disagreed that the margin of exposure would be 0 or, at 18 best, 10 for the world population using this 0.5 ppb 19 number? 20 A. I'm afraid I don't recall. I don't recall 21 whether they disagreed or not. 22 Q. One of the other concerns under Consistency of 23 Approach and Message, second bullet item, is 24 "Implications for ongoing and new litigation. Then in Page 230 1 parens, water and consumer products, close parens. 2 Do you see that? 3 A. I see that. 4 Q. Do you recall there being discussions between 5 DuPont and EPA in connection with this Safe Drinking 6 Water Act consent order about the implications of this 7 number on pending water cases against DuPont? 8 A. I remember that we had discussions about that. 9 I think that there were discussions with EPA about the, 10 the implications for, for litigation, but it surrounded, 11 it was more around the imminent substantial endangerment, 12 as I recall. 13 Q- What's your understanding as to what DuPont 14 understood the implications would be on the water 15 litigation? 16 A. I think it just -- it was a question of 17 confusing the issue further. And that was part of the 18 reason that there was the concern about the imminent and 19 substantial language, that having worked so hard with the 20 communities to address the issue, that this, this new 21 order would unduly alarm the communities. And, 22 obviously, that has a tie-in to the litigation that had 23 occurred previously. 24 Q. And in connection with a concern over what the p. 141 * Page 231 1 communities might think about this new number, DuPont -- 2 A. Not about the new number, about the language. I 3 Q. In connection with those concerns, DuPont 4 expressed concerns to U.S. EPA about the way in which 5 U.S. EPA would announce this new consent order to the 6 public. Correct? 1 7 A. Yes. I 8 Q. And reminded EPA that they should not say | 9 things that are inconsistent with what EPA had said 10 before about the safety of PFOA and consumer products. 11 Correct? 12 A. It would not be inconsistent to, to ask them 13 to reiterate what they had said in the past. I don't 14 recall specifically that, that component of the message. 15 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 60 was 16 marked for identification.) 17 BY MR. BILOTT: 18 Q- Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 19 as Exhibit 60, and ask if you identify this as an.e-mail 20 from Susan Stalnecker of DuPont to Mark Pollins at U.S. 21 EPA, upon which you were copied, along with others, from 22 November 5th, 2006? 23 A. Excuse me. This does appear to be an e-mail 24 from Susan Stalnecker to Mark, and I am copied on it. t 1 1 Q. And in this e-mail from Ms. Stalnecker to U.S. 2 EPA she states, quote, It dawned on us that since you and 3 your Team have really only 'learned' about PFOA over the 4 past few months, you may not appreciate the level of our 5 concern with respect to the risk of public concern that 6 could be created if we are not thoughtful about the words 7 we use. The EPA has said some very specific things about 8 PFOA that I am sure your office would not want to 9 publicly contradict, as that would serve to cause both 10 confusion and concern. 11 Correct? 12 A. That's what this e-mail says. 13 Q. Do you recall EPA expressing some irritation 14 that this e-mail had been sent to them and viewing it as 15 a threat? 16 A. No, I don't recall that. 17 Q. In fact, EPA, U.S. EPA included a fairly 18 lengthy statement, statement of facts. Let me restate 19 that. 20 When O.S. EPA announced the final 21 consent order on November 22nd, 2006, they included a 22 facts sheet with their public press release. 23 Do you recall that? 24 A. I do recall. 1 Q. And it was several pages of background as to 2 how the number had been developed and why. 3 Do you recall that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q- Had DuPont seen any of that language before 6 U.S. EPA released it in November of 2006? 7 A. Oh, boy. I, I don't recall. I think that 8 there had been components -- I know that as we were 9 developing the consent order, we were asking EPA for what 10 their --- the basis was for their, their concerns about 11 this. What new studies, what, what issues that had gone 12 into their -- into their approach and decision, 13 particularly a Chris Weis memo that had been developed, 14 which had not been shared with us. And we asked to see 15 all that, and I believe that we saw -- that we saw it 16 before we signed the, the consent order. 17 But whether that was the equivalent of 18 what ended up in the facts sheet or not, I don't 19 remember. 20 Q- It's your understanding that when U.S. EPA 21 announced the revised consent order, one of the things it 22 represented to the public was that this was being done at 23 the request of the Ohio EPA and the West Virginia EPA. 24 Do you recall that? p. 144 Page 234 1 A. I vaguely recall that. Yes, as a matter of 2 fact, I do. 3 Q. And is it also your -- 4 A. That was included in their statement. 5 Q. Is it also your understanding, though, that 6 Ohio EPA didn't even send the letter requesting U.S. EPA 7 to do any of this until after U.S. EPA and DuPont had 8 reached final agreement on the consent order? 9 A. I don't recall that. 10 Q- Do you know why Ohio EPA was not even informed 11 of the consent order prior to the time it was agreed to? 12 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 13 THE WITNESS: You will have to ask EPA 14 BY MR. BILOTT: 15 Q. Did you have any discussions with either Ohio 16 EPA or West Virginia EPA on the consent order? 17 A. No, I did not. 18 Q. To your knowledge, did anyone at DuPont have 19 any involvement in drafting or having any input into the 20 language U.S. EPA used in its final fact sheet for the 21 final consent order? 22 A. May I see the fact sheet? 23 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 61 was 24 marked for identification.) ] p. 145 1 BY MR. BILOTT: Page 235 2 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 3 as Exhibit 61, and ask if you can identify that as the 4 final fact sheet released by U.S. EPA on November 21st, 5 2006, for the consent order we have been discussing, 6 along with an attached copy of the final consent order? 7 A. It looks like -- it looks like the final fact 8 sheet. 9 Q. And do you recall whether DuPont had any 10 involvement with drafting any portion of the language 11 that appears in this U.S. EPA fact sheet? 12 A. I do not think DuPont had any involvement in 13 drafting the fact sheet. 14 Q. To your understanding, did anyone at DuPont 15 ever express any concerns to U.S. EPA about any of the 16 language used in this fact sheet? 17 A. I just don't recall. 18 Q- After the consent order was finalized that 19 we've just been talking about, it came to your attention 20 that the New Jersey Department of Environmental 21 Protection was -- boy, these are short tapes -- was 22 planning on finalizing and releasing its final number on 23 PFOA in water. Correct? 24 A. I 'm sorry, would you state that again. Page 236 1 Q. After the U.S. EPA and DuPont consent order 2 that picked the 0.5 number was released, you became aware 3 that the New Jersey DEP was planning on releasing its 4 final number for PFOA in water? 5 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 6 BY MR. BILOTT: 7 Q. A number on PFOA in water. Correct? 8 A. Yes, we became aware that they were moving 9 toward final decision on that, that guidance level. 10 Q. And you were asked by DuPont to help draft 11 documents to be sent to New Jersey DEP in an effort to 12 try to persuade the State of New Jersey to adopt the same 13 number that DuPont had just agreed to with the U.S. EPA. 14 Correct? 15 A. We were -- I was -- I was instructed to 16 develop a draft memo that, that would explain the process 17 that we had been through with EPA and the validity of the \ 18 number that it had come up with as part of that process 19 and share that with New Jersey DEP. 20 MR. BILOTT: Let's change the tape. 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now going off 22 the record. This completes tape No. 6. 23 (Brief recess taken.) 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back on p. 147 1 the record. This commences tape No. 7. Page 237 2 Please proceed. 3 BY MR. BILOTT: 4 Q. Were you ever involved in any activities 5 relating to the State of.North Carolina's efforts to 6 select a number for PFOA in drinking water? 7 A. Not directly, no. 8 Q- Indirectly? 9 A. Only in just overhearing theconversations. 10 I, I wasn't involved. 11 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 62 was 12 marked for identification.) 13 BY MR. BILOTT: 14 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm handing you what's been marked 15 as Exhibit 62. I ask for you to identify this as an 16 e-mail from you to Kathryn Kamins McCord at DuPont on 17 January 8th, 2007, forwarding a memorandum that you 18 prepared? 19 A. It does appear to be ane-mail from me to 20 Kathy McCord. 21 Q. And is the attached memorandum one that you 22 prepared while you were performing work for DuPont? 23 A. Let's see. Let me take a look at it. This is 24 the first time I've seen this. | J ! i i i? 1 I haven't reviewed this thoroughly, but 2 it, it looks like it could be a draft memo that I 3 prepared. 4 Q. And we discussed earlier today how a 5 memorandum that you prepared relating to New Jersey's 6 efforts to select a number for PFOA in water was 7 eventually forwarded to the state under Bobby 8 Rickard's -- 9 (The witness's cell phone started 10 ringing at this time.) 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going off 12 the record. 13 (Discussion held off the record.) 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the 15 record. 16 BY MR. BILOTT: 17 Q. Wehad discussedearlier today how there was a 18 memorandum that you had prepared that eventually was 19 finalized and sent to the State of New Jersey under Bobby 20 Rickard's name. 21 Do you recall that? 22 A. Yes, I do. 23 Q. Is this an early draftof that document? 24 A. It appears to be. p. 149 Page 239 1 Q. Who asked you to prepare this, if anyone? j 2 A. I think that I may have suggested this. 3 Q- And the State of New Jersey did not publicly 4 disclose the number it was going to use as its guideline | 5 for PFOA in water until February of 2007. Correct? B 6 A. I believe that that's when they disclosed the 7 number. 8 Q. Did DuPont, to your knowledge, become aware of 9 what that number was going to be before the state 10 publicly disclosed it? 11 A. We were aware of a, a range of numbers at the 12 low level. 13 Q. And that's because you participated in a . 14 meeting, along with some other folks from DuPont, with 15 the State of New Jersey where they provided an overview 16 of what they were doing with respect to picking this 17 number. Correct? 18 A. That's correct. But I don't believe that they 19 gave us the number in that meeting. 20 Q. But they gave you an idea of what approach 21 they were taking to the number. Correct? I 22 A. Yes. I 23 Q- And from that meeting it was your 24 understanding that they might pick a low number. Is that J *!- p. 150 1 correct? Page 240 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. So DuPont asked you -- 4 (The witness's cell phone beeped at this 5 time.) 6 A. That's a message. 7 Q. So DuPont asked you to try to put together a 8 document to send to the State of New Jersey in an effort 9 to try to persuade them to follow a different approach to 10 selecting their number. Correct? 11 A. Can you ask that again? 12 Q. After the meeting with New Jersey, where the 13 impression was given that the state might be selecting a 14 low number, you were asked by DuPont to put something 15 together to send to the state in an effort to try to get 16 them to take a different direction. Is that right? 17 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 18 THE WITNESS: I don't recall what the 19 sequence was, but in learning about and reviewing some of 20 the, the ideas that New Jersey was putting forward, it 21 was felt that this kind of memo would help put a very low 22 number in context. 23 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 63 was 24 marked for identification.) p. 151 ftaawi 1 BY MR. B IL O T T : Page 241 2 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 3 marked as Exhibit 63, and ask if you can identify this as 4 an e-mail from you to Kathy Kamins -- Kathryn Kamins 5 McCord at DuPont, and a number of other individuals, 6 attaching a revised version of the same document that we 7 saw in Exhibit 62? 8 A. This is a memo to me from a very long list, 9 attached to a very long list of people that this was 10 forwarded to. 11 Q. This is an e-mail from you. 12 A. From me. 13 Q. Correct? 14 A. I'm sorry. From me. And b 15 out the attachment. 16 I don't know how this compares to the 17 document that we were reviewing before. It could be a, a 18 later version of it, a revised version, but I haven't had 19 time to look at it. 20 Q- I'll just refer you to the first page. The 21 subject line of your e-mail refers to this as "Revised 22 memo." 23 Do you see that? 24 A. I see that. I| I p. 152 Page 242 1 Q. And on the first page of the memo itself you 2 now have the memo coming from Kathy McCord and Robert 3 Rickard. 4 Do you see that? 5 A. I do see that. 6 Q. Who, if anyone, suggested that the memo come 7 from those individuals? 8 A. I don't recall who. It was discussed and 9 determined that the memo should come from individuals 10 closely involved in the PFOA issue, and that either Kathy 11 or Bobby would be the best person to, to send the memo. 12 And as part of the process with any of these documents, 13 there was considerable discussion, review, input, and 14 revision by individuals according to their background, 15 experience, particular expertise. 16 Q. Did Bobby Rickard review this material? 17 A. Yes, he did. 18 Q. And do you recall there ever being any 19 discussion with you about the extent to which any of the 20 language you had proposed in this memo dealing with 21 health effects ought to be revised? 22 A. Can you restate that? 23 Q. You included language within this memo dealing 24 with health effects from PFOA. Correct? I i i 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Did Bobby Rickard ever mention to you that any 3 of your language dealing with health effects ought to be 4 changed based on information or guidance that DuPont had 5 received from its Epidemiology Review Board? 6 . MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 7 THE WITNESS : I don't recall Bobby 8 specifically mentioning the Epidemiologic -- Epidemiology 9 Review Board. I know that Bobby did have input into the 10 memo, that I would defer to Bobby on toxicological and 11 health impact issues, and he contributed in that way. 12 But I don't -- I don't recall an Epi Board reference. 13 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 64 was 14 marked for identification.) 15 BY MR. BILOTT: 16 Q- Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 17 marked as Exhibit 64, and I ask if you can identify this 18 as the letter that was sent under Kathy McCord's 19 signature to the Commissioner of the New Jersey 20 Department of Environmental Protection Agency on 21 January 11th, 2007, forwarding the final version of the 22 memorandum that you -- that you drafted? 23 A. This appears to be that letter with the memo 24 attached, but I haven't reviewed it in detail. Page 244 1 Q. And, in fact, DuPont decided to send this 2 letter directly to the Commissioner of New Jersey DEP and 3 copied the Governor's office because of the concern 4 DuPont had that the individuals actually drafting the 5 number were not accepting DuPont's view on how that 6 number should be calculated. Correct? 7 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 8 THE WITNESS: I think that the letter 9 was sent to the Commissioner and to the Governor's office 10 because DuPont was concerned about the, the lack of 11 scientific rigor that had been introduced into this 12 evaluation. 13 BY MR. BILOTT: 14 Q- And DuPont also contacted the State of New 15 Jersey's Economic Development Office to express its 16 concerns, as well, in hopes of having the State of New 17 Jersey revise the way it was approaching calculation of 18 this number. Correct? 19 A. The, the New Jersey Economic Development 20 Office was contacted because the individual that is in 21 charge of the Economic Development Office is one of the 22 Governor's top aids. He's involved with economic issues 23 involved in New Jersey, and DuPont has a substantial 24 presence in New Jersey, not only from a standpoint of 1 their facilities, but also in processing the waste of a 2 number of New Jersey companies, and it has a direct 3 bearing on, on New Jersey's economic future. 4 Q. Do you recall the individuals at the State of 5 New Jersey's Environmental Protection Division who were 6 working on this number expressing concern to DuPont after 7 they learned that DuPont had gone directly to the 8 Commissioner and the Governor's office trying to get this 9 number changed? 10 A. I am not aware of that concern. 11 Q. And, in fact, after this letter was sent, the 12 State of New Jersey publicly released the number that it 13 had picked as a guideline for PFOA in drinking water. 14 Correct? 15 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 16 THE WITNESS: It was a guidance level 17 which is the beginning of a very long process to set 18 water standards. 19 BY MR. BILOTT: 20 Q. It was after that letter was sent, is the 21 question. Correct? 22 A. They issued this after the letter was -- oh, 23 correct. Yes. 24 Q. And the number that the state picked in that p. 156 1 knowledge? Page 248 2 A. Asked them what, for advice? 3 Q- Correct. On whether they should or shouldn't? 4 A. I'm not familiar with what -- who has asked 5 the state what regarding this. 6 Q. Do you have an understanding as to whether 7 anyone.at the Pennsgrove Water Supply has asked the state 8 to officially give them advice on that one way or the 9 other? 10 A. I think that when this number came out, there 11 was confusion in certain water districts, and they asked 12 for a-clarification. I believe that that happened, but I 13 don't recall the details. 14 Q. In fact, in response to your letter -- I'm 15 sorry, in response to the memo that you helped draft that 16 was sent to the Commissioner of DEP in January 2007, the 17 state DEP sent back a letter responding. Correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And they attachedwith thatletter a 20 memorandum that had been prepared by Gloria Post, the 21 toxicologist at the state who had been heavily involved 22 in selecting the 0.04 number. Correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And in that letter Ms. Post,pointed out to 3 Page 249 1 DuPont that there was a distinction between the kind of 2 number the State of New Jersey was trying to develop for 3 long-term chronic exposure over a lifetime to PFOA in 4 water, versus the kind of number that was used in the 5 U.S. consent order with DuPont using 0.5 parts per 6 billion. Correct? 7 A. I believe that she tried to make that 8 distinction, but it didn't make much sense, because water 9 levels are not often set using long-term chronic 10 exposure. 11 Q. You recall that Ms. Post specifically cited in 12 that regard a conversation she had had directly with 13 Chris Weis of U.S. EPA where Mr. Weis explained that that 14 is precisely the difference? 15 A. I believe that there was some discussion of a 16 conversation she had with Chris Weis. Again, I'm not 17 sure that it had a real basis in how water levels are 18 set. 19 Q. Have you -- are you aware of any -- 20 A. I mean, Mr. Weis is a toxicologist with an 21 enforcement branch of EPA, a forensic enforcement branch. 22 He is not with the Water Office and is not involved with 23 setting water standards. So he would not come to that 24 conclusion from a basis of having worked with the primary W. Michael McCabe Page 256 1 (McCabe Deposition Exhibit No. 65 was 2 marked for identification.) 3 BY MR. BILOTT: 4 Q. Mr. McCabe, I'm going to hand you what's been 5 marked as Exhibit 65, and ask if you can look at that and 6 tell me if you can identify this as your e-mail to 7 Kathryn Kamins McCord at DuPont from April 24th, 2007, 8 attaching a draft letter to New Jersey DEP? 9 A. This does appear to be an e-mail from me to 10 Kathy McCord. And I haven't looked at the letter. 11 This does appear to be the draft that I 12 provided to Kathy McCord. 13 Q. And Ms. McCord eventually did send a final 14 version of the letter to the State of New Jersey. 15 Correct? 16 A. I believe so. 17 Q. Do you know whether or not DuPont has received 18 a response to that letter? 19 A. I don't recall. I don't think that DuPont 20 has. 21 Q. Why did you draft this letter? \ *; 22 A. Because I understood the issue and understood 23 the process that New Jersey goes through in setting 24 drinking water standards. . w w w .corbettreporting.com o p. 159 W. Michael McCabe 1 kind of sampling? Page 263 2 A. With? 3 Q. With that sampling? 4 A. No. 5 You know, I think that, upon reflection, 6 there may have been some sampling that was conducted. I 7 seem to remember now that some of that sampling may have 8 occurred. 9 Q- Have you ever seen any results? 10 A. Well -- 11 Q. Are you aware of any results? 12 A. I'm just saying I seem to recall that there 13 were some results. 14 Q. Do you recall whether the results showed any 15 PFOA in any water in Delaware or a Delaware River? 16 A. I, I hesitate to, to recall. I'm very fuzzy 17 on that. 18 Q. In the last few months, DuPont set up a new 19 Regulatory Communications Team. Correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q . And you're on that team. Correct? 22 A. I am. 23 Q- And Shane Snyder is on the team. Correct 24 A. I think that Shane is on it peripherally. www.corbettreporting.com p. 160 W. Michael McCabe Page 264 1 not sure that he's a sitting member. 2 Q- And Holt Regulatory Consultants is on the 3 team. Correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Is Brunswick Consultants on theteamas well? 6 A. I don't think so. 7 Q. Has that teamdeveloped a strategyfor dealing 8 with PFOA and regulators? 9 A. The strategy that the team has developed is an 10 information collecting strategy. It's to get a better -- 11 it's to aggregate better all of the information that's 12 out there, and, if necessary, deal on a case-by-case 13 basis with regulatory issues as they, they arise. 14 Q. Do you have an understanding as to what, if 15 anything,DuPont intends to do to address drinking water 16 contamination in New Jersey with PFOA? 17 MS. STENNES: Objection to form. 18 THE WITNESS: What DuPont intends to do 19 to address drinking water contamination in New Jersey? 20 BY MR. BILOTT: 21 Q. Correct. 22 A. I don't have -- I don't have any knowledge of 23 what DuPont intends to do. 24 Q. So you've never heard of any, any plans for ) w w w .corbettreporting.com p. 161 1 deposition Page 272 2 We are now going off the record at 6:37. 3 (Deposition concluded at 6:37 p.m.) 4 5 I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DEPOSITION, 6 AND IT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 7 8 W. MICHAEL McCABE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 p. 162 1 INDEX 2 DEPONENT: W. MICHAEL McCABE 3 Examination by Mr. Bilott 4 Examination by Ms. Stennes Page 273 PAGE , 270 267 McCABE DEPOSITION EXH 7 1 Subpoena in Rowe v 8 2 Subpoena in Rhodes 9 3 Notice of Deposition 10 4 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00287 11 5 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00288 12 6 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00289 13 7 Document titled DuPont Consulting Solutions, 14 Managing the PFOA Issue, dated 4/25/03 ED 3 13 20 46 50 51 53 15 8 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00291 and 292 58 16 9 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00296 through 301 60 17 10 18 11 19 12 20 13 21 14 22 15 23 Document Bates stamped 015-0002-0002111 through 215 Document Bates stamped WNBG01687 Document Bates stamped WNBG00043 and 44 Document Bates stamped WNBG00050 through 58 (Marked but not used in deposition.) Document Bates stamped 063-0151-0052243 and 244 64 66 66 68 71 24 I 1 p. 163 1 McCABE DEPOSITION EXHIBITS (CONT'D): i Page 274 MARKED ! 2 16 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00293 and 294 73 3 17 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00321 77 4 18 Document Bates stamped MCCABE000374 78 5 19 Document Bates stamped MCCABE01067 and 68 83 6 20 Document Bates stamped MCCABE01098 84 7 21 Document Bates stamped MCCABE01354 and 355 90 8 22 Document Bates stamped 063-0151-0044875 102 9 23 Document Bates stamped MCCABE00001 104 10 24 Document Bates stamped MCCABE01579 107 11 25 Document Bates stamped MCCABE01636 110 12 26 13 27 14 Document Bates stamped 063-0151-0048590 and 591 Document Bates stamped MCCABE02014 through 16 111 117 15 28 Document Bates stamped MCCABE02040 118 16 29 17 30 18 31 19 32 20 Document Bates stamped 006 0133 0067020 through 033 Document Bates stamped 066-0002-0000485 Document Bates stamped 087-0164-0001746 Document Bates stamped HOLT02934 through 938 119 126 128 132 21 33 22 34 23 Document Bates stamped 087-0164-0001748 through 753 Document Bates stamped 066-0002-0000471 through 473 139 142 24 1 McCABE DEPOSITION EXHIBITS (CONT'D) MARKED 2 35 O 36 4 Document Bates stamped 003-0131-0000769 through 810 Document Bates stamped 066-0002-0002789 through 823 143 150 5 37 Document Bates stamped MCCABE02723 153 6 38 71 39 8 Document Bates stamped MCCABE02791 through 798 Document Bates stamped MCCABE02866 and 867 156 159 9 40 Document Bates stamped MCCABE02876 159 10 41 Document Bates stamped MCCABE02885 160 11 42 12 43 13 Document Bates stamped 006-0133-0082374 and 735 Document Bates stamped 006-0133-0083284 through 297 165 168 14 44 Two-page document titled DuPont Media Center 171 15 45 16 46 17 47 18 Document Bates stamped 006-0133-0088917 and 918 Document Bates stamped 075-0144-0011180 Document Bates stamped 004-0134-0000461 through 465 175 179 184 19 48 Seven-page document titled "Clean Hardball" 188 20 49 Document Bates stamped MCCABE03074 and 75 191 21 50 Document Bates stamped MCCABE03137 and 138 193 22 51 Document Bates stamped 006-0133-0108123 197 23 52 Document Bates stamped 006-0133-0108297 197 1 McCABE DEPOSITION EXHIBITS (CONT'D): MARKED 2 53 Document Bates stamped 075-0144-0011918 3 and 919 201 4 54 c: D 55 cO 56 7 Document Bates stamped 003-0131-0000751 through 768 Document Bates stamped 022-0046-0001349 Document Bates stamped 022-0046-0001275 through 283 212 212 217 8 57 q-7 58 10 Document Bates stamped 006-0133-0135635 through 652 Document Bates stamped 022-0046-0001290 through 294 224 225 11 59 12 60 13 E-mail from David Boothe to a distribution list, dated 11/2/06, with attachment Document Bates stamped 006-0133-0138560 and 561 226 231 1 4 61 15 16 62 17 Multiple-page document titled Fact Sheet: EPA, DuPont Agree on Measures to Protect Drinking Water Near the DuPont Washington Works Document Bates stamped MCCABE06628 through 637 234 237 18 63 19 64 20 Document Bates stamped MCCABE06676 through 686 Document Bates stamped 062-0074-0000210 through 220 240 243 21 65 Document Bates stamped MCCABE07078 and 79 256 22 23 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER PAGE 277 p. 166 CERTIFICATE Page 277 2 STATE OF DELAWARE: 3 NEW CASTLE COUNTY: 4 I, Debra A. Donnelly, the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that 5 the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me before the commencement 6 of the deposition; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me, in Wilmington, Delaware, on December 7, 7 2007, to the best of my ability and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the said witness 8 requested the opportunity to review the transcript, and that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed 9 by any of the parties of the action in which this deposition was taken, and further that I am not a 10 relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise 11 interested in the outcome of the action. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of 12 December A.D. 2007. 13 14 15 16 DEBRA jyT DONNELL! RPR 17 CERTIFICATE #151-PS EXPIRATION : PERMANENT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Errata Sheet Page & Line 6: 5 111: 7 259: 1 Change/Correction No / Testified in personal capacity as plaintiff in smalls claims matter in D.C. approximately 30 years ago Hadn't / had Federal noticed / Federally Noticed Reason Recalled after deposition Incorrect word Incorrect phrase h '4 . Ichael McCabe City of .h/t /ihi nq4x>n________ ) ^) state of D e l a v d f e )I Towrr: I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day of f'& hrtXCLty 2008, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of -Dgifl bdOwCG. . personally appeared W. Michael McCabe, who made oath in due form of law that the matters and facts contained herein are true and correct to the best of his information, knowledge and belief. AS WITNESS, my hand and Notarial Seal. My Commission Expires: Notary Public DuPont Consulting Solution^ Managing the PFOA Issue April 25, 2003 DuPont Confidential The miracles o f science" 063-0001-0009683 063-0001-0009683 7f l V C a b ^ t)L- p. 169 Key A ssum ptions............. DuPont Confidential This issue has moved beyond the Wood County, WV class action suit. Attack by the Environmental Working Group on our brands and our corporation could quickly escalate to a corporate crisis if media traction develops. Clearer accountability for various work streams and over-all strategy is necessary to efficiently and effectively handle this issue. It will be difficult to get all interested parties together quickly in a single meeting because of busy schedules and the need to have the right people in the room (no delegation). There are key learnings from managing other issues that are relevant to this issue. DuPont Consulting Solutions Helping clients grow and achieve superior performance i7-Mar-06 - 2- Copyright 2001 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company All rights reserved. 063-0001-0009684 063-0001-0009684 p. 170 Basic proposal DuPont Confidential Convene a meeting of the appropriate parties at the earliest possible time. Between now and the time of the meeting, conduct one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders and senior management to get input and start to gain alignment on the roles and responsibilities for managing this issue. Use the interviews to establish some of the key responsibilities prior to the meeting date. Objective of the meeting is to develop a future state that includes: A clear understanding of all the relevant work streams that need to be implemented and managed and the desired outcomes for those work streams. Assignment of accountability and responsibility for the work streams and the over-all management of this issue. A well defined internal communications plan to keep all appropriate parties current. DuPont Consulting Solutions Helping clients grow and achieve superior performance l7-Mar-06 -3 - Copyright 2001 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company All rights reserved. 063- 0001-0009685 063-0001-0009685 List of invitees to meeting Tom Connelly* Don Johnson* Rich Angiullo* Jeff Coe* AlanWolk* Bill Ghitis * Jane Brooks* Kathy Forte* Nancie Johnson or Michael Parr* DuPont Confidential Andrea Malinowski John Bowman Bob Ritchie JimTrainham George Senkler David Rurak Mike Kullman* Ann Gaultieri Anne McCarthy Cliff Webb DuPont Consulting Solutions Helping clients grow and achieve superior performance * Interview prior to meeting l7-Mar-06 4- Copyright 2001 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company All rights reserved. 063-0001-0009686 063-0001-0009686 <M v m The miracles o f science 063-0001-0009687 063-0001-0009687 p. 173 ) 604 ftfest Tenth S treet Vtimineton. Oetowwe 19AOI (502J 6 5 2 -J2 II lod Free (8581120-7561 (W t (502) 888*7886 DuPont SPS Product Stewardship (Elephant) Draft Segment Communications Tactics 4/29/03 C o n f id e n tia l*1 Introduction Tins document provides potential communications tactics that could be developed and deployed in support o f ongoing product stewardship for DuPont Surface Protection Solutions brands and businesses. The purpose o f this document is to drive the tactical portion o f team meeting discussion scheduled for Thursday, May 1" at 1:00 p.m. During that discussion, it is hoped that we can build consensus on supporting tactics that "make the cut" or new tactics based on discussion - both tactical type and priority o f the tactic (see Stage One, Stage Two, Stage Three tactical segmentation later in this document). Inherent Beliefs 1. Anticipate the worst, and plan for it. 2. Ongoing communications planning is mandatory because we are managing a crisis that will persist throughout 2003 and most likely on into 2004. Although some days or even weeks may pass when little is heard from the media, NGOs, or DuPont SPS customers, consensus is that more events ("eruptions") will occur to shine an unwarned spotlight on this issue. Ongoing communications planning and implementation will help manage customer, regulatory, employee and marketplace perception regarding the true impact o f this issue. 3. RT&E recommends complete and lull disclosure to key audiences o f where this issue stands at any given time. Proactive disclosure and updates afford DuPont the important opportunity to build a fact-based discussion stream about this topic, ff DuPont does not actively tell its side o f this story, others will - including competitors and unfriendly NGOs. 4. Strive for clear, jargon-free communication. This is a challenge because many scientific details and related data support the confidence we have in our science and the safety o f telomer-based products. We inherently want to "tell the facts" but we must do so in customer- and marketplace-friendly communications. 5. Product- and business segment-focused trade communications should be "business as usual" - with a strong safety message but with no attention-getting spotlight on the issue. We have to: 1) acknowledge the issue but in terms o f facts that support our position and 2) draw reasonable, logical recommendations and/or conclusions from those facts. MCCABE00296 p. 174 KT&E PUBUCROADON llN C 6. Consistent messaging is key across ail communications - from corporate to trade. 7. Include tactics that provide access to information 24/7. Situation (Abridged Recap) Earlier this month EPA issued a preliminary risk assessment on Elephant which was followed by a wave o f news stories and parallel communications from the key NGO, Environmental Working Group (EWG). DuPont Corporate responded to the preliminary risk assessment with a news release reinforcing cooperation with EPA and EPA's message that people should not stop using any consumer or industrial related product because o f concerns about Elephant Client updated RT&E on newly initiated, weekly consumer research activity being conducted to understand how much consumers know about this issue, particularly as it related to the Teflon brand. Although this issue affects several parts o f DuPont, RT&E is focused solely on assisting the DuPont SPS business. Client reported that customer feedback from various consumer and industrial SPS business segments has been varied. As o f 4/24/03, client said that the SPS business would communicate proactively based on the level and nature o f customer feedback received through DuPont SPS sales reps and technical staff (overlaid with consumer feedback research being developed by corporate). Draft Segment Communications Tactics In keeping with the current client-stated strategy o f dialing up communications on a needs basis (last situational bullet from above), we've organized potential tactics in three stages from least intensive (Stage One) to most intensive (Stage Three). One o f our inherent beliefs is the recommendation for ongoing proactive communication; accordingly, we view Stage One tactics as mandatory, ongoing activity. Stage Two and Stage Three tactics may be engaged iffwhen customer feedback and concern increase to new levels. Stage One Web site o Don't make the visitor "hunt" for elephant update o Update frequently to keep fresh o Include feedback mechanism 2 MCCABE00297 p. 175 RT&E PUBUCRaXnOM XlNC. Trade media teleconferences o Web meeting/presentalion editorial briefings o Walk editors through the issue with DuPont key messages o Ask about other related editorial opportunities DuPont Telomere Hotline o Strictly a voicemail hotline o Protide outlet for comments and/or questions, including a call back option if requested Key message "business card cheat sheet" ' o Wallet size for use by sales force/tech reps in the field o Laminate o 3 key messages on one side; three supporting messages on other side On-going personal touch phone/-MAIL campaign with customers o Proactive telephone calls by DuPont sales reps to impart a "business as usual" message and subsequently measure customer issue awareness comfort level (or discomfort/concems) o SHARE ONGOING POLLING DATA ON PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ISSUE `T o p Ten" Customer Questions & Answers segment during regular sales team conference call mtgs o Walk through the "top ten" Q&As every single conference call meeting o Indicate which questions are new or different from previous call o Gets input from sales reps; develops topic trends that can be tracked/discussed Customer-friendly follow-up letter I'D INCLUDE A SIMPLE FACT SHEET THAT HITS THE KEY POINTS o Issue after the initial, universal letter from PhD o tailor to each segment o addresses "what does this mean to me* in friendly, relevant terms DuPont facility employee letter o Level One explanation o Commitment and safety messages to employees Regulatory outreach strategies/tactics from McCabe HOW ABOUT DIRECT CONTACT WITH REPORTERS WHO HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN SOMETHING TO 1) ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIP, 2) CLARIFY (LE. CORRECT) MISREPORTED INFO. SUCH AS "PFOA IS A PBT; C-8 IS A KEY INGREDIENT IN TEFLON; AND PFOS AND PFOA HAVE THE SAME CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS " Staee Two PRE PUBLIC HEARING LETTER TO CUSTOMERS LETTING THEM KNOW HEARING IS COMING Post public hearing letter to customers o Some type o f wrap-up letter summarizing public hearing o Position as DuPont SPS continues proper process to ensure uninterrupted product supply Research data customer letters) o Interpret new research data when available; communicate to reinforce our beliefs Segment-specific, push e-mail with issue updates 3 j | 2 j MCCABE00298 p. 176 KT&E FueucRaAnoN^lNc o These are very short e-mail updates o Continues to show that DuPont is handling this situation so customers don't have to i 4 MCCA8E00299 September 10, 2003 Scott L. Winkelman, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 ATTORNEY W ORK PRODUCT - PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Winkelman: Enclosed please find our invoice for professional fees and expenses incurred during the month o f August, 2003. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. We have enclosed a pre-paid Federal Express airbill for use in making your remittance. We appreciate the opportunity to assist Crowell & Moring LLP. Very truly yours. P. Terrence Gaffney, Esq. Vice President Product Defense T H E WEINBERG GROUP INC. P T G /alf Enclosure WNBG0I687 p. 178 September 29, 2003 Richard C. Bingham Director, Technology Planning E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company DuPont Experimental Station Building 328 Room 4 13 Wilmington, DE 19880-0328 D ear Mr. Bingham: Attached please find a table o f new candidates we would like to consider for the PFOA issues. Please review the list to identify any individuals you wish us not to contact. We hope to speak with these experts as soon as possible after receiving approval from DuPont. W ith regard to candidates w e have discussed the issue with, the following is a list o f experts whom are interested in the matter and have agreed to be retained by Crowell & Moring on behalfo f Dupont. 