Document K2vwj1xO6J6JNEN7Y3O4reV2

r| - AR226-1407 | | | ARBRE --~ 1407 INTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA ' JACK W. LEACH, etal, Plainifts, v. (CJIuVdIgLe GAeCoTrIgeONW.NOHi.l:l)01.C-608 aEn.d1 LDUUBPEOCNKTPDUEBLNIECMSOEURRVSICAENDDISCTORMIPCAT,NY, Defendants. ( RESPONSES OF E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DUPONT Pursuant to West Virginia Ruleof Civil Procedure 36, Defendant, E. L du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont"), by counsel, responds to "Plainifs' Second Set of Requests for Admission to DuPont" ("Second Set of RFAS"),a follows. Any admission made is for the purposeofthis pending action only and i not an admission for other purposes, nor may it be used in any other proceeding. Any admission i also subject {0 all pertinent objections to admissibility {interposed at rial. Information provided in these responses is based upon such information as presently is reasonably available to DuPont. DuPont responds and objects as follows: I GENERAL OBJECTIONS DuPont's responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admissions are subject to the general objections set forth below. These general objections form part of the response to ach and every Request for Admission and are set forth here to avoid duplication and repetition. DuPont's specific responses to each Request for Admission are made subject 0, and without waiving, these General Objections, which are incorporated by reference o each of DuPont's responses. The failure to lst a specific General Objection in a response should not be construed 000261 asa waiverofthat objection. By admitting or denying Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission, DuPont does not concede that the subject matterof such Requests are relevant in the present action or that DuPont' responsesare admissible. DuPont reserves the right to amend or supplement ts responses GENERAL OBJECTION 1: DuPont objects to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions to the extent that they seek to characterize the contentsof documents, which documents speak for themselves. ( GENERAL OBJECTION 2: DuPontobjectsto Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions to the extent that they imply that DuPont's "acceptable exposure limits" ("AELs) and "community exposure guidelines" (CEGs") are set at levels that are predictiveofadverse human health effects. DuPont's processes for setting AELs and CEGs are analogous to regulatory agency risk assessments. These mathematically based risk assessments encompass a numofbtypiecalrly very conservative assumptions and safety factors, manyofwhich are default versus actual figures. Risk assessments are designed to be overly protective ofhuman health, with a wide `margin of safety, are not predictive of any particular health effects, and should not be used in ! such a manner. Moreover, they cannot be used to support claim for medical monitoring. GENERAL OBJECTION 3: DuPont objectsto Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions to the extent that they seek information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this. litigation. GENERAL OBJECTION 4: DuPont hereby preservesfortial its objections as to those of Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions that ask DuPont to authenticate a document, except that DuPont admits to the authenticityofthe documents as set forth below. ad 000262 GENERAL OBJECTIONS: DuPont objects to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions to the extent that they are deliberately incomplete and calculated 10 lead to a false conclusion. IL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSTEOS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1. In 1978, after DuPont had been informed by 3M that 3M's workers exposed to certain fluorinated surfactants had elevated organic fluorine levels in their blood, DuPont's Medical Director, Bruce W. Karch, M.D., recommended medical surveillance examinations for DuPont's fluorochemical workers { consisting of: (1) a health history questionnaire; (2) an examination by or under the supervisionof a physician; (3) urinalysis; (4) 12 blood chemistry tests (glucose, BUN, SGOT, LDH, alkaline phosphatase, bilirubin, total protein with albumin and globulin, calcium, phosphorous, creatinine, uric acid, cholesterol); (5) 7 hematology tests (white and red blood cell counts, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and red blood cell indices); (6) vision test; (7) audiogram; (8) 14x17 posterio-anterior chest x-ray; (9) height, weight, blood pressure and pulse; (10) screening pulmonary function tests (FEV: and FVC); and (11) electrocardiograms ( at the routine intervals. RESPONSE: DuPont objects (0 this Request for Admission on the ground that it sts forth more than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogation of W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont admits that in 1978, 3M Company notified DuPont that some employees occupationally exposed to some of 3M's fluorinated surfactant compounds showed an increased leveloforganic fluorinated compounds in their blood, although no adverse health effects were detected among those employees. DuPont also admits that on July 24, 1978, Bruce W. Karrh, M.D., recommended to F. E. French that medical 3 000263 surveillance for fluorochemical workers should be the regular DuPont periodic physical examination consistingof (1) a health history questionnaire; (2) an examination by or under the supervision ofa physician; (3) urinalysis; (4) 12 blood chemistry tests glucose, BUN, SGOT, LDH, alkaline phosphatase, bilirubin, total protein with albumin and globulin, calcium, phosphorous, creatinine, uric acid, cholesterol); (5) 7 hematology tests (white and red blood cell counts, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and red blood cell indices); (6) vision test; (7) audiogram; (8) 14x17 posterio-anterior chest x-ray; (9) height, weight, blood pressure and pulse; (10) screening pulmonary function tests (FEV: and FVC); and (11) electrocardiograms ! at the routine intervals REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2, Attached hereto at Exhibit A is an authentic and accurate copyof a business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business ofDuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3. By 1979, DuPont had determined that operators at DuPont's Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia, who handle ( C-8 were showing elevated blood organofluorine levels and liver enzyme activity (6 of 10 operators had high alkaline phosphatase and SGOT levels as compared to the 14% expected). RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that in a memorandum to A. A. Wright dated July 30, 1979, DuPont employees noted that operators who handle FC-143 at DuPont's Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia were showing elevated blood organofluorine levels and liver enzyme activity (6 of 10 operators had high alkaline phosphatase and SGOT levels as compared to the 14% expected), and there were no other clinical effects "+ 000264 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4. Attached hereto at ExhibitB is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5. In 1979, a DuPont epidemiologist, William E. Fayerweather, reviewed liver function test results for DuPont workers with C-8 exposure and myocardial infarction cases and deaths at DuPont's Washington Works plant and preliminarily concluded that C-8-exposed workers may possibly have positive liver function tests more often ! than the Washington Works plant population as whole, and that the number of active wage roll employees at the Washington Works plant having myocardial infarctions from 1974 through 1977 was somewhat higher than was expected based on company-wide experience. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogation ofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). `Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPontdenies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont admits that on August 28, 1979, a DuPont epidemiologist, William t E. Fayerweather, reviewed liver function test results for DuPont workers with C-8 exposure. DuPont also admits that on August 28, 1979, Dr. Fayerweather reviewed myocardial infarction cases and deaths at DuPont's Washington Works plant. DuPont expressly denies any implication that the data related to the myocardial infarction cases and deaths at DuPont's Washington Works plant was limited to DuPont workers with C- exposure. DuPont admits that Dr. Fayerweather's preliminary results suggested that C-8-exposed workers may possibly have had positive liver function tests more often than the Washington Works plant population as whole. DuPont notes that these preliminary results were subsequently invalidated by a -S- 000265 report by Dr. Fayerweather dated January 15, 1981 entitled "Liver Study of Washington Works Employees Exposed to C-8: Results of Blood Biochemistry Testing," (hereinafter referred to as he "Liver Study"). DuPont also adits that the number ofactive wage roll employees at the Washington Works plant having myocardial infarctions from 1974 through 1977 was somewhat higher than was expected based on company-wide experience REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6. Attached hereto at Exhibit C is an authentic and accurate copy of a business record ofDuPont prepared and kept in th regular course of business of DuPont ( RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia and except DuPont notes that the document was redacted prior to production to Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7. A DuPont epidemiologist, William E. Fayerweather, prepared in January of 1981a study entitled "Liver Study of Washington Works Employees Exposed to C-8: Resultsof Blood Biochemistry Testing" ("DuPont Liver Study"), the objectiveofwhich was to determine whether occupational exposure (0 C-8 adversely affects liver functions as measured by blood level of glatamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), lactic ( dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (AP), and bilirubin. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8. Attached hereto at ExhibitD is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regula courseofthe businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted % 000266 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9, According to the Liver Study, preliminary DuPont data from 1978 showed that the DuPont Washington Works plant population asa whole hadanunusually large percentageofelevated SGOTs, with SGOT elevated in 19%of the workers, whereas elevations would only have been expected by DuPont in about 5% based upon random statistical variation. AP,bilirubin, and LDH tests also showed plant-wide elevations in 8, 4and 3%of the DuPont Washinglon Works plant workers, respectively. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than one mater to be admitted or denied in derogation ofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). { Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont admits that according fo the Liver Study, preliminary DuPont data from 1978 showed that the DuPont Washingion Works plant population as a whole had an unusually large percentage of elevated SGOTs, with SGOT elevated in 19% ofthe workers, Whereas elevations would only have been expected by DuPont in about 5% based upon random statistical variation. DuPont admits tha in the preliminary DuPont data from 1978, AP, bilinibin, and LDH tests also showed plantvide elevations in 8, 4 and 3% ofthe DuPont Washington Works { plant workers, respectively. DuPont expressly denies that the 1978 preliminary data were validly measured, and notes that the Liver Study indicates that the 1978 SGOT data was systematically higher than true blood levels and the observed range for "normal" SGOT data was considerably higher than the stated normal range. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10, According (o the Liver Study, someofthe SGOT data for the DuPont Washington Works suggested that there might be a liver effect among certain C-8-exposed workers, that the mean SGOT for the TEE process operators was significant(lpy < 0.05) higher than the non-Teflon area control mean, that the TFE process " 000267 operators as a group had considerably higher organic fluoride blood levels than other Teflon-area workers, and that workers in the highest organic fluoride decile had a significantly higher SGOT mean than workers in the lower nine deciles RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it sets forth more than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogationofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a), and that iti deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead toa fase conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont adits that according to the Liver Study, after the data was evaluated, no ( association was found between exposure to C-8 and clinical end-points in man, although some of the SGOT data for the DuPont Washington Works suggested tha there might bea liver effect among certain C-8-exposed workers, that the mean SGOT for the TFE process operators was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than the non-Teflon area control mean, that the TFE process operators as group had considerably higher organic fluoride blood levels than other Teflon-arca workers, and that workers in the highest organic fluoride decile had a significantly higher SGOT mean than workers in the lower nine deciles. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11. Accordingto the Liver Study, mean AP was significantly (p < 0.03) higher among DuPont Washington Works FEP service and FEP process operators. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that itis deliberately incomplete and calculated fo lead toa false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission except as follows: DuPont admits that according to the Liver Study, aftr the data was evaluated, no association was found between exposure to C-8 and clinical end-points in man, and although mean AP was - 000268 significantly (p < 0.05) higher among DuPont Washington Works FEP service and FEP process operators, noneofthe other blood tests were elevated among these workers, and AP did not correlate with blood organic fluoride levels. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12. For purposes of the Liver Study, DuPont compared resultsofworkers from "Teflon area jobs" at DuPont's Washington Works plant with a group defined as a "non-exposed control group" that included other DuPont Washington Works plant employees. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that for purposesofthe Liver Study, DuPont. { compared results ofworkers from "Teflonarea jobs" at DuPont's Washington Works plant with agroup defined as a "non-exposed control group" which "consisted of a 10% systematic sample ofall active WW employees who, asof August, 1979, had never worked in the Teflon area." REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13. In 1978 - 1980, the DuPont Washington Works employees working in "Teflon area jobs," as defined in the Liver Study, were not the only DuPont Washington Works employees who were potentially-exposed to C-8. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is. ( deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion, and that the phrase "potentially-exposed to C-8" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont admits this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14. In 1978 - 1980, all DuPont Washington Works employees were potentially-exposed to C-8 by virtue of the presenceof C-8 in the DuPont Washington Works plant ar emissions. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion, and that the phrase it 000269 "potentially-exposed to C-8" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont admits this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15. The workers included within the "non-exposed control group" used in the Liver Study were not individuals who had no potential exposure to cs. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground thal it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion, and that the phrase "not individuals who had no potential exposure to C-" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and ! without waiving these objections, DuPont admits this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16. In 1980, upon review ofa draftofthe Liver Study, DuPont's Assistant Medical Director, Vann A. Brewster, M.D., expressed concern that a draftofthe Liver Study implied that DuPont's Medical Division would not continue the study of liver tests on those DuPont employees potentially-exposed to C-8 and recommended that, because DuPont still could not explain why the mean SGOT was significantly higher among DuPont's TFE process workers at the Washington Works plant and that the mean AP was { significantly higher among DuPont's FEP process and service workers at DuPont's Washington `Works plant, DuPont should include language in the Liver Study to indicate that "it was recommended that the study of liver tests continue" and recommended that DuPont should include in the Liver Study a recommendation to "continue to evaluate the liver tests of employees with potential exposure to C-8." RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it sets forth more than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogation of W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a), and that the cited document speaks for self. Subject to and without waiving these objections, -10- 000270 DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont admits that in a `memorandum to L. F. Percival dated June 9, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "June 9 Memorandum"), DuPont's Assistant Medical Director, Vann A. Brewster, M.D., commented on the Draft Washington Works Communication entitled "Fluorosurfactants in Blood" (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft Communication"). DuPont admits that in the June 9 Memorandum, Dr. Brewster expressed his concern that the Draft Communication implied that DuPont's Medical Division would not continue the studyofliver tests on those DuPont employees potentially-exposed to C-8. DuPont admits that in the June 9 Memorandum, Dr. ( Brewster suggested various revisiontos the Draft Communication to correct this implication. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18. In April of 1981, DuPont's Medical Division prepared and circulated a proposal to study whether pregnancy outcome among ( female employeesof DuPont's Washington Works plant is causally related to their occupational exposure to, among other things, C-8 and to determine whether pregnancy outcome among wives of DuPont's Washington Works male employees is causally related to their husbands' exposure to, among other thing, C-8. RESPONSE: Admitted. ha 000271 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19. In July of 1981, the pregnancy outcome. studies proposed by DuPont's Medical Division in April of 1981 were put "on hold" until further notice. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without `waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont `admits that in July 1981, the pregnancy outcome study proposed by DuPont's Medical Division in April of 1981 was put "on hold" pending the results of more definitive animal { teratogenicity studies, and ultimately in 1982, upon completionofsuch studies, including teratogenicity results, the Medical Division determined that it was no longer necessary to undertake such a pregnancy outcome study. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21. In a January 1983 update to DuPont's 1981 Liver Study, DuPont compared test resultsof DuPont workers who allegedly had been exposed to C- at DuPont's Washington Works plant to the test resultsofother DuPont Washington Works employees, and not to a control group consisting of individuals who never had had any potential exposure to C-8. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is. deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion, that it is vague and ambiguous, and that it sets forth more than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogation. = 000272 of W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36a). Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except it is admitted that in a draft report dated January 28, 1983, William E. Fayerweather provided an update o the 1981 Liver Study, and in that 1983 draft report, the study group was comprisedof the same individuals as from the 1981 Liver Study, less 24 employees who left the Teflon area, and the control group consisted of the same individuals as from the 1981 Liver Study, less 21 employees who left the plant or had since worked in the Teflon area. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is an ' authentic and accurate copy of a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseofbusiness of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23. In March of 1990, H.A. Smith of DuPont estimated the drop-offrate for C-8 in human blood to have ahal -1ife of approximately 4-5 years or more and concluded that there is a correlation between C-8 exposure levels and the level of C-8 in human blood. ( RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that itis deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion, and tht t sets forth more. than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogation ofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont admits that in a March 19, 1990 memorandum from H. A. Smith to J. G. Loschiavo, R. D. Lanyon and W. E. Crawley (hereinafter referred to as the "March 19 Memorandum), H. A. Smith reviewed personnel air modeling data taken over the period April 1988 through September 1989 and al personnel C-8 blood data going back to 1979-80. 3 000273 DuPont admits that in the March 19 Memorandum, H.A. Smith noted that the blood data base only included those employees who had been in the. indicated job for years, had not moved all over the Fluoropolymers area, and are still inthe jobs, and also that interpretation of the data. was complicated by the fact that the air`monitoring data was recent while the blood data essentially reflected exposure dating back to the "carly days." DuPont admits that in the March 19 Memorandum, H.A. Smith concluded from his reviewofthe blood and air `monitoring data that, among other things, there was acorrelation between C-8 personnel air levels and C-8 in blood levels, and between skin contact and C-8 in blood levels. DuPont t admits that in the March 19 Memorandum, H.A. Smith concluded from his reviewofthe blood and air monitoring data that, among other things, thedrop-offrate for C-8 in the blood is a half Jif of about 4-5 years or more, based on a very small amountofdata on pensioners and on the observation that there is a slight perceived decline in workers in the various jobs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24. Attached hereto as. Exhibit H is an authentic and accurate copy ofabusiness record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course ofbusiness of DuPont. ( RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25. In October of 1991, W.P. Anderson, Jr. of DuPont's Polymer Products and Gerald F. Kennedy of DuPont's Haskell Laboratory requested the authority to conducta cross-sectional study of liver enzymes among DuPont Washington`Works employees with potential exposure to C-5 to determine whether occupational exposure to C- adversely affects the liver, as measured by blood levels of SGOT, LDH, AP, and `bilirubin (the "1991 Liver Study Update"), recognizing thatit had been 10 years since the 1981 DuPont Liver Study. * 000274 RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogationofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except itis admilted that in October of 1991, W. P. Anderson, Jr. of DuPont's Polymer Products and Gerald L. Kennedy of DuPont's Haskell Laboratory requested the authority to conducta cross- Sectional study of liver enzymes among DuPont Washington Works employees with potential exposure to C-8 to determine whether occupational exposure to C-8 adversely affects the liver, as `measured by blood levels ofSGOT, LDH, AP, and bilirubin (the "1991 Liver Study Update"). ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27. During a meeting in October of 1991, Mr. Anderson's and Mr. Kennedy's request for the 1991 Liver Study Update was rejected by DuPont. ( RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that during a meeting held in October of 1991, Mr. Anderson's and Mr. Kennedy's request for the 1991 Liver Study Update was reviewed by Karrh and Ligo, and it was decided that the 1991 Liver Study Update would not be pursued at the time, but that the need for a study would be looked at again in 1993. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business ofDuPont RESPONSE: Admitted. 15 000275 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29. In November of 1993, Dr. Younger L. Power of DuPont's Washington Works recommended to Dr. Benjamin Ramirez with DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware that DuPont perform liver function tests ofits Washington Works employees to discover any potentially unknown liver toxicity among those employees exposed to C-5. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30. Attached hereto as ExhibitK is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of y businessofDuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 31. Attached hereto at Exhibit is an authentic and accurate copy of a business recordofDuPont prepared and kept inthe regular course of businessof Dupont RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32. In Febroufa19r95y, WilliamJ. Brock, Ph.D., ( Toxicology Consultant to DuPont, contacted Dr. Lance L. Simpson of the Jefferson Clinical Center in Environmental Medicine, Jefferson Medical College, to pursue discussions relating to establishing a corporate policy on medical surveillance for DuPont employees, particularly for the blood monitoringoftelomeric acid fluorides, including C-8, mentioning concer about the potential long-term human health effectsofthese materials, and requesting Dr. Simpson's assistance in designing, conducting, and interpreting a monitoring program for DuPont's employees, including a blood monitoring program design which includes relevant test bateris. RESPONSE: Admitted. -16- 000276 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33. Attached hereto at Exhibit M is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34. DuPont representatives, including Gerry Kennedy, Judy Walrath, Charles Reinhard, and William Brock, met with Dr. Lance L. Simpson and. MercerofJefferson Medical College on August 14, 1995 to discuss approaches for ! developing a medical surveillance program for C-8 and/or HFPO among DuPont's workers, during which DuPont representatives were requested to submit additional data to Jefferson Medical College, which was to then come back with a proposal and guidelines for developing a research and surveillance program. RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35. Attached hereto as ExhibiNt is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseof business of ( DuPont RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36. Upon reviewof DuPont's 1995 C-8 blood sampling of DuPont's Washington Works employees and pensioners, DuPont noted that the results from the C-8 blood testing indicated an average half-ife for C-8 in human blood ofapproximately 4 years. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that itis deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a fase conclusion. Subject to and without a 000277 waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont admits that upon review of DuPont's 1995 C-8 bloodsamplingofa limited number DuPont's Washington Works employees and pensioners, Anthony Playtis noted the serious limitations on the usefulness of the data, including the small size of most of the data sts, the frequent (ansferofsite employees fiom onejob to another, and the slow ate at which C- blood levels decrease after exposure stopped. DuPont also adits that given these limitations, he concluded that results from the sampled pensioners indicated an average halflife for C-8 in blood of about four years. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in th regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38. On May 16, 1996, DuPont employees, including WiliaJm. Brock, Ph.D. Benjamin Ramirez, and Anthony Playtis, participated in a meeting to discuss a proposed medical surveillance program for DuPont's fluoroproducts ( employees during which an objective was to obtain agreement by participants that a program needs to be established to gain an understanding of the health risks to employees potentially exposed at fluoroproducts plant sites and to develop a program that best allows DuPont to evaluate these potential health risks ina cost-ffective way, witah proposed medical surveillance program for discussion that included aliquots used for liver and Kiduey function tests, hematology and other parameters RESPONSE: Denied. -18- 000278 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40. In August of 1996, Dr. Younger Power of DuPont's Washington Works reviewed data developed from medical records on 51 DuPont `Washington Works employees with the highest measured levelsof C-8 in their blood and found several employees with frequent elevationsofblood tests (SGOT-7, Alkaline. { Phosphatase-10, LDH-7), two cases ofkidneydisease, and one case of thrombocytopenia/leukopena. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion, and that it sts forth more. than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogation ofW. Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Subject to and without waiving these objections, this Request for Admission is denied, except as follows: tis admitted that in a memorandum to William J. Volger dated August 5, 1996, Dr. Younger ( L. Power stated that he reviewed medical records on 51 DuPont Washington Works employees with the highest measured levels of C-8 in their blood, and found, in his opinion, very litle evidenceofdisease due to C-8. Dr. Power also sated that while there were several employees with frequent elevationsof blood tests (SGOT-7, Alkaline Phosphatase 10, LDH -- 7), there was no evidenceofliver disease, and that there were also 2 casesof kidney disease and one ase of thrombocytopenia/leukopenia that could not be attributable to some other cause. -19- 000279 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42. In September of 1996, Dr. Benjamin Ramirez, Associate Medical Director for DuPont, received information from 3M regarding the medical surveillance that 3M had performed in connection with employees working in the manufacture of C-8, which 3M medical surveillance included a medical questionnaire, ( pulmonary function test, chemistry test (P12), hematology test (CBC), urinalysis, and serum fluorine test. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43. Attached hereto as ExhibitR is an authentic and accurate copyof a document received from 3M in or about September of 1996, RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44. In November of 1996, Dr. Benjamin ( Ramirez, Associate Medical Director for DuPont, and Charles F. Reinhardt, Director of DuPont's Haskell Laboratory, recommended to JM. SmithofDuPont fluoroproducts that DuPont perform pre-assignment and post-assignment examinations of its fluoroproducts employees, including: (1) medical history questionnaire, including smoking history; and (2) blood tests (complete blood count, SMA-12, and fluorine-in-blood test). RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission as phrased. 20- 000280 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45. Attached hereto as ExhibitS is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46. In February of 1997, Dr. Benjamin Ramirez, Associate Medical Director for DuPont, and R.W. Rickard, Directorof DuPont's Haskell Laboratory, recommended to JM. Smith of DuPont fluoroproducts that DuPont perform preassignment and post-assignment examinationsofits fluoroproducts employees, including: (1) t medical history questionnaire, including smoking history; and (2) blood tests (complete blood count, SMA-12, and fluorine-in-blood test). RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission os phrased, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47. Attached hereto as ExhibitT is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of ( business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48. By January of 1999, employees at DuPont's Chambers Works Facility in New Jersey (the "Chambers Works") leamed that Chambers `Works might be cleaning some C- materials for DuPont's Washington Works plant and had contacted Anthony Playtis and Dr. Younger Power at DuPont's Washington Works plant, who recommended a pre- and post- (or annual) campaign medical surveillance program for workers 2 000281 who would be involved with the C-8 materials and commented that DuPont's Washington `Works had been looking at workerblood for C-8 levels and had done liver function studies. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than one matter (0 be admitted or denicd in derogation of W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(s). Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except as follows: DuPont admits that John J. Plum, an employee at DuPont's Chambers Works Facility in New Jersey (the "Chambers Works"), leamed that Chambers Works might be cleaning some C- materials for DuPont's Washington Works plant, and in January 1999, ! contacted Anthony Playtis, who forwarded John Plums letter to Dr. Younger Power at DuPont's Washington Works plant. DuPont also admits that based upon the January 1999 Teter from John Plum, Dr. Power recommended that Chambers Works establish a baseline for industrial hygiene purposes, and therefore recommended a pre- and post- (or annual) campaign surveillance program for operators, mechanics and laboratory technicians who would be involved with the C-8 materials, and also stated that DuPont's Washington Works had been looking at worker blood for C- levels and had done liver function studies. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49. Attached hereto as ExhibitU is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50. By March of 1999, RobinC. Leonard of DuPont had forwarded to Barbara J. Dawson at DuPont's Chambers Works a draft proposal for the surveillance for exposure, biopersistence, and potential iver affects from workplace exposures to C-8. (Hereinafter "C-8 Medical Surveillance Proposal"). 22 000282 RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52. DuPont's Medical Surveillance Proposal indicated that changes in iver function may be a meansofdetecting human biological response 10.C-8 and set forth a proposed project that included among its objectives correlating data on ! biomarkersofeffect (referenced as serum liver enzymes levels) with the biomarkers of exposure (referenced as fluoride ion in blood and blood perfluorooctanoate level). RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53. DuPont's C-8 Medical Surveillance Proposal suggested a protocol to prescribe data collection at monthly intervals for liver enzyme measurements and area or personal monitoring at either weekly or biweekly intervals, for a periodofone year. { RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54. In May of 1999, DuPont's Chambers Works prepared a "C- Hazard Communication." RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55. Attached hereto at Exhibit W is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont, B- 000283 RESPONSE: Admitted, except DuPont nots that this document was redacted prior to production to Plaintiffs REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56. In 1999, DuPont's Chambers Works conducted baseline medical surveillance exams on DuPont employees who DuPont had identified as workers who might be involved in work to recover C-8 sal from a solution from material delivered to DuPont Chambers Works from DuPont's Washington Works facility (the "Chambers Works C- Workers"). RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that in 1999, DuPont's Chambers Works contutot baslne mediat vet program on DuPont's Chambers Works employees who were idenified as working in jobs with potential fo accidental exposure to C-. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57, The baseline medical surveillance exams conducted by DuPont for its Chambers Works C-8 Workers included: (1) medical history Questionnaire; (2) automated chemistry profile (including SMA-12 (including HDL, cholesterol, glucose, uric acid, BUN, calcium, phosphorus, ota protein, albumin, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, LDH, AST (SGOT), total cholesterol, creatinine, and ALT (SGPT); 3) ( `complete blood count; (4) perfluorooctanoie acid (PFOA) in blood; and (5) total fluorine in blood RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that the baseline medical surveillance program conducted by DuPont for ts Chambers Works C-8 Workers included the following three elements typical ofall DuPont medical surveillance: medicalhistory questionnaire, automated chemistry profile (including SMA-12 (including HDL, cholesterol, glucose, uric acid, BUN, calcium, phosphorus, total protein, albumin, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, LDH, AST (SGOT), total cholesterol, creatinine, and ALT (SGPT)) and complete blood count, as well as " 000284 two elements related to C-8: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in blood and total fluorine in blood. DuPont notes that the medical history questionnaire, automated chemistry profile and complete blood counts were standard elements of DuPont's annual physical examinations `which were conducted until the early 1990'sofall DuPont employees. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58. DuPont's Chambers Works C-8Workers were advised that C-8 was to be handled as a "no contact" chemical. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59. In May of 1999, DuPont's Chambers Works ( identified human health effectsofoverexposure to C-8 (ammonium perfluorooctanoate (salt) by inhalation, ingestion, or skin or eye contact as including skin irritation with discomfort or rash; eye irritation with discomfort, tearing, or blurring of vision; imitationof the upper respiratory passages; abnormal blood forming system function with anemia; or abnormal liver function as detected by laboratory tests. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60. In May of 1999, Duont's Chambers Works ( stated that human health effectsofoverexposure to C- (ammonium perfluorooctanoic acid) by inhalation includes irritationof the upper respiratory tract, that contact with the skin `may result in severe irritation and burnsofthe skin on direct contact, that the material causes severe eye `bums upon contact with liquid vapors and/or mists, and that the material can causegastric `bums on ingestion. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 61. DuPont's Chambers Works facility began its baseline medical surveillance examsofthe Chambers Works C-8 Workers in June of 1999. a 000285 RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62. Attached hereto at Exhibit X is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except DuPont notes that this document was redacted prior to production to Plaintiffs REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63. In 1999, DuPont's Chambers Works facility identified liver disorders as the primary concern with respect to pre-existing conditions that ! would put DuPont Chambers Works C-8 Workers at risk for working with C-8. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted thata liver disorder would have been one of the preexisting conditions that would have resulted in disapproval ofaDuPont Chambers Works C8 Worker for working with C-8. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64. Attached hereto at Exhibit Y is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. ( RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65. In connection with the baseline medical surveillance examsof the DuPont Chambers Works C-8 Workers in 1999, those DuPont employees who participated in such exams and were determined to have abnormal liver test results through such exams were advised by DuPont that they were not approved for work with cs RESPONSE: Admitted. -26- 000286 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66. Attached hereto at Exhibit Z is an authentic and accurate copyof a business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67. In June of 1999, DuPont's Chambers Works determined that at least threeofthe workers who participated in the baseline medical surveillance exams for C-8 were not approved for work with C-8 at that time based upon the results of the tests conducted in connection with the baseline medical surveillance exams. ( RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68. Attached hereto at Exhibit AA is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except DuPont notes that this document was redacted prior to production to Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69. Attached hereto at Exhibit BB is anauthentic ( and accurate copy of a business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70. Attached hereto at Exhibit CCis an authentic and accurate copy of a business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. ' RESPONSE: Admitted. 