1. Jonathan B. Borak, M.D., D.A.B.T. Associate Clinical Professor Director, Yale Interdisciplinary Risk Assessment Forum Department o f Internal Medicine Yale University School o f Medicine 2. Harris Pastides, Ph.D. Dean and Professor Department o f Epidemiology & Biostatistics Norman J. Arnold School o f Public Health University o f South Carolina3 3. Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus (Reproductive Toxicology) Department o f Biological Sciences University o f Alabama WNBG00043 Richard C. Bingham September 29, 2003 Page 2 4. Scott Phillips, M.D. Associate Clinical Professor Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology University o f Colorado Faculty Member, Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Center, Denver, Colorado W e are confident that our recruitment efforts will be complete in the very near future and will result in a committed team o f outstanding experts for each o f the key subject areas previously identified. If you have any questions or comments please contact me directly. We look forward to receiving your feedback on the new expert candidates at your soonest convenience. Very truly yours. H. Edward Dunkelberger HI Senior Director Product Defense TH E WEINBERG GROUP INC. H E D /alf Enclosure WNBG00044 p. 180 13 September 29, 2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES Name Jack van Hoff. M.D. Affiliation Associate Professor of Pediatric Hemalology/Oncotogy Acting Section Chief, Pediatric Hernatology/Oncology Department o f Pediatrics Sections and Centers Y ak University School of M ediane Category Hematology (p) 203.7SS.4640 Gregory E. Plantz. M.D. Associate Professor of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Section Chief. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Department of Pediatrics Sections and Centers Yale University School of Medicine Hematology (p) 203.7S5.4640 Margaret K. Hostetler, M.D. Professor ofPediatrics Director, Yale Child Health Research Center Section Chief Pediatric Immunology Yale University School of Medicine Immunology (p) 203.785.4638 c-inail: marEaret.hostettenSvale.e & Michael A. Kaliner, M.D. Medical Director, Institute for Asthma and Allergy at Washington Hospital Center Immuoology (p) 30I.V62.5800 Expertise Childhood cancer epidemiology C om m ents EXHIBIT 3 OtiO Pediatric hematology Pediatric immunology Allergy and asthma Scheduled to discuss matter on 9/23/03. ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 1 WNBG00050 p. 182 i Septem ber 29, 2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES N am e Raymond G. Slavin, MX). AITiliation Director, Division of Allergy Sc Immunology Si. Louis University School o f Medicine (p) 314.577.8457 Category Immunology Edw ard/. Bemacki, M.D.. M.P.H. Associate Professor and Director Occupational Medicine Johns Hopkins University School o f Medicine Executive Director of Health, Safety and Environment and Chair Johns Hopkins Hospital and University Safety Committees Occupational Media"ne Jonathan B. Borak, M.D., D.A.B.T. Associate Clinical Professor Director, Yale Imerdisdplinary Risk Assessment Forum Department td Internal Medicine Yale University School of Medicine Occupational Medicine <p) 203.777.6611 e-mail: tborakiS!iborak.com Mark R. Cullen. M.D. Professor of Medicine and Public Health Director, Occupational and Environmental M edicine Yale University School of Medicine Occupational Medicine (p) 203.785.6434 e-mail: mark.cullerviivaleedu Expertise Immunology, ditucal allergy, pulmonary hypersensiuvit y syndromes, health effects of air pollution Occupational and environmental medicine C om m ents Left messages. Will call back before Monday. Biological and clinical surveillance o f toxic exposures, ride assessment of susceptible populations Agreed to be retained. Occupational and environmental diseases, occupational lung diseases, occupational injury and diseases i ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 2 WNBG0005I l ft }i September 29, 2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES N am e Roy L. DeHart. M.D., M.P.H. A ffiliation Occupational and Environmental Medicine Professor o f Medicine, Professor ofFamily Medicine, Professor of Preventive Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical School Category Occupational Medicine E x p ertise Occupational medicine, workplace toxicology, worker's compensation, environmental medicine C om m ents Rose Goldman, M.D., M.P.H. Associate Professor Department of Environmental Health Harvard School o f Public Health Occupational Medicine David F. Goldsmith, Ph.D. Department of Occupational and Environmental Health School o f Public Health and Health Sciences The George Washington University Occupational Medicine Neurotoxicity, pediatric environmental health Occupational/ environmental epidemiology, pulmonary and auto immune diseases, health effects of pesticides, environmental risk assessment, air toxics Tee L. Guidoui, M.D., M.P.H.. D.A.B.T. Chair and Professor Department of Environmental and Occupational Health School o f Public Health and Health Services Director Division o f Occupational Medicine Department ofMedicine The George Washington University Occupational Medicine Occupational and environmental health, lung diseases and occupational medicine, air quality, inhalation toxicology Howaid Hu, M..D. Professor o fOccupational and Environmental M edicine Department of Environmental Health Harvard School of Public Health Occupational Medicine Health effects of environmental and occupational exposures to lead andotber heavy metals ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT-PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 3 WNBG00052 p. 184 ti Septem ber 29,2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES Name David J. Tollenrd, M.D., M.P.H. Affiliation Professor and Chair Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences University o f Louisville School o f Public Health and information Sciences Category Occupational M ediane Gary D. Berkovit/, M.D. Director of Endocrinology Pediatrics Department of Pediatrics University of Miami Gary R. Fleisher, M.D. Children's Hospital Medical Center Professor of Pediatrics Harvard Medical School Pediatrics Kenneth L. Jones, J r. M.D. Division Head Community Pediatrics Professor Department of Pediatrics UCSD School of Medicine Pediatrics Frederick H. Lovqoy, M.D. Associate Physician-inChiefand Vice Chairman, Children's Hospital Medical Center Professor of Pediatrics Harvard Medical School Pediatrics (p) 617.355.6605 (0 617.738.7066 e-mail: frederidc.loveiovtSllch.har vard.edu Edward 0 . Reiler, M.D. Chairman Department ofPediatrics Baystate Medical Center Children's Hospital Pediatrics (p) 413.794.7040 Expertise Occupational and environmental respiratory disease, medical surveillance, workplace injury prevention Pediatric endocrinology C om m ents Pediatrics Left message 9/22/03. Community pediatrics, dysmorpholog y Left message 9/22/03 Pediatrics Abnormalities o f growth mid maturation ! ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 4 WNBG00053 !  September 29,2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES Name William J. Riley. M.D. Affiliation Physician Children's Physician Services of South Texas Driscoll Children's Hospital Category Pediatrics (p) 361.694.5000 (0361.851.6867 Patrick Breysse, Ph.D. Professor Director, Industrial Hygiene Program Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School o f Public Health Public Health (p) 410.955.3608 e-mail: Dbrevsse@lihSDh.edu Douglas Dockeiy, Sc.D. Professor of Environmental Epidemiology Department of Environmental Health Harvard School o f Public Health Public Health John Evans Senior Lecturer on Environmental Sciences Department of Environmental Health Harvard School o f Public Health Public Health Bernard Ouyer, M .D , M.P.H. Zanvyl Kretger Professor in Children's Health and Chair Department of Population and Family Health Sciences Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Public Health Expertise Comments Pediatric Left message 9/18/03. endocrinology Occupational and environmental hygiene, exposure assessment Air pollution exposure, environmental exposure Risk assessment, uncertainty analysis, decision making in environmental health Population and family health, maternal and child health, child development ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 5 WNBG00054 p. 186 Septem ber 29,2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES Name Richard Monson, M.D. Affiliation Professor of Epidemiology Departments of Epidemiology and Environmental Health Harvard School of Public Health Category Public Health Rebecca T. Parkin. M.P.H., PhD. Associate Research Professor Department o f Environmental and Occupational Health Special Preyed Director School of Public Health and Health Services The George Washington University Public Health Ham s Pastides, Ph.D. Dean and Professor Department of Epidemiology & Biostatisfics Norman J. Arnold School o f Public Health University of South Carolina Epidemiology (p) 803.777.5032 e-mail: oastidestifec.cdu Joel Schwartz. PIlD. M Gordon Wolman, PhD. Associate Professor of Environmental Epidemiology Department of Environmental Health Harvard School of Public Health Professor Ditcdor, Division of Environmental Health Engineering Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School o f Public Health Public Health / Public Health Expertise Occupational exposures Comments Acute adverse health effects and outdoor air pollutants, cancer and water quality Occupational and environmental epidemiology (cancer and reproductive disorders), environmental health impact assessment Agreed to be retained. Exposure to pollutants, w ater contamination . respiratory health Environmenta l health engineering, geomorpholog y. hydrology, environmental change ! ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 6 WNBG00055 ! p. 187 Septem ber 29,2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES Name Richard L. Berkowitz, M.D. A fT itiation Chairman Depaitmem of Obsteuics and Gynecology and Reproductive Science Mount Sinai Hospital C ategory Reproductive Health Expertise Maternal fetal medicine, obstetric ultrasound, fetal therapy Comments Left message 9/19/03. <p) 212-241-5681 e-mail: iichard.beTkowttzf^mssni.e is Lewis B. Holmes, M.D. Professor of Pediatrics Genetics and Teratology Unit Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard University School o f Medicine Reproductive Health Pediatrics, teratology. clinical genetics Left message. Expected to call back 9/23/03 in the afternoon. (p) 617.726.1742 Anthony R. S datti, M.D. Professor Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology Georgetown University School of Medicine Reproductive Health Reproductive toxicology birth and developmental defects Working with 3M. Not available. (p) 202.444.8259 e-mail: ascial01tfrieeor8etown.edu John D. Bogden, Ph.D. Professor Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health University o f Medicine ind Dentistry o f New Jersey Toxicology Environmenta 1toxicology Joseph Bressler, Ph.D. Associate Research Professor Departments of Environmental Health Sciences and Toxicological Sciences Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Toxicology Environmenta 1toxins ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 7 WNBG00056 p. 188 September 29, 2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES Name Steven i. Galitzer. Ph.D. Affiliation Director Department of Public Safety Kansas State University Category Toxicology Expertise Toxicology. asbestos Comments Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department ofBiological Sciences University o f Alabama Toxicology (p) 205.348.1817 e-mail: rtwod@bsc.as.ua.edu Curtis D. Klaasscn, PltD . Professor Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics University o f Kansas Medical Center Toxicology (p) 913.588.7714 e-mail: cklaassc@kumc.edu Developments 1toxicology, particularly the causes and prevention o r birth defects Agreed to be retained. Toxicology, pharmacology Harihara M. Mehendale, Ph D.. D.A.B.T. Professor and Kitty DeGree Endowed Chair in Toxicology Department ofToxicology The University of Louisiana at Monroe Toxicology Environments I toxicology, chemical toxicology, occupational or accidental exposures and short- or long term hazards Scott Phillips, M.D. Associate Clinical Professor Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology University of Colorado Faculty Member. Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Center, Denver. Colorado Consultant, Toxicology \s s o d a te s Clinical Toxicology Medical, occupational, and environmental toxicology Agreed to be retained. e-mail: cott.ohilIiDs@uchsc.edu ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 8 WNBG00057 September 29, 2003 PRELIMINARY EXPERT CANDIDATES Name Rochelle W .Tyl, Ph.D. Affiliation Director RTI Intemalional Center For Life Sciences & Toxicology Category Toxicology Expertise Reproductive and developmental toxicity Comments ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 9 WNBG00058 p. 190 Cynthia C G re e n /A E /D u P o n t 05/09/2005 06:50 PM To David G Bills/AE/DuPont@DuPont cc George H Senkler_Jr/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Sara B Miller/AE/Du Pont@ DuPont bcc Subject Re: Fw: May I visit with you? George? I dont know this group.... Cindy David G Bills/AE/DuPont David G Bills/AE / DuPont 05/09/200 5 10:47 AM _ Cynthia C Green/AE/DuPont@DuPont, George H 0 Senkler_Jr/AE/DuPont@ DuPont cc Sara B Miller/AE/DuPont@ DuPont Subject Fw: May I visit with you? Should anyone meet with these folks? David -----Forwarded by David G Bills/AE/DuPont on 05/09/2005 10:46 A M ------ "M yron W einber g" <M yron. W einber g@ weinb erggroup .com > j 0 David G Bills/AE/DuPont@ DuPont cc Subject May I visit with you? 05/06/200 5 12:23 PM Dear Mr. Bills: Early on during the development of the C8/fluorocarbon chemicalscontroversy, team of experienced individuals from THE WEINBERG GROUP INC. met with a group of people at Dupont Fluorocarbon to discuss how we saw the issues evolving and what plans could be made to deal with the issues which were or would be raised. THE WEINBERG GROUP which offers services in evidenced-based advocacy was given some discrete assignments in developing strategies for helping Dupont in its advocacy of the value and safety of fluorocarbons as part of dealing with this issue. We believed then and we know now that we can provide much more assistance than was asked of us. We continue to see the evolution of this issue and, now more than even, continue to believe that there are activities which we could pursue to advocate Dupont's views. As the management of this division has changed we wonder whether there are changed considerations of the values we might provide fiY C a b e IS 063- 0151-0052243 p. 191 continue to believe that there are activities which we could pursue to advocate Dupont's views. As the management of this division has changed we wonder whether there are changed considerations of the values we might provide in the thrust to use evolving fluorocarbon technologies as a key base on which to move Dupont forward in execution of its strategic plan. I would be most interested in discussing these issues with you to better acquaint you with our capabilities, to tell you about our successes in evidenced-based advocacy in the past 18 months and to learn where we you see that we could offer to help. I am hoping that you will agree that a conversation around these topics would be useful. I will ask my assistant, Sherry Wolozyn, to call your office during the week of 9 May to try to set a time when I might come north to visit with you. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Myron S. Weinberg, Ph.D. Vice President Science-Based Advocacy THE WEINBERG GROUP INC. 1220 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202.730.4100 Fax: 202.833.7057 www.weinberggroup.com "Privileged or confidential information may be contained in this message. you are not the addressee indicated in this message, you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such cases, you should destroy this message." If 063- 0151-0052244 r McCabe & Associates t June 23, 2003 4 Norm andy Drive Chadds Ford, PA 19317 Phone: 610.388.9625 Fax: 610.388.9481 Email: wmichaelmccabe@earthlink.net Scope o f Work Proposal For EPA PFOA Assessment The U S. EPA is currently conducting an assessment o f issues relating to the environmental and human health impacts o f perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and fluorinated telomers. Included in this process is the development o f enforceable consent assessments under section 4 o f the Toxic Substances Control Act to identify information to assist EPA in its understanding o f sources o f PFOA and pathways to human exposure. McCabe & Associates proposes to provide Dupont Chemical Solutions with ongoing consulting services to aid in negotiating this process. Specifically, McCabe & Associates will: Advise on the TSCA process and Agency expectations. Develop strategies to meet Agency needs and requirements within context of Dupont objectives. Recommend and facilitate appropriate interaction with key Agency decision-makers. Provide non-technical review o f materials prepared for submission to Agency. Assess NGO activities and strategies and communicate where appropriate. Advise on public information and outreach strategy explaining nature o f the process and research commitments that are made. Consult with appropriate Agency contacts on process and feedback on submissions. Participate in internal and external working sessions at various locations and advise as appropriate. Provide assistance as part o f Telomers Research Program (TRP) interaction with Agency. Assess and advise on how changes in EPA leadership might affect process and outcome. Coordinate activities with Dupont Government Relations. Analyze "worst case" scenarios as process develops. Assist in development o f "closure" strategy when process is complete. McCabe & Associates has been working with Dupont Chemical Solutions since March 2003 on a number o f these items and proposes to provide services until the process is completed or January 2004, whichever is later. Based on the current use of McCabe & Associates services o f approximately 20-25 hours/month, a retainer fee o f $7,500.00 per month is proposed. This fee would be retroactive to April 1, 2003 to cover services already provided. Expenses associated with this agreement would be reimbursed. In the event that the workload would increase substantially, a new fee would be mutually negotiated. Submitted by: W. Michael McCabe President MCCABE00374 p. 193 To: Spitzer, Ritchie, Korzeniowski, Buck, Moriarty From: Mike McCabe Date: 3/7/04 RE: Meeting with Linda Fisher The meeting with Linda provides us with the opportunity to test some o f our assumptions, verify some o f our intelligence, get a fresh look at what we've been grinding away at for the past year and solicit her ideas on how to handle some o f the milestones that are fast approaching. I don't know how much you were able to communicate in your first session, but I think the meeting should start with an overview o f the P-issue from telomers' perspective. The telotncr/fluoropolymcr distinction: To the uninitiated, the telomer/fluoropolymer relationship both within DuPont and among the various industry players is not what one would assume at first glance. The differing interests of the two groups and how those interests are represented and communicated to the EPA needs to be understood to effectively assess how the issue is viewed by EPA and how it is being addressed by industry. This has not only complicated the issue from EPA's perspective, but has delivered mixed messages at times. Linda needs to understand the complexity o f those relationships in order to appreciate telomers' distinct niche as the P-issue has progressed. She needs to understand that telomers' interests are not always the same as fluoropolymers.' Legacy. The legacy issue should also be part o f the overview. Again, I don't know how much she has heard from others in DuPont on this, but in my view legacy is being ignored by the Agency which runs the risk o f missing the forest for the trees when the process is finished. It also ignores the logical policy path EPA should be concurrently pursuing that would involve dealing with exposure pathways left by legacy sites through the RCRA/CERCLA route. From a human exposure standpoint, --purportedly EPA's overarching interest - this is where attention should now be focused. It is the Deputy's role to connect the dots, but Johnson may suffer from OPPTS myopia here Process Frustration. Once the overview has been presented, I would summarize the frustrations experienced with the EPA process, emphasizing the lack o f defined outcomes (other than process milestones) and failure to identify what m il be done with the collected information. I can attest that I have never seen a more convoluted Agency process. 1 would also give her a brief run down o f all that has been agreed to and is underway in the LOI/ECA process. Ask Linda to give us her best estimate o f where the process is, what the outcomes will be and on what timetable. Silver Bullet: I have always believed that the way out o f this quagmire is to publicly roll out the product process changes that essentially eliminates P* **. I assume these developments have been or will be shared with Linda. We should solicit her ideas about how best to use these developments to: 1. Inform the ECA process; 2. Influence the risk assessment; 3. Influence how EPA characterizes the risk assessment and the ECA process to date; MCCABE01354 p. 194 4. Promote adult supervision o f EPA's process by OMB and the Office o f Science and Technology Policy in the White House. ) MCCABE01355 p. 195 Linda J F is h e r/A E /D u P o n t 11/09/2004 11:12 PM CN=Francine C Shaw/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont, CN=George H Senkler_Jr/OU=AE/0=DuPont@ DuPont, CN=Robert W Rickard/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont, CN=Stacey J Mobley/OU=AE/0=DuPont@ DuPont cc bcc Subject Keeping up History ^) This m essage has been replfed to ahd forwarded I spoke with both Peter Robertson and Mike McCabe today and have asked them to hold their calendars for Tues meeting. They think it is a great idea that we begin to thinkthrough a broader more proactive strategy, and are glad to help us develop it. Peter will do the meeting with me in the DC office. Mike will come to Chestnut Run....Goerge, can you have your office confirm details with him (Mike) please as to logistics.. I would suggest that we (Bobby, me, Me Cabe Henry, Holt,and who ever else wants to participate) discuss a strategy for the meeting =with Charlie on the 22nd....given what we know coming out of tomorrow's meeting, and any feedback from Rich Holt in Paris. We should not go into that meeting blindly, but have a message that is coordinated with what we learn over the next 12 days. Bobby, do you want to take the lead on putting this call together, or should I have Jackie do it. let me know.l Stacy, I have a call into the former AA for Enforcement (Skinner's predecessor) to find out what he knows about the DOJ referral process, etc....He is now GC at Sam's Club in Bentenville Ark, a great guy and good friend, and hopefully will have insights as to how things happen! Details to follow 063- 0151-0044875 From : To: S ent: S u b je ct: "Linda J Fisher" <linda.j.fisher@ usa.dupont.com > "Michael McCabe m ichaelm ccabel" <m ichaelm ccabe1@ earthlink.net> Tuesday, January 11. 2005 4:50 PM Re: Risk p. 196 Page 1 of 1 M ichael M cC abe nichaelm ccabe1@ earthlink.net> 01/11/2005 03:29 PM To Linda J Fisher/AE /D uPonl@ D uPont cc Subject Risk Linda, If there is anything I can help with on the release of the Risk Assessment tomorrow, please let me know. I hope all went well with Chad and the presentation. r Hike McCabe 6 Associates 4 Normandy Drive Chadds Ford. FA 19317 610-38I-962S. work 666-583-4003. fax w ichae1ficcabeSeareh1ink.net <br 9/6/2007 MCCABE00001 From: To: SSent: Subject: <hazen.susan@epamail.epa.gov> Michael McCabe<michaelmccabe1 @earthlink.nel> Friday, April 15,2005 8:33 AM Re: Pulse check M ike, C a ll n e x t w eek. As you know, I am li m i t e d i n what I can share b u t w ould e n jo y ta lk in g w ith you. Susan B. Hazen, A ctin g A s s is ta n t A d m in istra to r O ffic e o f P re v e n tio n , P e s tic id e s and T o xic Substances (Phone) 202-564-2910 (fa x ) 202-564-0512 M ic h a e l McCabe <m ichaelm ccabeie e a rth lin k .n e t> To 04/15/2005 11:29 AM cc S ubject Pulse check Susan Hazen/DC/USEPA/UseEPA )S usie, Could I g e t y o u r in s ig h ts in to th e 8(e) case? I you a re o u t today, but e a r ly n e x t week would work i f you are a v a ila b le . know Thanks and e n jo y what looks to be a b e a u tifu l weekend. M ike McCabe ^ A s s o c ia te s 4 Normandy D riv e Chadds F o rd , PA 19317 610-388-9625, work 866-583-4003, fa x w m ichaelm ccabe8earthlink.net MCCABE02040 p. 198 lPcCae *- ^9 1 006- 0133-0067020 p. 199 2 006- 0133-0067021 p. 200 Discussion Flow Managing Process Issues Update: DOJ, EPA, WVA Workstream Status: emission reduction, product reformulation, alternate sources, global regulatory, communications Strategic Issues Lessons Learned 5/7/2007 DUPONT CONFDCNTIAL 006- 0133-0067022 p. 201 Managing Process Overall Objectives: Resolve DOJ, restore reputation, viable businesses Needs: Faster decision making; Need to "get ahead of the curve" and better anticipate events; Robust issue management; Guidance re intersection points; seamless integration; tight communications review; Team will and spirit Structure: Operational Team; Core Team; VP/GM Team; Steering Team WT/2007 DUPONT CONFDENTIA t 006-0133-0067023 p. 202 DOJ So far, so good Global Hold Order; U.S. document production Wilmington area complete; 208 interviews, 340 boxes Forensic images of hard drives US document production expected to be complete by 8/31 Substantive issue review Aug-Oct White Paper by year end 2005 5(7/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL 5 006-0133-0067024 p. 203 W E S T VIRGINIA s Independent Science Panel beginning w ork to assess w hether there is a probable link fo r the class between exposure to PFOA and human disease - A s s e s s in g lite ra tu re and p la n n in g th e ir w o rk - L ike ly an 24+ m o nth e ffo rt - C o m m u n ity e d u c a tio n u nd e rw ay W ater treatm ent projects are in planning stage fo r a ll six water d is tric ts in the class and individual w ell owners (<100) - N ecessary re g u la to ry a p p ro v a ls have been o bta in ed - In s ta lla tio n o f a c tiv a te d c a rb o n tre a tm e n t s h o u ld be c o m p le te w ith in s ix m o nth s (rem oval to b e lo w 50 p a rts p er trillio n ) P laintiffs have announced th e ir inten t to conduct a " health study" o f the class members (S70MM) - in d e p e n d e n t S cie n ce Panel h as ra is e d is s u e s on la c k o f p ro to c o ls and th e need to m ake th is data u se fu l fo r th e ir w o rk A dditional blood studies being issued: L ittle Hocking, Univ. o f Penn 5/7/2007 DUPONT CONFOENTIAL 6 006-0133-0067025 p. 204 Enforcement: EPA EPA review of boxes containing over 500 reports is complete; only 3 studie: and 1 report are under discussion SEPs under review: bioqegredatioqi; mechanistic cancer; kits in the classroom are Additional counts and modest increase in firies is expected: issue is interpretation of reporting requirements, not nondisclosure Work with EPA to ensure appropriate press Program Office: Second draft Risk Assessment on PFOA in January 2005; Science Advisory Panel (SAB) formed to review Risk As: Draft report issued June 27; "likely" carcenigen^Jconsiderable and substantive discussion; Significant new data submitted by DuPont and 3M; Final not expected until Q4'05 EPA will then consider SAB report; Final Risk Assessment on PFOA anticipated in 2005; Definitive regulations may not be final for 2-3 yei 5/7(2007DUP"Finai''Risk Assessment afte 006-0133-0067026 p. 205 Emissions Reduction 8 Worldwide overall manufacturing emissions reduced 90% vs. 1999 W ashington W orks F luoropolym ers em issions dow n by 98% ' Latest tech advances from W ash W ks being installed w orldw ide US PFO A m anufacturing em issions reduced 99% + com pared to 3M W ork underw ay for over 10 years Worldwide overall reduction goal: 98% by YE 2006 Aqueous Fluoropolymer Dispersion Goal Commitment: >90% PFOA reduction by YE 2006 Led industry-w ide adoption o f goal and com m itm ent to US EP A Feb. 2 005 Announced royalty-free emission reduction technology sharing A ir and w astew ater abatem ent P otable w ater tre a tm e n t A queous Fluoropolym er D ispersion Reduction Clear and Recognized Industry Leadership 5/7/2007 DUPONT CONFOENTIAL 8 006-0133-0067027 p. 206 Suggest to avoid confusion with FP dispersio Fluorotelomer Product Reformulation DCSE executing against a 3-phase strategy to drive tow ards more sustainable s o lu tio n s Stage 1 - in im plem entation phase now and includes Com m ercialization of TQI to remove trace PFOA and other acids by YE06 Yield im provem ents that reduce residual alcohol (already being shipped) Com m ercialization 4Q05 of High Fluorine Efficiency (HFE) solutions that deliver comparable performance w ith half the fluorine o f today's offerings where possible System atic Identification and elim ination o f PFO A point sources at Cham bers W orks Stage 2 - reduction o f higher telom er hom ologues (>C6) Requires im plem entation o f our proprietary therm al telom erization technology Com bines w ith HFE concept and other reform ulation strategies to deliver acceptable perform ance with C6 where we can by 2H07 Stage 3 - perform ance across the product line w ith C6 solutions Development of proprietary technologies that deliver performance from short chains Following well-developed proprietary leads through aggressive collaborative Apex w ork (DCSE/CR&D) 5/7/2007 DUPONT CONFOENTlAl 006-0133-0067028 p. 207 10 Alternate Sources Fluorotelom er alcohol hypothesis (Mabury, et al) does not fit recent published data PFOA blood levels have stabilized or actually decreased since 1989 (German & US data) M ultiple alternate sources o f PFOA have been identified that better fit the data Emission sources (consum er articles, PFOA mfg/use, PFNA mfg/use, etc) quantified Exposure potential greatest from : > Point source em issions from m anufacturing distributed by w ave action as aerosols P FO A/PFO S-based fire-fig h tin g fo a m s used extensively In th e 70's and 8 0 's and d istributed through heat and water M anuscript prepared/subm itted w ith international expert co-author (Ian Cousins at Stockholm U niversity) Preview at International m eetings has been positively received 3/7/2007 DUPONT CONFOCNTIAl 10 006-0133-0067029 p. 208 11 GLOBAL REGULATORY INTEREST Canada W ill issue both a human health and environm ental risk assessm ent by YE2005 Environm ent Canada w ill be focused on current and/or future risk to the A rctic Germany Tasked by OECD to deliver an environm ental risk assessm ent in parallel to U.S. EPA's health risk assessm ent Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Surveying member countries on use/production o f PFOA Tasked U.S. and Germany to deliver a com prehensive risk assessm ent Environmental Treaties (LRTAP, POPs, OSPAR, etc.) PFOA is not now on the agenda o f any o f these international treaties PFOS is cu rren tly on LRTAP agenda Major issue: PFOS = PFOA in the m inds o f many regulators 5W2007 DUPONT COliOCNTIAL 11 006-0133-0067030 p. 209 Communications 12 Communications Plan Objectives: Prevent customer de-selection Provide air cover to regulatory agencies Reassure employees and investors Effectively manage events Avoid litigation issues What Will Be Different? More proactive, impactful and less defensive Speak to tactics used against us Engage help of respected, knowledgeable third parties Trained, credible on camera spokespersons; more "B-roll" Tight integration of SBUs and Corporate with clear execution roles S7/2007 DUPONT CONFOENTIAL 12 006-0133-0067031 p. 210 Strategic Issues 13 Communications EPA Strategy Competitive Dynamics Global regulatory processes Scope Change Brand Occupational/Human Health Science strategy * Internal Alignment Labor/shareholder activists V7/2007 DUPONT CONFOENTIAL (SO? 13 006- 0133-0067032 p. 211 What Have We Learned? 14 Our Core Values are our anchor The Past will be viewed with the lenses of Today Science is necessary, but not sufficient Our Customers need to hear from us and be reassured Achieving a level playing field is difficult Being the World's Most Dynamic Science Company means embracing the "new paradigm" 0/7/2007 OUPOtfT COTTOeNTVM. 1. Again, our Core Values are our firmament in world of change. They are the glue that holds us together and sets us apart. 2. We are expected to be omnicient 14 006- 0133-0067033 p. 212 Susan M Stalnecker/AE/DuPont 08/01/2005 05:24 PM G eorge H S enM er_Jr/A E /D uP ont@ D uP onl, R obert W T o R jckard/A E /D uP onl@ D uP onL D avid W B oo(be/A /D uP ont@ D uP onl. H enry E cc bcc Subject Tues/Weds. Meeting P lease review what follows a s preparation for tomorrow's meeting. Would also appreciate if the following folks would be prepared to provide a crisp status on the indicated activity: Linda: EPA situation analysis George/Dave: global emission reduction Henry: 3 S work, biodeg.. alternate sources Dave: MOU, LOI, ECA Objective: Create a strategy which will enable the EPA to create regulatory clarity for PFOA and other potential compounds and is actionable in 2005. Put another way. how do w e actualize the *8 box strategy" and drive it further, faster. Context S peaks to best available technology with respect to processes and products Positive impact on MOU. LOI, ECA processes Maintains or enhances the positive relationships we have developed with EPA C reates a level playing field Recognizes potential impact on Canadian Risk Assessment and global regulatory processes Provides confidence to consumers and customers that our products are safe Neutralizes impact of potential derailer influences Addresses health -based mechanisms and data 066-0002-0000485 p. 213 Susan M S taln e cke r/A E /D u P o n t 08/03/2005 03:40 PM To CN=Linda J Fisher/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont cc bcc Subject Stacey Call Here is a blend of what we said yesterday and your sheet: 1. Would the Agency be amenable to a DuPont Plan with respect to (1) emissions reductions even further than the January commitment, (2) cap on PFOA in DuPont products, and (3) virtual elimination of PFOA in all DuPont products by 2010. 2. Timing: dedicated team prepared to meet with like minded EPA team in early September. Prepared to work 24/7 to get this done as soon as possible 3. Would appreciate your thoughts as to the legal process to accomplish this. (MOUs, SNURs). Essential that this first step be a confidential process between EPA and DuPont but then would provide a framework to be applicable to all other producers 4. Significant step by DuPont but your public support of us in the market and globally is essential. 5. You were talking to Linda Fisher about what is going on elsewhere in the world. What have you heard? 6. We have identified who will be on the DuPont Team. Is mix of technical, business and legal skills and will be lead by someone who can ensure this gets done well but also without undue delay. Who from your side can do this? What about Chet ???? or Marcus as a lead? 7. Sure you will agree to keep separate from the wrap up of the 8e discussions. Hope and expect they will be done in August but in case that doesn't happen we don't want the players to get distracted. 8. Last point: given the importance of this to EPA and DuPont, I am prepared to follow up with you on a regular basis to make sure our teams are making the right kind of progress /ftc(bbiL&- 31 087-0164-0001746 p. 214 Risk Management Plan as o f 8/24/05 J2J)b , pA^)d^ cJ-S***^ Draft Release: ^41 * ^ EPA has reached the 1st binding agreement with the leading global manufacturer o f products using PFOA to significantly reduce PFOA from products within 5 years. We are impressed that this manufacturer (DuPont) has chosen to make these commitments even though after a lot o f studies w e have seen no adverse health effects associated with PFOA. DuPOnt has taken a global leadership role in making voluntary reductions in em issions and content prior to this agreement DuPont and EPA continue to work to determine alternative routes o f exposure EPA w ill work with other manufacturers to reach similar agreements and w ill work within the global regulatory process within the global regulatory process to achieve similar lim its. It is our b elief that these actionswill lead to significant reductions in PFOA levels over time EPA continuestobelievethat products currently inthe market are safe for consumer use DuPont Needs to: Commit to monitor and report our progress on our commitment Share technology with competitors Agree to legally binding commitment Pursue new technology to "virtually" eliminate c8 and higher from telomere products Continue all o f our em issions reduction efforts fPcCahn-Ss. 3<4 066-0002-0000471 p. 215 Continue biodeg studies, tox/epi studies, exposure m odels and other studies to defend the health position Collaborative discussion on our view o f the importance o f science in global regulatory process and what we w ill do D efine our contribution to help EPA fill in their roadmap for this process D evelop our own parallel communication plan to capitalize on this What We Need From EPA: This is an interim closure until the risk assessment is completed Verbal commitment to take a more active and positive leadership role in the global regulatory process Help from EPA in clearing bureaucratic roadblocks in the PMN process R evise their model from sequential to parallel approach (risk assessment and risk management) Risks: Biodegstudieshavenotimeline/intemalalignment on commitments Other competitors have developed alternative technology N o timely PMNs Analytical methods changing Expectations around accuracy o f low levels Other jurisdictions cherry pick our EPA plan or drive us in a different direction SAB risk assessment More aggressive attacks on perfluro chemicals 066-0002-0000472 p. 216 W e only get "pat on the back" from the EPA and no commitment Monday Mtg: What are we trying to create?? N eed their support What we are prepared to do? High level commitments (green) Specific commitments, incl what's different from Jan Legal context Risks Next steps.. .key m ilestones 066-0002-0000473 EPA Proposal A ugust 29, 2005 p. 217 The miracles o f science* 3S~/ f i? C a b e &- 1 003-0131-0000769 p. 218 2 003-0131-0000770 Agenda Desired outcome with EPA High level commitments Specific commitments Fluoroproducts DCSE DPE What we need from EPA Legal context Risks Next steps MOOT DUPONT COf^OCNTlAL Linda Susan George Henry Pascal Linda Martha Susan Susan p. 219 3 3 003-0131-0000771 p. 220 Desired Outcome 4 OUTCOME: REGULATORY CLOSURE PENDING RISK ASSESSMENT INDICATION OF NEED FOR FURTHER RISK REDUCTION DuPont commitment EPA public acknowledgement Agreement to work together on (1Unanswered questions re exposure and health effects and (2) regulatory steps needed to execute the Plan i/IVTOOr DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL 4 003-0131-0000772 p. 221 5 003-0131-0000773 p. 222 EPA Public Acknowledgement 6 EPA has reached the firs t binding agreement to sign ifican tly reduce PFOA from the environm ent DuPont, the largest U.S. m anufacturer o f PFOA, has agreed to reduce global em issions xx% by 2006/7 and to sign ifican tly reduce PFOA content in their ind ustria l products. Further, DuPont has com m itted to new telom er product technology by 20xx w hich w ill virtu a lly elim inate the p ossib ility that PFOA could be found, even in trace quantities. DuPont has taken a global leadership role in making voluntary reductions and has already reduced em issions by xx% from 1999. To date there are no adverse health effects from PFOA and EPA continues to believe th at DuPont products currently in the m arket are safe to use DuPont and EPA w ill continue to w ork together on the science to better understand potential health and environm ental effects EPA w ill w ork w ith other m anufacturers to reach sim ilar agreements and w ill collaborate w ith global regulatory bodies to achieve global reductions in PFOA 4/18/300? DUPONT CONFOeNTIAL 6 003-0131-0000774 p. 223 DuPont Commitment 7 Agree to legally binding com m itm ent Com plete dispersion reduction project and other em ission reduction efforts Pursue new technology to virtu a lly elim inate PFOA and higher from telom er p ro d u c ts Continue DPE efforts re product form ulation and em ission reduction Com m itm ent to use best technology known to DuPont M onitor and report on progress on com m itm ent Share technology C ontinue tox/epi and biodegradation studies, exposure model and other studies re human health C ollaborative discussion re im portance o f science in global regulatory process Develop robust Com m unication Plan V1V2007 DUPONT CONFOCNTIAL 7 003-0131-0000775 Fluoroproducts George Senlder p. 224 (fitti The miracles o f science- 8 003-0131-0000776 Fluorotelomer Products Henry Bryndza p. 225 The miracles o f science- 003- 0131-0000777 p. 226 DuPont Fluorotelomer Products Commercial Manufacturing Chain 10 TFE Telomer A Iodides PFCAs Telomer B Iodides t PFCAs | | PFCA Impurities I I Direct Precursors | I Indirect Precursors | I Biodeg Precursors 4/18/200' DUPONT CONFOeNTkM. Polymeric Products Telomer Alcohols t PFCAs \ \ + PFCAs Telomer Acrylates Telomer Esters 10 003- 0131-0000778 p. 227 I 11 Average Homologue Distribution in Products(2004) 11 003- 0131-0000779 p. 228 ____ ____________________________________________ i Overall Commitment - Manufacturing Emissions and Product Content Impurity Reductions Focus on PFOA as marker for all homologous acids Take broad and conservative view of potential precursors Include telom er A iodide and esters w hich can co nve rt under som e circum stances to give one m ole PFO A per m ole precursor Include te lo m e r B iodides, alcohols and acrylate esters th a t have been show n to in e fficie n tly c o n v e rt to P F O A (e.g. 8 -2 alcohol co n ve rsio n in w a ste tre a tm e n t biota ranges fro m 3 - 6 % in p u b lis h e d re p o rts ) C onduct biodegradation studies w hile concurrently collaborating w ith regulatory agencies in d e v e lop in g e xpo su re m odel / \ To ta ls e x pre sse d in pounds, n ot flu o ro te lo m e r co nte nt Implement technologies that will also address other homologous acids and precursors A Aggressively move to transformational technologies that provide effective products with C6 and lower chains A Continue to look for long-term solutions that reduce the use of persistent functional groups 4/18/200? OJPONT CONFOCNTIA4. 12 003- 0131-0000780 SPS Innovation Strategy to Transform the Offering p. 229 13 Reduce Impurities Lower Footprint - Improve P erf/ Cost Fluorine Efficiency Phase Out HMW Impurities Commercialize N ext Gen. C6-based Products Fluorine Efficiency Commercialize N ext Gen. Product Offerings Fluorine Efficiency Non-Persistent Offerings Enhanced PS Attributes 13 003- 0131-0000781 p. 230 I 14 Chambers Works Site A Current potential sources include: Fluorotelom ers m anufacture (byproduct) Fluorotelom ers m anufacturing wastes: alcohol from washes: acrylate from distillation Fluoroelastomers m anufacture - surfactant for Kalrez and Viton External waste business (com m ercial and municipal) Landfill leachate from biom ass containing PFOA Groundwater contam ination (from past operations) Fayetteville, Pascagoula and toller wastewater treatm ent Current Status PFOA A ir emissions below 100 Ibs/yr (will require analytical developm ent to im prove accuracy) from fluorotelom er (<20 Ibs/yr) and fluoroelastom er (<80 Ibs/yr) (need confirmation from DPE) A PFOA: W ater em ission total o f ca 250 0 Ibs/yr (need final confirmation) 440 Ibs/yr from fluorotelom er m anufacturing, 600 Ibs/yr from fluoroelastom er manufacture, 750 Ibs/yr from regional tank effluents 440 Ibs/yr from sludge, 160 Ibs/yr from landfill leachate and 50 Ibs/yr from groundwater 200 Ibs/yr from outside w aste business A Direct precursors: W ater em issions of 60/60 Ibs/yr o f fluorotelom er iodides and esters Indirect precursors: Emissions of 8-2 fluorotelom er alcohol o f approxim ately 40,000 Ibs/yr skim m ed to I 4/15/2007 DUPONT CONFOCNTIALEmissions of 6-2 fluoroacrylate ester of approximately 40,000 Ibs/yr skimmed to landfill via water 14 003- 0131-0000782 p. 231 Chambers Works Site, cont. 15 A Current status for rates as o f YE05: O u t l o o k Is to b e b e l o w 1 2 0 0 Ibs/yr P F O A w a t e r e m i s s i o n s ( > 9 5 % r e du c t i on v s 1 9 9 9 b a s e y e ar ) a n d 1 0 0 I b s / y r air e m i s s i o n s ( 3 3 % r e d u c t i o n ) (need resolution o f OPE emission projections to finalize) A Proposed Commitment YE06 rates: P F O A : w a t e r e m i s s i o n s less t h a n 8 0 0 Ibs/yr rate ( > 9 6 % reduction v s 1 9 9 9 ) a n d air e m i s s i o n s b e l o w 2 0 Ibs/yr ( > 9 0 % reduction). D i r e c t p r e c u r s o r s : w a t e r e m i s s i o n s l e s s t h a n 2 0 Ibs/ y r ( > 8 0 % r e d u c t i o n ) (needs to be confirmed) Indirect p r e c u r s o r s : w a t e r e m i s s i o n s < 5 0 0 Ibs/yr c o m b i n e d a l cohol/acrylate to landfill ( > 9 9 . 9 9 % r e d u c t i o n ) (needs to be confirmed) ^ Actions required: C l e a n o u t of h o l d i n g t a n k s in f l uoroelastomers/fluorotelomers a r e a s (disposition - incineration) I m p l e m e n t c a r b o n a b s o r p t i o n s y s t e m s for w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t a n d landfill l e a c h a t e Add OPE steps to be taken S e gregation of external w a s t e s for special handling Collection a n d incineration of alcohol a n d acrylate pr ocess w a s t e st reams 4/16/200' OUPCWT CONFOeMTlAL 15 003- 0131-0000783 p. 232 A Additional US Toll Manufacturing (SC) Current Status P F O A : <1 Ibs/yr e m i s s i o n s e s t i m a t e d D i r e c t p r e c u r s o r s : a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 Ibs/yr e s t e r a n d 4 5 Ibs/yr i o d i d e e m i s s i o n s to air a n d water Indirect precursors: a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 0 Ibs/yr 8 - 2 alcohol e m i s s i o n s to w a t e r a n d 2 0 Ibs/yr e m i s s i o n s t o air. W a t e r e m i s s i o n s to w a s t e - w a t e r t r e a t m e n t plant ( 1 5 , 0 0 0 gallons/day) w h i c h d i s c h a r g e s to the Atlantic o c e a n Commitment by YE06: needs to be determined 4/18/200? DUPONT CONFOChiTlAt. 16 003- 0131-0000784 p. 233 17 a Additional US Manufacturing - Pascagoula, MS A Current Status P F O A : N o k n o w n e m is s i o ns to the e nvironment, w a s t e s collected a n d transported to C W Direct precursors: N o k n o w n e m is s i o ns to the en vi ronment; w a s t e s collected/transported to C W I n di r e c t p r e c u r s o r s : L e s s t h a n 2 0 lbs/yr c o m b i n e d indi r e c t p r e c u r s o r s t o a i r / w a t e r (needs to be co nfirm ed) Commitment I m p l e m e n t a t i o n of c a r b o n a b so rption s y s t e m to eliminate transportation of dilute a q u e o u s w a s t e s (e.g. r a i n w a t e r with ppt P F O A ) I m p l e m e n t a n d o p e r a t e T e l o m e r Q u a l i t y Initiative p r o c e s s to d e s t r o y t r a c e s of P F O A a n d direct p r e c u r s o r s in T e l o m e r - B a l c o h o l u p o n o b t a i n i n g r e g u l a t o r y a p p r o v a l . T a r g e t d a t e for c o m m e r c i a l i z a t i o n is 3 Q 2 0 0 6 Limit e m i s s i o n s resulting f r o m T Q I i m pl e m e nt a t i on a s follows: ( n e e d s to b e confirmed) P F O A : < 1 Ib/yr c o m b i n e d air a n d w a t e r e m i s s i o n s D i re c t P r e c u r s o r s : < 1 Ib/yr c o m b i n e d air a n d w a t e r e m i s s i o n s Indirect P r e c u r s o r s : < 2 0 lbs/yr c o m b i n e d air a n d w a t e r e m i s s i o n s 4/16/200? DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL 17 003- 0131-0000785 p. 234 a Additional Global Manufacturing: Villers St. Paul (FRA) Current Status: Air Emissions PFO A : no-d e te cta b le air em issions and <1 Ib/yr w ater em issions D ire ct P re c u rs o rs : n o -d e te c ta b le a ir e m is s io n s and <1 Ib /yr w a te r e m is s io n s Indirect Precursors: 5 lbs/yr 8 -2 fluo ro te lo m e r alcohol to air and 180 lbs/yr to w ater 10 lbs/yr 8 -2 a cryla te ester to air and 4 00 lb s/yr to w a te r Commitment 2006 needs to be determined 18 4/18/200' OUPOUT COFCeNTt/W. 18 003-0131-0000786 p. 235 Fluorotelomers Manufacturing - Summary Current Sources as o f YE05: PFOA: Approxim ately 450 Ibs/yr em issions to wastewater Direct Precursors: Approxim ately 100 Ibs/yr C 8 esters and 100 Ibs/yr C8 iodide em issions to wastewater Indirect precursors: Fluorotelom er 8-2 alcohol: Approxim ately 41,000 Ibs/yr em issions to w ater (which flows to landfill) of w hich som e m ay volatilize en-route - plan In place to substantially reduce these b y YE05 A Telomer Acrylate : approx 40,000 lbs o f C8 monomers - plan in place to substantially reduce these by YE05 Proposed commitment by YE06 (first S-curve): A PFOA: R educe PFO A w ater em issions from m anufacturing b y >50% (i.e. to ta l not to exceed 2 00 Ibs/yr) (n e e d to confirm) D irect precursors: R educe ester/lodlde em issions by >95% (total > 6 Ibs/yr (n e e d fo confirm) Indirect precursors: R educe fluorotelom er 8-2 alcohol em issions by >% to less than 1200 Ibs/yr b y YE 06 (n e e d to confirm) R educe C 8 fluorotelom er acrylate by >% to less than 1200 Ibs/yr by YE 06 (n e e d to confirm) ^Proposed commitment to develop best technology we can (2nd S-curve) W ork towards reductions of PFO A and all precursors (as w ell as higher hom ologues) by 9 9 99% to below ^ detection levels by 2010 Actions required: Essentially eliminate the alcohol and acrylate process waste stream s via process modifications and waste incineration Actively staff 2nd S-curve work to eliminate C8 and higher homologues from products 4/18/2007 DUPONT CONFOENT1AL 19 003-0131-0000787 p. 236 20 Manufacturing Emissions 90000 BOOOO 70000 60000 90000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2004 YE2006 YE2006 YE2007 YE2010 2600 2000 1900 1000 600 0 2004 YE2006 YE2006 YE2007 YE2010 ! |8 LLJ i>- Manufacturing PFOA Direct Precursors Indirect Precursors ~ 2004 450 r 200 81000 YE2006 [YE2007 :YE2010 450 200 j 2001 ! 200 100i 100i l| 1600 1600; 8001 1; te ^ o o r Dup o nt c o n p o c n d a l 20 003- 0131-0000788 p. 237 21 Fluorotelom er custom ers Current Status YE05: PFOA: products have average levels o f 20 + 10 ppm with ranges from <LOQ to ~100 ppm (total 600 lb s /y r ) Direct Precursors: products have average of 20/80 ppm C8 fluorotelomer esters/iodides (total 3000 lb s /y r ) Indirect P recursors: P ro du ct c o nte nt of N D to ~0.5% C 8-2 fluorotelom er alcohol (total 12,000 lbs/yr) ^Com mitm ent YE06 (first S-curve): ^ PFOA: content reduced by >95% in m anufacturing o f products to an average o f <1 ppm (45 lbs/yr) Direct p recursors: reduce by >95% in product m anufacturing to an average o f <1 ppm (150 lbs/yr) Indirect P recursors: reduce levels o f fluorotelom er alcohols by >65% b y Y E 2 0 06 and by >90% by YE07 so th a t 8-2 is less than 0.05% (1 00 0 lbs/yr) (to b e confirmed) Higher homologues (acids, direct and indirect precursors) are also sim ilarly addressed ^Proposed commitment to diligently develop the best technology we can to eliminate C8 and above materials through our product line with goals including: A Develop and file PMN on new Telom er A manufacturing technology to shift and tighten distribution to C6 and below chain lengths by YE2008 A Develop new products based on C 6 technology and file PMNs for replacem ent products through the product line by YE2008 to drop levels of C8 (and above) acids and precursors to ND Commit to commercialization o f these processes to replace existing products on receiving regulatory approvals (target YE2010 for approvals and 1 year for construction/start-up/com m ercial introduction) Actions required A . of TQI by 3Q06 #P S lB > Implementation of alcohol reaction efficiency product-by-product largely by YE06 and completely by 21 003-0131-0000789 C8 Product Content p. 238 22 :Products PFOA Direct Precursors Indirect Precursors j j j -2004|YE2005 YE2006 IYE2007 IYE2010 6001 600! 45 j 30[ V. 3000! 120] 3000 j 8000] 150| 400o] 150i i | 10T ___ 1, V1W200? OOPOUT CONFOEMT1AL 22 003-0131-0000790 p. 239 |__________ | ^ J ________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 23 Consumer Products - Fluorotelomers Current Status YE05: PFOA: C onsum er articles/products have average extractable PFOA levels o f <10 ppb with ranges from NO to 20 ppb. (Extraction assumed to be by norm al use conditions with w ater/sweat, etc) Precursors: Products m ay also contain estimated levels from ND to <100 ppb fluorotelom er 0-2 alcohol Commitment YE06 (first S-curve): Have P FO A c o n te n t reduced by >95% across th e prod u ct line converted to an average o f <1 ppb, w ith an estimated range of N D to <5 ppb extractable from the products/articles (Extraction as above) Precursors: reduce levels o f fluorotelom er alcohols by >85% on articles using products covered by TQI (so that 8-2 TBA is <10 ppb; Extraction as above). Higher hom ologues (acids and precursors) are also sim ilarly addressed Proposed commitment to diligently develop the best technology we can to eliminate C8 and above materials through our product line with goals Including: A Develop and file PMN on new Telom er A m anufacturing technology to shift and tighten distribution to C6 and below chain lengths by YE2008 A . Develop new products based on C6 technology and file PMNs for replacem ent products through the product line by YE2008 to drop levels o f C 8 (and above) acids and precursors to ND ^ Com m it to com m ercialization of these processes to replace existing products on receiving regulatory approvals (target YE2010 for approvals and 1 year for construction/start-up/com m ercial introduction) Actions required Implementation of TQI by 3Q06 a Im plem entation of alcohol reaction efficiency product-by-product largely b y Y E 0 6 and com pletely b y ___ Actively staff 2nd and 3rd S-curve work 23 003-0131-0000791 24 Biodegradation of Fluorotelomer Products Current Status YE05: a Biodegradation studies underw ay - ail interim s tu d y reports com pleted on all m ajor environm ental ^ compartments studied ^ * Complete developm ent of global biodegradation exposure m odel and risk assessm ent with peer-review underway Commitment YE06 (first S-curve): If any products are shown to biodegrade, apply global exposure/risk m odel to assess potential for impacting human population or local and rem ote region environments If the model shows any new or existing product application measurably contributes (0.5 ppb or above) detectable human PFOA blood levels take m itigation steps such as: changing formulation or how product is applied, introducing new technologies and products, and/or A other s teps to reduce the im pact o f co ntinuing sales into th e se applications Including exiting market s e gm e n ts Proposed commitment to diligently work to develop new technologies with goals ^including: Eliminate the potential for products to degrade to PFO A or higher hom ologue acids Actions required Develop global biodegradation exposure and risk assessm ent model Complete biodegradation studies on current (and new) products mmm 2nd and 3rd S-curve work (S H H K ? 24 003-0131-0000792 p. 241 25 C8 Totals - Manufacturing and Product Content lTotals lF Direct P recursors Indirect Precursors ! | 2004SYE2005 IYE2006 YE2007 YE2010 j 1050 1050! 245 230j_ 2| 32001 32001 250 250| ~ 2 93000! 9600! 5600 1800! 2j 4/tV2007 DUPONT COf^OCNTIAL 25 003-0131-0000793 p. 242 26 Summary Have acted on January com m itm ents and are exceeding reduction ta rg e ts For cu rren t and fu ture actions have taken broad and conservative global view o f PFOA and potential precursors Included telom er A iodide and esters w hich can convert under som e circum stances to give one m ole P FO A per m ole precursor Included telom er B iodides, alcohols and acrylate esters th a t have been show n to inefficiently co nve rt to PFO A (e.g. 8-2 alcohol conversion in w aste tre a tm e n t biota ranges from 3 - 6% in published reports) C onducting biodegradation studies w hile concurrently collaborating w ith regulatory a g e n cie s in d e v e lop in g e xpo su re m odel Im plem enting technologies th a t w ill also address o the r hom ologous acids and precursors A ggressively m oving to transform ational technologies th a t provide effective products w ith C6 and low er chains A Looking fo r long-term so lu tion s th at reduce the use of persistent functional groups ^ 4/1V2007 DUPONT COhFOCNTIAL 26 003-0131-0000794 p. 243 27 003-0131-0000795 p. 244 DuPont Global PFOA Strategy Com prehensive Source Reduction 28 F luo ro te lo m e r P roducts Manufacturing H is to ric a lly 100's lb s e m is s io n s >85% re d u ctio n by 2007 Industrial Use Next generation fluorotelom er products (2005/06) Consumer Negligible exposure Env. Fate D uP ont degradation approach F lu o ro polym e rs H is to ric a lly 1 0,0 00 's lb s e m is s io n s >98% re d u ctio n by 2007 N ext generation d is p e rs io n (2005/06) N egligible exposure N o know n d e g ra d a tio n F luo ro e la sto m e rs H is to ric a lly 1 ,0 0 0's lb s e m issio n s >99% re d u ctio n by 2007 DuPont ^ Performance Elastomers 4/15/2007 DUP(XT CONFCCNTIAL N ew process for m anufacturing m ost FKM (2002) W o rk still in progress for rem ainder N egligible exposure No known d e g ra d a tio n 28 003-0131-0000796 p. 245 29 003-0131-0000797 30 DPE S o u rces of PFOA FMDL (small manufacturing unit in Chambers Works) still uses PFOA for Kalrez gums and one Viton gum C urre n t consum ption - 6 ,000 lbs P rogram s are underw ay to reduce em issions Contract Manufacturing for Viton Som e V iton F re e F lo w TM types and one V iton caulk use PTFE m icropow ders (part of industrial use fo r FP) P urchase o f Daikin polym ers C urre n t D ai-E I G -9 0 2 m ade in Japan is m a de w ith PFO A Future purchases from France are products m ade w ith PFOA. C hinese C ontract O perations w ill use local source o f FKM th a t is m ade w ith PFO A DuPont TM Perform ance Elastom ers 4/10/200* DUPONT COhFOervriAL 30 003-0131-0000798 p. 247 I________ ________________________ ___________________ _______ ______ DPE "Manufacturing" Box-Water United States Chambers Works Water Emissions 31 C arbon treatm ent efficiency >99.9% (C arbon Bed A dsorption T echnology) C urrent Em ission Level estim ated at 600 Ibs/year R epresents 95% reduction since 1999 O f the rem aining em issions, largest stream w ill be treated in end-2005, and sm all projects w ill ta ke ca re o f rem ainders in 2006 C om m it to <40 Ibs/yr m axim um from end 2 006 (99.7% reduction from 1999) DuPont Performance Elastomers (MOOT DUPONT CONPOCNTIAL 31 003-0131-0000799 p. 248 DPE "Manufacturing" Box--Air United States Chambers W orks A ir Em issions E n g in e e rin g e s tim a te <1 lb /y e a r th a n k s to d ilu tio n and w a s h in g Tralee Park, DE and co ntract m anufacturing A ll gum s get com pounded, m ixed, m olded and post-cured before shipping to custom ers Engineering estim ate 10 Ibs/year DuPont ^ Perform ance Elastomers 4/19/200? DUPONT CONFOeNTlAL 32 003- 0131-0000800 p. 249 DPE "Manufacturing" Box-Air international Kalrez C ontract M anufacturing 33 All gum s get com pounded, m ixed, m olded and post-cured before shipping to cu stom ers Engineering estim ate 2 Ibs/year DuPont TM Performance Elastomers 4/W2001 DUPONT CONFOCWIAL 33 003-0131-0000801 p. 250 DPE "Industrial User" Box - Air Worldwide F luoroelastom er m aterials have unique chem ical and heat resistance, and are m ainly used to contain chem ical gases and liquids. Fluoroelastom ers are sold as gum pellets, sheets o r pow ders to ind u stria l fa bricato rs. Som e are fu rth e r processed in com pounds before shipm ent. C urrent engineering estim ate ~ 30 Ibs/yr w orldw ide (2/3 from outside purchases) Does not include future purchases from A sia and France - Q uantity T B D >90% P FO A destroyed by therm al processing into fabricated articles DuPont Perform ance Elastom ers 4/19/2007 OUPONT CONFOENTIAL 34 003-0131-0000802 DPE - Solid Waste Streams Worldwide FMDL m aterial (V iton and Kalrez) Plant w aste - Material Is landfilled Engineering estim ate 3 Ibs/year Industrial use Material probably landfilled o r incinerated after use E ngineering estim ate <1 Ib/year A rticle s made w ith V iton th a t are n ot cured Industrial use V iton F re e F lo w TM Material does not see sam e heat cycle than in molded articles. Material landfilled o r Incinerated a lte r use Engineering e stim ate < 1 lb W o rld w id e (< 1ppm content) Caulks M aterial d oe s n o t s e e sam e hea t c ycle th a n In m olded articles DuPont " . Perform ance Elastom ers 4/W200? DUPONT CONFOCNTMt. Material landfilled o r Incinerated after use Engineering e stim ate <1 lb W o rld w id e (< 10 ppm content) p. 251 35 35 003-0131-0000803 p. 252 DPE - Key take aways M anufacturing em issions w a te r e m is s io n s re du ce d d ow n by 99.7 % to less th a n 4 0 lbs e nd 2 0 0 6 in U S A th a n k s to refom ulation and adsorption Air em issions ~15lbs w orldw ide and decom posed to r >90% o f them P FO A not used anym ore in E urope th a n ks to reform ulation Industrial Use M ainly declining types at the present A round 30 lbs w orldw ide at present Potential new sources w ith future C hinese and French purchases - to be discussed w ith s u p p lie rs . M ost o f it is d e co m p o sed in Industrial U se, w ith h eat tre a tm e n t fro m m aking articles DuPont ^ Perform ance Elastom ers 4/18/2007 DUPONT COr^OeNTIAL 36 003-0131-0000804 p. 253 37 003-0131-0000805 p. 254 What We Need From the EPA 38 Public acknow ledgem ent th a t th is is regulatory closure pending Risk Assessm ent indication th a t fu rth e r risk reduction is needed C om m itm ent to apply to industry C om m itm ent to take active and positive leadership g lobally around this proposal Help to w o rk to ge th er fo r a sm ooth PMN process F lexibility re legal d efinition of com m itm ent C ollaboration re co m m un icatio n 4/18/200? OJPONT CONFOermAL 38 003-0131-0000806 p. 255 DuPont Commitment - Legal Options 1. L e tte r o f in te n t (LOI) Unilateral com m itm ent Enforcem ent via " bully p u lp it" 2. M em orandum o f understanding (MOU) Bilateral agreem ent Enforcem ent via " bully p u lp it" 3. C onsent agreem ent (CA) Bilateral agreem ent E nforcem ent via TSCA or stipulated penalties 4. U.S. m an ufa ctu rin g p lants p erm it lim its 4/IVI0Q7 DUPONT COTFOgmiAL 39 39 003-0131-0000807 p. 256 "Level Playing Field" - U.S. Options 40 1. P ro d u c ts " TSCA is a challenging statute to achieve tim ely risk m anagem ent." C urrent risk assessm ent process addresses existing chem icals and uses. S ig nifica nt New Use Rule (SNUR) can be used to address new uses o f existing chem icals. Pre-m anufacturing N otification (PMN) process addresses new chem icals 2. M anufacturing C urrent risk assessm ent process m av lead to plant em ission lim its. i/l6f200t DUPONT CONFOENTIAL 40 003-0131-0000808 p. 257 [ Risks Technology and market risks re telomer product reformulation Competitors have alternative technologies PMN process is not timely Analytical methods change and expectations re accuracy of low levels impacts commitments and monitoring processes SAB Risk Assessment Other jurisdictions selectively apply EPA plan and create additional expectations More aggressive attacks on perfluorinated chemicals Biodeg studies have no timelines or internal alignment on commitments EPA insists on ECA type legal commitments All we achieve is a quiet "pat on the back" 4t16rtOOTOUPOHT CONFOeNTIAL 41 003-0131-0000809 Next Steps Finalize commitments Create EPA interaction strategy Define risks and risk mitigation strategy Create Communication Plan Delineate monitoring and reporting plan Define ongoing research commitments 4/I&7007 DUPCtil COHfCCNT>AL p. 258 42 003-0131-0000810 p. 259 # EPA Mtg 10/8/05 Introduction: v Appreciate the tim e.. .recognize Katrina and h ^ k ep t you fully occupied.. .the storms and the disruption to the petrochemical feedstock infrastructure has impacted us greatly.. .thankfully no environmental incidents and even more important all employees and their fam ilies have finally been accounted for Last time w e presented, our reduction plan. Showed that we were on track with what w e showed you in January. More important, we introduced elements o f reduction which we believe are more significant and system ic than the first plan. We showed specific lbs. and % reductions for em issions as w ell as caps. We showed product content caps and reiterated what w e are doing on the biodegradation front. We also showed you a competitive landscape which makes a com pelling case for industry wide reductions as our share alone w ill be necessary but not sufficient. W e also shared with you what you already have seen and that is that DuPont has been criticized and in some cases attacked on many fronts and that our competitors are taking advantage o f the situation. We are going to do the right thing in any event, but w e need your help to recognize, publicly, our leadership in this area. LJOLCAfi- Note: status o f Steve Johnson awareness and thinking? Centum 3^? 066-0002-0002789 p. 260 Meeting Objectives TODAY: Secure EPA alignment with Voluntary Exposure Reduction Stewardship Program (VERSP) Establish framework for DuPont commitment and timeline to accomplish NEXT MEETING(S): Industry engagement Communication U.S. and Global regulatory approach "L eg a c/'/sources, fate, transport ) ) 2 066-0002-0002790 p. 261 Clr&rc&s*/ J'r-V-^cXtAcJL . / M eeting Objectives: `'u flu , U4 Av dJLO-zJUp L /NVfl.CJlKocioN. ^tA- < ^ rv * - JL ^ C 'tU \ V. tv l4^- aJ U jfa PI OuuyO-h, Co^vJ *v/ aao iUjL^r^ Given an hour, we w ill have tried to be crisp aiKi thought^ sending the charts ahead may help although we respect yourtm ht schedules and have no expectation that you have reviewed them. ^What we have done is taken our Plan and transformed that into a generic plan which could be applied to fluoropolymer and fluorotelomer industry participants. We have worked hard to get it into nearly final form for it to be presented to industry. A lso, as I said on Sept 8, w e want to finalize our side as soon as possible. We w ill show you an outline o f what w e propose and are looking for your guidance as to it completeness and appropriateness. If we can secure that today, we are prepared to generate a draft for your review within the next two weeks (????) We would like to get your guidance on how industry can be engaged in this process and have som e thoughts to offer up and test. Time permitting w e w ill would like to share som e thought starters on the other subjects and, if we are in the right ballpark, w e can prepare for follow up discussions. This includes the regulatory situation, both the US with respect to the PMN process and the overall global situation as w ell as the "legacy" questions you have raised. 066-0002-0002791 p. 262 VERSP Program Core Objectives / Key Components / > Facilities Emission Reduction: lbs. and caps > Product Caps: PFOA, direct and indirect precursors > Biodegradation Approach Structure DuPont Commitment Critical Needs ConUss TSCA C8I CenManSal Bwslnees Woflwnwi to Bradtstod i 3 066- 0002-0002792 p. 263 ( O P5 cM* (y s VRSP Program Voluntary Exposure Reduction Stewardship Program.. .combines your concept o f stewardship with the essence o f what it is and that is reduction o f PFOA and precursors W ill cover these areas which are the same areas as was included in our proposal as w ell as suggest a structure, what that would like like for DuPont and critical needs going forward 066- 0002-0002793 p. 264 C ore O bjectives To establish a vo lu ntary program between EPA and ind ustry to elim inate o r severely re s tric t environm ental loadings o f PFOA and precursors from fa c ilitie s , processes and products so th a t any residuals are reduced to the m axim um extent possible; and, To w ork w ith EPA to im plem ent a sm ooth regulatory process fo r review o f new products th a t refle ct the elim ination o r severe re strictio n o f PFOA and precursors 4 066-0002-0002794 Core Objectives Intent is reduction in environmental loadings, and the net captures PFOA and direct and indirect precursors Recognize that cooperation w ill be needed for a smooth new product review process so w e can get the new products to market as soon as practicable 066-0002-0002795 Key Components of VERSP M anufacturing fa c ilitie s em issions reductions > PFOA, direct and Indirect precursors >- Best available technology > Caps on facility em issions > Company wide percent reduction from base year P roduct content reductions > PFOA, direct and indirect precursors > Percent reduction from base year Biodegradation Approach lafanMffen IsBrad catid p. 266 5 066- 0002-0002796 p. 267 K ey Components Three buckets: facilities' em issions, product content, and biodegradation. Generized form o f what we presented. W ill show our numbers as w ell as a recommendation for the standard plan, but in an abbreviated fashion Small clarification.. .when you see best available technology that means just that and not the term with the legal meaning * 066-0002-0002797 p. 268 Manufacturing Facilities Emission Caps Best available technology w ill drive caps Hard caps (total pounds per year) on existing fa c ilitie s ' em issions as o f 2007 Hard caps on new fa cilitie s going forw ard F acility sp ecific; not com pany aggregate lb<. - IIp Q r o c A M - Q s c K vja- S u a u caJA 6 066-0002-0002798 p. 269 Manufacturing Facilities Em ission Caps Key aspects are using best technology available and applicable, hard caps on existing facilties as o f 2007, hard caps on any new facilities going forward and facility specific which requires leveling effect and avoids potential locational imbalances which could occur in a company-wide cap 066-0002-0002799 p. 270 Global Manufacturing Facilities Emissions Reductions: Fluoropolymers 1999 to 2007 P ro p o se d VERSP DuPont Com m itm ent A ir >95% 98% W ater >95% 98% Tim elines and objectives are aggressive and have n o t yet been reviewed w ith ind ustry CenMnsTSCACM 7 066-0002-0002800 p. 271 Fluoropolymers Facilties Emission Global We committed to you 98% ...based on what we think is aggressive, but possible we would suggest a >95% for the industry..however, would have to be done on a company specific basis Based on Year end rates and are aspirational goals \\0s ^ 066-0002-0002801 p. 272 Global Manufacturing Facilities Emissions Reductions: Fluorotelomers 2004 to 2007 P ro p o se d VERSP DuPont Com m itm ent ( PFOA * 91% ( D irect Precursors * 72% Indirect Precursors * 97% * R eductions w ould need to be Company sp ecific and com parable to reductions achieved by DuPont 2007 are Year end rates Less of a sense of where industry participants are today EPA would need to determine company by company Expectation is that reductions would be comparable to that of DuPont * :I 8 066-0002-0002802 p. 273 Fluorotelomer Facilities Emissions Again, our percentages are as w e showed you..since the telomer industry is in a different place, we believe the reductions would have to be done company by company with the DuPont reductions as a guide 2004 as starting place ( J j ) LA..M U J ^ kJ' cM f>c'-- 066-0002-0002803 Global Product Content Caps and Reductions: Fluoropolymer Dispersion Products Proposed VERSP 2007 ~0 i '07 PFOA <50ppm DuPont Com m itment <50ppm >97% * C urrent Industry reduction goal Is 90% by 2006 from 2000. VERSP lim it w ould be Com pany specific. Product content cap (ppm )w ould be based on the current product p ro file and like ly w ould represent a percent reduction o f greater than the current ind u stry goal. 9 066-0002-0002804 p. 275 Fluoropolymer Dispersion Product Caps Again, w e believe the cap should be the same as ours.. ..<50ppm by 2007. The announced industry goal is 90% by 2006. We suspect that whatever cap is agreed to and, particularly i f it is the 50ppm, the percent reduction w ill be >90% n i> f o d u x c j - 066-0002-0002805 p. 276 Global Average Product Content Reduction: Fluorotelomers P ro po se d VERSP 'tpgggj DuPont C om m itm ent (\ 07 '10 goal PFOA D irect Precursors In d ire ct Precursors A lcohols O lefins Iodides O thers 1*2ppm <1ppm <.05% <.05% <.07% <.05% ? 7 12ppm < 1ppm <-05% NA <.07% <.05% <LOQ <LOQ <.006% N.A. <.005% <-005% Fluorotelom ers products are concentrates assum ing 20% so lid s. Indirect precursors are expressed as w eight percentages o f C9 chain length fluorotelom er derivatives n o t as PFOA co n te n t M anufacturing process used w ill determ ine If precursors are alcohol o r o le fin s. N.A. means not s p p tic a b le . Tim elines and objectives are aggressive and have n o t yet been reviewed w ith in d u stry 2010 is an aspfrational goal and is D uPont CBI; recom m end sam e goal fo r industry M onitoring and reporting w ill need to be fu rth e r defined Cm M h T8CA CBJ c d -/t/v. )o^)pui)^U c .Mc^ J'MtJU yoJh.l x P c 066-0002-0002806 p. 277 Fluorotelomer Product Caps Show PFOA as w ell as direct and indirect precursors (broader definition) Refers to products with solids, a product portfolio which w ill differ across producers. A lso the precursor profile w ill differ depending if alcohol or olefins are used. A lso expressed as % to make it easier to measure and track Showed average product content numbers instead o f hard caps given the large numbers o f products. For us these levels w ill result in >95% reductions in lbs. o f materials . I want to take the time ndw to bdvery clear about our product line. About one third o f our volum&Us intermediates which is then used by hose custopiers to make final product. About % o f that volume is sold to 3d9companies with whom w e have had or w ill have content reduction stewardship discussions. In addition, our SI commitment, plus a commitment w e accomplished with our largest external customer w ill impact 95% o f the intermediates volum e sold. (Another 2 % is consumed within DuPont in PFOA manufacture and accounted for in the FluorOpolymer numbers.) / \ fast As this is negotiated with industry players, it w ill be important to understand and achieve transparency about the mass balance o f their products and their value chains for all products t 2010 goal is under development, but w e are resourcing it to find the technology pathways to achieve this result and at the same time meet market n eed s.. .having said that, although it is CBI for DuPont, we believe that should be the gold standard for others as w ell tuA -Pi\. ~ <ZS Again, consistency in measurement processes and analytical methods w ill be key auJr |u JtteL. O -S 'ivy* a \V>s. iOo'*1* <K>- \% li?. 'VV* 1bj Ja ^-Wa. Jr e r i c ^^ ^ 066-0002-0002807 p. 278 Biodegradation Approach < Peer reviewed studies to determine If new or existing products biodegrade Develop and validate exposure models A-G_J- r Use models to assess whether degradation contributes to detectable levels or PFOA In the general population r If models show new or existing product applications measurably contribute (O.S ppb or above) to human blood levels, take the following mitigation steps such as: Change form u la tion o r how p rod u ct Is applied Introduce new technologies and p rod u cts, and/or Take o th e r steps to reduce th e Im pact o f co ntin u in g males In to application CCoaneMeewnMt sScvaeinceaMt ndu n iM dtat la B 's a tiated ) ) m 11 066-0002-0002808 p. 279 If the goals are set correctly and companies deliver^gainst them,.this is not critical .going forvTanl as products w ill not haveahyeohfent which could biodegrade ------- Talked at some length as to how to include this is the VERSP and concluded that in fact the approach is quite simple and there are basically two pathways: o There is a technology change to do the technology and product application work to develop products that the market needs and want and that cannot degrade to PFOA, or o D o the science to prove that products biodegradation does not result in exposure The DuPont approach which is the basis o f our thinking and our commitment is pathway #1. We have decided to spend 10s o f m illions o f dollars to develop 100s o f products to serve 1000s o f customers and many more customers. Plus, we are doing the work to look back and understand the legacy issue. The work to analyze our current products, build a global exposure model, the Sources, Fate and Transport work is work going on in parallel. Taken together, that is the philosophy behind our voluntary reduction stewardship program It w ill be up to the others in industry to chose their pathway. As w e all know, biodegradation is not an issu^e for the fluoropolymer industry. The telomere industry is in a very different place and for competitive reasons and potentially antitrust reasons, it w ill be difficult for us to help EPA to encourage them to also take pathway #&jT. Failing that choice, you may want to consider they make the commitment we made in January: o Study o f existing products. Data is available now and more in the short and medium term about DuPont products. U seful to know about others, particularly given som e o f the claims being made by our competitors o We should be working together on exposure models. We have expended over $1MM on a model in which industry could participate o Plus, i f applications do contribute to exposure in a measurable way, corrective steps should be taken now 066-0002-0002809 p. 280 VERSP Structure Com pany sp ecific agreements > Work plans, targets, goals, timelines > Uniform vehicle to secure commitment E stablish base lines, using existing em ission experience and existing product content as guide Establish reporting process beyond the docket. EPA sp ecific web s its , fo r exam ple. Can enable global com m unications Establish appropriate analytical m ethods and m easurem ent specifications to ensure consistent data and analysis Each com pany to execute le tter o f com m itm ent (LOC) to docum ent and dem onstrate specifics o f com m itm ent to EPA and to the public CCeMnM* Ne7oSMCSAwCiMSMf krfwT-- wi t BWMMted ~~~ ' Ck G C J L A A uX-C- -- QlMA <Lr^<ty#rrv<JuJ ^ I P U v ^ tc hfi C U tdU im . r \ 5 SAJUja 12 066-0002-0002810 p. 281 VRSP Structure B elieve these w ill need to be company specific, one o ff agreements between each company and EPA. The goals and tim elines w ill need to be tailored to where each company is today, the technology they have or can get access to, available funding (we have spent or w ill spend over $60M M in facilities and $30MM in technology), and frankly, what they are w illing to do and what the EPA expects them to do. Do believe, the vehicle to secure the commitment should be the same for each company. W e w ill be suggesting a Letter o f Commitment. As far as w e are concerned, our commitment is as firm under this vehicle as it is under any other. The beauty is that it is faster to accom plish and easier to administer . Base line w ill be critical to establish. First o f all, w ill provide a much clearer picture o f current state, both in absolute and relative terms. A lso needed to set the goals and measure going forward W ould suggest that the reporting process should be overt and public, beyond just via the docket. A specific EPA web site, for example, might be used to report the progress and inform the public. Might also enable more effective global communications (j-* Again, w e believe the methods and measurement specifications should be hard wired into this process. May recall that the Fluors conference discussed the issue o f wide variances in analytics and measurements. W e have the world's leading capabilities in this area and could help you do that. 066-0002-0002811 p. 282 / J Elements of DuPont Commitment LOC from DuPont to EPA th at provides specifics o f com m itm ent and Is in a form suitable fo r sharing w ith the public fo r transparency LOC elements'. >- Emission reduction and caps as specified > Timelines as specified r Description of best available technology used to achieve commitments > Biodegradation approach * Periodic reporting on progress toward commitment and ongoing reporting once objectives have been achieved Analytical methods and measurements specifications fully described Commitment to fully support smooth regulatory processes for new products ' V - L w ri ^ POP ^ * kjp- 13 066-0002-0002812 Critical Needs Rapid com m itm ent across both industries Participants sea adequate Incentive or consequences r 100% participation of global market leaders r EPA engagement of high level corporate management EPA public support; use EPA voice Sm ooth regulatory processes fo r new products EPA collaboration w ith global regulatory bodies Transparency o f actions and results EPA restate safety o f products and no health effects W ell executed com m unications strategy p. 283 14 066-0002-0002813 p. 284 Critical Needs As you may recall the pie chart we showed at the last meeting, total and complete industry participation is needed and secured as soon as possible We believe EPA w ill need to make those high level contacts and to follow that up using your public voice as w ell as showing visible support for DuPont's leadership in this effort We talked about a smooth regulatory process for new products and you expressed w illingness to talk about what that might look like We both know parts o f the world are moving on this issue and we believe w e should talk about what we are doing in those venues Transparency we think w ill help keep the pressure on to move and help being held accountabile for delivering Given DuPont's unique situation in terms o f both what is happening to us AN D what w e are doing to move ahead, we would appreciate your public support in these areas What is said and when it is said is k ey .. .premature disclosures could derail this effort _ j x m ^ /*y \ 066-0002-0002814 p. 285 Industry Interaction I U tilize DuPont VERSP as m odel fo r EPA to engage Industry r DuPont prepared to finalize as soon as possible Industry dynam ics are different Possible DuPont roles? r High level contacts as well as Industry and trade groups engagement -- Inform, sense uptake and Identify hot spots, encourage participation r Feedback to EPA re response, additional Input EPA negotiate com pany sp ecific VERSPs CCoontAMSbmnTMSBGmACmSmI infermata I Bredmsd 15 066-0002-0002815 Industry Interaction We talked about this at the last m eeting and were not clear as to your expectations and our realities We believe the first step is to finalize our commitment asap so it can be used as a model to engage industry. This w ill provide us the credibility to provide encouragement, incentive and perhaps w ill for others to do the same We are prepared to apply the right people to get this done asap As we mentioned before the industry dynamics between the fluoropolymers and fluorotelomers are very different and the approach w ill have to be different. We can share our view s as to how to do this in a way that w ill enable success. Here are some thoughts about some possible roles for us: o Make the high level contacts with industry and engage trade groups o Inform, sense, encourage o Feedback positions as w ell as any upgrades Company specific VERSP needs to be done with the EPA bOi-dL^> (JSL* cj^J-Ao A o TyvA-<A_CV\4J-- ; 066-0002-0002816 Communications Process Need to agree to what should be said, when and by whom 16 066-0002-0002817 p. 288 <~N (?) 0 grfV'S 0 ^ - 0 - (f) -pjXS) 0 J - r ~ t^Tt & h ' 17 066-0002-0002818 p. 289 066-0002-0002819 p. 290 Global Regulatory Process EPA global leadership to establish science based decisions Is critica l /- Update and distribute EPA PFOAfact sheet, for example Define intersection points o f our e ffo rts and the EPA interests > UBA environmental hazard assessment, for example Given tim ing o f certain regulatory steps, it is urgent to m ove forw ard i 19 066-0002-0002820 Global regulatory We mentioned this when w e met last and we have a concern that loom ing decisions may be made on criteria other than science. One example o f what could be done is shown here We have a plan to engage regulators outside the US and are prepared to share that with you so you can see and relevant intersection points. One potential point may be regarding our efforts with UBA Key elem ents w ill be: VERSP, health effects, PBT, / "Y ou know as w ell as w e do that things w ill be happening over the next few months 066-0002-0002821 Legacy'VSources, Fate, Transport VERSP is a source reduction program th a t makes progress but does not com pletely address the questions discussed a t our last meeting. W ork In Progress: M O U s Sources, Fate, Transport Paper Biodegradation Studies G lobal Environm ental Model Next Steps Technical discussions on the above Gm w m TSCACB 20 066-0002-0002822 p. 293 Legacy"/Sources, Fate, Transport You may recall w e spent som e time kicking this around at our last meeting. Your questions included: Where did it come from? How did it get there? Is there an environmental reservoir? Clearly an industry-wide VERSP, progress w ill be made going forward but these questions still need to be addressed Work in progress includes the site monitoring MOUs, we are about ready to publish a paper called "Sources, Fate, and Transport, our biodegradation studies, and the Global Environmental Model. We believe it is important to review the paper with you prior to publishing as w e believe it w ill be somewhat controversial. One o f the key themes is that the sources, fate and transport is global, and hence the criticality for global coverage o f the VERSPs vjl P c(h JA l^y 0^ 066-0002-0002823 From : To: Sent: Subject: `Susan M Stalnecker* <susan.m.stalnecker@usa.dupont.com> George H Senkter_Jr<geoige.h.senkler-jr@usa.dupont.com>; Robert W Rickard<robert.w.rickard@usa.dupont.com>; Martha L Rees<martha.l.rees@usa.dupont.com>; Kathleen A Shelton<kathleen.a.shelton@usa.dupont.com>; David W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>; Henry E Bryndza<henry.e.bryndza@usa.duponLcom>; Linda J Fisher<linda.].flsher@usa.dupont.com>; R CKfton Webb<rdifton.webb@usa.duponlcom>; Gary W Lewis<gary.w.!ewis@usa.dupontcom>; Pascal Feirandez<pascal.ferrandez@dupontelastomers.com>; Oaniel A Tumer<daniel.a.turner@usa.duponLcom>; jweber@dezenhai.com<jweber@dezenhal.com>; michaeImccabe1@earthSnk.net<michaelmccabe1@earthink.net>; Paul N Costello<paul.n.costeSo@usa.dupont.com>; Richard F Holt<richard.f.holt@usa.dupont.com> Tuesday, November 08. 2005 10:21 AM Core Team Meetings Agenda for tomorrow is: 30/60/60+ Report back re 8(e) Sources Paper update Comments on Overall approach EPA latest EPA strategy open issues: what do they really want and what does that mean for us? How do we see things playing out? Do we need to change our tactics with industry? Should we develop a strategy for each company? Is the LOC nearly complete? How wit we defiver that? What is the EWG strategy? Communications Plan: what do we want to say, when and to whom? Open Issues: White House interaction (more critical now???), EPA meeting re S/F/T. Core Team review of regulatory strategy and EPA meeting, Core Team review of Exposure Model and Biodeg work We start at 9...thanks This communication is foe use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. Franais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html MCCABE02723 p. 295 ; From: "Michael McCabe" <michaelmccabe 1@earthlink.net> To: Susan M Stalnecker<susan.m.stalnecker@usa.dupontcom>; Michael S Parr<michael.s.parr@usa.tkjpontcom> CC: Linda J Fisher<8nda.j.lisher@usa.dupontcom>,Unda J Rsher<linda.j.fieher@usa.duponLcom>michaelmccabe1@earlhlink.com<mlchaelmccabe1@earthlink.com>.Linda J Fisher<iinda.j.lisher@usa.duponLcom>niichaelmccabe1@earthljnlc.com<michaelmccabe1@earthlink.com>Henry E Bryndzahenry.e.bryndza@usa.dupontcom> Sent: Thursday, December 0 1 , 2005 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Follow up Susan/Michael, I would defer to Linda on this because she knows Noe, and his relationship |ii(b Susie, but 1 think contact between Noc and Hazen would be hcIpfuL &nbsj>; I recommend Noc contact Susie to let her know the meting happened, wcs well received and has OMB's blessing. That would help Susie (and Jojmson) as EPA moves forward. I would not have Noe push for faster action, because that implies Susie isn't on track and might make it look like yof> conveyed displeasure to the White House. Noe should ask Susie what hi can do to help. 1don't know whether this was conveyed in die bcling, but we want Noe and others in the White House to serve as a booster |>ith others in industry who might approach them with a less aggressive approach or with a desire for delay. Mike McCabe & Associates 4 Normandy Drive Chadds Ford. PA 19317 610-388-9623, work 866-383-4003, fax wmichaelmccabe@eartiilink.net ) F rom : Susan M Stalnecker <Susan.M.Stalncckei@USA.dupontcom> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:03:15-0500 To: Michael S Parr <Michael.S.Pan@USA.duponl.com> Cc: Linda J Fisher <LindaJ.Fisher@usaduponLcom>, michaelmccebel@earthlink.com, Henry E Bryndza <Hcnry.E.Bryndza@USA.dupont.com> Subject: Follow up Michael P.. thank you VERY much for arranging today's meetia|). My sense is that our message was well received. Since Paul Noe volunteered his help to you on the way (Mil, ] would ask you to call him tomorrow to define what "bcj>p" looks like. I would ask Linds and Mike to offer their thoughts as to wha|> that might look like so you can suggest some things when you calL The experts need to register present but I suspect a call to|>Su7y H. re the importance o f moving forward with an industry wide vofaiiitary program asap AND the recognition of DuPont leadership, wooldfjbe very beJpfol. 1trust \vc will seize this opportunity and would appreciate ca email regarding confirmation of your steps. Thanks! This communication is for use by die intended recipient and containsf>BR> information that may be MCCABE02866 JI Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not die intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified dial any use, copying or distribution o f this e-mail, in whole or in part, is striedy prohibited. Please notify the sender by not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance o f a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to die use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or lor Franais Dcutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese &nbsJ>;Chinese Korean http://www.DuPJmt.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html MCCABE02867 From: To: CC: Sent: A ttachm ents: Subject: `Susan M Stalnecker' <susan.m.stalnecker@usa.dupont.com> Martha L Rees<martha.l.rees@usa.dupontcom>; Daniel A Tumer<daniel.a.tumer@usa.dupont.com>; Linda J Fisher<linda.j.fisher@usa.dupont.com>; michaelmccabe1@earthfink.net<michaelmccabe1@earthlink.net> R Clifton Webb<r-difton.webb@usa.dupont.com>,R Cifton Webb<rclifton.webb@usa.duponLcom>Robert W Riekafd<robert.w.rickard@usa.dupon(.com>,R Cifton Webb<f-difton.webb@usa.dupont.com>Robert W Rickard<robert.w.rickard@usa.dupont.com>Joan A Byme<joan.a.byme@usa.dupont.com> Monday. December 05,2005 9:06 AM Docket 11.11.05.ppt Docket Suzy Hazen has recommended we submit the docket materials before the 8e goes public which means asap. She does not want to review but took comfort that Mike and Linda have reviewed. Attached is the latest draft of the charts. Martha/Dan, please send the addressees the draft letter. I would ike Linda and Mike to give it one more review and would appreciate that be done by the end of Tuesday. Meanwhile, Martha, can you please let Joan know what she needs to do to submit this to the docket? Thanks This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. Prancais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html MCCABE02876 p. 298 Susan M StalneckerfAE/DuPo nt 0 1/17 /2 0 0 6 10:02 AM To CN=Robert W Riekard/0U=A/0=DuPontDuPont, CN-Martha L Rees/OU=AE/0=DuPonf@DuPont. CNs Unda J pishf/OU=AE/0=OuPont@DuPont. CN=Kathteen A Shelton/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont, CN=David W BooO>e/OU=AE/0=DuPant@DuPoot, CM=Henry E Bryndza/0t/=AE/0=DuPontDuPont, CN=Gary W Sp<tzof/CHJ=AE/ODuPoot@DuPont. CN=R Clifton Webb/OU=AE/0=DuPonm>DuPont CN=Daniel A Tumer/OU=AE/0=DuPont@OuPont, CN=Gary W Lewb/0=DuPont@OuPont, CN=Pascal FefTaodez/OU=DPE/0=DuPont@DuPont, michaelmccsbelearlhfinicner, CN=Kathleen H Forte/OD=AE/0DuPont@DuPont, CN"Catherine L Andriacfis/OU-AE/O=DuPont@0uPoM i bcc Subject Fw: Phone Call Suzy was not able to speak at 8:30 this morning but h as said sh e will call me today. Stay tuned... -----Forwarded by Susan MStalnecker/AE/DuPont on 01/17/200610:00 AM - Susan M Stalneck er/AE/Du Pont y0 bazen.susan@epa.gov cc 01/17/200 Subject Phone Call 6 08:58 AM No doubt you are in the throes of the celebration. It is hard to fathom that the EPA w as created in our lifetimes. It m akes one w onder what would be different if it w as celebrating 50 or 100 years. S avor the moment and congratulate each other. One lowly citizen can just say "thanks'. The purpose of my call is to describe our plans for next week, and m ake sure Ihey are aligned with EPA's interests. Clearly we need to describe our reduction commitments to our customers, employees, investors and others and do so prior to the SAB (hopefully w e will n ot b e too late). O ur plans include putting all the charts on our web site, issuing a press release, communication to employees end letters to customers. It is our hope, and that h as been confirmed horn time to time, that w e could imbed a quote bom you in that release. Having m ad e the 'ask*. 1 is d e a r that other than som e presentations, you have nothing in writing regarding our commitment. I have a letter ready to go which describes the DuPont Company commitment. W e are prepared to share all of this with you and your press office. I think you win find that we have taken every opportunity to cite the National PFOA Stewardship Program and our support for EPA's efforts to secure industry wide participation. I am eager to speak with you and look forward to hearing from you. 006-0133-0082374 Thanks. 006-0133-0082375 p. 300 Daniel A T urner/A E /D u P o n t 01/20/2006 02:28 PM To CN =Susan M Stalnecker/OU=AE/0=DuPont@ DuPont, CN=Linda J Fisher/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont, CN=Martha L Rees/OU=AE/Q=DuPont@DuPont, CN=Robert W Rickard/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont, CN=David W Boothe/OU=AE/0=Du Pont@Du Pont, m ichaelm ccabel @ earthlink.net cc CN= Kathleen h Forte/OU=AE/0=DuPont@ DuPont, CN=R Clifton Webb/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont, CN=Catherine L A ndriadis/O U =A E/0=D uPont@ D uPont bcc Subject Materials Faxed to Hazen Today The following materials, including Kathy Forte's cover note, were faxed to Susan Hazen today. 1) Kathy Forte fax cover letter Letter 1-20-06 Susan Hazen.doc 2) Plan A: EPA and DuPont Announce Jan 25 - Draft News Release and Communications Plan VERSP Press Release Plan A.DRAFT. 1.20.06.doc VERSP Plan A Timeline.DAT. 1.20.06.doc 3) Plan B: DuPont Announces Jan 26 -- Draft News Release and Communications Plan VERSP Press Release Plan B.DRAFT. 1.20.06.doc VERSP Plan B Timeline.DAT.1.20.06.doc 4) DRAFT Letter of Commitment (included based on input from Mike and Linda) SMS-Hazen 1-06.doc Best regards, Dan j}1r C adzfi-- 006- 0133-0083284 p. 301 <mm DuPont Public Affairs 1007 M arket Street, D-11030-1 W ilm ington, DE 19898 302-773-4418 Tel 302-774-2093 Fax January 20, 2006 Ms. Susan Hazen Acting Assistant Administrator The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office o f Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Room 7101M Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Ms. Hazen: Based on your conversation with Susan Stalnecker, we are providing the attached documents for your review. There are currently two versions; your meeting Monday with Steve Johnson will determine which option we pursue. Plan A: Separate but concurrent announcem ents by EPA and DuPont on W ednesday, January 25. Plan B: An announcement by DuPont on Thursday, January 26. Both plans include a draft news release and communications timeline. You will see that in Plan A we have assum ed the title o f your program is the same as was used at the December 14 meeting. Please let us know if this has changed and we will revise accordingly. W e are also attaching a draft o f D uPont's Letter o f Commitment. W e want to be sure it meets your needs and expectations for companies that commit to participate in your program. If you have suggestions, please do not hesitate to call me at 302-773-4418 in Susan's absence. She is expected back in the United States late this afternoon. Sincerely, Kathleen H. Forte Vice President - DuPont Public Affairs E I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 006-0133-0083285 p. 302 DuPont Confidential Draft - Plan A 1/20/06 DuPont Commits to Aggressive PFOA Emissions Reduction Program with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency W ILM IN G TO N , Del., Jan. 25, 2006 - D uPont has em barked on an expansive program to reduce public exposure to a persistent chemical know n as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and has com m itted to the Environm ental Protection A gency (EPA ) to participate in the N ational PFO A Stew ardship Program announced today by the EPA. Elem ents o f the D uPont com m itm ent include: R educing total global em issions o f PFO A from D uPont m anufacturing facilities by 98 percent by 2007. This incorporates the substantial achievem ent o f 95 percent reduction already realized through D uPont's ongoing exposure reduction program ; Im plem enting em issions caps on its U.S. m anufacturing facilities; Im plem enting PFO A content caps on fluoropolym er dispersions and fluorotelom er products; Im plem enting caps on potential PFO A precursors for fluorotelom er products; Im plem enting studies to assess w hether the potential biodegradation o f fluorotelom er products is a m easurable source o f hum an exposure to PFOA. W ith these actions, the com pany will elim inate or severely restrict potential routes o f exposure from its facilities, processes and products. "The EPA N ational PFOA Stewardship Program, announced today by Steven Johnson, EPA Adm inistrator, is an industry-wide program to significantly reduce environm ental exposure to this chemical, "said Susan Hazen, A cting A ssistant Adm inistratorfo r the EPA O ffice o f Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. "We are pleased to see D uP ont's leadership com m itm ents to this reduction program. " "D uP ont is com m itted to actively and fully participate in E P A 's stew ardship program ," said D uPont V ice President Susan Stalnecker. "It will significantly and rapidly reduce PFO A em issions to the environm ent." D uPont has regularly kept the EPA inform ed o f progress tow ard the com pany's com m itm ents relative to em ployee health studies, research on consum er articles, the environmental fate o f products produced with or containing PFO A and new product formulations In addition, D uP ont has w orked individually and w ith others in industry to inform E P A 's regulatory counterparts in the E uropean U nion, Canada, C hina and Japan about activities and new inform ation concerning PFOA. This w ork includes a discussion on the em ission reductions from 006-0133-0083286 p. 303 D uPont facilities as well as the reform ulation o f its fluoropolym er dispersion products. The com pany has developed new technology that can reduce PFO A content in fluoropolym er dispersions by m ore than 97 percent. D uPont has offered the technology to fluoropolym er m anufacturers globally in a royalty-free exchange. "Although there are no know n health effects associated with PFOA, the presence o f PFO A in hum an blood and the environm ent raises questions that need to be addressed," Stalnecker said. Repeating earlier Agency statem ents on products produced with or containing trace am ounts o f PFOA, Hazen said, UEPA continues to believe that the consum er products on the m arket today are safe. " A bout fluoropolvm ers: fluoropolym ers are used in architectural fabrics; chemical processing piping and vessels; autom otive fuel system s; telecom m unications and electronic wiring insulation; and com puter chip processing equipm ent and system s - in addition to consum er products such as cookw are and apparel. The aerospace, transportation and electronics industries rely on products m anufactured using PFO A for purity, reliability and durability o f many o f their key system s. A bout fluorotelom ers: fluorotelom er derivatives are a family o f com pounds used as ingredients in making firefighting foam s and coatings because o f their unique properties. They also are interm ediates, or building blocks, used to m anufacture stain-, oil- and w ater-resistant additives for some textiles, paper, coatings and other surfaces. D uP ont is a science com pany. Founded in 1802, D uP ont puts science to w ork by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everyw here. O perating in m ore than 70 countries, D uPont offers a w ide range o f innovative products and services for m arkets including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, com m unications, safety and protection, hom e and construction, transportation and apparel. ### 1/25/06 006-0133-0083287 Plan A - EPA and DuPont Announce on Jan. 25 Timeline M onday, Jan. 23 EPA advises Stalnecker o f agency plan after Steve Johnson m eeting W ebb contacts Rich H ood, EPA press office; shares D uPont new s release and com m unications plan (W ebb) W ith E P A 's consent, W ebb contacts three key new s m edia outlets re: em bargoed pre briefings for Tues. p.m., Jan. 24 by phone (W ebb) Tuesday, Jan. 24 EPA and D uPont letters exchanged (tim e TBD) M edia pre-briefings w ith W ashington Post, AP, B N A by phone in afternoon (em bargoed until release tim e - TBD by EPA ) (W ebb, Stalnecker, Boothe, Bryndza) Follow ing selective advance notifications occur - verbal: o BOD notification (COH and Shaw) o Corporate Officers notification (Stalnecker) o K ey N G O s notification (Fisher) o Advisory B oard notifications (Fisher/Rickard) o K ey G overnm ent notifications (Parr in U.S., other global) o Science contacts (Rickard) o K ey C ustom er notification (Green, Spitzer) C O H call to Steve Johnson (Stalnecker to arrange) W ednesday, Jan. 25 EPA N ew s Release issued (tim e TBD) D uPont N ew s Release issued im m ediately follow ing EPA release, PR New sw ire US1 M edia Interview s (Boothe, Stalnecker, W ebb) W ebsite updated (Turner) N etw ork News update (Turner) Investor N ote (Lukach) COH Letter to Em ployees (Forte) Custom er Letters (W eitzke, Brown) 006-0133-0083288 p. 305 DuPont Confidential Draft - Plan B 1/20/06 DuPont Shares Aggressive PFOA Emissions Reduction Program with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency W ILM IN G TO N , Del., Jan. 26, 2006 - D uPont has em barked on an expansive program to reduce public exposure to a persistent chemical know n as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Elem ents o f the program include: R educing total global em issions o f PFO A from D uPont m anufacturing facilities by 98 percent by 2007. This incorporates the substantial achievem ent o f 95 percent reduction already realized through D uPont's ongoing exposure reduction program ; Im plem enting em issions caps on its U.S. m anufacturing facilities; Im plem enting PFO A content caps on fluoropolym er dispersions and fluorotelom er products; Im plem enting caps on potential PFO A precursors for fluorotelom er products; Im plem enting studies to assess w hether the potential biodegradation o f fluorotelom er products is a m easurable source o f hum an exposure to PFOA. W ith these actions, the com pany will elim inate or severely restrict potential routes o f exposure from its facilities, processes and products. "The voluntary actions taken by D uPont to reduce emissions o f PFOA fro m its m anufacturing processes and reduce the am ount o f PFOA in its products have shown remarkable leadership and set an examplefo r the rest o f the industry to fo llo w ," said Susan Hazen, Acting Assistant Adm inistratorfo r the EPA O ffice o f Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. "We intend to work with allfluoropolym er andfluorotelom er m anufacturers to develop an industry-wide voluntary reduction program, and we lookforw ard to D uPont being a leader in that program. " "W e look forward to working with EPA to further develop an industry-wide program to reduce environm ental loadings o f this chem ical," said D uPont Vice President Susan Stalnecker. D uPont has regularly kept the E PA inform ed o f progress tow ard the com pany's com m itm ents relative to em ployee health studies, research on consum er articles, the environm ental fate o f products produced with or containing PFO A and new product fo rm ulations. 006-0133-0083289 p. 306 Tn addition, D u P o n t h as w o rk e d individually and w ith others in industry to inform E P A 's regulatory counterparts in the European Union, Canada, China and Japan about activities and new inform ation concerning PFOA. This w ork includes a discussion on the em ission reductions from D uPont facilities as w ell as the reform ulation o f its fluoropolym er dispersion products. The com pany has developed new technology that can reduce PFO A content in fluoropolym er dispersions by m ore than 97 percent. DuPont has offered the technology to fluoropolymer m anufacturers globally in a royalty-free exchange. "Although there are no know n health effects associated with PFOA, the presence o f PFO A in hum an blood and the environm ent raises questions that need to be addressed," Stalnecker said. Repeating earlier Agency statem ents on products produced with or containing trace am ounts o f PFOA Hazen said, "EPA continues to believe that the consum er products on the m arket today are safe. " A bout fluoropolvm ers: fluoropolym ers are used in architectural fabrics; chem ical processing piping and vessels; autom otive fuel systems; telecom m unications and electronic wiring insulation; and com puter chip processing equipm ent and system s - in addition to consum er products such as cookw are and apparel. The aerospace, transportation and electronics industries rely on products m anufactured using PFO A for purity, reliability and durability o f m any o f their key systems. A bout fluorotelom ers: fluorotelom er derivatives are a family o f com pounds used as ingredients in m aking firefighting foam s and coatings because o f their unique properties. They also are interm ediates, or building blocks, used to m anufacture stain-, oil- and w ater-resistant additives for some textiles, paper, coatings and other surfaces. D uPont is a science com pany. Founded in 1802, D uPont puts science to w ork by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. O perating in m ore than 70 countries, D uPont offers a w ide range o f innovative products and services for markets including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, com m unications, safety and protection, hom e and construction, transportation and apparel. ### 1/26/06 006-0133-0083290 Plan B - DuPont Announces on Jan. 26 Timeline M onday, Jan. 23 EPA advises Stalnecker o f agency plan after Steve Johnson m eeting C ontact news m edia (3) to schedule 1/25 briefings (W ebb) Inform Rich H ood, EPA Press Office o f plan; share news release (W ebb) Wednesday, Jan. 25 D esk-side briefings in D.C. w ith W ashington Post, AP, B N A (em bargoed until W ashington Post file tim e, approx 10pm to m idnight) (W ebb) Follow ing selective advance notifications occur - verbal: o BOD notification (COH and Shaw) o Corporate Officers notification (Stalnecker) o Key N G O s notification (Fisher) o Advisory Board notifications (Fisher/Rickard) o K ey G overnm ent notification (P arr in U .S., other global) o Science contacts (Rickard) o Key C ustom er notification (Green, Spitzer) Share Final D uPont N ew s Release w ith R ich H ood (W ebb) Thursday, Jan. 26 D uPont N ew s Release issued 8:00am, PR N ew sw ire US 1 M edia Interview s (Boothe, Stalnecker, W ebb) W ebsite updated (Turner) N etw ork New s update (Turner) Investor N ote (Lukach) COH Letter to Em ployees (Forte) Custom er Letters (W eitzke, Brown) 006-0133-0083291 p. 308 DRAFT Ms. Susan Hazen Acting Assistant Adm inistrator The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office o f Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Room 7101M W ashington, D.C. 20460 Re: Voluntary Exposure Reduction Stewardship Program (VERSP) D ear Ms. Hazen: The D uPont Com pany has em barked on an expansive program to reduce potential public exposure to a persistent chemical know n as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Concerns about PFO A arose early in this decade w hen very low levels w ere detected in hum an blood samples taken from the general population. At that time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched a process to better understand th e chem ical's potential risks and pathw ays o f exposure. W hile PFO A has not been show n to present health risks to the general public, its presence in blood raised questions that needed to be addressed. DuPont's Commitment The D uP ont Com pany is com m itted to elim inate o r severely restrict environm ental loading o f PFO A and its potential precursors from D uP ont facilities, processes and products so that any residuals are reduced to the m axim um extent feasible. This initiative is called the V oluntary E xposure R eduction Stew ardship P rogram (V ER SP). Elem ents o f this program include: Reducing global emissions from m anufacturing facilities by 98% by 2007. This com pares to the 95% reduction achieved through year end 2005. Im plem enting emission caps on U.S. m anufacturing facilities Implem enting product content caps regarding PFO A in fluoropolym er dispersions and PFO A and any potential PFO A precursors in fluorotelom er products Determ ining w hether the potential biodegradation o f fluorotelom er products is a measurable source o f human exposure to PFOA. Implementing studies to assess w hether the potential biodegradation o f fluorotelom er products is a m easurable source o f human exposure to PFO A W ith these actions D uPont will eliminate o r severely restrict potential routes o f exposure from its facilities, processes, and products. V ERSP commitments are intended to support the on-going process undertaken by EPA to identify pathways o f human exposure and potential risks from PFO A as well as the National PFO A Stew ardship Program introduced by the E P A on D ecem ber 14, 2005. Further, at your 006-0133-0083292 p. 309 request, w e have w orked w ith others in industry to encourage participation in your program and to adopt similar com m itm ents. W e believe the steps w e are taking will transform processes and products associated w ith PFO A so that future contributions to the environment will be dramatically reduced. These voluntary actions are th e result o f extensive im provem ents m ade in p ro d u cts and processes consistent w ith D u P o n t's B iopersistance Principles and D u P o n t's history o f reducing em issions and developing and introducing environmentally preferred technologies. B ackground on PFO A, Fluoropolym ers and Fluorotelom ers PFO A is an essential processing aid used by a num ber o f dom estic and foreign m anufacturers to produce fluoropolymers. Fluoropolym ers have useful and unique properties such as resistance to chemical or environmental attack, high tem perature capabilities, non-stick characteristics, and electrical properties Fluoropolym ers are used in architectural fabrics; autom otive fuel systems; telecom m unications and electronic wiring insulation; and com puter chip processing equipm ent and system s - in addition to consum er products such as cookw are and apparel. P F O A is largely rem oved in th e m anufacturing and conversion processes fo r virtually all industrial fluoropolym er applications. Testing has shown that some industrial products may contain trace levels o f PFOA. O ur research has found no detectable levels o f PFO A in cookw are products m ade w ith D uPont non-stick coatings, including those sold under the Teflon brand. PFO A is found in trace am ounts in som e fluorotelom er products as an unintended byproduct o f the m anufacturing process. Fluorotelom er products are not m ade w ith PFO A , nor is PFO A added during the m anufacture o f fluorotelom er-based products. Fluorotelom ers are used to produce surface protection products, including surfactants and oil, stain and w ater repellents, for a w ide range o f applications including textiles, paper, fire fighting foam, medical barrier fabrics and hard surface coatings. P roducts m ade w ith fluoropolym ers and fluorotelom ers are used in many critically im portant applications. B ecause o f their unique characteristics they are widely used w here dependable perform ance is essential. Critical industrial uses for fluoropolym ers include insulation for w ire and cabling, low emissions fuel hoses, pollution filters, high purity handling systems for integrated chip m anufacture, and valves, tubing, liners and gaskets for severe service applications. Products m ade with fluorotelom ers protect medical care providers against blood-borne pathogens and provide superior perform ance in extinguishing hydrocarbon fires, and can contribute significant environm ental benefits by extending the life o f and providing easier m aintenance o f many consum er products. These products bring consum ers many benefits, which include ease o f care, reduced maintenance, and extended life for a broad range o f articles used every day. In addition, coated cookw are facilitates healthy cooking while providing a surface that is easily cleaned. P o ten tial R isks and E P A 's P rocess to U n d erstan d T hose R isks 006-0133-0083293 p. 310 B ased on existing scientific data, including toxicity data and employee health studies conducted both by D uPont and other scientists, D uPont believes that PFO A exposure does not pose any health risk to the general public. Nonetheless, PFO A has been detected at very low levels in the blood o f the general population and D uP ont recognizes th at th e presence o f P FO A in people's blood raises questions that should be addressed. Thus, w e have taken action to reduce the p otential fo r hum an ex p o su re to P FO A from o u r p ro d u c ts and processes. Tn addition, w e have conducted new health studies, expanded our m onitoring data and perform ed extensive fate and exposure analyses. In late 2002, E PA initiated a priority review o f PFO A that led to a public process to develop new data on the issue and reduce scientific uncertainties surrounding pathways o f human exposure and potential risks. That process, formally launched early in 2003, included drafting a preliminary risk assessm ent; soliciting letters o f intent from fluoropolym er and fluorotelom er m anufacturers to provide data on a range o f topics involving processes, releases, production volumes and toxicity; and developing formal TSCA Section 4 Enforceable Consent Agreem ents (ECAs) and M em oranda o f Understanding (M OUs). Fluoropolym er and fluorotelom er m anufacturers also cooperated in developing voluntary research activities addressing potential toxicity and degradation o f our products. Inform ation developed under this process has been entered into the public docket. In January 2005, EPA released a refined and updated draft risk assessment and soon thereafter established an independent panel o f outside scientific experts to peer review the document. This PFO A Review Panel, also referred to as the Science Advisory B oard (SAB), is charged with advising EPA w hether the assum ptions used in the draft are scientifically sound and can be effectively used by the Agency to determ ine potential risks and appropriate risk management actions. The w ork o f the SAB is on going and has not yet reached conclusions. Throughout the risk assessm ent process, D uPont scientists have contributed num erous studies, analyses and com m ents for review. D uPont has supported the E PA public process and has w orked collaboratively to meet the needs o f the A gency in gaining greater know ledge about PFO A and its im pact on hum an health and the environm ent. In addition, D uPont has w orked individually and w ith others in industry to inform E P A 's regulatory counterparts in the E uropean Union, Canada, China and Japan about activities and new information surrounding PFOA. This w ork includes a discussion on the emission reductions from our facilities as well as the reform ulation o f our fluoropolym er dispersion. Facility Emissions Caps In conjunction w ith E P A 's public process, and in part prom pted by it, D uP ont has undertaken a com prehensive internal R& D effort to better understand how PFO A reaches the environment and to develop m easures to restrict the pathways to exposure. This involved a thorough evaluation o f D uPont m anufacturing processes and facilities, as well as an exhaustive analysis o f products and precursors. T he actions being described in this letter, which are em bodied in V E R S P, are a direct o utgrow th o f this exhaustive R& D effort conducted over many years. During this time, DuPont has transform ed the way fluoropolym ers and fluorotelom ers are m ade with the objective to significantly reduce PFO A emissions. These im provem ents are already underw ay and are 006-0133-008329A p. 311 producing dram atic reductions. As a result, w e project that by year-end 2007 PFOA emissions from all D uP ont m anufacturing facilities around the w orld will be reduced by m ore than 98 percent from a 1999 baseline. The num ber o f pounds o f w orldw ide PFO A emissions will drop from 142,600 lbs. in 1999 to about 2,400 lbs. in 2007. At ou r U .S. facilities, PFO A em issions will decrease by m ore than 99 percent to about 1,200 lbs. in the sam e period. O ur increased understanding o f this material and the steps that can be taken to control PFO A emissions has advanced to a point where these reductions can be translated into hard caps on future em issions from current U .S. facilities. PFOA Reduction - Fluorotelomers The scientific advances that have been m ade also allow us to commit to limits on the PFO A content in fluorotelom er products and to significantly reduce direct and indirect precursors that may form PFO A. P FO A content and direct precursors in our products will be reduced by m ore than 95 percent. D irect precursors such as alcohols will be reduced by m ore than 90 percent and indirect precursors will be reduced by m ore than 50 percent. These product concentrates are sold to industrial custom ers w ho form ulate, blend and, in many cases, dilute prior to application to finished goods. The baseline for these reductions is the year 2004 w hen fluorotelom er production w as at its peak and reduction efforts began. L onger chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (chain lengths greater than 8) , as well as their direct and indirect precursors, will also be similarly addressed. B ecause fluorotelom er products are sold in many different concentrations, the com m itm ents are expressed in term s o f parts per million o r w eight percent o f these m aterials on a "co ntained as solids" basis th at reflects content in th e absence o f w ater o r o th er solvents. In all cases, as part o f our commitment, w here content reduction objectives cannot be met, products will be replaced or rem oved from commerce. D uPont believes our stewardship program should be extended to those who purchase our fluorotelom er interm ediates. T he actions described above will result in content reductions in a num ber o f our interm ediates. P roducts derived from these interm ediates should show a similar reduction in PFO A and precursor content. In those cases w here it is not technically feasible to m odify the interm ediates, w e will encourage our custom ers to pursue a program that will result in em ission and product content reductions similar to D uPont. D uPont also commits to continuous im provem ent o f our fluorotelom er manufacturing processes and products beyond the aggressive goals set for 2007. N ew products are constantly being developed to reduce our environm ental "footprint", yet still maintain high levels o f effectiveness and perform ance. Success in this effort will depend on timely review and approvals for these new products. D uPont pledges to w ork with the EPA to provide necessary docum entation and analysis in the application process for new fluorotelom er products. In the com ing decade D uPont hopes to commercialize breakthrough products that completely redefine fluorine chemistry applications in order to achieve environm entally sustainable grow th o f this im portant product line. PFOA Reduction - Fluoropolym ers Fluropolym ers are different from fluorotelom ers and have different applications and characteristics N onetheless, D u P o n t's com m itm ent for fluoropolym er products is equally aggressive. Fluoropolym er m aterials are sold as dry resin pellets or pow der and in a w ater-diluted 006-0133-0083295 p. 312 (aqueous dispersion) form to industrial fabricators. The dry product form s contain PFO A in small am ounts, m uch o f which is destroyed in fabrication. A queous dispersions contain higher am ounts o f residual PFO A (ca. 0.2% or 2000 ppm ) som e o f which can be em itted from processor plant facilities. D uPont is com m itting to reduce PFO A content in fluoropolym er dispersions by m ore than 97 percent to greatly reduce the potential for these dow nstream emissions. M oreover, D u P o n t com m its not to sell dispersion products w ith m ore than 50 ppm. P FO A content by year end 2007. D uP ont has offered this dispersion treatm ent technology to our com petitors in a royalty-free exchange. The U.S. fluoropolym er m anufacturers, known as the Fluoropolym ers M anufacturing G roup, have com m itted to a 90 percent reduction o f PFO A in their w orldw ide dispersion products by 2007. D uPont is offering its technology to help ensure the success o f this industry com m itm ent. D uPont also is offering royalty-free access to its patents and technology for PFO A emissions abatem ent, w ater treatm ent and recovery for reuse. D uPont will simultaneously conduct a com prehensive fluoropolym er product stewardship program for cookw are m anufacture to ensure that dow nstream applicators follow environmentally rigorous controls in their m anufacturing practices. Biodegradation and Transparency The E P A has raised questions about w hether biodegradation o f fluorotelom er products is a pathw ay for PFO A to enter the environment. The objective o f V ERSP is to eliminate or severely restrict exposure from PFO A , including that from any potential biodegradation. D uPont is com m itted to continuing scientific analysis to better understand the potential for exposure and determ ine the fate o f existing products that might biodegrade. D uP ont is also com m itted to develop and introduce technology and p ro d u cts w hich d o not m easurably contribute to PFO A in hum an blood. As part o f o u r overall V E R SP com m itm ent w e invite a robust assessm ent o f our results. W e will com m it to develop, share and ultim ately publish analytical m ethods and m easurem ents that provide transparency about our results versus our com m itm ents. W e will provide periodic reports on progress tow ard our com m itm ents and will follow with ongoing reporting once our objectives have been achieved. This will allow both EPA and the public to evaluate the progress being made. W e would be happy to w ork with EPA to develop mechanisms to ensure transparency to the public as w e w ork tow ard achieving our objectives under VERSP. As underscored by these commitments, you can count on our continued cooperation with EPA as it seeks to rem ove scientific uncertainties surrounding P FO A and develop appropriate risk assessm ent and risk m anagem ent approaches for biopersistant m aterials in our environment. W e hope the V ERSP has served as a model for the EPA National PFO A Stewardship Program which will be the m echanism secure the com m itm ent o f the rest o f industry to achieve similar results both here and abroad W e look forward to your support o f our efforts. 006-0133-0083296 Respectfully submitted, Susan M. Stalnecker Vice President p. 313 006-0133-0083297 * p. 314 Susan M S talnecker/A E /D uP on t 02/16/2006 05:21 PM To CN=David W Boothe/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont cc bcc Subject Fw: URGENT:Script -----Forwarded by S usan M Stalnecker/AE/DuPont on 02/16/2006 05:21 P M ------ Susan M Stalneck er/AE/Du Pont 02/16/200 6 04:58 PM To michaelmccabe1@ earthlink.net Gary W Spitzer/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Cynthia C Green/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Carolmarie C Brown/Contractor/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Kathleen H cc Forte/AE/DuPont@ DuPont, R Clifton W ebb/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Daniel A T urner/A E/D uPont@ D uPont Subject URGENT.Script Mike and the cc's, please review the attached. I plan to send to Chad and ask him to call Steve Johnson. ask.02.16.06.doc ; / P c Cah& 006-0133-0088917 p. 315 Situation analysis: Publicity around SAB report has linked the Teflon brand to cancer. C overage has been broad in print and netw ork media. Significant disruptions in our m arkets and are consum ers are very, very concerned. The "A sk" : In our opinion, the only voice that can cut through the negative stories, is the voice o f EPA. W e need to EPA to quickly (like first thing tom orrow ) say the following: 1. C o n su m er p ro d u c ts sold u n d e r th e T eflo n b ra n d are safe. T h ese in clu d e th e n o n stick cookw are in your kitchen, the stain resistant carpet in your family room , and the w aterproof jackets in your closes, am ong other products w hich are valued by consum ers and offer unique and im portant benefits 2. Further, to date, there are no hum an health effects known to be caused by PFO A A nother clarifying aspect is w here the EPA is with respect to the SAB report. The SAB report is a recom m endation to EPA. The EPA will consider the report, along w ith the new inform ation and studies not considered by the SAB. The current classification o f "suggestive" is the standing assessm ent, until the EPA com pletes it risk assessm ent process. 006-0133-0088918 p. 316 Susan M S taln eck er/A E /D u P o n t 02/17/2006 04:42 PM To CN=Chad O Holliday/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont cc Donna L Saunders/AE/DuPont@DuPont bcc Subject EPA Linda has contacted Marcus Peacock and got him to understand our need and be prepared to do something. The concern is a broad statement about product safety. She stressed that all we want is to restate what they have said (there is no information that would indicate any concern with consumers continuing to use household products) AND to point out that TEflon is not PFOA. She got his attention that our customers are/will move away to other producers who have not signed up. He said he would talk to Johnson and have him call you. Robin, please make sure Chad sees this note. Thanks 4 ^ 075-0144-0011180 TRANSCRIPT OF EPA DIAL-IN PRESS CONFERENCE ON EPA'S PFOA GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006 2:00 P.M. W ITH SUSAN HAZEN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Transcript by: Federal N e*s Service Washington, D.C. 004-0134-0000461 OPERATOR: Good afternoon. My name is Bernard and I will be your conference operator. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the PFOA conference call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. A fter the speaker's rem arks there will be a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time simply press star and the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press star then the number two on your telephone keypad. Thank you. Ms. Hazeri, you may begin your conference. BOB Z E E (SP): Hi, this is Bob Zee. 1Just want to start with a few housekeeping point here. Today's conference call will be led by Susan Hazen. H-A-Z-E-N. She is the acting assistant administrator for the Office o f Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and she w ill be joined by Charles Auer, A-U-E-R. He is the director o f the O ffice ofPolhitiori, Prevention, and Toxics. And here w e go, here is Susan. Thank you. SUSAN HAZEN: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you very much for taking the time to join us today. Many o f you were probably on earlier conference calls when w e announced the PFO A Stewardship Program, and we are very pleased today to announce that the EPA has received 100 percent participation and commitment in the program. As you know, we set March ln as a deadline. That deadline was yesterday. And w e have received commitment from the eight companies who were subject to the program . These com panies are following E P A 's lead in taking action now to reduce PFOA releases and their product content levels. As you know, PFOA is a processing aid that is used in the manufacture o f a wide range o f non-stick and stain-resistant surfaces and products. The use o f PFOA in the manufacturing process does not, however, mean that people using these products will be exposed to PFOA. The agency does not believe that consumers need to stop using their cookware, clothing, o r other stick resistant, stain-resistant products. These companies have committed to joining the PFOA stewardship program, which seeks to reduce by 95 percent the facility emissions and product content o f PFOA, PFO A precursors, and high' homologue chemicals by no later than 2010 with the year 2000 as a baseline. The companies also committed to work towards elimination o f these sources o f new exposure to PFOA by the year 2015. This is the right thing to do; it is the right thing to do now for the environment, for public health, the agency, and for agency. W e applaud Arkema, Asahi, Ciba, Clariant, Daikin, Dupont, 3M /Dyneon and Solvay Solexis, the eight companies, for joining us in taking action to reduce PFOA, and for exemplifying global environmental leadership. Again, the companies are Arkema, Asahi, Ciba, Clariant, Daikin, Dupont, 3M/Dyneon and Solvay Solexis. 004-0134-0000462 Each company is different and we use different means to achieve the goals, but the important thing is that all o f th e companies are agreeing that corporate action to reduce the amount o f PFOA getting into our environment is the right thing to do now. EPA is not waiting, the companies are not waiting; we are taking action, and we will continue to work with the companies as they further develop their strategies to reach the program goal. Several o f the companies have already made significant progress towards the goal by reducing emissions and product content over the past few years, and we applaud them for their achievements that they have already made. EPA is developing guidance for the companies on submitting their baseline-year information, which is due to the agency on O ctober 3 Ist o f 2006, and guidance materials th at we provide to the companies will also b e posted on the agency's PFOA website so that there will be public access to those as well. Since PFOA is an international issue, and the companies have been asked to make commitments covering their global operations, we are working on coordination among the U.S. and other governments to ensure that the benefits achieved by this program do not stop at our borders. We have begun communication with the international community and other countries, and they have already expressed interest in the stewardship program approach. For example, we know that Sweden has stepped forward and will be hosting an organization for economic cooperation and development - OECD is the short terminology for that and OECD workshops on PFOA and other perfluorinated acids in November o f this year. EPA has also been corresponding with non-OECD countries or developing countries, including China, and this will be an ongoing effort, and w e will forward to success in this area. Again, we are very pleased that 100 percent o f the companies invited to participate in this program are 100-percent committed to joining this effort, which will result in dramatic reductions in PFO A releases and product content levels. I would like to reiterate one point: PFOA itself is not a product. It is a processing --it is a processing aid and it is used in the manufacture o f a wide range o f non-stick, non stain surfaces, and the agency has no evidence that use o f these products leads to PFOA exposure to the consumer. We look forward to continue to work cooperatively with each o f these companies and with the public as we strive to make these goals a reality. As the agency has indicated before, we know that there are still questions to be answered, but we do know that PFOA is in our environment so we are taking action now, and we are very pleased that the makers and users o f PFOA have decided to join us in doing the right thing. Thank you for participating in the call today and we would be very happy to answer any questions that you have. 004-0134-0000463 p. 320 MR. ZEE: Who is first? OPERATOR: A t this time I would like to remind everyone if you would like to ask a question, press star and the number one on your telephone keypad. We will pause for just a moment to compile the Q-and-A roster. Your first question comes from Amena Saiyid (sp) o f BNA Q: Yes, good afternoon. This Amena Saiyid with B N A This is a question for Susan o r Charles. H ow is EPA going to oversee this effort if, as you mentioned, the different companies that would use different approaches? MS. HAZEN: Well, w e will be, as I say, w orking with a companies, first o f all to get a sense o f their baseline for their emissions and product content. And we will be working - each o f these companies does different things, and so we will be working with them to better understand how they either manufacturer or use PFOA or the precursors. And working w ith them to determine how they are being used, they will share with us their plans for how they me going to reduce. And the important piece will be at the end o f the day they may choose different ways to get there, but at the end o f the day, our goal is to have 95-percent reduction by 2010 and their virtual elimination by 2015. And so the program needs to be flexible enough to allow them to work the w ay they need to work, and the end result will be the 95-percent reduction o r the total and virtual elimination. MR. ZEE: Who is next? MR. : Your next question comes from Mary Durburrow (sp) of Thompson Publishing. Q: Okay, can you hear me? MR. ZEE: Barely. Q: Hi. 1 understand that PFOA will be added to the toxic release inventory. Can you give me the status on that and the time frame? MS. HAZEN: Yes, w e are. As you know, PFOA is not currently listed on the toxics release inventoty. W e are in the process o f preparing the information necessary to propose adding PFOA, adding chemicals to the TRJ - (inaudible) - notice and comment rulemaking process so that there are opportunities for public participation, and we would expect to publish a proposed rule late this year or very early in 2007. OPERATOR: At this tim e I would like to remind everyone if you would like to ask a question, press star then the number one on your telephone keypad. I r I. I- I 004-0134-0000464 At this time there are no further questions. MR. ZEE: Okay. T hat's it. Thanks very much. MS. HAZEN: Thank you very much. OPERATOR: This concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect. (END) 004-0134-0000465 "Clean Hardball" p. 322 9/20/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL rr V t Considering "Clean Hardball" It's not immoral to defend yourself You cannot win on "Clean Hardball" alone, far more difficult to win without it Strategies and tactics must be aligned with legal, corporate culture, and operational realities to do this right 3rd parties are essential, but DuPont must become more comfortable with publicly asserting itself (and the risks that come that) Expect some blowback, and if the company can't handle that, don't do it 9/20/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL "Clean Hardball": No Free Shots DuPont Stronger, faster, more visible profile in defending itself "Fighting back with the facts" Message to customers, employees, et al.: "We're in this fight to win." 3rd Parties Exposing the motivations and methodologies of agenda-driven detractors Blowing the whistle on shoddy or biased journalism 9/20/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL CO N FIDEN TIAL DuPont "Clean Hardball" Tactics Ongoing--aggressive push back at reporters, their bosses and general counsels (e.g., ES&T, ABC, CBS) A well-prepared spokesperson to defend the company and show we're engaged Same news-cycle response to allegations and news events (requires more expedient message/material approval and liberty to consider sharper rhetoric) Document, debunk and distribute most egregious media misreporting, e.g., "Common Media Errors" Document, debunk and distribute EWG's inaccurate or misleading claims, e.g., "Myths-Facts," with unassailable backup 9/20/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL 1-- 1' confidential1 T How Do We Challenge Detractors? "Group X believes consumers should be forced to give up the benefits and convenience of non-stick cookware. (And other beneficial products such as...) They have been working hard to convince people these products are unsafe. They want the public to use only cast-iron cookware. [Other extreme product positions.]" "We disagree. We join the federal government and independent scientists who have looked at all of the research and conclude that these products do not pose a health risk to consumers. We also believe that consumers should have the opportunity to choose, to make their own decisions. We are confident they will continue to choose the convenience and health and safety benefits of non-stick cookware coatings and other products we make." "In terms of the environment, we have pledged to reduce our global emissions of PFOA by 98%.... Stewardship Story" 9/20/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL r--T TT 3rd-Party "Clean Hardball" Encourage NGO watchdog groups to describe detractor agenda and operations (which are not about the environment or protecting consumers!) R eport distribution; op-eds and columns; online cam paign R ecom m end outreach to W all S treet Journal editorial board, other outlets Encourage tort-reform, litigation watchdog organizations to comment on excessive litigation Distribute m aterials; op-eds and columns; conference/m edia briefing Recommend a survey of scientists asking them to rate credibility of NGO detractor(s) compared to other sources of science/environmental information Press release; publicize results 9/20/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL CO N FID EN TIA L Other 3rd-Party Tactics from SubTeam Outreach to/pressure on detractor financial contributors: Why are you supporting attacks on company that is being the most responsible? Detractors' attacks are ultimately anti-consumer because they deny consumer choice, undermine innovation, raise product prices Taking action to make this an industry-- not just DuPont-- problem Build relationships and mobilize more moderate environmental and consumer groups to isolate the most strident detractors (see cookware programs) Inoculate now against probable detractor attacks, e.g., "baby and carpet dust" p. 328 9/20/2007 DUPONT CONFIDENTIAL rr CONFIDENTIAL vH*. F rom : To: S e n t: Attachm ents: S u b je c t: 'Susan M Stalneckei* <susan.m.stalnecker@usa.dupont.com> Robert W Rickard<robert.w.rickard@usa.dupont.com>; Martha L Rees<martha.l.rees@usa.dupont.com>: David W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>; Heniy E Bryndz3<henfy.e.bfyndza@usa.dupont.com>; Gaiy W Spitzer<gary.w.spitzer@usa.dupont.com>; Pascal Ferrandez<pascal.f0rrandez@dupont0lastomers.com>; Gary W Lewis<gary.w.tewis@usa.dupont.com>; John Ffeher<john.fishei@can.dupontcom>; Jayne L Seebach<jayne.l.seebach@usa.dupwnt.com>; michaetmccabe1@earthlnk.net<michaelmccabe1@earthSnk.net>; Paul N Costello<paul.n.costeBo@iKa.dupont.com>; Linda J Fisher<Inda.j.fisher@usa.dupontcom>; Kathleen A Shetton<kathteen.a.shelton@usa.dupont.com> Monday. March 27,200611:41 AM EPA Meeting.03.27.06.doc EPA Meeting thoughts Very much welcome your thoughts; &nb|jp:For those of you on BBs. paste version follows...thanks EPA M eeting 3/30/06 D ra ft O utline Overall Objectives: Communicate our concerns about lack o f consistency o f approach toward the issue and secure a response. Examples include: web site snafu, Polymer Exemption language, OECD language, science not included in Polymer Examption (others?j> Provide information regarding accomplishments made and underway Get information about plans to secure level playing field Get information about the reaction to the activists attacks at our sites Get information about "legacy" questions and science objectives Understand global approach on the issue. What is the message and to whom will it be delivered and in what priority? Understand the managing process going forward when personnel moves are made Messages: Industry responses do not indicate level playing field and do not bode well for the success of this program or potential any future voluntary programs. Program credibility is at risk globally DuPont does not "own" this issue anymore. Our intent is to deliver ourfxx>mmitments and not be the lightning rod for negative market situations. We will be taking steps to make sure the competitive realities are known DuPont is well underway in delivemg on our commitments. Have experienced some measurement issues but those have enabled more granular accountabilities to be established. Delivering " S2" requires a number o f new products and w e are proceeding aljmg the methodology reviewed with your team. It is important these replacement products get to the market as soon as possibte and we will continue to work with you on the appropriate testing regimes. We MCCABE03074 p. 330 are aligned on the tox profiles but not as aligned on the fate studies W e are concerned by the continued level o f activists at our sites. We will continue to do the appropriate level o f bio and environmental monitoring and endeavor to be transparent about the program s and results. W e will continue the practice o f sharing results with you. The perspective has shifted to safety o f drinking water and the testing includes a broad suite o f chemicals. W e are taking steps to verify such tests and include the broader ranges. W e are also indicating alternative sources for the levels. (Cape Fear river example) W e are. in the process o f developing our science strategy which will includes areas o f focus for DuPont. Our intent is to make sure our resources (money and people) are concentrated on the areas o f biggest impact on D uPont Again, we want to move DuPont out o f the limelight and witl look to industry and others in industry to do their fair share Agenda: 1. Voluntary Stewardship Program Accomplishments Level playing field M essaging Managing process N ew products 2. SJite activities and activists 3. Siience direction/Iegacy 4. G lobal regulatory direction This communication is foe use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. Franais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html MCCABE03075 p. 331 From: To: Sent: Subject: 'Ann K Masse* <ann.k.masse@usa.dupont.com> michaelmccabe1@earthfink.net<michaetrnccabe1 @earthSnk.net> Monday. April 03.2006 8:47 AM Fw: EPA Meeting -- ForvranJxl by Ann K M .j*W AE/O uPonl on 04AXV2006 12:48 P M ----- S usan M SU bieckcrM E /D uPont 04/03/200611:42 AM David W BooiW AE/O uPonieDuPon*. Aim K M nsa/AE/D uPoiiteO uPont. VWfam H HepUm/AE/DuPonCQDuPont. John D 6tralU C U O uPonteD uPtnl.R lcklH odsoM E/D oPaeO uPoii(. Barry L To HudsoiviCL/DuPon/eDuPont Paul D Brg/AE/OuPont@OuP<xit. Homy E Btyndzm/AE/DtlPontQOuPoM. KaB H Kukraa/AE/DuPontQOuPori, Tim Uhy tratend/AE/DuPontgOuPont, Jans) H W M an/CL/DuPontgOuPont, G Emmatt Lynsfcoy/AE/DuPontOtjPonl Jayno l SoobachrAE/DuPontQCXlPonC Martha L sc R*/AE/DvPontDuPonCGaiy W Lowis/D uPontgO uPont. Robwt W RtctcardrAE/DuPontQDuPont Sub)oct EPA Mealing Bobby Rickard. Mike McCabe and I met with the EPA (Susie Hazen and Charfe Auer) last thursday. We had several things on the agenda but one was activities and activists at our sites. I first asked ifthey had actually received letters from the C8 Working Group, etc. and inquired what they had done with them a s we had heard CharSe had referred to Enforcement. He didn't say he did not but did say he had sent to the Regional EPA offices. Idescribed the source a s being an alliance among several of DuPonTs adversaries and that the targeted Issues are worker safety and safe drinking water. I said we will continue to do the appropriate level of bio and environmental monitoring and continue to be transparent about the programs and results. I said we would verify tests done by others, that w e would test for materials other than just PFOA, and we would broaden our testing locations which could potentially indicate other sources of what is being picked up. I specifically mentioned the results upstream of Fayetteville. I also s a d that we would defend ourselves against these attacks and provided them a copy of Barry's letter to the editor. Each of you have your own issues but I wilt take this opportunity to stress that your individual responses and plans will be seen by others In the aggregate. We need to make sure we are consistent and integrated with the overall issue. We will soon have a new managing process to enable this but in the meanwhile, please do not hesitate to call me if you have any issues or concerns. Thanks. This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. if you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by MCCABE03137 return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. Franais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean http ://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html MCCABE03138 p. 333 David W Boolhe/AE/DuPont 05/22/2006 12:08 PM To CN=Robert W Rk*ard/OU=A/0=DuPont. CN=Sihrto J DeCarH/OU=AE/0=DuPonl. "Bradley, Am" <abradley@sp8inanlaw.com>, CN=Susan M Stalnecker/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont, CN'Martha L Rees/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont. CN=Andrew S Hartten/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont cc CN=Robin R 0lfis/0U=AE/0=DuPont@DuPont Subject Fw: online story: "Parkersburg is Contaminated, Too" For your information dave ---- Forwarded by David W Boothe/AE/DuPont on 05/22/2006 12:07 PM----- Robin R Oltis/AE/ DuPont 05/22/200 612:03 PM David W Boothe/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Dean W To Thompson/HO/DuPont@DuPont, Timothy koland/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Daniel ATurner/AE/DuPont@DuPont, lstennes@steptoe.com cc Subject online story: `Parkersburg is Contaminated, Too" I have a call from WTAP (local NBC affiliate) Robin R. Ollis External Affairs DuPont Washington Works (304)863-2513 Parkersburg is Contaminated. Too Posted on: 05/21/06 at 10:41am Last edited on: 05/22/06 at 6:50am__________________________________________________________. By Callie Lyons. Reporter, WMOA News__________________________________________________________ Parkersburg water lias been called clean, safe, and free o f C8. For dial reason, lire community was excluded from participation in the class action suit against DuPont over the contamination of local water supplies. However, the latest test results indicate that the City of Parkersburg Is delivering water with a side ordero f C8 somewhere in the neighborhood of .065 to .079 parts per billion. That's more than the exposure level in just one of the West Virginia city's five wells when they were first sampled in 2002. They don't know for sure how long it's been there, or when it began to spike. After three years without testing, city officials learned about the increased exposure levels of C8 last year. They haven't publicly disclosed the infomrutlion to their customers because they say they didn't want to scare anyone. Interestingly, the threshold for participation in the class action suit that included several Ohio water systems was .05 pans per billion. Parkersburg isn't required to lest for C8 or even to release die information publicly because (he Teflon manufacturing substance remains unregulated even though the EPA's science advisory board determined it to be a 'likely carcinogen*' earlier this year. The third most populated city in West Virginia, Parkersburg is home to more than 33,000 people._____________ i 006-0133-0108123 ! p. 334 David W Boothe/AE/DuPont 05/23/2006 07:43 AM To Michael McCabe <michaelntccabe1@earthSnk.net>@DUPONT_MHUB cc Henry E Bryndra/AE/DuPont@DuPont. Martha L Rees/A/OuPont@DuPont, Paul D Berg/AE/DuPont@DuPont bcc Subject Re: EPA w ater I am at Va DEQ on Thursdays the 25th. mike. Go ahead and set it up and 111try to dial in if we get done in time. Thanks Dave Michael McCabe <michaetmccabe1@earthiink.net> Michael McCabe <michael mccabel @earthti nk.net> 05122/200 602:50 PM Henry E Bryndza/AE/DuPont@DuPom, David W Boothe/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Martha LRees/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Paul D Berg/AE/DuPont@DuPont ^ Subject EPA water If you are available, I may need you on a 1 hour conference call with the EPA water office this Thursday at 4 p.m. Hold the date. I'll fill you in on Wednesday. Hike W. Michael McCabe McCabe & Associates 4 Normandy Drive Chadds Ford, PA 19317 610-368-9625 (work) 866-563-4003 (fax) wmichaelmccabe@ea rthlink.net 006-0133-0108297 p. 335 Susan M S ta ln e cke r/A E /D u P o n 05/27/2006 02:50 PM To CN=Thomas M Connelly/OU=AE/0=DuPont, CN=Stacey J Mobley/OU=AE/0=DuPont, CN=Gary M Pfeiffer/OU=AE/0=DuPont, CN=Chad O Holliday/OU=AE/0=DuPont cc bcc Subject For Info We have just commenced discussions with the Water Division of EPA. They know very little about PFOA and we have agreed to work with them and OPPTS. I suggested that, like the with the exposure reduction program, our interest in providing clarity are aligned. Will brief you further when we nexr meet. Don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions. (777 0978). Thanks Thanks, Susan Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Timothy Ireland From: Timothy Ireland Sent: 05/27/2006 11:28 AM To: PAGA-- 24 Core Team Cc: Jayne L Seebach Subject: Communications Report P a r k e r s b u r g re s id e n ts file P F O A s u it a g a in s t D u P o n t - T hree residents o f P arkersburg, W .V a. alleged in a cla actio n law suit filed in W o o d C o u n ty last w eek th a t C8 from D u P o n t W ashington W o rk s had co ntam inated city w. S atu rd ay 's P ark e rsb u rg N e w s and S entinel carried an account o f th e suit and qu o ted a D u P o n t statem ent. M o re 1< coverage is likely to follow. Parkersburg residents file C8 suit against DuPont By JEFFREY SAULTON, Staff Writer PARKERSBURG -- Three Parkersburg residents filed suit Tuesday against DuPont, alleging the company has caused bod injury, emotional distress and property damage in allegedly contaminating the city's water supplies. Plaintiffs in the suit were identified as William R. Rhodes, Russell H. Miller and Valoria A. Mace, all o f Parkersburg. According to the filing with the W ood County Circuit Court clerk, the three have been exposed to PFOA, C8 and related mi through the ingestion or other significant exposure to water supplied by Parkersburg Utility Board for at least one year. DuPont released a statement today, "DuPont regrets that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf o f residents who coi water supplied by the Parkersburg Utility Board. W e will defend ourselves forcefiilly against this lawsuit, which is both fac and legally without merit." 075-0144-0011918 p. 336 DuPont's reply states, "According to the lawyers' complaint, their lawsuit is based on recent test results detecting PFOA in Parkersburg city water at levels above 0.05 parts per billion, with at least one result as high as 0.057 parts per billion. Thes are far below any established regulatory guidance for drinking water and have not been shown to pose a health risk. In fact, there are no human health effects known to be caused by C8. "We believe, therefore, that Parkersburg city water is safe for human consumption." Although PFOA is not a regulated chemical, die company said, DuPont has dramatically reduced emissions o f PFOA from facilities, including Washington Works. "We already have reduced emissions 95 percent from our U.S. manufacturing facilities since 2000. In addition, DuPont has developed technologies which will substantially reduce PFOA content in its products and emissions from its manufacturing facilities by 2007," the company said. According to the suit, the company had detected C8 o f less than one part per billion in public water supplies as early as 198 level the company set in a 1991 community exposure guideline for C8 in public drinking water supplies. In the suit the plaintiffs accuse DuPont o f negligence in operating the Washington W orks plant, gross negligence, reckless, i and wanton conduct, private nuisance, past and continuing trespass, past and continuing battery, and requests medical moni The suit ends with a request for a judgment against DuPont, making the company liable for appropriate medical monitoring in an amount to be determined at trial; compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; costs anc disbursements and attorneys' fees for the action; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; medical monitoring relief to abat or prevent release o f PFOA, or C8; providing alternative drinking water and for all other further general relief, whether compensatory, equitable or injunctive relief. Plaintiffs demanded a trial by jury. Contact Jeffrey Saulton at isaulton@newsandsentinel.com. 075-0144-0011919 i) * p. 337 The miracles o fscience" 003-0131-0000751  Meeting Objectives Provide background information Share new science to provide foundation for change Define next steps \ i-atUkVU'iM.: p. 338 003-0131-0000752 3 ^ i'v KEY MESSAGES Existing threshhold level significantly exceeds background PFOA levels and needs downward revision New knowledge and awareness should inform revised level Revised level will provide more clarity and certainty for appropriate action T 003-0131-0000753 Background DuPont is committed to putting our science to work to ensure workers are safe, the public is safe, our products are safe and the environment is well-protected. To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA. Based on health and toxicological studies conducted by DuPont and other researchers, DuPont believes the weight of evidence indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk, even at levels found in Parkersburg. Nevertheless, PFOA is present in the environment and the blood of the general population and this has raised questions that should be addressed. DuPont has taken significant steps to reduce exposure to the affected community through air and water emission reductions from our manufacturing processes. T EPA 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program Elements 1)To commit to achieve, no later than 2010, a 95% reduction, measured from a year 2000 baseline in both: - facility emissions to all media of PFOA - product content levels of PFOA 2) To commit to working toward the elimination of PFOA from emissions and products by five years thereafter, or no later than 2015 p. 341 003-0131-0000755 Reduce manufacturing facility emissions of PFOA by 98% by YE 2007. (Reduction of 95% in U.S. and 90% globally achieved YE 2005) Reduce manufacturing facility emissions by 97% by YE 2007 Set U.S. Manufacturing facility emission caps Reduce PFOA in product content by >95% by YE 2007 Require stewardship adoption by customers Conduct additional research \ Develop better analytical methods and measurements Ensure transparent effort and results rr p. 342 003-0131-0000756 DuPont Manufacturing Emissions Reductions p. 343 003-0131-0000757 -- -- US Fluoropolymers/Telomers -- * -- Asia Fluoropolymers/Telomers -- X-- Europe Fluoropolymers/Telomers -- -- Global Fluoropolymers/Telomers DuPont commitment: >98% global emissions reduction by 2007 (vs 2000 base year) T "I* ,0000^ $ \ FINAL AMMONIUMPERFLCOROOCTANOATE (C8) ASSESSMENTOF TOXICITY TEAM (CATO REPORT "\ AogsstJOW D*prtttct ofEnTtronmtnt! ProfectfoB-fr tm a n t h n U h fm * m m m \ p. 344 CATT Members Marshall University James Becker, M.D. Tracy Smith, M.S. EPA John Cicmanec, D.V.M., M.S., USEPA ORD Samuel Rotenberg, Ph.D., USEPA Region 3 Jennifer Seed, Ph.D., USEPA Headquarters TERA Michael Dourson, Ph.D. Joan Dollarhide, M.S., MISC, JD Andrew Maier, Ph.D., CIH Dan Briggs, Ph.D., DA.B.T. 1T 003-0131-0000759 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) John Wheeler, Ph.D. DuPont Gerald Kennedy, B.S., D.A.B.T. John Whysner, M.D., Ph.D., D.A.B.T. (consultant) invited Guests John Butenhoff, Ph.D., 3M Jim Sferra, M.S., OEPA CATT Screening Level - Water Followed USEPA's "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund" Selected most conservative toxicology health end-point: - Rat reproduction study - Liver and kidney weight effects in male rats - Bench mark dose level = 0.42 mg/kg Applied Uncertainty Factors UF Intraspecies Interspecies Subchronic to Chronic LOAELtoNOAEL Database Completeness Rats 10 10 1 1 1 Composite UF 100 Monkey 10 10 3 3 ,1 900 p. 346 003-0131-0000760 - - `- I -- * r {Mil CATT Screening Level - Water Calculated Oral Reference Dose (RfD) 0.42 mg/kg + 100 UF = 0.004 mg/kg Calculated Screening Level for Water Water SL (ug/L) = THQ x A T x BW x 1000 EF x ED x [water IR/RfD] PFOA SL water = 150 ppb T 'T p. 347 003-0131-0000761 MARGINS OF EXPOSURE - PFOA Minimal Response in Blood Levels inAnimal Margin of Exposure * Animal Studies Studies (ppm) Developmental Liver Weight 29 2,100 23 1,700 Body Weight Changes 60 4,300 Benign Tumors 125 9,200 Internal dose MOE Source: Butenhoff et al, 2004 TT p. 348 003-0131-0000762 3M Employee Health Studies Over 50 Years of Experience Thousands of Workers Across Three Plant Sites PFOA Exposures: average 1-10 ppm, confounded by PFOS exposure Multiple Studies Multiple Publications: 1980 - Present Parameters Evaluated Include: Mortality Incidences (includes cancer) Liver Function Lipid Profiles (cholesterol and triglycerides) Reproductive Hormones Incidences of Care Conclusion: No changes in any health effect parameters that are consistent with known toxicological effects o f PFOA fT r p. 349 003-0131-0000763 DuPont Employee Health Study To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA. Based on health and toxicological studies conducted by DuPont and other researchers, DuPont believes the weight o f evidence indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public. Studied 1,025 employees at DuPont W.Va. plant who have been exposed to PFOA Phase 1 results Jan.'05; Phase 2 in progress, results in (06 Studied 62 end points - blood serum data PFOA exposure - average 0.5 ppm in work area No correlation between PFOA exposure and - Liver functions - Changes in blood counts - Cancer markers measured 3 observations for highly exposed workers need further study - Slight increase in some cholesterol fractions and triglycerides - Slight increase in uric acid and iron - but not clinically significant \ * p. 350 003-0131-0000764 p. 351 Deciles *$ r- o 8S e c*> Eg gg <M ^ m m CL m f g (ft CO 8 $6 a u a i T I 1 o 8S u(0i ots 8" g fe s^ &$ Ift 3 i * |S seo O 8 a ^V:V';/V-^vs*Sr*. } T o 8 o 88 iv x a i "io h o 1 ~r r P op 003-0131-0000765 Community C8 Study Little Hocking Water Service Area 6 Independent Study Funded by National Institute of Health Primary Investigator: Dr. Edward Emmett, Univ. of Pennsylvania Purpose - To determine major sources of C8 exposure in Little Hocking Area - To determine if there is an association between C8 blood levels and markers of health effects www.lhwc8study.org p. 352 0 0 3 -0 1 3 1 -0 0 0 0 7 6 6 TT Community C8 Study Little Hocking Water Service Area (cont'd) Results >300 volunteer participants Median C8 blood level 340 ppb C8 blood levels highest in children <6 yrs and adults >60 yrs Major source of exposure is drinking water, not air No relationship between C8 blood levels and: - Cholesterol - Thyroid hormone (THS) or thyroid conditions - Kidney function tests - Liver function tests or liver disease Red cell, white cell or platelet counts T p. 353 0 0 3 -0 1 3 1 -0 0 0 0 7 6 7 p. 354 0 0 3 -0 1 3 1 -0 0 0 0 7 6 8 Next steps Michael McCabe <wm(chaolinccabe QeaflMnk. not> 06/2&2006 11.-07 PM To Susan MStalnecker/AEfDuPont^DuPont LindaJ FIsher/AE/OuPontQOuPont, Martha L cc Rees/AE/DuPontglOuPont, RobertW Rlckard/AE/OuPont@OuPonL Andrews bcc Sutifect FoBow-up Susan; As we discussed, in preparation for the next stage of our discussions with EPA, we need to do the following: 1 -- Assemble existing data on background PFOA in the water at a) the coununities surrounding Washington Works; b) other communities where plants are located; .2 -- Assess the inqpact of different threshold levels. The CD says DuPont has to provide an `alternate drinking water supply* for as long as the levels exceed those established by the order. What is the long tern impact of providing water to suet a new lower standard? 3 -- Analyze the geographic scope of a revised CD. What stakes the most sense in terns of boundaries? I'm around Hon. and Tues. Mike W. Michael McCabe McCabe t Associates 4 Normandy Drive Chadds Ford, PA 19317 610-388-9625 (work) 866-583-4003 (fax) wmicbaelaiccabe8earthlink.net 022- 0046-0001349 p. 356 D u P o n t's J u ly 2006 P roposal to EPA Based on these considerations, DuPont proposed in July of 2006 to low er the screening level from 150 ppb to an exposure-based level of 0 .5 ppb in drinking w ater. DuPont proposed this to EPA not because the 150 ppb level posed any risk to hum an health - it did not - but because reducing exposure to this persistent compound is prudent, technically feasible, and consistent with good product stewardship. Although, as we dem onstrate below, drinking water users w ere already protected at the 1 5 0 ppb screening level, [ " A R E W E O K W ITH T H IS ? **] DuPont has already taken steps to implement the low er exposure-based screening level of 0 .5 ppb. Thus, the O ctober 5 draft order is unnecessary as well as unsupported. II. PFOA C learly D oes N o t Pose an "Im m in ent and S u b stan tial E ndangerm ent to H um an H ealth" a t Levels From 0.5 P arts P er B illio n to 150 P arts P er B illio n In D rin kin g W ater S u p p lies. T h e O ctober 5 draft order contains two findings by EPA regarding alleged health risks posed by PFOA using the current screening level o f 150 ppb. Those findings are as fo llo w s: 34. Based on the study results listed in Paragraphs 2 2 ,2 3 ,2 4 ,2 5 and 26 and on the sampling results listed In Paragraph 26, EPA has determ ined that there is a contaminant present in or likely to enter a PW S or U S D W w hich m ay present an imminent and substantial endangerm ent to hum an health. 3 5 . Based on the information available to EPA since April 2 002, which is sum m arized in Paragraphs 2 2 through 27 above and in the docum ents that support this O rder, the screening level of 150 ppb for C -8 in drinking w ater is not adequate to prevent potential endangerm ent to residents within the vicinity o f the facility, especially those that a re highly exposed or that m ay be particularly vulnerable. T h ese findings are without technical or legal support, because there is no reason to believe that PFOA in drinking w ater supplies presents a hazard to hum an health at levels betw een 0.5 ppb and 150 ppb. O n the contrary, the.sdentific literature does not suggest the existence of such a hazard, and EPA's own statem ents and findings confirm that no such hazard exists. M oreover, the most recent epidem iological evidence - based on long-term studies o f DuPont em ployees at the W ashington W orks - dem onstrates that qo adverse health effects are anticipated from consumption of w a te r supplies containing PFO A, even at much higher levels. 7 022-0046-0001275 T o begin with, the studies cited by E PA do not establish, or even suggest, that PFO A is associated with any adverse health effects in hum ans. They involve other species, and they do not conclude, or even suggest, that their results are transferable to hum ans.13 N or d o the epidem iology studies perform ed by 3 M , the U .S . manufacturer of A P FO , dem onstrate a causal connection betw een P FO A exposure and human disease, even at the higher occupational exposures. D uPont h as previously review ed the scientific literature and provided EPA with detailed technical com m ents regarding P FO A and hum an health, which w e incorporate here by reference.14 As w e sum m arized the situation last year. T o date, no hum an health effects are known to b e caused bv P FO A exposure."15 M oreover, EPA 's own findings and statem ents over the last four years confirm that P FO A at levels up to 1SO parts per billion in drinking w ater supplies is not a hazard to hum an heaith. A s described below in detail, a p an el of scientific experts, convened for th e specific purpose o f determ ining a safe level fo r PFO A in the drinking w ater serving the area around the W ashington W orks facility, concluded in its 2002 final report that even if users w ere exposed to 150 ppb of PFO A in their drinking w ater for their entire lifetimes, "no risk of deleterious effects is expected." T h e 2001 C o n sen t O rd e r w ith W est V irg in ia B y w ay of background, this panel w as convened on Novem ber 1 5 ,2 0 0 1 pursuant to the 2001 voluntary consent order betw een D uPont, the Division of W ater Resources and Division o f A ir Q uality of the W est Virginia D epartm ent o f Environmental Protection ("W V D E P ") and the W e s t Virginia D epartm ent of H ealth and Human Resources, Bureau fo r Public H ealth ("W VD H H R -B PH "). T h e 2001 consent order recognizes that A P FO is a n unregulated chem ical that DuPont detected in varying concentrations in locations around the W ashington W orks facility, including private drinking w afer wells and public w a te r supplies. Accordingly, the parties to the consent order agreed to establish a C 8 A ssessm ent of Toxicity T eam (the "CAT T eam "), consisting of representatives of W V D E P , W V D H H R -B P H , EPA H eadquarters, EPA's O ffice of Research and " The October 5 draft order attributes some significance to the death of a single cynomotgus monkey in one study. Butenoff et al., Toxicity of ammonium perfluoroctanoate in male cynomolgus monkeys after oral dosing for 6 months," 69 Toxicol. Sd. 244-257. But EPA's reliance on the death of this monkey is unfounded. "Despite intensive investigation, cause of death remains uncertain, as does the relationship to PFOA treatment." Kennedy et at., The Toxicology of Perfluorooctanoate, 34 Critical Reviews In Toxicology 351,361 (2004). 14 See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Robert W . Rickard to D r Suhair Shalla, EPA, transmitting DuPont's Comments on PFOA Risk Assessment to EPA's Science Advisory Board (March 9, 2005). 15 id. EPA's own public statements earlier this year are to the same effect See page 11 infra. 8 022-0046-0001276 D evelopm ent, EPA Region ill, the N ational Institute for Chem ical Studies ('N IC S '), the A gency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and DuPont. N IC S subcontracted certain work on hum an toxicology to the Toxicology Excellence for R isk Assessm ent ("TER A "), a C incinnati-based non-profit organization dedicated to protecting public h ealth by applying toxicological data to the risk assessm ent process and developing an d com m unicating risk assessm ent values. C A T Team R eport A s set forth in the C A T T eam 's final report (August 2 0 0 2 ), the C A T T eam w as charged w ith setting 'risk-based hum an health protective screening levels* for A P F O (C -8 ). The C A T T eam utilized a team o f scientific experts, including the following representatives:16 EEh John Cicm anec, D .V .M ., M .S ., U S E P A O ffice of R esearch and Developm ent S am u el Rotenburg, P h .D ., U SE P A Region III Jen n ifer S eed. P h .D ., U S E P A Headquarters, Risk Assessm ent Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics TERA M ichael Dourson, P h.D . Jo an Dotlarhide, M S , M T S C , JD A ndrew M aier, P h.D ., C IH D a n Briggs, P h.D ., D A B .T . Aaencv for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry Jo h n W heeler, Ph.D . DuPont G erald K en n ed y ------- - - ._ John W hysner, M .D ., P h .D ., D .A B .T. (consultant) 16 As stated in the final report, Karen Johnson, Janet Sharfce, Garth Connor, Roger Reinhart and Mary Dominlak of EPA James Becker, M.D. and Tracy Smith, M.S. of Marshall University, and the National Institute for Chemical Studies also provided the CAT Team with additional support 9 022-0046-0001277 p. 359 Guests John Butenhoff, P h .D ., 3M (study scientist) Jim S ferra, M .S ., O h io Environm ental Protection Agency (observer) T h e C A T T eam began w ork in January 2 0 0 2 and by M ay 2002 had com pleted review of th e toxicology data. T h e scientists on the C A T T e a m m et for approxim ately 18 hours on M ay 6 and 7 ,2 0 0 2 to develop, am ong other things: (1) an oral provisional reference dose ("pR fD *), which is the daily dose of a chem ical th at is not expected to cause any adverse effect: and (2) a "screening level," which is defined as the level at which exposure is equal to o r less than the pR fD , and therefore, the level at which "no risk of deleterious effects is expected" if exposure lasts a lifetim e. T h e C A T T eam calculated the PFO A screening level using the standard methodology em ployed by U.S. EPA , a s set forth in "Risk A ssessm ent G uidance for Superfund" and as further explained by E PA R egions III and IX risk-based concentration guidance. W h ere th ere w as any conflict betw een the guidance offered by Region III and Region IX , the C A T T eam follow ed the R egion IX guidance "because it is m ore conservative, i.e., m ore health protective." The m eeting m inutes were review ed and approved by the panel of 10 scientists. Nine o f the 10 scientists w ere present w hen the panel voted unanimously to accept as the oral p R fD 0 .004 m g/kg/day, which th e C A T T eam then translated to 150 oob as the screening level for C 8 (P FO A ) in drinking w ater, using Region lx 's risk assessm ent equations. D r. S eed of E PA w as not present during that part of the m eeting. Thus, tiie C A T T eam concluded in its final report that with a fifetim e of exposure to 150 ppb o f P F O A in drinking w ater, they w ould expect "no risk of deleterious effects." The 2002 C onsent O rder U nder the SDW A This conclusion w as subsequently confirm ed by E P A Regions III and V . O n M arch 7 , 2 0 0 2 , those E PA regional offices entered into a consent order with DuPont under section 1431 of the S afe Drinking W a te r A ct ("SD W A "). T h at 2 0 0 2 consent order notes that C -8 ("PFOA") has been detected in the underground source of drinking w ater used to supply Lubeck and Little Hocking, it N ovem ber 1 5 ,2 0 0 1 consent order setting up th e C A T T eam (discussed above), and th at D uP ont and E PA ag ree on a tem porary screening level of 14 ppb. while the C A T T eam w as developing the m ore perm anent screening level. U nder the 200 2 consent order approved by these two regional offices, DuPont was not obligated to provide alternative drinking w ater to the public in the Lubeck or Little Hocking areas unless the concentration in public drinking w ater exceeded 14 ppb. 10 022-0046-0001278 Thus, two EPA regional offices, in setting a very conservative interim screening level, accepted that 14 ppb P F O A in drinking w ater posed no substantial risk. M oreover, in that 2 0 0 2 consent order, EPA Regions Ilf and V agreed to accept as the new screening level w hatever level w as later set by the C A T T eam . Therefore, for the past four years, since August 2 0 0 2 w hen the C A T T eam set the screening level of 150 ppb, EP A Region III and EPA Region V have expressly accepted that concentrations below 150 ppb pose no risk to hum an health. Th u s, th e prior actions an d statem ents o f these two EPA regional offices have flatly contradicted the statem ents in the O ctober 5 draft order that levels of P F O A between 0 .5 ppb and 150 ppb m ay pose an im m inent and substantial endangerm ent to human h e a lth . E P A 's Refcent S tatem en ts M oreover, E PA has continued to m ake other public statem ents about PFO A that also contradict the findings in the O ctober 5 draft order. For exam ple, E PA Adm inistrator S tephen L Johnson w rote to DuPont (and several other m anufacturers) on January 25, 2 0 0 6 , inviting them to join a new voluntary program to reduce P FO A em issions. In that letter, Adm inistrator Johnson inform ed DuPont: "Although our risk assessm ent activities are not yet com plete and new data m ay change the current picture, to date EPA is not aw are of anv studies specifically relating current levels of PFO A exposure to hum an health e ffe c ts * L etter from Stephen L Johnson. Administrator, U .S . EPA to C harles O . Holliday, Jr. C hairm an and C h ief Executive Officer, DuPont (January 2 5 ,2 0 0 6 ). S im ilarly, EPA announced at a public m eeting on PFO A this sum m er that: "EPA has no inform ation linking current levels of PFO A fn the bfood o f the general public to anv adverse health effects in people. Additional study Is still needed to understand these persistent chem icals. W hile inform ation is being developed, E PA is taking the prudent step o f seeking to reduce possible sources now, to avoid potentially larger future problem s." (Em phasis supplied.)17 O bviously, if current levels Of HPOA^IrrtJtoOdwernm iin k e d ttr*a n y adverso+iealfh------------------------effects in people," it is sim ply not possible for EPA to find, as it does in th e O ctober 5 d raft order, that those sam e levels m ay present an "imminent and substantial ' U.S. EPA, announcement made at the Ninth Plenary Session and Non-ECA PFOA Information Forum, held on June 8,2006 in Room 1153, US EPA East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 11 022-0046-0001279 p. 361 endangerm ent" to hum an health. The O ctober 5 draft order cannot be reconciled with E P A 's own very recent public statem ents. T h e O cto b er 2006 P hase 11 D ata o n W ash in g to n W o rks Finally, even if EPA had not spoken to the issue so recently, w e now have further em pirical evidence, consistent with the existing body of published scientific literature, th at P FO A is not associated w ith hum an health effects, even at exposure levels considerably higher than those that would occur under either the current 150 ppb screening level or the low er 0 .5 ppb screening level. D uP ont has been conducting an epidem iological study of em ployees at the W ashington W o rks, W est Virginia polym er production facility. T h e first phase o f this study was a cross-sectional surveillance intended to evalu ate, using serum PFO A levels, any potential associations betw een occupational exposure to am m onium perfluorooctanoate an d changes in clinical laboratory m easurem ents o r physical exam ination endpoints.18 W o rker P FO A levels w ere found to range from 5 to 9 ,5 5 0 ppb (0.005 to 9 .5 5 ppm) in blood serum . A slight positive association w as found betw een serum PFO A in workers a t tiie polym er production facility and serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol (but not H D L cholesterol). T h e second phase of this study, a retrospective cohort m ortality study, exam ined all cau ses o f death com bined and cause-specific m ortality rates in the W ashington W orks em p lo yees, as com pared to the general population in the U .S ., the W est Virginia g en eral population, and the population of D uPont workers residing in W est Virginia and seven neighboring states in the region. T h e results o f the second phase becam e availab le on O ctober 1 7 ,2 0 0 6 .19 N o convincing evidence of increased m ortality associated with exposure to A P FO was found.20 A detailed analysis for ischem ic heart d isease m ortality showed a slight in crease in one m odel at one tim e interval (1 0 -y e a r lag ). H ow ever, this increase was n o t observed with other m odels, and the overall m ortality rates for heart disease w ere not increased in this study. This one observed in crease could be a random occurrence 18 Haskell Report 2006. Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate: Cross-Sectional Surveillance of Clinical Measures of General Health Status Related to a Serum Biomarker of Exposure and Retrospective Cohort MortalityAnalyses in a Polymer ProductlorTPIant In review. 19 Haskell Report. 2006. Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate: Phase II. Retrospective Cohort MortaHty Analyses Related to a Serum Biomarker of Exposure in a Polymer Production Plant 20 A statistically non-significant increase in kidney cancer mortaBty and a statistically significant increase in diabetes mortality were found across the site, when compared to tire regional worker population from the same company. These associations did not appear to be related to PFOA exposure, but there were too few cases to make definitive conclusions. 12 022-0046-0001280 i j i o r it could mean a sm all increase in those workers most heavily exposed. In sum , a recent in-depth study of highly exposed workers failed to dem onstrate any convincing connection betw een exposure to PFO A and adverse health effects. In the face o f this evidence, the key findings in the O ctober 5 draft order - th at a 0 .5 ppb screening level is necessary to project human health ~ have no factual basis and can only b e regarded as arbitrary and capricious. See, e.g., W.R. Grace & Co. v. United States BPA, 261 F.3d 3 3 0 ,3 4 2 (3d. C ir. 2001) (vacating EPA order issued under Safe Drinking W ater A ct 1431) f(W ]e have no choice but to conclude that the EPA arbitrarily and capriciously settled on the 1.2 m g/i standard [for am m onia].*). III. D u P o n t H as A lread y O ffered A ltern ate W ater S u p p lies to A ll Know n U sers B ased on th e Low er S creen in g Level o f 0 .5 P arts P e r B illio n . P aragraph 3 9 of the O ctober 5 draft order directs DuPont to provide alternate source of drinking w ater to users on Public W ater System s and private w ater system s w here P F O A has been detected a t 0 .5 ppb or higher. But DuPont has already offered altern ate w ater supplies to every known user w hose existing w ater system contains P F O A above 0 .5 ppb. T h is critical information is not reflected In the O ctober 5 draft order, but it reduces even further any potential concern that EPA might have about risks to hum an health. P u b lic W ater System s B ased upon extensive environm ental monitoring d ata for the com m unities surrounding W ashington W orks, there are two Public W ater System s, and a limited num ber of P rivate W ater Sources, known to contain PFO A at or above 0.5 ppb. T h e two Public W a te r System s are the Lubeck Public Service District in W est Virginia and the Little Hocking W ater Association in Ohio. D uPont has designed state-of-the-art Granular Activated Carbon system s specific to each o f these w ater districts. Lubeck, through its Board, has approved term s of an operation and m aintenance agreem ent with D u P o n t The W est Virginia Departm ent of H ealth and Hum an Resources has approved Lubock's perm it m odification. DuPont will begin construction of the treatm ent facility as soon as the W est Virginia Public Service Com m ission grants a certificate of convenience. -E oriJttle.H ocldng. D u P o n td esig ned not only a G A C treatm ent system , but a new w ater treatm ent facility th at m ust be located on land purchased by DuPont, as Little Hooking's w ell field and land is located entirely within the flood plain of the Ohio River. DuPont responded to several rounds o f com m ents from Little Hocking before the W ater A ssociation agreed to seek the required permit modification from O hio E P A . DuPont has responded to all pending com m ents from Ohio EPA on Little Hooking's pending application for perm it m odification. Construction of the new w ater treatm ent facility will begin once Ohio EPA issues the perm it modification. 13 022-0046-0001281 A t this point, DuPont has not only offered alternative w ater supplies to the two affected Public W a te r System s, it has also taken all reasonable steps within its control to make G A C treatm ent operational. P rivate W ater S ystem s T h e situation is sim ilar with regard to private w ater system s. Based upon extensive environm ental monitoring for the communities surrounding W ashington W orks, there a re approxim ately fifty (50) private w ater system s known to contain PFO A a t or above 0 .5 ppb. DuPont has already offered alternate w ater supplies to the users o f all o f these system s. For tiie approxim ately thirty (3 0 ) homes w here the affected system s provide the sole source of drinking w ater, DuPont has already installed state-of-the-art G A C treatm ent system s. Those system s are operational and are providing drinking w ater to those users. T h e other hom es are connected to Public W ater System s, which provide drinking w ater to those users. In sum , D uPont began two years ago to provide alternate w ater supplies to users whose system s contained PFO A above 0.5 ppb. Today, that work has largely been accom plished, and it will b e completed once the state agencies give the required approvals for the rem aining work to proceed. T h ere is no basis for E P A to issue an o rd er at this time under section 1431 of the S afe Drinking W ater Act w hen virtually afl of th e potentially affected users eitfier have, o r will have in the very n ear future, alternate supplies of drinking w ater. M oreover, the O ctober 5 draft order will not accelerate this process in any w ay. But it could well delay the process by raising undue concern am ong residents of these communities. C O N C LU S IO N For th e reasons set forth above. DuPont respectfully submits that the "Findings o f Fact" an d "C onclusions of Law" in the draft order are not supported by the scientific evidence o r th e facts of record. Fundam entally, there is no scientific baste for EPA's findings that levels o f P FO A above 0 .5 parts per billion in drinking w ater supplies m ay pose an im m inent and substantial endangerm ent to hum an health. Those findings cannot be reconciled with the peer-review ed, published epidem iology. N or can they be squared w ith E P A 's o w rircrifp u b lic Statements tlta f E P A tras no infonnatio n tinidng current-----------------------levels o f PFO A in the blood of the general public to any adverse health effects in people" and that "EPA is not aw are of any studies specifically relating current levels of P F O A exposure to hum an health e ffects* Both of those statem ents are correct; it is the O cto b er 5 draft order that is wrong. M oreover, the O ctober 5 draft order com pletely fails to reflect the steps that DuPont has alread y taken to m inim ize or elim inate exposure to drinking w ater supplies found to 14 022-0046-0001282 contain PFO A even at the lower screening level of 0 .5 ppb. A ll affected users have already been offered alternate w ater supplies, and m any are already receiving alternate w ater supplies. W hat stands in the w ay of elim inating th e rem aining known exposure at th at low level is the needed approval of the state regulatory agencies. Those approvals will not be expedited by the issuance of an E PA order. For all of those reasons, If E PA w ere to Issue an order to DuPont along the lines of the O ctober 5 draft order, w e are confident that a review ing court would find it to be arbitrary and capricious. See, e.g., W.R. Grace & Co. v. UnitedStates EPA, 261 F.3d 3 3 0 ,3 4 2 (3d . C ir. 2001) (vacating EPA order issued under S a fe Drinking W ater Act 1431) ("[W ]e have no choice but to conclude that the E PA arbitrarily and capriciously settled on the 1.2 mgfl standard (for am m onia]."). 15 022-0046-0001283 rage i or i p. 365 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "David W Boothe" <davRl.w.boothe@usa.duponlcom> "Andrea V Malinowski" <andrea.v.malinowski@usa.dupont.com>; "David WBoothe" <david.w.boothe@usa.dupontcom>; "Kathryn Kamins McCord" <katbryn- kamins.mccord@usa.dupont.com>; "Martha LRees" <martha.l.rees@usa.dupont.com>; <michaelmccabe1@earthPnk.net>; "Robert W Rickard" <robertw.rickard@usa.duponlcom>; "Silvio J DeCarli" <silvio.j.decarii@usa.duponLcom>; "Susan MStalnecker" <susan.m.stalnecker@usa.dupontcom> Thursday, November 02,2006 5:06 PM Concerns 11-2-06.ppt List of Concerns Please find attached. Dave (See attached file: Concerns 1l-2-06.ppt) This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-mail arid delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to die use o f sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. Franais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email disclaimer.html 12/3/2007 draft Concerns Public Respo ise and Unintended Consequences Media will i dcus on "imminent and substantial endangeiment" language Risk of undt;ealarmintbe local community andother communities as well Positioning 0.5 ppb as athreshold of "imminent and substantial danger" implies (fromPK) no Margin ofE:cposure or, at best, anMOEof 10 for the world population - PFOS le fels in blood 1Oxthat o f PFOA Precedent w len ultimately considering 1) afuturenational PFOA standard based on the risk assessment ?nd 2) NPDWS levels for other compounds - May loci: in lower-than-warranted standard ahead of risk assessment Order sets a standardthat is more stringent thannearly all risk-assessment-derived water standards.for other compounds to date (eg. 20x arsenic) (note: double click NPDWS list on next slide) Impact on stite regulators who have already set or areplanning to issue health-based standards at higher levsis--may challenge basis May drive c<>stlyandunnecessarytreatment in other areas Consistency o f Approach & Message Inconsistent messages and approaches fromdifferent programoffices Implications for ongoing and new litigation (water &consumer products) Apparent fo<us on external dose methodology (vs. internal as per RiskAssessment) Negative im]dications for Voluntary Stewardship Program - Pascagcula implications Apparent inconsistency with public statements by the Agency regarding safety of consumer products anc lack ofhumanhealth risk A health-baspdnumber is not supportedby the science Nov 2,2006 National Primary Drinking Water Standard List (NPDW S) Double Click to Open in Adobe Acrobat Reader Note: Values are in mg/1 (ppm) ABMNrtondPrlmttyDrinkingWxttrStendenti p. 367 1" -"T T 7 p. 368 Susan M S ta ln e cke r/A E /D u P o nt 11/05/2006 04:36 PM To poflins.inark@epafnaN.gov cc CN=Martha L Rees/OU=A/0=DuPont@DuPonl, JDenvir@ BSFLLP.com , lstennes@ steptoe.oom , CN-Andrea V Maiinowski/OU=AE/0=DuPont@DuPofit. Kathryn Kaolins McCord/A/DuPont@DuPont, CN=Robort W Rickard/OUAE/0=DuPont@DuPont, BOOTH2DW@cddnm2.emaB.duponLcom. CN=Andrew S Hartten/OU=AE/0=DuPom@DuPont, michaetm ccabe1@earthfink.net bcc Subject Fw: News Articles Mark, it dawned on us that since you and your Team have really only Teamed" about PFOA over the past few months, you may not appreciate the level of our concern with respect to the risk of public concern that could be created if we are not thoughtful about the words we use. The EPA has said som e very specific things about PFOA that I am su re your office would not want to pubtidy contradict as that would serve to cause both confusion and concern. S e e you tomorrow at 10:30. Thanks -----Forwarded by Susan M Stalnecker/AE/DuPont on 11/05/2006 04:29 PM ----- Daniel A Turner/A E/DuPont t 0 Susan M Stalnecker/AE/DuPont@DuPont cc Jayn e S VanDusen/AE/DuPont@DuPont 11/05/200 6 04:26 PM Subject News Articles S u san , the news articles are em bedded below. I hope this is helpful. If you need anything else tonight, p le ase feel free to coreact m e at (302) 478-3790 or (302) 299-7628. Otherwise. I will be hi D-8000 tomorrow a t 7:45am with briefing books that contain hard copies of the articles. Best regards. - Dan 1) Headlines associated with EPA announcement of the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program U.S. EPA S eeks Elimination of Teflon Chemical by 2015. Bloomberg. 01/25/2006 E.P.A . S eeks to P h a se O ut a Toxic Chemical, The New York Times (NYT). 01/26/2006*2 -- Mave-trrBatrOse ofTefton Chemical. The Australian. 01/27/2006------------------------------------ EPA Urges Teflon Chemical Ban; DuPont Agrees to Phase-O ut of Worrisome Pollutant PFOA.-- Harmful Teflon Chemical To Be Eliminated by 2015. The W ashington P ost. 01/26/2006 2) Headlines associated with Science Advisory Board "Likely Carcinogen" 006-0133-0138560 p. 369 2) H ead lin es a sso c ia te d with S cien ce Advisory B oard -Likely C arcinogen" Your Non-stick P an C an Kilt You. CNN-IBN. 01/28/2006 Teflon chemical h as greater cancer risk than thought, D eutsche Presse-Agentur. June 30.2005 Teflon found to contain cancer risk. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 01/27/2006 Teflon chem ical to join list of toxic pollutants, Arizona Daily S tar, Knight Bidder, 01/27/2006 3) H ea d lin e s a s so c ia te d with TSCA 8(e) A dm inistrative Fine DuPont settles on Teflon hazard fear. The Standard, 12/16/2005 4) H ead lin es asso cia te d with EPA PMN regulatory notice EPA Admits C8 May Be Unsafe For Hum ans, WUmington News Journal, 03/09/2006 5) H ead lin es a sso c ia te d with litigation Teflon Lawsuit Turns Nation's Eye To DesM olnes. Des Moines Register, 04/03/2006 Suit: DuPont Contamined Water Supplies, Courier-Post (NJ). 04/20/2006 Parkersburg Residents File C8 Suit Against DuPont, Parkersburg News and Sentinel. 05/30/20... 6 ) H ea d lin e s a s so c ia te d with low levels o f PFO A found n e a r plant sites Is the w ater safe?. The Fayetteville Observer, 12/05/2005 G roups claim w ater tainted. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 08/02/2006 006-0133-0138561 From: To: Sent: Attachments: Subject: 'Michael McCabe' <wmichaelmccabe@earthlink.net> Kathryn Kamins McCord<kathryn-kamins.mccord@usa.dupont.com> Monday, January 08.2007 8:27 AM NJ-Memo 1-7-07.doc NJ Memo MCCABE06628 MEMORANDUM T h e purpose of this memo is to provide im portant background inform ation for N JD E P 's consideration as it develops an approach to addressing P FO A detected a t extrem ely low levels in w ater at various sites in New Jersey. Specifically, this m em o will provide background on the current state o f scientific know ledge on P F O A and outline recent actions betw een the EPA and DuPont regarding reduction of community exposure to PFO A in the area surrounding the DuPont W ashington W orks site located near Parkersburg, W est Virginia. In Novem ber, D uP ont reached a voluntary agreem ent with EP A to set a precautionary interim action level of .5 parts per billion w hile EPA 's ongoing risk assessm ent process is being conducted. Below th at level, no action is deem ed necessary. T h e .5 ppb level coincides with recent decisions by other states to set higher levels or take no action. Th e .5 ppb level set by EPA is lower than any established by any state. This includes North C arolina which set a 2 ppb level; M innesota which has low ered its level from 7 ppb to 1 ppb; and C alifornia which decided not to expedite action on a petition to require PFO A labeling under its Proposition 6 5 authority. These actions reflect an acknowledgem ent th at EPA is in the process o f conducting a com prehensive revised risk assessm ent and that not enough data has been gathered to establish a national hazard level. This is reflected in the enorm ous body o f scientific studies conducted to date, w hich have exam ined thoroughly the potential health effects from exposure to P FO A , but which fail to establish any adverse effects to humans. T h e presence and persistence o f P FO A in hum ans and the environm ent are legitim ate concerns that deserve the attention o f governm ent agencies and the larger scientific community, as w ell as the m any m anufacturers that use P FO A in industrial and consum er products th at are so im portant to the national and New Jersey economies. Nevertheless, the m any health studies that have been conducted thus far do not support a level low er than the 0 .5 ppb established by E P A as a precautionary site-specific interim level. As is discussed below, current pharm acokinetic studies of the chem ical show that even if an action level w as set a t background levels observed in N ew Jersey ranging from xx to 41 ppb (???) it w ould not result in the low ering o f background blood levels of PFO A detected in ..-Jha-aeoficalpopulation..JHawaver.^anaroused.public.uQduly-alarmecl by - ........ . -- - extrem ely low action levels Would have every expectation that their blood levels w ould drop as a result o f this action. An im portant aspect o f the level set by EP A is its impact on affected com m unities. Perhaps m ore than any area in the country, the area surrounding Parkersburg, W est Virginia has been educated to the health im pacts from PFO A m anufacturing, w hen the .5 ppb action level was announced, it did not cause MCCABE06629 alarm or raise community concerns. DuPont has w orked diligently w ith the communities in the a rea to address their needs and concerns and provide the latest scientific information on PFO A and their health. If a low er level is set in New Jersey, it will cause undue concern among the com m unities at or above that level in New Jersey and elsew here. Based on the extensive scientific work done by governm ent, research institutions and industry showing no hum an health effects at background levels, DuPont could not let a scientifically unsupported level go unchallenged. Background Significant Reductions Already DuPont uses PFO A in m anufacturing operations at its Cham bers W orks facility in N ew Jersey, but DuPont is not the sole user in the State. O ther industrial users are xxxxxxxxxxxxx and PFO A is used extensively by firefighters in firefighting foam . DuPont has taken significant steps to reduce em issions o f PFO A at Cham bers W orks (96% reduction of plant air and w ater em issions o f PFO A from m anufacturing operations from 2 0 0 0 to 2006). D uPont does not m anufacture PFO A in New Jersey at any of its sites. PFO A has been detected at extrem ely low levels in community drinking w ater sources in parts of N ew Jersey. Detection has b een observed in areas w here no facilities using PFO A are located. EPA in particular has taken aggressive steps to reduce possible sources of human exposure through a voluntary program announced a year ago. in January 2006, Adm inistrator Stephen Johnson invited the eight fluoropolym er and telom er m anufacturers to participate in a global stewardship program on PFO A and related chem icals. By March, all eight com panies had agreed to participate. The program requires corporate com m itm ents to the following goals: (1 ) To commit to achieve, no later than 2010, a 95% reduction, m easured from a year 2 00 0 baseline, in both facility em issions to all environm ental m edia and product content levels of: PFO A, precursor chem icals that can break down to PFO A, and related higher hom ologue chem icals; and (2 ) To commit to working toward the elim ination of PFO A , precursor _cf}nij^s thatcan.kC ^JiiiQ ^ ______________ chem icals from em issions and products by five years thereafter, or no later than 2015. A s demonstrated by the results from reductions at our Cham bers W orks facility, DuPont is exceeding the goals set by EPA. MCCABE06630 p. 373 Human exposure shows no health effects DuPont has voluntarily worked with EPA since 200 3 to investigate potential hum an exposure routes and toxicity of PFOA. A considerable body o f scientific knowledge surrounding PFO A has been assem bled during that tim e. W h ile m uch has been developed by independent research institutions, DuPont's contributions in this area also have been extensive and com prehensive and have covered topics such as toxicology, atm ospheric chem istry and methods, environm ental modeling, fate, biodegradation, and risk assessm ent. M ore than 6 0 peer-review ed studies have been published by DuPont scientists over the past few years. T h e re is currently an enormous volume o f scientific data assessing the known and potential toxicological effects o f PFO A. M any of the studies are published in peer-review ed scientific journals and are available to the public from the dockets m aintained by the US E P A .' T h e database presently includes approxim ately 2 0 0 toxicological studies, and several epidem iological studies analyzing data from hum ans exposed to PFO A over extensive periods o f time at sites w here PFO A has been m anufactured or used. D uPont does not ignore or discount the evidence showing that PFO A has been shown to be present in human blood, and that the presence of the m aterial in so m any people in so m any places cannot presently be explained. To the contrary, D uPont, other com panies that m anufacture and use PFO A, and the E P A a re investigating diligently to determ ine the sources o f exposure and to reduce exposure. Nevertheless, the scientific evidence gathered thus far does not show an y adverse effects to human. E P A has confirm ed this on several occasions w ithin the past two years. In a press release on Decem ber 14, 2 0 0 5 . Susan H azen , Acting Adm inistrator o f the E P A 's O PPTS, stated that: 'The agency has information based on animal studies and toxic effects in anim als, [but] w e have no information at this point that would lead us to believe there is a significant human health impact." Although EPA has continued to gather data and study the m atter diligently, the A gency's conclusion has not changed. On January 25, 2006, Adm inistrator Johnson announced that '[although our risk assessm ent activities are not com plete and new data may change the current picture, to date EPA is not of P H ) A exposure to human health effects." Finally as recounted above, the Agency announced at its June 8, 2006 PFO A Information Forum on that 'EPA has no information Information on the EPA's PFOA research activities, including how documents may be accessed from EPA's several PFOA-ielatod electronic dockets, is available through the EPA PFOA website at www.cpa.gov/oppl/pfoa/. information on the nature and structure of PFOA Enforceable Consent Agreement meetings is available on that website at www.epa.ew/oppt/pfoa/meetings/meetings.htm. MCCABE0S631 linking current levels of PFOA in the blood of the generalpublic to any adverse health effects in people." (Em phasis added in ail quotations.) Since OuPont and other m anufacturers began w orking with the EPA on PFOA, advances in risk assessm ent methodology have resulted in alternative approaches to characterizing the risk of this biopersistent com pound. Specifically, Butenhoff et al. (2 0 0 4 )23*published a risk assessm ent fo r PFO A based on internal dose, using the modeled BM DL (B enchM ark D ose Level) (referred to as "LBMICio* in the publication) calculated from the serum level at which a 10% response in a health endpoint.is m odeled to occur. Internal dose m ore accurately and directly reflects the dose at which biological responses occur, and therefore, should b e considered the most appropriate m etric for risk assessm ent. This is particularly true for PFO A. because o f its stability, predom inantly extracellular distribution, and low elim ination rates, which permit biological responses to b e correlated w ith serum levels in the body. Additionally, because the wealth of inform ation available on the pharm acokinetics o f P FO A suggests that there are w ide variations in how this com pound is elim inated across species, the use o f internal dose (i.e., serum P FO A concentrations), as opposed to external dose, helps to minimize the uncertainty associated w ith intra- and interspecies extrapolation of external doses and allow fo r direct com parisons. Using this interna! dose risk assessm ent approach. Butenhoff et al. (2 0 0 4 ) calculated Margins o f Exposure ("M O E")' for the following toxicological endpoints identified in anim al studies: liver-w eight-to-body-w eight ratio increases in m ale m o n keys/ postnatal effects in rats, body weight changes in m onkeys, and Leydig cell tumors in rats. G eneral population human P FO A serum levels w ere obtained from several sampling studies in norvoccupationalfy exposed populations, which dem onstrated average P FO A serum concentrations of approxim ately 5 ppb, w ith a 95% percentile upper bound o f 11-14 ppb.5 Th e upper bound 95% percentile estim ated general population serum PFO A concentration o f 14 ppb w as used to represent human exposure. The M O Es calculated by Butenhoff et al. (2 0 0 4 ) * Butenhoff. J.L.. et al. 2004. Characterization of risk tor general population exposure to perfluorooctanoate. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 39{3):363-80. 3 The Margin of Exposure is an estimate of the potential human risk derived by calculating the ratio of the internal or external dose to estimated human exposure levels. ~ -- - - --taver-to-txain-weight-ratios-were-setectedrrattier-than liverweiylll (3ldiigesrt^ri0ifiiaii26^cir'bBty " --------weight changes, since the brain is not affected by body weight changes. 5 Olsen, G.W.. et al. 2003. Perfluoroodanesulfonate and other fluorochemicals in the serum of American Red Cross and adult blood donors. Environ. Health Perspect 11:1892-1901; Olsen, G.W., et aL 2004a. Quantitative evaluation of periluorooctanesuffonate (PFOS) and other fluorochemicals in the serum of children. J. Children's Health. 2:53-70; Olsen, G.W., et al. 2004b. Serum concentrations of periluorooctanesuffonate and other fluorochemicals in an elderly population from Seattle, Washington. Chemosphere 54: 1599-1611. MCCABE06632 represent substantial protection of children, adults, and the elderly in the general population. Science Advisory Board and Toxicity E PA published a draft risk assessm ent for P FO A in January 2 0 0 5 that also was based on internal dose.4 Th e toxicity endpoints chosen, and the M O Es estim ated, w ere in general consistent with those published by Butenhoff et al. (2 0 0 4 ). EPA's Science Advisory Board ("SAB") convened an expert panel to conduct a p eer review of EPA's 2 0 0 5 draft risk assessm ent. In a letter to EPA Adm inistrator Stephen Johnson dated M ay 3 0 ,2 0 0 6 that accom panied the SAB P anel report, the SAB C hair and the SAP P an el C hair noted that *{ij n general, the SAB Panel endorsed EPA's risk assessm ent approach, particularly the inclusion o f multiple non-cancer health endpoints for risk assessm ent, and the use o f PFO A blood levels as a m easure o f estim ated dose in place o f the adm inistered dose in toxicologic studies." The SAB Panel report noted that *(t] h e direct use of internal m easures by dose by U S EPA in this docum ent represents a promising and relatively innovative approach for risk assessm ents o f environm ental compounds com pared to the m ore usual practice based on com paring daily dose rales by various routes o f administration. This new approach reduces the need to include uncertainties introduced by the use o f adm inistered or am bient doses as m easures o f exposure" and *[t] h e internal dose analysis used in this docum ent is considered by the Panel to be a significant step toward reducing uncertainty related to cross species extrapolation." Consistent with the SAB P anel's conclusions, the EPA's use o f internal dose m easure is supported by FD A 's own latest guidance for risk assessm ent, both for carcinogens*7 and fo r non-carcinogens.* In M ay 2006, the SAB issued its report and noted a split among Panel m embers w ith regard to the hazard descriptor used to indicate the potential for carcinogenicity. Because of new research developed during the tim e the SAB process was underway, EPA has declined to reach conclusions regarding the M ay 2 0 0 6 SAB Panel report. Referring to new data and the SAB process on its w ebsite. EPA states that "(sj ome o f this new research may impact the Panel's assessm ent of PFO A. For this reason, it is prem ature to draw any conclusion on the potential risks, including cancer, from PFO A until all of this new testing is U S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Draft Risk Assessment of the Potential Human ----- He3tth-EffeotSTAssodate4vnth-Exposure^oPertlteTOoctanoic-Acid',3nd-its-Satts." (d an r4 r20 0 ^ -------------- 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Draft Final Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-03/001A NCEA-F-0644A AvaBabte at http.V/cfpub.epa.gov/nceafraf/redocrdisplay cfrn?deid=55365. * U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes Report prepared for the Risk Assessment Forum EPA/63Q/P-02/002F. NCEAF-0644A Available at http:ASwww.epa.gov/ncea/rafrcancer2003.fitml. MCCABE06633 com plete and the data are integrated into the risk assessm ent." Additionally, US EPA Adm inistrator Stephen Johnson has stated: *[i)t has been nearly two years since the package o f information that the Panel reviewed w as com piled, and since that tim e, a considerable amount o f research has been co m p leted . . . or is presently underw ay.' 89 T h e Adm inistrator added that the Agency intends to "integrate this new toxicity testing and m echanistic data into the risk assessm ent as it becom es available." The risk assessment is still underway by the Agency, and the Agency has reported that it will seek a second SAB review once the risk assessm ent is final. T h e Agency announced publicly on June 8 . 2006: "EPA has no inform ation linking current levels of PFO A in the blood o f the general public to an y adverse health effects in people. Additional study is still needed to understand these persistent chem icals. W hile information is being developed, E P A is taking the prudent step of seeking to reduce possible sources now, to avoid potentially larger future problem s.' Pharmacokinetics and Exposure R ecent publications by Em m ett and colleagues from the University o f Pennsylvania10*provide valuable information on the serum P FO A concentrations an d selected health endpoints in residents living near a fluoropolym er production facility. These d ata can be used to refine the pharm acokinetically-based, internal dose risk assessm ents for PFO A discussed above. Emmett et al. (20 0 6 a ) found th at m edian serum P F O A levels in randomly selected residents o f Little Hocking, O H ranged from 2 9 8 -3 7 0 ppb. W hen these serum values w ere correlated with available air and w ater data, the m edian serum/drinking w ater ratio for PFO A w as calculated to b e 105, i.e .. for every 1 ppb of PFO A in drinking w ater ingested by com m unity residents; 105 ppb o f PFO A will be present in serum. The pharm acokinetic m odel used in an exposure assessm ent and risk characterization for consum er articles containing P F O A " is in general agreem ent, and supportive o f the serum/drinking w ater ratio estim ated by Em m ett et al. (2 0 0 6 a ). A recent pharm acokinetic model of PFO A in prim ates12 provides further insight into refining the pharm acokinetic model for PFO A and other perfiuoroalkylactds. 8June 20. 2006 tetter from Stephen Johnson to SAB Panel Co-Chairs 10 Emmett, EA . et at. 2006a. Community exposure to perfluorooctanoate: Relationships between -^m-Taifietfftf3tf6fiS-aranxp04We T 'OcSj^'Enwon T ^ . ' ^5T75S^.'Em m eRrEATerST 2006b. Community exposure to pertluorooctanoate' Relationships between serum levels and certain health parameters J. Occup. Environ Med. 46:771-9 " Washburn, S.T.. et al. 2005. Exposure assessment and risk characterization tor perfluorooctanoete in selected consumer articles Environ Sti.&Technol 39(11):3904-10. 12 Anderson. M.E., et al. 2006. Pharmacokinetic modeling of saturable, renal resorption oi perfluoroalkylacids in monkeys --Probing the determinants of long plasma half-lives. Toxioolog 227:156-64. MCCABE06634 p. 377 Im portantly, no statistically or clinically significant associations betw een serum P F O A and liver or renal function tests, cholesterol, thyroid-stimulating hormone, o r hem atological param eters {red cell indices, white cells, or platelet counts) w ere found in the residents studied.'1 M oreover, in residents with a history o f fiver or thyroid disease, the m ean serum P FO A levels w ere not increased. These results support the conclusion that PFO A, even at serum levels far exceeding those found in the general population, is not associated with adverse health effects. Occupational Exposure F o r several decades, 3M , as the U .S. m anufacturer of A PFO , perform ed and published epidemiology studies of its workers. These studies do not dem onstrate a causal connection betw een PFO A exposure and hum an disease, even at the higher occupational exposures. As discussed in m ore detail below, D uPont's findings in its epidem iology study o f its W ashington W orks cohort are consistent with the body o f published literature already developed tn 2 0 0 4 , DuPont initiated an epidem iological study of em ployees at W ashington W orks. The first phase o f this study w as a cross-sectional surveillance intended to evaluate, using serum PFO A levels, any potential associations betw een occupational exposure to ammonium perfluorooctanoate and changes in clinical laboratory m easurem ents or physical exam ination endpoints.14 W orker PFO A levels w ere found to range from 5 to 9 5 5 0 ppb (0 .0 0 5 to 9 .5 5 ppm). A slight ) positive association was found between serum PFO A in workers at the polym er production facility and serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol (but not H D L cholesterol). T h e second phase of this study, a retrospective cohort mortality study, exam ined a ll causes of death combined and cause-specific mortality rates in the W ashington W orks em ployees, as com pared to the general population in the U .S ., the W est Virginia general population, and the population o f DuPont workers residing in W est Virginia and seven neighboring states in the region. T h e results o f the second phase becam e available on October 17, 20 0 6 *5 No convincing evidence of increased m ortality associated with exposure to A P FO w as found. A statistically non-significant increase in kidney cancer mortality and a statistically significantly increase in diabetes m ortality w as found across the site serum levels and certain health parameters. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 48:771-9. Haskell Report 2006. Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate: Cross-Sectional Surveillance of Cfnical Measures of General Health Status Related to a Serum Biomarker of Exposure and Retrospective Cohort Mortality Analyses in a Polymer Production Plant In review. ,5 Haskell Report. 2006 Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate: Phase II. Retrospective Cohort Mortality Analyses Related to a Serum Biomarker of Exposure in a Polymer Production Plant MCCABE06635 w hen com pared to the regional worker population from the sam e company. These associations did not appear to be related to PFO A exposure, but there w ere too few cases to m ake definitive conclusions. A detailed analysis for ischem ic heart disease m ortality showed a slight increase in one model at one tim e interval (1 0 -y e a r lag). However, this model was not observed with other m odels and the overall m ortality rates for heart disease was not increased in this study. This one observation could be a random occurrence or it could m ean a sm all increase in those workers most heavily exposed. Although, as discussed above, there are no health effects findings that are known to be caused by exposure to PFO A resulting in serum levels far above those expected in com m unities surrounding plants emitting A P FO . it is prudent to m inim ize, w here possible, exposure to biopersistent m aterials such as A PFO . Thus, it is clear that screening levels for PFO A properly should b e based on exposure and not health issues, using internal dose risk assessm ent methods. Using the serum to drinking w ater level ratio of 1 ppb:105 ppb determ ined by Em m ett et al. (2 0 0 6 a ),'6 the EPA screening level o f 0 .5 0 ppb in drinking w ater would result in approxim ately 50 ppb o f PFO A in serum. This serum level is within the range found in the general population as reported by Olsen et a l.,17 and provides more than an adequate M O E (> 3 0 0 ) based on internal dose risk assessm ent using the first (and therefore m ost-conservative) health endpoint observed at levels that a re not necessarily toxic (i.e., increase in fiver w eight in prim ates). M oreover, a screening level of 0 .5 0 ppb is supported by the W ashington W orks occupational studies and the Em m ett et al. community exposure study. Conclusion Because the science does not support any suggestion o f a health risk for drinking w ater supplies at or above 0 .5 ppb, it would be irresponsible to set a level below that. To put this in perspective, the U .S. Army has established a drinking w ater standard for the highly toxic nerve agent V X of 20 parts per billion (.2 ppb or 2 0 0 parts per trillion). W e know the toxicological profile of V X . It is w ell documented. T h ere is nothing in the scientific research that shows PFO A presents a human health hazard at background levels in N ew Jersey ranging from xx to 41 p p t To set a level in this range not only is unsupported by science, but it would fcmmett. fcA. et al 2D06a. Community exposure'to'pl^OofoorJinoate: Relationships 6$vveif serum concentrations and exposure sources. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 48:759-70. u Olsen, G.W., et al. 2003. Perfluorooctanesutfonate and other fiuorochemicals in the serum of American Red Cross and adult blood donors. Environ. Health Perspect. 11:1892-1901; Olsen, G.W., et a t 2004a. Quantitative evaluation of perfluorooctanesutfonate (PFOS) and other Duorochemicats in the serum of children. J. Children's Health. 2:53-76; Olsen, G.W., et al. 2004b. Serum concentrations of periluorooctanesullonate and other Duorochemicats in an elderly population from Seattle, Washington Chemosphere 54:1599-1611. MCCABE6636 p. 379 underm ine public expectations that governm ent agencies charged with protecting th eir health do so in a deliberate and scientifically sound m anner. D uPont would w elcom e the opportunity to review the inform ation being evaluated b y N ew Jersey as it seeks to address the presence o f PFO A in drinking w ater. It is in the best interest o f all concerned that any decision regarding P FO A be m ade w ith the best science available. MCCABE06637 p. 380 From : To: CC; S e n t: A ttachm ents; Subject: 'Michael McCabe' <wmichaelmccabe@earthlnk.net> Kathryn Kamins McCord<kathryn-karnins.mccord@usa.dupont.com> Andrea V MaSnowski<andrea.v.rnaSnowski@usa.dupont.com>A ndrea V Malinowski<andrea.vmalinowski@usa.dupont.com>Ann K Masse<ann.k.masse@usa.duponlcom> .Andrea V Malinowski<andrea vjnalinowstd@usa.dupont.com>Ann K M asse<ann.k.masse@usa.dupont.com>Oavid W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.duponl.com>A ndrea V Malinowski<andrea.v.malinowski@usa.dupont.com>Ann K M asse<ann.k.masse@usa.dupont.com>David W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>Martha L Rees<mar1ha.l.rees@usa.dupont.com>Andrea V Malinowski<andrea.v.malinowski@usa.dupont.com>Ann K M asse<ann.k.masse@usa.dupont.com>Oavid W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>Martha L Rees<marthaJ.rees@usa.dupont.com>Paul D Berg<paul.d.berg@usa.dupont.com>A ndrea V Mafinowski<andrea.v.maSnowski@usa.dupont.com>Ann K Masse<ann.k.masse@usa.duponLcom>David W Boothe <david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>Martha L Rees<marthaJ.rees@usa.dupont.com>Paul O Berg<paul.d.berg@usa.dupont.com>Robert W Rickard<robert.w.rickard@usa.dupont.com>A ndrea V Malinowski<andrea.v.mafinowski@usa.dupont.com>Ann K M asse<ann.k.masse@usa.dupont.com>David W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupontxom>Martha L Reessmartha.l.rees@usa.duponl.com>Paul O Berg<paul.d.berg@usa.duponl.com>Robert W Rickard<robert.wrickard@usa.dupont.com>Silvio J DeCarfi<sikrio.j.decarS@usa.dupont.com>A ndrea V Malinowsld<andrea.v.maKnowski@usa.dupont.com>Ann K Masse<ann.k.masse@usa.dupontcom>Oavid W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>Martha L Rees<martha.l.rees@usa.dupont.com>Paul D Berg<paold.berg@usa.dupont.com>Robert W Rickard<robert.w.rickard@usa.dupont.com>Silvio J DeCarS<sitvio.j.decarS@usa.dupont.com>Jayne S VanOusencjayne.s.vandusen@usa.dupontcom> Andrea V MaMnowski<andreav.malinowstd@usa.duponl.com>Ann K M asse<ann.k.masse@usa.dupont.com>Oavid W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>Martha L Rees<martha.l.rees@usa.dupont.com>Paui D Berg<paul.d.berg@usa.dupont.com>Robert W Rickard<robert.wrickard@usa.dupont.com>Silvio J DeCarS<silvio.j.decarS@usa.dupontcofn>Jayne S VanOusen<jayne.s.vandusen@usa.dupont.com>Unda J F ish er< Snda.j J is h er@ u sa .d u p o n t.co m > EXHIBIT IrflC(dc C i Tuesday, January 09. 2007 6:1Q P M _______ ____ NJ-Memo t-9-07.doc Revised memo Based on our discussion, ettached is the revised memo for review during our 8:30 iall. McCabe & essociates 4 Normandy Drive C hadds Ford, PA a9317 MCCABE06676 610-388-9625 (work) wmichaelmccabe@earthl nk.net<})A> MCCAB6677 MEMORANDUM To: From: Kathy M cCord, Robert Rickard(titles) D a te : T h e purpose of this m em o is to provide important background information on N JD E P 's effort to develop an approach to address PFO A detected at extrem ely low levels in w ater at various sites in N ew Jersey. Specifically, this memo w ill provide background on the current state of scientific knowledge on PFO A and outline recent actions betw een the EPA and DuPont regarding reduction o f com m unity exposure to PFO A in the area surrounding the DuPont W ashington W orks site located n ear Parkersburg, W est Virginia. In Novem ber, DuPont reach ed a voluntary agreem ent with EPA to set a precautionary interim action level of 0 .5 parts per billion (5 0 0 parts per trillion) while EPA's ongoing risk assessm ent process is being conducted. Below that level, no action is deem ed necessary. T h e 0 .5 ppb level coincides with recent actions by other states to set higher levels or take no action. The 0 .5 ppb level set by EPA is lower than any established by any state. This includes North Carolina which set a 2 ppb level; M innesota which is considering lowering its level from 7 ppb to 1 ppb; and C alifornia which decided not to expedite action on a petition to require PFO A labeling under its Proposition 6 5 authority. These actions reflect an acknow ledgem ent that EP A is in the process of conducting a com prehensive revised risk assessm ent and that not enough data has been gathered to establish a national hazard level. Scientific research conducted to date, which has exam ined thoroughly the potential health effects from exposure to PFO A, fails to establish any adverse effects to humans. T h e presence and persistence o f P FO A in humans and the environm ent are legitim ate concerns that deserve the attention o f government agencies and the larg er scientific community, as w ell as the m any m anufacturers that use PFO A in industrial and consum er products that are so important to th e national and N ew Jersey econom ies. N evertheless, the many health studies that ..Jiax a jb e e n conducted ih u s J a r.d o .n o l support .a.leuel.lower.tban-theTL5.ppb - . established by ERA as a precautionary site-specific interim level. As is discussed below, current pharm acokinetic studies of the chem ical show that even if an action level w as set at background levels m easured by various sources in N ew Jersey ranging from "non-detect" to 49 parts per trillion, it would not result in the lowering of background blood levels of P FO A found in the general population. MCCABE06678 An im portant aspect of any w ater level, either interim or perm anent, set by a governm ent health or environm ental agency is its impact on affected com m unities. W hen wide ranges occur in levels established by various states and the federal governm ent, the public is confronted with a confusing array of dueling data and often doesn't know how to respond. C are was taken by the E P A and states o f W est Virginia and Ohio not to cause alarm or raise community concerns w hen the 0 .5 ppb level was announced. In fact, EPA referred the public to a docum ent published by the Ohio Departm ent o f H ealth, titled "A 2006 C -8 Physician's R eference" for background information. T h e docum ent takes a m easured view of the inconclusive state of knowledge on PFO A . A key summary statem ent in the docum ent asserts: "Currently there is no consensus with regard to th e toxicology o f C -8 1 and the likely hum an health im pacts that m ight result from exposure. There are no hum an health data currently available that asso ciate specific C -8 levels in blood with an y acute health th reat an d /o r the likelihood o f the developm ent o f disease in the future. D uPont has w orked diligently with the communities in the area to address their needs an d concerns a n d provide the latest scientific inform ation on PFO A an d th eir health." If a level low er than 0 .5 ppb is set in New Jersey it will cause undue concern am ong the com m unities at or above that level in N ew Jersey and elsew here and th e N JD EP, as w ell as the EPA. will have difficulty explaining the variation. This m em o lays out the reasons why the 0 .5 ppb level is a prudent, precautionary level and why, in light of the aggressive steps being taken by DuPont and other P F O A users to reduce exposure, a low er level is totally unjustified. (B O B B Y) B ased on the extensive scientific work done by governm ent, research institutions an d industry showing no human health effects a t background levels, D uPont could not let a scientifically unsupported level go unchallenged. Background Significant Reductions Already P F O A has been m easured at extrem ely low levels in community drinking w ater sources in parts o f N ew Jersey. DuPont does not m anufacture PFO A in N ew Jersey at any of its sites. DuPont uses P FO A in m anufacturing operations at its C ham bers W orks facility in New Jersey, but DuPont is not the sole user in the S tate. O ther industrial users are (B O O TH E ) xxxxxxxxxxxxx and PFO A is used -- e x te n s iv e ly b y ftrefighter^n-firefightingfeam , how everrP FO A -has atso -beend etected in areas w here no facilities using PFO A are located. D uPont has taken significant steps to reduce emissions o f P FO A at Cham bers W orks (94% reduction o f plant air and w ater em issions o f PFO A from 1 APFO, sometimes referred to a s C-8. also referred to a s "PFOA," the dissociated anion serum biomarker of ammonium periluorooctanoate MCCABE06679 p. 384 m anufacturing operations from 2 0 0 0 to 2006). These results are aligned with an aggressive effort EP A launched a year ago to reduce possible sources o f human exposure through a voluntary program . In January 2006, Adm inistrator Stephen Johnson invited the m ajor fluoropolym er and telom er m anufacturers to participate in a global stew ardship program on PFO A and related chem icals. By M arch, all had agreed to participate. T h e program requires corporate com m itm ents to the following goals: (1 ) To commit to achieve, no later than 2010, a 95% reduction, m easured from a year 2 0 0 0 baseline, in both facility em issions to all environm ental m edia and product content levels of: PFO A , precursor chem icals that can break down to PFO A , and related higher hom ologue chem icals; and (2 ) To commit to working toward the elim ination of PFO A , precursor chem icals that can break down to PFO A, and related higher hom ologue chem icals from em issions and products by five years thereafter, or no later than 2015. (BOBBY REVISE) Human exposure shows no health effects D uPont has voluntarily w orked with EPA since 2 0 0 3 to investigate potential hum an exposure routes and toxicity of PFO A. A considerable body of scientific know ledge surrounding PFO A has been assem bled during that tim e. W hile m uch has been developed by independent research institutions, DuPont's contributions in this a re a also have been extensive and com prehensive and have covered topics such as toxicology, atm ospheric chem istry and methods, environm ental m odeling, fate, biodegradation, and risk assessm ent. M ore than 6 0 peer-review ed studies have been published by DuPont scientists over the past few years. T h ere is currently an enorm ous volum e o f scientific data assessing the known and potential toxicological effects o f PFO A . M any of the studies are published in peer-review ed scientific journals and are available to the public from the dockets m aintained by the U S EPA .7 Th e database presently includes approxim ately 200 toxicological studies, and several epidem iological studies analyzing data from hum ans exposed to P F O A over extensive periods o f tim e at sites w here PFO A has been m anufactured or used. D uPont does not ignore or discount the evidence showing that PFO A has been stoowrHo-be p fe s e n tin h u m an blood;^ n d th a t th e presence o f th e'm aterialirrs'a m any people in so m any places cannot be fully explained. T o the contrary, EPA and industry are investigating diligently to determ ine the sources o f exposure and Information on the EPA's PFOA research activities, including (tow documents may be accessed from EPA's several PFOA-relaled electronic dockets, is available through the EPA PFOA website at www.cpa.gov/oppt/pfoa/. Information on the nature and structure of PFOA Enforceable Consent Agreement meetings is available on that website at wwweoa. eov/opot/pfoa/meetiiigs/ineetings.hMn. MCGABE06680 p. 385 o to reduce exposure to P F O A Nevertheless, the scientific evidence gathered thus far does not show any adverse effects to human. E P A has confirmed this on several occasions within the past two years. In a press release on D ecem ber 14. 2005. Susan H azen, Acting Adm inistrator of the E PA 's O PPTS. stated th a t * The agency has information based on anim al studies and toxic effects in anim als, (but] w e have no information at this point that would lead us to believe there is a significant human health impact." Although EPA has continued to gather data and study the m atter diligently, the A gency's conclusion has not changed. On January 25, 2006, Adm inistrator Johnson announced that "(a]lthough our risk assessm ent activities are not com plete and new data may change the current picture, to d ate EPA is not aware o f any studies specifically relating current levels of PFOA exposure to human health effects." Finally as recounted above, the Agency announced a t its June 8, 2 0 0 6 PFO A Information Forum on that 'EPA has no information linking current levels of PFOA in the blood of the generalpublic to any adverse health effects in people." (Em phasis added in ail quotations.) S ince DuPont and other m anufacturers began working with the EPA on P FO A , advances in risk assessm ent methodology have resulted in alternative approaches to characterizing the risk o f this biopersistent compound. Specifically, Butenhoff et al. (20OAf published a risk assessm ent for P F O A based on internal dose, using the m odeled BM DL (BenchM ark D ose Level) (referred to as "LBMICio" in the publication) calculated from the serum level at w hich a 10% response in a health endpointis m odeled to occur. Internal dose m ore accurately and directly reflects the dose at which biological responses occur, and therefore, should be considered the most appropriate m etric for risk assessm ent. This is particularly true for PFOA, because of its stability, predom inantly extracellular distribution, and low elim ination rates, w hich perm it biological responses to be correlated with serum levels in the body. Additionally, because the w ealth of information available on the pharm acokinetics o f PFO A suggests that there are w ide variations in how this compound is elim inated across species, the use of internal dose (i.e., serum PFO A concentrations), as opposed to external dose, helps to m inim ize the uncertainty associated with in tra- and interspecies extrapolation of external doses and allow for direct com parisons. U sing this internal dose risk assessm ent approach, Butenhoff et al. (2 0 0 4 ) calculated Margins o f Exposure (*MOE')', for the following toxioological endpoints am nial Vtudfes: ifver-w eight-fo^bb^ in m ale Butenhoff, J .L , et a l 2004. Characterization of risk for general population exposure to perffuoroodanoate. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 39(3):363-80. ` The Margin of Exposure is an estimate of the potential human risk derived by calculating the ratio ot the internal or external dose to estimated human exposure levels. MCCABE06681 p. 386 J m onkeys,5postnatal effects in rats, body weight changes in m onkeys, and Leydig cell tumors in rats. G eneral population human P FO A serum levels w ere obtained from several sampling studies in non-occupationaHy exposed populations, which dem onstrated average PFO A serum concentrations o f approxim ately 5 ppb, with a 95% percentile upper bound o f 11-14 ppb.6 Th e upper bound 95% percentile estim ated general population serum PFO A concentration o f 14 ppb w as used to represent human exposure. The M OEs calculated by Butenhoff et al. (2 0 0 4 ) represent substantial protection of children, adults, and the elderly in the general population. Science Advisory Board and Toxicity E P A published a draft risk assessm ent for PFO A in January 2 0 0 5 that also w as based on internal dose.7 T h e toxicity endpoints chosen, and the M O Es estim ated, w ere in general consistent with those published by Butenhoff e t al. (2 0 0 4 ). EPA's Science Advisory Board ('S A B ') convened an expert panel to conduct a peer review o f EPA 's 2 0 0 5 draft risk assessm ent. In a letter to EPA Adm inistrator Stephen Johnson dated M ay 30, 2 0 0 6 that accom panied the SAB P an el report, the SAB C hair and the SAP Panel C hair noted that "fij n general, th e SAB Panel endorsed EPA's risk assessm ent approach, particularly the inclusion o f m ultiple non-cancer health endpoints for risk assessm ent, and the use o f PFO A blood levels as a m easure o f estim ated dose in place o f the adm inistered dose in toxicologic studies." The SAB P an el report noted that *{t] h e direct use of internal m easures by dose by U S EPA in this docum ent represents a promising and relatively innovative approach for risk assessm ents o f environm ental compounds com pared to the m ore usual practice based on com paring daily dose rates by various routes o f adm inistration. This new approach reduces the need to include uncertainties introduced by the use of adm inistered or am bient doses as m easures of exposure" and "[t] h e internal dose analysis used in this docum ent is considered by the Panel to be a significant step toward reducing uncertainty related to cross species extrapolation." Consistent with the SAB Panel's conclusions, the EPA 's use of Liver to brain weight ratios were selected, rather than liver weight changes, to normalize for body weight changes, since the brain is not affected by body weight changes. ---- =- ------- 8.. .... , Olsen- GWy-et-alr - 2693: - -Perftuorooetanestilfonate andother-fluorochemicWs in the serum o f ........ American Red Cross and adult Wood donors. Environ. Health Perspect. 11:18 9 2 -19 0 1; Olsen, G.W.. et al. 2004a. Quantitative evaluation of perfluorooctanesullonate (PFOS) and other fluorochemicals in the serum of children- J. Children's Health. 2:53-76; Otsen, G.W.. et al. 2004b. Serum concentrations of perfluorooctanesulfonate and other fluorochemicals in an elderly population from Seattle. Washington. Chemosphere 5 4 :15 9 9 -16 11. 7 U S Environmentat Protection Agency. 2005. Draft Risk Assessment of the Potential Human Health Effects Associated with Exposure to Perfluorooctanotc Acid and its Salts. (Jan. 4. 2005). MCCABE06682 internal dose m easure is supported by FDA's own latest guidance for risk assessm ent, both for carcinogens* and for non-carcinogens 9 In M ay 2 006, the SAB issued its report and noted a split among Panel m em bers with regard to the hazard descriptor used to indicate the potential for carcinogenicity. B ecause of new research developed during the time the SAB process was underway, EPA has declined to reach conclusions regarding the M ay 2 0 0 6 SAB Panel re p o rt R eferring to new d ata and the SAB process on its w ebsite, EPA states that *[s] om e of this new research m ay im pact the Panel's assessm ent o f PFO A. For this reason, it is prem ature to draw any conclusion on th e potential risks, including cancer, from P FO A until all of this new testing is com plete and the data are integrated into the risk assessm ent." Additionally, US E P A Adm inistrator Stephen Johnson has stated: "(i]t has been nearly two years since the package of information that the Panel review ed w as com piled, and since that time, a considerable am ount o f research has b een co m p leted . . . or is presently underway."10 T h e Adm inistrator added that the A gency intends to "integrate this new toxicity testing and m echanistic data into the risk assessm ent as it becom es available." Th e risk assessm ent is still underw ay by the Agency, a n d the Agency has reported that it w ill seek a second SAB review once the risk assessm ent is final. The Agency announced publicly on June 8. 2006: "E PA has no inform ation linking current levels o f P FO A in the blood of the general public to any adverse health effects in people. Additional study is still needed to understand these persistent chem icals. W hile inform ation is being developed, E P A is taking the prudent step of seeking to reduce possible sources now, to avo id potentially larger future problem s.' Pharmacokinetics and Exposure R ecen t publications by Em m ett and colleagues from the University o f P en nsylvania" provide valuable inform ation on the serum P FO A concentrations an d selected health endpoints in residents living n ear a fluoropolym er production facility. These d ata can be used to refine the pharm acokinetically-based, internal dose risk assessm ents fo r PFO A discussed above. Emmett et al. (2 0 0 6 a ) found U S Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Draft Final Guidelines lor Cancer Risk Assessm ent Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-03/001A NCEA-F-0644A Available at http://crpub.epa.gov/ncea/ral/iredocrdisplay ctm?deid=55365. * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference ------- Concentration-Processes Report preparedlbrttte Risk Assessment Fwom: EP/W53P^02/D02F. NCBF` F-0644A Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/cancer2003.html 10 June 20.20 0 6 tetter from Stephen Johnson to SAB Panel Co-Chairs " Emmett, E .A . et al 2006a. Community exposure lo perfloorooctanoate: Relationships between serum concentrations and exposure sources. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 48:759-70; Emmett, E .A . et aL 2006b. Community exposure to perthjorooctanoate: Relationships between serum levels and certain health parameters. J. Occup. Environ Med. 48:771-9. MCCABE06683 that median serum PFO A levels in randomly selected residents o f Little Hocking, O H ranged from 2 9 8 -3 7 0 ppb. W hen these serum values w ere correlated with available air and w ater data, the median serum/drinking w ater ratio for PFO A w as calculated to b e 105, i.e ., for every 1 ppb o f P FO A in drinking w ater ingested b y community residents; 105 ppb of PFO A will be present in serum. The pharm acokinetic m odel used in an exposure assessm ent and risk characterization for consum er articles containing PFO A ,12 is in general agreem ent, and supportive of the serum/drinking w ater ratio estim ated by Em m ett et al. (2 0 0 6 a ). A recent pharm acokinetic model of P F O A in prim ates13 provides further insight into refining the pharm acokinetic m odel fo r PFO A and o th er perfluoroaikytacids. Im portantly, no statistically or clinically significant associations betw een serum P F O A and liver or renal function tests, cholesterol, thyroid-stim ulating hormone, o r hem atological param eters (red cetl indices, w hite cells, or platelet counts) w ere found in the residents studied." M oreover, in residents with a history o f liver or thyroid disease, the m ean serum P FO A levels w ere not increased. These results support the conclusion that PFOA, even at serum levels far exceeding those found in the general population, is not associated with adverse health effects. Occupational Exposure For several decades, 3M , as the U .S . m anufacturer of A PFO , perform ed and published epidem iology studies of its workers. These studies do not dem onstrate a causal connection betw een PFO A exposure and hum an disease, even at the higher occupational exposures. As discussed in m ore detail below, DuPont's findings in its epidem iology study o f its W ashington W orks cohort are consistent with tile body of published literature already developed In 2004, DuPont initiated an epidem iological study of em ployees at W ashington W orks. The first phase o f this study was a cross-sectional surveillance intended to evaluate, using serum PFO A levels, any potential associations between occupational exposure to ammonium perfluorooctanoate and changes in clinical laboratory m easurem ents or physical exam ination endpoints.15 W orker PFO A Washburn, S.T.. el al. 2005. Exposure assessment and risk characterization tor perfluorooctanoate in selected consumer articles. Environ. Sci. & Technot. 39(11):3904-10 ,-ja .-----^.-Anderson;-*tt. et at. "2006: "PftarmacoldnKic rr ae ig o f Saturable, renai radrpjron o f perfluoroalkylacids in monkeys - Probing the determinants of tong plasma half-lives. Toxicolog 227:156-64. 14 Emmett, E.A., et al. 2006b. Community exposure to perfluorooctanoate: Relationships between serum levels and certain health parameters. J . Occup. Environ. Med. 48:771-9. ,s Haskell Report 2006. Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate: Cross-Sectional Surveillance of Clinical Measures of General Health Status Related to a Serum Biomarker of Exposure and Retrospective Cohort Mortality Analyses in a Polymer Production Plant In review. MCCABE06684 levels w ere found to range from 5 to 9 5 5 0 ppb (0 .0 0 5 to 9 .5 5 ppm ). A slight positive association was found between serum PFO A in workers at the polymer production facility and serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and LOL cholesterol (but not H D L cholesterol). T h e second phase o f this study, a retrospective cohort m ortality study, exam ined all causes of death com bined and cause-specific mortality rates in the W ashington W orks em ployees, as com pared to the general population in the U .S ., the W est Virginia general population, and the population of DuPont w orkers residing in W est Virginia and seven neighboring states in the region. T h e results o f th e second phase becam e available on O ctober 1 7 ,2 0 0 6 .16 No convincing evid en ce of increased m ortality associated with exposure to A PFO w as found. A statistically non-significant increase in kidney cancer m ortality and a statistically significantly increase in diabetes m ortality was found across the site 'M ie n com pared to the regional worker population from the sam e company. T h e s e associations did not appear to be related to PFO A exposure, but there w e re too few cases to m ake definitive conclusions. A detailed analysis for ischem ic heart disease m ortality showed a slight increase in one m odel at one tim e interval (1 0 -y e a r lag). However, this m odel was not observed with other m odels and the overall m ortality rates for heart disease w as not increased in this study. This one observation could be a random occurrence or it could m ean a sm all increase in those workers most heavily exposed. A lthough, as discussed above, there are no health effects findings that are know n to be caused by exposure to PFO A resulting in serum levels far above those expected in com m unities surrounding plants em itting A PFO , it is prudent to m inim ize, w here possible, exposure to biopersistent m aterials such as A PFO . Thus, it is d e a r that screening levels for PFO A property should be based on exposure and not health issues, using internal dose risk assessm ent methods. U sing the serum to drinking w ater level ratio o f 1 ppb: 105 ppb determ ined by Em m ett e t al. (2 0 0 6 a ),17 the EPA screening level of 0 0 .5 0 ppb in drinking w ater w ould result in approxim ately 5 0 ppb of P FO A in serum. This serum level is w ithin the range found in the general population as reported by Olsen et a l.," and provides m ore than an adequate M O E (> 3 0 0 ) based on internal dose risk Haskett Report. 2006. Ammonium Periluorooctanoate: Phase It. Retrospective Cohort Moitaflty Analyses Related to a Serum Biomarker of Exposure in a Polymer Production Plant -7- ' ` iiwnet-eAr. et-ai: 2006a: Communay exposore pffarnol: R&^orfirpT&efiveh serum concentrations and exposure sources. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 46:759-70. ' * Olsen, G.W., et al. 2003. Perfluorooctanesulfonate and other fluorochemicals in the serum of American Red Cross and adult blood donors. Environ Health Perspect. 11:18 9 2 -19 0 1; Olsen, G.W., et al. 2004a. Quantitative evaluation of perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and other fluorochemicals in the serum of children. J. Children's Health. 2:53-76; Olsen, G.W.. et aL 2004b. Serum concentrations of perfluorooctanesulfonate and other fluorochemicals in an elderly population from Seattle, Washington. Chemosphere 5 4 :15 9 9 -16 11. MCCABQ6685 assessm ent using the first (and therefore m ost-conservative) health endpoint observed at levels that are not necessarily toxic (i.e., increase in liver w eight in prim ates). M oreover, a screening level of 0 0 .5 0 ppb is supported by the W ashington W orks occupational studies and the Em m ett et al. community exposure study. Conclusion B ecause the science does not support any suggestion o f a health risk for drinking w ater supplies at or below 0 .5 ppb (5 0 0 ppt), it w ould be irresponsible for N ew Jersey to set a level below th a t To put this in perspective, the U .S . Army hasestablished a drinking w ater standard for the highly toxic nerve ag ent V X o f 2 0 parts p er billion (.2 ppb or 2 0 0 ppt). W e know the toxicological profile o f VX. It is w ell docum ented. Th ere is nothing in the scientific research that shows P FO A presents a hum an health hazard at background levels in N ew Jersey ranging from "non-detect* to 4 9 ppt. To set a level in this range is not only unsupported by science, but it w ould underm ine public expectations that governm ent agencies charged with protecting their health do so in a deliberate and scientifically sound m anner. MCCABE06686 f p. 391 Reply To: Telephone: Facsimile: Email: KATHRYN K. McCORD E. I. du Pont de Nemotra and Company Vice President, Risk Management 4417 LancasterPike,CRi*708/112 Wilmington, DE 19*05 302.999.5303 302.999.3404 ka1hryn.kjnccord@ua4 inpoot.com January 11,2007 Lisa P. Jackson, Commissioner 40) E. State SL 7th Floor, East Wing P.O.Box 402 Trenton. NJ 08625-0402 RE: PFOA Guidance ) Dear Commissioner Jackson: I understand that your department is currently reviewing ways to address the presence o f pcrfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) detected at very low levels in water in various New Jersey communities. DuPont uses but docs not manufacture PFOA at its Chambers Work facility in Carney's Point, New Jersey. A t this and other DuPont facilities in other states, DuPont has been working with federal and state environmental agencies to reduce exposure to the chemical, in November 2006, DuPont and the U.S. EPA reached an agreement to establish an interim screening level o f O.S parts per billion (500 parts per trillion) for PFOA in any public or private drinking water system around our manufacturing facility in West Virginia. This agreement, which sets the lowest regulatory standard for PFOA in the nation, was developed after considerable consultation informed by the latest science on the chemical. I am leader o f the team that worked on this level. To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA although studies o f the chemical continue. In January 2006, EPA stated that "to date EPA is not aware o f any siadfisslipfcciScaily rieJitmg (mricmt lw cis oifPFOA exposure to huraahlicalth effects." EPA reiterated its position in June 2006 when it announced that "the Agency has no information linking current levels o f PFOA in the blood o f the general public to any adverse health effects in people." EPA is continuing to collect data and develop its risk assessment process for PFOA, and DuPont continues to support and folly participate in that process. 062-0074-0000210 Lisa P. Jackson, Commissioner January 11,2007 Page 2 o f 2 f asked Dr. Robert W. Rickard, DuPont Distinguished Scientist, DuPont Haskell Laboratory for Health & Environmental Scienceswho worked on the EPA agreement to provide m e with a review o f the action taken in the context o f New Jersey's situation and would like to share his assessment with you (see attachment). Dr. Rickard is ChiefScience Advisor to Linda J. Fisher, DuPont, Vice President Sustainability. The situation in New Jersey is dramatically different from that in West Virginia where background levels are much higher. Even with those higher levels, which have spanned decades, there are no health effects that are known to be caused by exposure to PFOA at scrum levels far above those expected in New Jersey communities surrounding plants emitting PFOA. DuPont believes the 0.S ppb level established by EPA in conjunction with the states of West Virginia and Ohio reflects a highly precautionary limit and we would hope that New Jersey adopt the same interim level while EPA continues its risk assessment. Thank you for your consideration o f our point o f view on this important topic. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have about the attached memo or other PFOAretated information that could help you in your decisions. Feel free to contact me at the number above. Sincerely, Kathryn K. McCord cc: Nancy Wittenberg, Asst. Commissioner, Environmental Regulation Jeanne Herb, Policy, Planning and Science Director Deborah A. Mans, Advisor to Governor Corzine 062-0074-0000211 M 5. M Q.R.A H P.Vl W To: Kalhy McCord, From: Robert Rickard, DuPont Distinguished Scientist, DuPont Haskett Laboratory for Health &Environmental Sciences Date: January 11.2007 Overview The purpose of this memo i$to provide important background information on NJDEP's effort to develop an approach to address PFOAdetected at extremely low levels in water at various sites in New Jersey. Specifically, this memo will provide background on the current state of scientific knowledge on PFOAand outline recent actions between the EPA and DuPont regarding reduction of exposure to PFOAin the West Virginia and Ohio communities surrounding the DuPont Washington Works site. In November, DuPont reached a voluntary agreement with EPA to set a precautionary interim action level of 0.5 parts per billion (500 parts per trillion) while EPA conducts its ongoing risk assessment. Below that level, no action is deemed necessary. The 0.5 ppb level coincides with recent actions by other states to set theirown levels or lake no action. The 0.5 ppb level set by EPA in conjunction with the states of West Virginia and Ohio is lower than any established by any stale. This includes North Carofina which set a 2 ppb level; Minnesota which is considering lowering its level from 7 ppb to 1 ppb; and California which decided not to expedite a review to require PFOA labeling under its Proposition 65 authority. These actions reflect an acknowledgement that EPA is in the process of conducting a comprehensive revised risk assessment and that not enough data has been gathered to establish a national hazard level. Scientific research conducted to date, which has examined thoroughly the potential health effects from exposure to PFOA, fails to establish any adverse effects to humans. The presence and persistence of PFOA Inhumans and the environment are legitimate concerns that deserve the attention of government agencies and the larger scientific community, as well as the many manufacturers that use PFOAInindustrial and consumer products that are so important to the national and New Jersey economies. Nevertheless, the many health studies that have been conducted thus far do not ^upportalev^lowertK^'tfieO!51ppB=eSt<iBI5heaby^PAas~aprecautionarysite^ specific interim level. As is discussed below, current pharmacokinetic studies erfthe Pap i or? 062-0074-0000212 p . 394 ) chemical show that even if an action level was set at background levels ranging from `non-detect* to 49 parts per triOlon measured in finished water by various sources in New Jersey, it would not result in the lowering of background blood levels of PFOA found in the general population. An important aspect of any water level, either Interimor permanent, set by a government health or environmental agency is Its Impact on affected communities. When wide ranges occur in levels established by various stales and the federal government, the public is confronted with a confusing arrayof dueling data and often doesn't know how to respond. Care was taken by the EPA and states of West Virginia and Ohio not to cause alarm or raise community concerns when the 0.5 ppb level was announced. Infact, EPA referred the pubfic to a document published by the Ohio Department of Health, fitted *A2006 C-8 Physician's Reference"for background information. The document takes a measured view of the inconclusive stale of knowledge on PFOA. A key summary statement in the document asserts: "Currently them Is no consensus with regard to the toxicology o f C -81 and the likely human health impacts that might result from exposure. There are no human health data currently available that associate specific C-8 levels in blood with any acute health threat and/or the likelihood o f the development o f disease in the future." DuPont has worked diligently with the communities in the area to address their needs and concerns and provide the latest scientific information on PFOA and their health. If a level low er than 0.5 ppb is set in New Jersey it could cause undue concern among the com m unities at or above that level in New Jersey and elsewhere and the NJOEP, as w e l as the EPA, w ill have difficulty explaining file variation. This memo lays out the reasons why the 0.5 ppb level is a prudent, precautionary level and why, in light of the aggressive steps being taken by DuPont and other PFOA users to reduce exposure, a lower level is totally unjustified. Based on the extensive scientific studies done by government, research institutions and industry suggesting no human health effects at background levels. DuPont could not let a scientifically unsupported level go unchallenged. B ackground S ig n ific a n t R eductions A lread y PFOA has been measured at extremely low levels in community drinkingwater sources in parts of New Jersey. DuPont does not manufacture PFOA In New Jersey at any of its sites. DuPont uses PFOA in manufacturing operations at its Chambers Works facfiity in New Jersey, but DuPont is not the sole user in the State. PFOA Is handled, used or otherwise present at multiple manufacturers 1 APFO. sometimes referred to a s C-8, also referred to a s "PFO A" the dissociated anion serum btomaiker or ammonium perfluorooclanoate Page 2 o f 9 062-0074-0000213 i p. 395 i ) ___________i 1 __________ _ ___ ________ --I i f around the state. PFOA is also present at varying levels in the various forms of AFFF fire fighting foam used by fire companies. Industrial and military fire brigades around the state to extinguish hydrocarbon fires and to train for fighting fires. DuPont has taken significant steps to reduce emissions of PFOA at Chambers Works (94% reduction of plant air and water emissions of PFOA from manufacturing operations from 2000 to 2006). These results are aligned with an aggressive effort EPA launched a year ago to reduce posstole sources of human exposure through a voluntary program. InJanuary 2006, Administrator Stephen Johnson invited the major fluorbpolymer and lelomer manufacturers to participate in a globalstewardship program on PFOA and related chemicals. By March, all had agreed to participate. The program requires corporate commitments to the following goals: (1) To commit to achieve, no later than 2010. a 95% reduction, measured from a year 2000 baseline, in both facfity emissions to all environmental media and product content levels of: PFOA, precursor chemicals that can break down to PFOA and related higher homologue chemicals: and (2) To commit to working toward the elimination of PFOA precursor chemicals that can break down to PFOA and related higher homologue chemicals from emissions and products by five years thereafter, or no later than 2015. N o h ealth effects know n to be caused b y PFOA Industry has voluntarily worked with EPA since 2003 to investigate potential human exposure routes and toxicity of PFOA. A considerable body of scientific knowledge surrounding PFOA has been assembled during that time. While much has been i developed by independent research institutions. DuPont's contributions in this area also have been extensive and comprehensive and have covered topics such as toxicology, atmospheric chemistry and methods, environmental modeling, fate, biodegradation, and risk assessment. More than 60 peer-reviewed studies have been published by DuPont scientists over the past few years. There is currently an enormous volume of scientific data assessing the known and potential toxicological effects of PFOA. Manyof the studies are published in peerreviewed scientificjournals and are available to the public from the dockets maintained by the LIS EPA2 The database presently Includes approximately 200 toxicological studies, and several epidemiological studies analyzing data fromhumans exposed to PFOA over extensive periods of time at sites where PFOA has been manufacturedor used.*i i -- ..-.-Jnfounatio on the. {^AtSrJM^A. research *ctiviiics;-inctvdmg-how ^documents m ayte ato sed Irish EPA's several PFOA-rtlatcd electronic dockets, h available through the EPA PFOA website at www.eps.gov/oppWlbs/. Page J o r 9 062-0074-0000214 i!! \ D uPont d o es not ignore o r discount th e evidence showing that PFOA h a s been shown to be presen t in hum an blood, and that the presence of the m aterial in so m any people in so m any places cannot b e fully explained. To the contrary. EPA and industry a re dtiigentiy investigating the sources of exposure and w ays to reduce exposure to PFOA. B ased on health an d toxicological studies. DuPont believes the w eight of evidence in d icates PFOA exposure d o es not p o se a risk to the general public. EPA h a s confirmed this on several occasions within the past two years. In a press re le a se on D ecem ber 1 4 .2 0 0 5 , S usan H azen, Acting Adm inistrator of the EPA's O P P T S , stated that; ` The agency has information b ased on anim al studies and toxic effects in anim als, [but] w e have n o information at this point that would lead us to b elieve there Is a significant human health im p a ct" Although EPA h a s continued to g a th e r data and study th e m atter diligently, the A gency's conclusion h a s not changed. O n Jan u ary 25, 2006, A dm inistrator Johnson announced th at '[aJUhoogh our risk a sse ssm e n t activities a re not com plete and new data m ay change th e current picture, to d a te EPA Is not aware o f any studies specifically relating current levels o f PFOA exposure to human health effects." Finally a s recounted above, the Agency announced a t its Ju n e 8, 2006 PFOA information Forum on that 'EPA has no inform ation linking current levels o f PFOA ht the blood o f the generalpublic to a n y adverse health e ffe c ts in people." (Em phasis added in a l quotations.) S in ce D uPont and o th er m anufacturers began working with the EPA on PFOA, ad v an ces in risk asse ssm e n t methodology have resulted In alternative approaches to characterizing th e .risk o f this btopersistent com pound. Specifically, Butenhoff e t at. (2004f published a risk asse ssm e n t for PFOA b ased on internal d o se, using the m odeled BMDL (BenchM ark D ose Level) (referred to a s `LBMICto* in the publication) calculated from the serum level a t which a 10% response in a health endpoint is m odeled to occur, internal d o se m ore accurately and directly reflects the d o se a t which biological resp o n ses occur, and therefore, should b e considered th e m ost appropriate m etric for risk asse ssm e n t. This is particularly true for PFOA, b ecau se of its stability, predom inantly extracellular distribution, and low elimination rates, which permit biological resp o n ses to b e correlated with serum levels in the body. AddltionaMy, b e c a u se the w ealth of information available on the pharm acokinetics of PFOA suggests th a t there are wide variations in how this com pound is elim inated acro ss sp ecies, tire u se of internal d o se (i.e., serum PFOA concentrations), a s opposed to external dose, h elp s to minimize the uncertainty associated with intra- and intersp e d e s extrapolation of external d o ses and a How for direct com parisons. U sing this internal d o se risk asse ssm e n t approach, Butenhoff et at. (2004) calculated M argins of Exposure ("MOE")*4 for the fbtiowlng toxicological endpoints Identified in BiXenhofl. JA ,, e t al. 2004. C haracterization of risk for genera) population exposure to peifluoroocianoate. R eg. Toxieol. Pharm acol 39(3)363-80. 4 The Margin at E xposure is an estim ate of the potential hum an its* derived by calcUailng the ratio ot the Internal o r external d o se to estim ated hum an exposure levels. Page 4 o f 9 062-0074-0000215 anim al studies: liver-weight-to-bocJy-weight ratio in creases in m ale m onkeys.1postnatal effects in rats, body weight changes in m onkeys, an d Leydig cell tum ors in rats. G eneral population hum an PFOA serum levels w ere obtained from several sam pling stu d ies in non-occupationally exposed populations, which dem onstrated average PFOA serum concentrations of approxim ately 5 ppb. with a 95% percentile upper bound of 1114 ppb.6 The upper bound 95% percentile estim ated general population serum PFOA concentration of 14 ppb w as used to represent hum an exposure. The MOEs calculated b y Sutenhoff e t al. (2004) represent substantial protection of children, adults, and the elderly in the g eneral population. Science A dvisory Board and Toxicity EPA pubSshed a draft risk assessm en t for PFOA in January 2005 that also w as b ased o n internal dose.7 T he toxldty endpoints chosen, an d th e MOEs estim ated, w ere in g en eral consistent with those pubRshed by Butenhoff e t a). (2004). EPA 's Science Advisory Board f SAB*) convened a n expert panel to conduct a p eer review of EPA's 2 0 0 5 draft risk assessm en t. In a letter to EPA Adm inistrator Stephen Johnson dated M ay 3 0 ,2 0 0 6 that accom panied the SAB Panel report, th e SAB Chair and th e SAP P a n e l Chair noted that ~pjn general, the SAB Panel endorsed EPA's risk a ssessm en t approach, particularly toe inclusion of multiple non-cancer health endpoints for risk a ssessm en t, and th e u se of PFOA blood levels a s a m easure of estim ated d o se in p lace of to e adm inistered d o se in toxicologic studies." T he SAB Panel report noted that IQ h e direct u se of Internal m easures by d o se by US EPA in this docum ent rep resen ts a prom ising and relatively Innovative approach for risk assessm en ts of environm ental com pounds com pared to the m ore usual practice b a se d o n com paring daily d o se rate s b y various routes o f adm inistration. This new approach reduces toe need to include uncertainties introduced by th e u se of adm inistered o r am bient d o ses a s m easu res of exposure" and *ft]he internal d o se analysis used in this docum ent is considered by the P an el to b e a significant step toward reducing uncertainty related to cross sp e d e s extrapolation.* C onsistent with toe SAB P anel's conclusions, toe EPA's u se of internal d o se m easure is supported by FDA's own latest guidance for risk assessm en t, both for carcinogens* and for non-carcinogens.* * U vet to brain w eight raSos w ere selected, rather than liver w eight changes, to norm alze tor body weight ch an g es, sincetoe brain is not affected by body weight changes. * O lsen. G .W , et at. 2003. Perituorooctanesdtonate and o th er ftuocochemicals in the serum a t American R ed C ross and adult blood donors. Environ. Health P ersp ed . 11:1892-1901; O lsen, G.W.. et at. 2004a. Q uantitative evaluation of perSuorooctanesuM anate (PFOS) and o tre r Bixwochemicats in the serum o( children. X C hildren's Health. 2:53-76; O tsen. G.W., e ta l. 2004b. Serum ooncenaarons o t perSuoroodanesulfonate and other ftuorochem icate in an etderfy population from Seatfle, W ashington. C bem osphere 54; 1599-1611. ' U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. 2005. Draft Risk A ssessm ent of the Polenta! Human H ealth Effects A ssociated with Exposure to Perikiofooctanoic Add and Its S alts. (Ja n . 4 ,2Q051. T J-g 'iiw M W fiS i PhitecboriA gericy. 2003. draft fin al Siildeftnes tor Cancer Risk A ssessm ent. Risk A ssessm ent Forum . EP/U630tP-03AXMA. N C E A F -0644A . Available at IW p:/rdpub.epa.gov/hcea/ral/redocrdlsplay.crin?dei<h5365. Page 5 o f 9 062-0074-0000216 tn May 2006. the SAB Issued its report and noted a split am ong P anel m em bers with regard to th e hazard descriptor used to indicate the potential for carcinogenicity. B ecause of new research developed during the time the SAB.process w as underw ay, EPA h a s declined to reach conclusions regarding the May 2006 SAB P anel report. R eferring to new d ata and the SAB process on its w ebsite, EPA states th at "$}omo of this new research m ay impact the Panel's assessment o f PFQA. For this reason, it is prem ature to draw any conclusion on foe potential risks, including cancer, from PFQA until ati o f this new testing Is complete and foe data are integrated into the risk assessment." Additionally, US EPA Administrator S tephen Johnson h a s staled : "pjt h as b e e n nearly two years sin ce th e package of information that the Panel review ed w as com piled, and since that time, a considerable am ount o f research h as b een co m p leted . . . o r is presently underway.'*0 T he Administrator added that the Agency intends to "integrate this new toxicity testing and m echanistic d ata into the risk a sse ssm e n t a s it becom es available.* T he risk assessm en t is stillunderw ay by the Agency, an d Ore A gency h a s reported that it w il seek a second SAB review o nce the risk asse ssm e n t is final. T he Agency announced publicly on June 8 ,2 0 0 6 : *EPA h as no inform ation linking current levels of PFOA in th e blood of the general public to any adverse health effects in people. Additional study is still n eed ed to understand th e se persistent chem icals.* P harm acokinetics a n d E xposure R ecen t publications by Emmett and colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania11 provide valuable inform ation on the serum PFOA concentrations and selected health endpoints in residents living n ear a fluoropoiymer production fad d y . T h ese data can be u sed to refine the pharm aeokineticaily-based, internal d o se risk assessm en ts for PFOA d iscu ssed above. Em m ett e t at. (2006a) found that m edian serum PFOA levels in random ly selected resid en ts of Little Hocking, OH ranged from 298-370 ppb. W hen th ese serum values w ere correlated with available air and w ater d ata, th e m edian serum /drinking w ater ratio for PFOA w as calculated to b e 105, f.e., for every 1 ppb of PFOA in drinking w ater ingested by community residents; 105 ppb of PFOA wM b e p resen t in serum . T he pharm acokinetic model u sed in an exposure a sse ssm e n t and risk characterization for consum er articles containing PFOA," is in general agreem ent, an d supportive of th e serum /drinking w ater ratio estim aled by Emmett e t ai. (2006a). A U-S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. a Review of t ie R eference D ose and Reference Concentration P rocesses. R eport prepared (or the R sk A ssessm ent Forum. EPAffi30iP-02002F. NCEA-RJ644A. Available at hftp"7Avwwepa^oW ncea/raf/cancef2003t)tml w June 20 ,2006 letter from Stephen Johnson to SAB Panel C oO iairs. " E m m et. E.A., el al. 2006a. Community exposure to periluorooctanoate: RelaGonships betw een serum concentrations and exposure sources. J. O ccup. Environ. Med. 48:75970; E m m et, E A . et al. 2006b. Gommurity exposure to perttuorooclanoate: R elationships betw een serum levels and certain heaNh param eters. J . Occup. Environ. M ed. 48:771-9. n W ashburn. S .T .. e l at. 2005. Exposure assessm ent and risk characterization for perfluorooctanoale in selected consum er articles. Environ. S o . S Techno). 39(11):3904-10. Page 6 o f9 062-0074-0000217 recen t pharm acokinetic m odel of PFOA in p rim ates'1provides further Insight into refining the pharm acokinetic model for PFOA and other perfkroroalkytacids. Importantly, no statistically or dnicaily significant associations betw een serum PFOA an d Hver or renal function te sts, cholesterol, thyroid-stimulating horm one, or hem atological param eters (red cell indices, w hite cells, or platelet counts) w ere found in th e residents studied-14 M oreover, in residents with a history of Hver o r thyroid d isease, th e m ean serum PFOA levels w ere not increased. T hese results support th e conclusion Ural PFOA. even a t serum levels far exceeding th o se found in the g en eral population, is n o t asso ciated with adverse health effects. Occupational Exposure F or several d e cad es, 3M. a s the U.S. m anufacturer of APFO, perform ed an d published epidem iology stu d ies of its w orkers. T hese studies d o not dem onstrate a.p au sal connection betw een PFOA exposure and hum an d isease, even a t the higher occupational exposures. As discussed in m ore detail below , D uPont's findings in its epidem iology study of its W ashington W orks cohort a re consistent with th e body of published literature already developed In 2004, D uPont initiated an epkfemioiogicaf study of em ployees a t W ashington W orks. T he first phase of this study w as a cross-sectional surveillance intended to evaluate, using serum PFOA levels, any potential associations betw een occupational exposure to am m onium perfluorooctanoate and changes in cfinical laboratory m easu rem en ts or physical exam ination endpoints.13 W orker PFOA levels w ere found to ran g e from 5 to 9550 ppb (0.005 to 9.55 ppm). There w as no association,for nearly all of the endpoints m easured. A slight positive association w as found betw een serum PFOA in w orkers at th e polym er production fadttty and serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol (but not HDL cholesterol). T h e second p h ase of this study, a retrospective cohort m ortality study, exam ined aB c a u se s of d eath com bined and cause-specific mortality ra te s in the W ashington Works em ployees, a s com pared to the general population in th e U .S., the W est Virginia g en eral population, an d the population of DuPont w orkers residing in W est Virginia and sev en neighboring sta te s in the region. T he results of the second p h ase becam e available on O ctober 17,2006.'* No convincing evidence of increased m ortality Anderson, M E , eta!. 2006. Pharmacokinetic m odeing orsaturable, renal resorption of peffluoroafcytackfc in monkeys - Probing the determ inants of long plasm a half Ihre s . Toxlcolog 227:156-64. " Emmett. E A . e t a l 2006b. Community exposure to perfluoroodanoale: R elationships betw een seium levels and certain health param eters. J . Occup. Environ. Med. 46:771-9. ** Haskell Report. 2006. Ammonium Pertkioroodanoate: C ross-Sectional Survenance o t Clinical M easures of G eneral H ealth S tatus R elated to s Seront Biomarker of Exposure and R etospecthre Cohort M ortally A nalyses in a 4'otym er ProrfuctionPfem t b rrertew ;----- . . . ........... ...... ....................... w Maske* R eport. 2006. Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate: P hase H. R etrospective Cohort M ortady Analyses R elated to a Serum Btom arker of Exposure in a Polymer Production Plant. Pae 7 o f 9 062-0074-0000218 asso ciated with exposure to APFO w as found. A statistically non-significant in crease in kidney cancer mortality and a statistically significantly in crease in d iab etes mortality w as found across the site w hen com pared to the regional w orker population from the sam e com pany. T hese associations did not appear to be related to PFOA exposure, but th ere w ere too few c a se s to m ake definitive conclusions. A detailed analysis for ischem ic heart d isease m ortality show ed a slight in crease in one m odel a t on e time Interval (10-year lag). However, this result w as not observed with other m odels and the overaS mortaSty rates for h eart d isease w as not increased in this study. This one observation could b e a random occurrence or Hcould m ean a sm all Increase in those w orkers m ost heavily exposed. A s discussed above, there are no health effects that are known to be caused by ex p o su re to PFOA a t serum levels far above those expected In New Jersey com m unities surrounding plants em itting APFO. N onetheless, it Is prudent to minimize, w here possible, exposure to biopersistent m aterials su ch a s APFO. T hus, it is d e a r that screening levels for PFOA property should b e based on exposure th at Is m ore conservative in this c a se than a health-based risk assessm en t using Internal d ose m ethods. Using the serum to drinking w ater level ratio of 1 ppb:105 ppb determ ined by Em m ett e t at. (2006a).*7 the EPA screening level of 0.5 ppb in drinking w ater would resu lt in approximately 5 0 ppb of PFOA in serum . This serum level is within the range (bund in the general population a s reported by O lsen e t a l.,,s and provides m ore than an a d eq u ate MOE (>300) b ased on internal d o se risk assessm en t using the first (and therefore m ost-conservative) health endpoint from toxicology stixS es. M oreover, a screen in g level of 0.5 p pb is supported by the W ashington W orks occupational studies a n d the Emmett e t al. community exposure study. C onclusion B ecau se foe science d o es not support any suggestion of a health risk for drinking w ater sup p lies a t or below 0.5 ppb (500 ppt), it would be irresponsible for New Jersey to se t a low er level. PFOA is not a contam inant for which a national prim ary drinking w afer regulation h a s been established under the Safe Drinking W ater A ct More scientific rese a rc h n eed s to be conducted and analyzed. EPA n eed s to com plete its risk assessm ent. T o put this in perspective, the EPA h a s established a drinking w ater stan d ard of 10 ppb (10,000 ppt) for the highly toxic sem i-m etal arsenic. New Jersey h a s se t an arsenic stan d ard at 5 ppb. W e know the toxicotogicai profile of arsenic. It is well docum ented. Emmett, E A , et aL 2006a. Community exposure to petfluorooctanoate: R elationships betw een serum concentrations and exposure sources. J . Oocup. Environ. M ed. 46:75670. " O lsen, G.W.. e t el. 2003. Peffluonxjclanesubonate and other buorochem icals in t\e sentm ol American R ed C ross and adult Mood donors. Environ. Health PetspocL 11:1892-190t; O lsen. G .W , e l al. 2004a. -QuantHaiYo^evaltHrtkjn otperituorooctanesuttonate ^ P fO S tandnM hef'lluorochem lcats1n'ttw ~xarum oTeM dron: cLChitdran's Health. 2:63-76: O lsen. G .W , el at. 2004b. Serum concentrations of perfluoroecianesuM bnata and otfier fluorochem icab in an eWerty population from S eattle. W ashington Chem osphere 54:15901611. Page * of 9 062-0074-0000219 H um an exposure to arsenic can cau se both short and long term health effects. Short term or acute effects can occur within hours or days of exposure. Long-term or chronic effects occur over m any y ears. Long term exposure to arsenic h a s been forked to c a n c e r of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidneys, nasal p a ssa g e s, liver and prostate. Short term exposure to high d o se s o f arsen ic can cau se other adv erse health effects. T here is nothing in th e scientific research that su g g ests PFOA p resen ts a hum an health h az a rd in any w ay sim itar to a su b stan ce like arsenic. M oreover, PFOA Is found a t extrem ely low background levels in New Jersey ranging from "non-dotect" to .049 ppb (4 9 ppt). To s e t a level In this range Is not only unsupported by science, but It would underm ine public expectations that governm ent agencies charged with protecting their health do so in a deliberate and scientifically sound m anner. Pge 9 o f 9 062-0074-0000220 p. 402 From: To: CC: Sent: A ttachm ents: Subject: `Michael McCabe* <wmichaelmccabe@earthfink.net> Kathryn Kamins McCord<kathryn-kamins.mccord@usa.dupont.com> David W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>,David W Boothe <david.w.boothe@usa.dupont.com>Robert W Rickard<robertw.rickard@usa.dupont.com>,David W Boothe<david.w.boothe@usadupontcom>Robert W Rickard<robert.w.rickard@usa.dupon(.com>Martha L R e es< m artha.l.rees@ usa.dupont.com > Tuesday. April 24.2007 9:32 AM Murphy letter 4_24_07.doc Murphy NJDEP response letter K athy. A ttached is a first cut o f J>hc"no-frills" letter to Eileen M urphy registering our disagreem ent with t>he A ppt guidance level. If we have tim e, wc can discuss at tom orrow 's core team meeting. M cC ab e & esso ciates 4 N o rm an d y D riv e C hadds Ford, PA a 9 3 1 7 6 1 0 -3 8 8 -9 6 2 5 (w o rk) w m ich a e lm c c a b e @ e a rth lin k .n e t< t> A > h MCCABE07078 p. 403 D ear Dr. M urphy, T hank you for your response on behalf o f Com m issioner Jackson lo my letter regarding the recently announced guidance level for PFOA As noted in the C om m issioner's announcem ent on the guidance, this is the first phase o f a process to establish a drinking w ater level for PFOA. W e appreciate the statem ent made in the announcem ent and subsequent affirm ation by A ssistant D irector Barker Hamit! that the DEP is not recom m ending a change in drinking w ater consum ption patterns as a result o f the guidance. DuPont has w orked diligently to address the needs and concerns o f com m unities w here PFOA is detected and provide the late st scientific inform ation on PFOA and public health. T he D epartm ent's statem ents have helped allay undue concern about the guidance and its application. As you are aw are, scientific research conducted to date, w hich has exam ined the potential health effects from exposure to PFOA, fails to establish any adverse effects to humans. In review ing Dr. Post's response to Dr. Rickard's m em o and her study that form ed the b asis for the guidance, we find a num ber o f her conclusions at variance w ith standard toxicological procedure and analysis, including those used by the U.S. EPA and other sta te s that have studied PFOA. O ur scientific review and assessm ent o f D r. Post's w ork lead s us to disagree with the extrem ely low level associated w ith the announced g u id a n c e . W e are aw are that this correspondence is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging an adm inistrative determ ination and that the establishm ent o f a state drinking w ater standard follow s a prescribed regulatory process that allow s all stakeholders to make their case in an open and transparent forum. DuPont looks forward to engaging in that process and bringing forw ard the substantial body o f new scientific know ledge that has been developed in recent years In the meantime, DuPont continues to support the ongoing study o f PFOA and we look forw ard to sharing new scientific inform ation on this chem ical as it becom es available. S in c e re ly , KM M CCA BE07079