2 000287 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71. In February of 2000, Barbara J. Dawson of DuPont's Chambers Works recommended that DuPont implement a medical surveillance program consistingof medical/work histoics and blood chemistry profil (including AST and ALT) for the DuPont Chambers Works employees who worked with any fluorine-based chemicals, not just C-8. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that on February 29, 2000, Barbara J. Dawson of DuPont's Chambers Works inquired of Raymond Strocko and Robert Ibbetson whether it would be appropriate for DuPont to implementa medical surveillance program consisting of ` medicalwork histories and blood chemistry profile (including AST and ALT) for the DuPont Chambers Works employees who work with any fluorine-based chemicals, not just C-5. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72. Attached hereto at Exhibit DD is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseofbusinessof DuPont RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73, Attached hereto at Exhibit EE is an authentic { and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that cach page is a separate business record of Dupont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74, DuPont has recognized that DuPont's Chambers Works employees have an increased risk for bladder cancer. . 000288 RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is. deliberately incomplete and calculated o lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits ths Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75, Attached hereto at Exhibit FF is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76, DuPont has recognized that DuPont's ( Chambers Works employees have an increased risk for lung cancer. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except admitted that an increased risk for lung cancer was identified in male salaried Chambers Works employees in 1987, but no workplace exposures could be linked to the disease, and some cases were attributed to smoking and/or asbestos exposure. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77. DuPont has recognized that DuPont's `Washington Works employees have an increased risk for buccal cavity and pharyngeal cancer. RESPONSE: DuPont objects {0 this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except admitted tha there appears to have been an increased risk for buccal cavity and pharyngeal cancer in Washington Works employees between the years 1956 and 1983, and such increase appears to have been related to the useoftobacco. 29 000289 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78. Although DuPont had received by June of 1999 the resultsof the testingof the Chambers Works C-8 Workers for C-8 in their blood, DuPont did not include those test results in its June 23, 2000 Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile for C-8 that it submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits that it had received by June of 1999 the results of the ( baseline testing of the Chambers Works employees prior to their being exposed to C-8 in the workplace at Chambers Works, and DuPont did not include those baseline test results in its June 23, 2000 Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile for C-8 that it submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency because the Chambers Works C-8 Workers were not yet being exposed to C-8 in the workplace at that time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79. Attached hereto at Exhibit GG is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular ( courseof business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80. In Augustof2000, Anthony J. Playtis of DuPont's Washington Works estimated, based on test resultsof C-8 in blood of DuPont `Washington Works pensioners tested in 1995 and 2000, that the half-life for C-8 in human blood was approximately four years. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated 10 lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without -30- 000290 waiving this objection, this Request for Admission is denied, except as follows: DuPont admits that based on test resultsofC-8 in bloodofDuPont Washingion Works pensioners tested in 1995 and 2000, and given the serious imitations on the accuracy ofthe data, including the small size ofmost of the data ses, the frequent transfer ofsite employees from onejob to another, and the slow rate at which C-8 blood levels decrease aftr exposure stops, Anthony Playtis estimated that results from pensioners indicated an averagehalflife for C-8 in bloodofabout four years. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81, Atached hereto at Exhibit HE is an { authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseof business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82, In August of 2000, DuPont ws prepared to offer testing for C-8 in bloodofcitizens residingof the areaofthe DuPont Washington Works plant, with collection ofbiood at the Washington Works plant and use of the same laboratory that DuPont used for analysis of DuPont's Washington Works employees' blood for C-5, ( RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83. Attached hereto at Exhibit Il is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business ofDuPont RESPONSE: Admited. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84. Attached hereto at Exhibit 11 is an authentic and accurate copyof a business recordofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont 3 000291 RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85. In 2000, DuPont's Chambers Works commenced follow-up medical surveillance for the DuPont Chambers Works employees who had participated in the baseline medical surveillance exams for C-8 at DuPont's Chambers Works in 1999 (the "Chambers Works Follow-Up Exams"). RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86. Attached hereto at Exhibit KK is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular ( course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except DuPont notes that this document was redacted prior to. production to Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87. The DuPont Chambers WorksFollow-up Exams included: medical history questionnaire; automated chemistry profile (SMA-12 (including HDL, cholesterol, glucose, uric acid, BUN, calcium, phosphorus, total protein, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, LDH, AST(SGOT), total cholesterol, creatinine, and ALT ( (SGPT)); complete blood count; perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in blood; and total fluorine in blood. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88. In 2001, DuPont's Chambers Works received RESPONSE: Admitted. the results of C-8 blood testing done during the Chambers Works Follow-Up Exams. +2 000292 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89. Attached hereto at Exhibit LL is an authentic and accurate copy of a business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90. Attached hereto at Exhibit MM is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessofDuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 91. Attached hereto at Exhibit NN is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessofDuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 92. DuPont's current community exposure guideline for C-8 in community water is 1 ppb,if the community at issue also is exposed to C- ( 8 in air. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93. DuPont's current community exposure guideline for C-8 in community water is 3 ppb,ifthe community at issue is not exposed to Cin air. RESPONSE; Denied, except admitted that DuPont established a "community exposure guideline" for water of3 parts per billion based on the assumption that 100%ofan individual's exposure would come from water. 33. 000293 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94. DuPont's current community exposure `guideline for C-8 in community air is 0.3 ug/m3. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95. The levels ofC-8 in air exceeded 0.3 ug/m3 at the fencelineof DuPont's Washington Works plant according to calculations made by DuPont in 1987 using data from 1984 and 1986. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion and that it is vague and ( ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont admits this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 96. According to DuPont's air emissions modeling calculations, the level of C-8 inair of some residents living near DuPont's Washington Works plant exceeded 0.3 ug/m3 prior to DuPont's installation of new scrubber equipment at the Washington Works plant during 2002. RESPONSE: DuPont objects (0 this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is ( deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion and that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont admits this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97, Attached hereto at Exhibit 00 is an authentic and accurate copy of a business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseof business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Denied. 34. 000294 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98. According to DuPont's air emissions `modeling calculations, the levelof C-8 in theairof some residents serviced by the Little Hocking Water Association exceeded 0.3 ug/m3, based on DuPont's year 2000 modeled emission levels from DuPont's Washington Works plant. RESPONSE: DuPont lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request for Admission; therefore DuPont denies this Request for Admission. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 99. According to DuPont's air emissions modeling calculations, the levelof C-8 in the airof some residents serviced by the Little ( Hocking Water Association exceeded 0.3 ug/m3 prior to installationofnew scrubber equipment at DuPont's Washington Works plant during 2002. RESPONSE: DuPont lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request for Admission; therefore DuPont denies this Request for Admission. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 100. C-8 has in the past been present in the Lubeck Public Service District's public drinking water at a concentration above 1 ppb. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague ( and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except it is admitted that samplesof the Lubeck Public Service District's public drinking water have been analyzed for C- content, and someofthose analysis results have indicated a concentration of C- ofgreater than one part per billion. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101. Attached hereto at Exhibit PP is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. -35- 000295 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102. C- is present in Lubeck Public Service District's drinking water at a concentration above 1 ppb. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 103. Some residents obtaining drinking water from the Lubeck Public Service District are potentially exposed to air emissions of C-8 from DuPont's Washington Works plant. ( RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104. C-8 has in the past been present in the Little Hocking Water Association's drinking water at a concentration above | ppb. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont adits this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105. C-8 s present in Little Hocking Water ( Associations drinking water at a concentration above 1 ppb. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont adil this Request for anions gusset REFQ ORAU DMISE SIOS NNO.T 106. C-8 has in the past been present in the Little Hocking Water Association's drinking water at a concentration above 3 ppb. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for 3 000296 Admission, except it is admilted that water sampling performed in October 2002 indicated that at that time, the water system point had a concentrationof C-8 of 4.29 ppb. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107. C-8 is present in the Little Hocking Water Association's drinking water at a concentration above 3 ppb. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, excepti is admitted that water sampling performed in October 2002 indicated that at that time, the water system point had a concentrationof C-of4.29 ppb. { REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108. C8 is present in the Little Hocking Water Association's drinking water at a concentration above 4 ppb. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except it is admitted that water sampling performed in October 2002 indicated that at that time, the water system point had a concentrationof C-8 of 4.29 ppb. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109. Some individuals obtaining drinking water { from the Little Hocking Water Association are potentially exposed to air emissionsofC-8 from DuPont's Washington Works plant. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 110. DuPont's operations have resulted in the presenceof C-8 in private drinking water wells near DuPont's Washington Works plant. RESPONSE: Admitted 37 000297 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 111. Attached hereto at Exhibit QQ is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business ofDuPont, RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112. Attached hereto at Exhibit RR is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113. DuPont's operations have resulted in the presence ofC-8 in drinking water supplied by the Lubeck Public Service District in West Virginia. RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114, DuPont's operations have resulted in the presence of C-8 in drinking water supplied by Little Hocking Water Association of Ohio, RESPONSE: Admitted. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 115, DuPont's operations have resulted in the presenceof C-8 in drinking water supplied by the City of Belpre, Ohio. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except DuPont admits that in February, March and April 2002, C- vias detected at levels from 0.0818 ppb t0 0.12 ppb in drinking water supplied by the City of Belpre, Ohio, and at this time, DuPont is unable to identify any altemative sources of C-8 that have resulted in the presenceofC- in drinking water supplied by the CiofBtelpyre, Ohio. a 000298 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 116. DuPont's operations have resulted in the presenceof C-8 in drinking water supplied by Blennethassett Island. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except DuPont admits that in January 2002, C-8 was detected at a level f 0.165 ppb in drinking water supplied by Blennerhasseit Island, and at this time, DuPont is unable to identify any alternative sourcesofC-8 that have resulted in the presenceof C-8 in drinking water supplied by Blennerhassett Island. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 117. DuPont's operations have resulted in the presenceof C-8 in drinking water supplied by the General Electric Plastics plant in Wood County, West Virginia. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 118. DuPont's operations have resulted in the ( presenceof C-8 in drinking water supplied by DuPont's Washington Works plant. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont adits this Request for Admission as phrased REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 119. DuPont's operations have resulted in the presence of C-8 in drinking water supplicd by the Tuppers Plains Public Service District in Ohio. a 000299 RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except DuPont admits that in February, March, April, August and October 2002, C-8 was detected at levels from 0.246 ppb to 0.363 ppb in drinking water supplied by the Tuppers Plains Public Service District in Ohio, and at this time, DuPont is unable to identify any alternative sourcesofC-8 that have resulted in the presence of C-8 in drinking water supplied by the Tuppers Plains Public Service District in Ohio. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 120. DuPont's operations have resulted in the { presenceof C-8 in drinking water supplied by the Mason County Public Service District in West Virginia RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except DuPont admits that in January, March and April 2002, C- was detected at levels from non-quantifiable (below 0.050 ppb) to 0.102 ppb in drinking water supplied by the Mason County Public Service District in West Virginia, and at this time, ( DuPont is unable to identify any altemative sources of C- that have resulted in the presence of C-8 in drinking water supplied by the Mason County Public Service District in West Virginia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 121. DuPont's operations have resulted in the presence ofC-8 in drinking water supplied by the VillageofSyracuse, Ohio. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission as phrased. do 000300 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 122, DuPont's operations have resulted in the presence of C-8 in drinking water supplied by the Villageof Pomeroy, Ohio. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except DuPont admits that in March and April 2002, C-8 was detected at levels from 0.062 ppb to 0.0659 ppb in drinking water supplied by the Mason County Public Service District in West Virginia, and at this time, DuPont is unable to identify any alternative sourcesofC- that have resulted in the presence ofC- in drinking water supplied ! by the Mason County Public Service District in West Virginia REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 123, In 2001, DuPont Haskell Laboratory developed a simple, conservative compartmental model (hereinafter "Compartmental C- Model") to elate ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO) exposure to estimates of perfluorooctanoate (PFO) blood levels in humans; RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated (0 lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without ( `waiving this objection, DuPont adits this Request for Admission, except DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C-8 Model and its corresponding tables must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical with a halflife of one year; (2) the Model i intended to be overly simplified for case of use and therefore is more theoretical and less realistic and practical; (3) the Model is constructed to be conservative and theoretical, and not as a substitute for a more complex and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and function of the human body; (4) although the Model is constructed as a two- 41- 000301 `compartment model, .e., a human blood compartment and a humanbody compartment, only the blood compartment is "run" to compute the simulated results; (5) the Model is based on general Kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; (6) the Model is based on standard estimates of volumes of daily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daily; (7) the Model is constructed to simulate the highest possible intake of PFOA through ingestion and inhalation (i.c., it does not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (8) the Model is constructed to provide a conservative, i.c., highly theoretical estimatesofpossible concentrationsof PFOA in the blood. C REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 124. Attached hereto at Exhibit SS is an authentic and accurate copy of a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Denied that the exhibit as attached at Exhibit SS, EID166599 - EID166608, is an accurate copy, because page EID166603 is illegible. However, DuPont has appended herein at Exhibit 1 a complete and legible copyof the same document, EID166599 - ( EID166608, and as to Exhibit 1, this Request for Admission is admitted, except denied as to `marginalia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 125. DuPont used its Compartmental C-8 Model to create a table relating APFO exposures through air and drinking water to estimated steady- state PFO blood concentrations. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without `waiving thisobjection, this Request for Admission is denied, except it is admitted that DuPont's Haskell Laboratory ran a seriesof model simulations pursuant to its Compartmental ha 000302 C8 Model (0 estimate the steady-state human PFO blood levels resulting from drinking water containing APFO, breathing air containing APFO or combinations of the two, and created a table (hereinafter referred to as the "Compartmental Model Table") reflecting these result, and DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C-8 Model and its corresponding ables `must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model sel, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical witah half-lifeofone year; (2) the Model is intendedtobe overly simplified for ease of use and therefore is more theoretical and less realistic and practical; (3) the Modeli constructed to be ! conservative and theoretical, and not a a substitute for a more complex and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and function ofthe human bods; (4) although the Model is constructed as a two-compartment model i.., a human blood compartment and a human body `compartment, only the blood compartment is "run" to compute the simulated results (5) the Modeli based on general kinetic principles, but it docs not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; 6) the Model is based on standard estimatesofvolumes ofdaily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daily; (7) the Model is ( constructed to simulate the highest possible intake ofPFOA through ingestion and inhalation (ic. it does not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (8) the Model is constructed to provide a conservative, ic., highly theoretical estimatesofpossible concentrations of PFOA inthe blood. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 126. According to DuPont's Compartmental C-8 Model, those consuming drinking water containing 1 ppb APFO with no APFO in their inhaled air would be estimated to have resulting steady-state PFO concentration in thirblood of 0.30 parts per million (ppm). 43 000303 RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission, except DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C- Model and its coresponding tables must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical with a hal life of one year; (2) the Model is intended to be overly simplified for ease of use and therefore is more theoretical and less realistic and practical; (3) the Model is constructed to be conservative and. ( theoretical, and not as a substitute for a more complex and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and function of the human body; (4) although the Model is constructed as a two-compartment model i.., human blood compartment and a human body compartment, only the blood compartment is "run" to compute the simulated result; (5) the Model is based on general kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; (6) the Model is based on standard estimates of volumesof daily water and sir `consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model tooccurdaily; (7) the Model is ( constructed to simulate the highest possible intake of PFOA through ingestion and inhalation ic, it does not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (8) the Model is constructed (0 provide a conservative, ic. highly theoretical estimatesofpossible concentrations OfPFOA in the blood REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 127. According to DuPont's Compartmental C- Model, those consuming drinking water containing 1 ppb APFO with 0.30 ug/m3 APFO in their inhaled air would be estimated to have a resulting steady-state PFO concentration in their blood of 1.20 ppm. a 000304 RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground thati is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont adits this Request for Admission, except DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C-8 Model and its corresponding tables must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical witha halle of one year; 2) the Model is intended tobe overly simplifiedfor ease of use and therefore is more theoretical and less realistic and practical; 3) the Model is constructed to be conservative and 0 heontical, and ot asa substitutefo mre complex and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and function ofthe human body; (4) although the Model is constructed 25 & (wo-compartment model, i, human blood compartment and a human body `compartment, only the blood compartment is "run" to compute the simulated results; 5) the Model is based on general kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; (6) the Model i based on standard estimatesofvolumes ofdaily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daily; (7) the Model is ( constructed to simulate the highest possible intake of PFOA through ingestion and inhalation (Ge. itdoes not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (8) the Model is constructed to provide a conservative, i. highly theoretical estimatesofpossible concentrations. OfPFOA in the blood. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 128. According to DuPont's Compartmental C- Model, those consuming drinking water containing 1 ppb APFO with 0.20 ug/m3 APFO in their inhaled air would be estimated to have a resuling steady-state PFO conceneation in their blood of 0.90 ppm. 43. 000305 RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission, except DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C-8 Model and its corresponding tables must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical with a half of one year; (2) the Model is intended to be overly simplified for caseofuse and therefore is more theoretical and less realistic and practical; (3) the Model is constructed to be conservative and Leora, nd nok sa abst fora more complex and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and functionof the human body; (4) although the Model is constructed as a two-compartment model, .., a human blood compartment and a human body compartment, only the blood compartment is "run" to compute the simulated results; (5) the Model is based on general kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; (6) the Model is based on standard estimatesofvolumesofdaily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daily; (7) the Model is: (constructed 0 simulate the highest possible intake ofPFOA through ingestion and inhalation (ie. it does not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (5) the Model is `constructed to provide a conservative, i.c., highly theoretical estimates of possible concentrations Of PFOA inthe blood. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 129, According to DuPont's Compartmental C-8 Model, those consuming drinking water containing 3 ppb APFO with no APFO in their inhaled air would be estimated to have a resulting steady-state PFO concentration in their blood of 0.90 ppm. -46- 000306 RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission, except DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C-8 Model and its corresponding tables must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical witha half-life of one year; (2) the Model is intended (0 be overly simplified for ease of use and therefore is more theoretical and es realistic and practical; (3) the Model is constructed to be conservative and U7 eoretce, and not as a substi ora more complex and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and functionof the human body; (4) although the Model is constructed as a two-compartment model, i.., a human blood compartment and a human body compartment, only the blood compartment is "run"tocompute the simulated results; (5) the Model is based on general kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; (6) the Model is based on standard estimates of volumesofdaily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daily; (7) the Model is (, constructed to simulate the highest possible intake of PFOA through ingestion and inhalation ic, it docs not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (8) the Model is constructed to provide a conservative, i.e, highly theoretical estimatesof possible concentrations OfPFOA in the blood. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 130. According to DuPont's Compartmental C- Model, those consuming drinking water containing 3 ppb APFO with 0.20 ug/m3 APFO in their inhaled air would be estimated to have a resulting steady-state PFO concentration in their blood of 1.80 ppm. 47 000307 RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 131. According to DuPont's Compartmental C-8 Model, those consuming drinking water containing 4 ppb APFO with no APFO present in their inhaled air would be estimated to have a resulting steady-state PFO concentration in thir blood of 1.20 ppm. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that its deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead o a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission, except DuPont notes tha, ! for accuracy, the Compartmental C- Model and its corresponding tables must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical with a half-life of one year; (2) the Modeli intended to be overly simplified for case of use and therefore is more theoretical and less realistic and practical; (3) the Model i constructed o be conservative and theoretical, and not asa substitute fora more compler and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and functionofthe human body; (4) although the Model is: (0 constructed as a two-compartment model, i. a human blood compartment and a human body `compartment, nly the blood compartment is "run" to compute the simulated result; 5) the Model is based on general kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; (6) the Model is based on standard estimatesofvolumes ofdaily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daly; (7) the Model is constructed to simulate the highest possible intakeofPFOA through ingestion and inhalation (i. it does not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (5) the Model is " 000308 constructed to provide a conservative, i.c., highly theoretical estimatesof possible concentrations, of PFOA in the blood. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 132. According to DuPont's Compartmental C-8 Model, those consuming drinking water containing 4 ppb APFO with 0.20 ug/m3 APFO in their inhaled air would be estimated to have a resulting steady-state PFO concentration in their blood of 1.80 ppm. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without (waiving this objection, DuPont admits tis Request for Admission, except DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C-8 Model and its corresponding tables mustbe read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical with a half-life of one year; (2) the Model is intended to be overly simplified for ease of use and therefore is more theoretical and less realistic and practical; (3) the Model is constructed to be conservative and theoretical, and not as a substitute for a more. complex and realistic model more.closely (, approximating the physiology and function of the human body; (4) although the Model is constructed as a two-compartment model, .c, a human blood compartment and a human body compartment, only the blood compartment is "run"to compute the simulated results; (5) the Model is based on general kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms of functions; (6) the Model is based on standard estimatesofvolumesofdaily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daily; (7) the Model is constructed to simulate the highest possible intake of PFOA through ingestion and inhalation (i. it does not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (8) the Model is "> 000309 constructed to provide a conservative, i.c., highly theoretical estimatesofpossible concentrations OfPFOA in the blood REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 133. According to DuPont's Compartmental C- Model, those consuming drinking water containing 4 ppb APFO with 0.30 ug/m3 APFO in their inhaled air would be estimated to have a resulting steady-state PFO concentration in their bloodof 2.10 ppm. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that itis . deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without t. `waiving this objection, DuPont admits this Request for Admission, except DuPont notes that, for accuracy, the Compartmental C- Model and its corresponding tables must be read in accordance with the assumptions and caveats set forth in the Model itself, namely that (1) the Model is not unique to PFOA, but could be used unchanged for any chemical with a half-life of one year; (2) the Model is intended to be overly simplified for ease of use and therefore is more: theoretical and less realistic and practical; (3) the Model is constructed to be conservative and theoretical, and not as a substitute fora more complex and realistic model more closely approximating the physiology and function ofthe human body; 4)althoughthe Model is constructed as a two-compartment model, i.., a human blood compartment and a human body `compartment, only the blood compartment is "run" to compute the simulated results; (5) the Model is based on general kinetic principles, but it does not simulate actual body mechanisms or functions; (6) the Model is based on standard estimatesof volumesofdaily water and air consumption, and PFOA exposures are considered by the Model to occur daily; (7) the Model is constructed to simulate the highest possible intakeof PFOA through ingestion and inhalation (ie. it does not diffuse, and is completely and instantly absorbed); and (8) the Model is -s0- 000310 constructed to provide a conservative, i, highly theoretical estimates of possible concentrations Of PFOA in the blood REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 134, DuPont has estimated the mean concentration ofAPFO in the bloodofits employees in jobs with potential for APFO exposure. who had their blood tested in 1989-90 to be 96 ppm. RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 135. Atiached hereto at Exhibit TT is an ) authentic and accurate copy of a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular ! courseofbusinessofDuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 136. DuPont estimated the mean concentration of APFO in the blood ofits employes in jobs with potential for APFO exposure who had their blood tested in 1995 to be 1.56 ppm. RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 137, DuPont estimated the mean conceniration ( of APFO iin the blood of its employees in jobs with potential for APFO exposure who had their blood tested in 2000 to be 1.53 ppm. RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 138. Attached hereto at Exhibit UU is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessofDuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. -S1- 000311 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139, 3M has reported to the United States Environmental Protection Agency that it detected a median concenteation of 5.1 parts per billion ("PPB") PFOA in human sera from pooled samples drawn in 1995 from 599 individuals from 23 differen states in the United States in the age spanof2-12 years old. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and tha it apparently refers to a third-party document not prepared by DuPont, which speaks for itself REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 140, 3M has reported to the United States nvionmenta rotation htt deted a median concemtion of 47 ppb PFOA in human sera from pooled samples drawn in 2000 from over 600 individuals from 6 blood banks from across the United States, focusing in the age span 20-69 years old. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and that it apparently refers to a third-party document not prepared by DuPont, which speaks for itself. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 141, In May of 1999, 3M reported o the United ( States Environmental Protection Agency that it had detected an average concentration of3 ppb PFOA in over 35 lots ofindividual pooled human sera samples purchased from chemical or biological supply companies. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, and that it apparently refers to a third-party document not prepared by DuPont, which speaks for itself. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 142. Individuals who were exposed to C-8 in drinking water supplied by the Lubeck Public Service District have been significantly exposed -52- 000312 0 C-8 in comparison tothe levelsofC- to which the general population of the Urited States is exposed RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 143, Those individuals who are exposed to C-5 in drinking water supplid by the Lubeck Public Service District have been significantly exposed 10 C- in comparison to th levels ofC-8 to which the general population of the United States is exposed. RESPONSE; Denied ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 144. Individuals who have been exposed to C- in drinking water supplied by the Lite Hocking Water Association have been significantly exposed 0 C- in comparison to the levels ofC-8 to which the general population ofthe United Stats is exposed. RESPONSE: Dericd. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 145, Those individusls who are cxposed 10 C-8 in drinking water supplied by the Lite Hocking Water Association have been significantly (exposed to C-8 in comparison to th levels of C8 to which the general population of the United States is exposed. RESPONSE: Denied REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 146, Those individuals whose air and drinking water have been contaminated with C- from DuPont's Washington Works plant have been significantly exposed to C-8 in comparison to the levels ofC-8 to which the general population ofthe United Stats is expose. RESPONSE: Denied. 5 000313 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 147. Overexposure to C-8 is toxic to humans. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for `Admission, except to the extent that it admits that any substance can have some degree of adverse consequence in humans at a sufficiently high dose. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 148. Overexposure to C-8 is hazardous to humans. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague i and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except to the extent that it admits that any substance can have some degree of adverse consequence in humans at a sufficiently high dose. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 149. Physicians employed by or onbehalfof DuPont have recommended that testing be performedof those exposed to C-8 to determine, among other things, whether there are health effects from such C-8 exposure. RESPONSE: DuPont objects on the ground that this Request for Admission is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this Request for Admission, except it admits that certain physicians employed by or on behofaDulPofnt have recommended that testing be performed on employees exposed to C-8. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 150. DuPont is aware of C-8 having been detected at levels exceeding 10 ppb in the bloodofindividuals living in Wood County, West Virginia, who had never worked for DuPont RESPONSE: DuPont admits that itis awareof certain information relating to blood testing for C-8ofcertain individuals living in Wood County, West Virginia to which a "54 000314 confidentiality agreement applies, but this information does not provide DuPont with sufficient information to admit or deny this Request for Admission as phrased; therefore, DuPont denies this request for admission, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 151. DuPont is providing medical monitoring to persons residing in West Virginia and Ohio who are non-DuPont employees who claim to have been exposed to C-5. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont denies this (Request for Admission, except it admits that DuPont has conducted blood testing for the presence of C-8 for certain non-DuPont employees in West Virginia and Ohio. Respectfully submitted, E.1. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY By SPILMAN we &BA i PLLC ( HCehaatrhleers HL.eiWsokeoldlyJo(nWesV(SWtaVteStBaatre B4a1#r30)4913) P3.000. KBaonxaw27h3a Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25321-0273 304-340-3800 Laurence F. Janssen 6S3T3EWPeTsOtE5&" SJtrOeHetN,SSuOiNt,e 7L0L0P 2L1o3s:A4n3g9e-l9e4s0,0CA 90071 StephenA. Fennell S13T3E0PCToOnnEec&tiJcOutHANvSeOnNue,,LNLPW 2Wa0s2h-i4n2g9t-o3n0,00D.C. 20036 55 000315 A Simple, Conservative Compartmental Model to Relate Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) Exposure to Estimates of Perfluorooctanoate (PFO) Blood Levels in Humans ( Paul M. Hinderliter, Ph.D. Gary W. Jepson, Ph.D. DuPont Haskell LaboraBitoocrhyefmoircaHleaTlotxhicaonldogEynvironmental Sciences ( rar 10 October, 2001 Pu ror10 K004797 GK004797 000316 Abstract Apersfilmupolreooacntdacnocnasteer(vAaPtiFvOe)coemxppaorstumreensttaoelstmiomdaetleswoafspdeervfleuloorpoeodcotaneolaattee(aPmFmOo)nium cinocnlcuednetrmaetcihoannsiisntihcuomranphbylsoioodl.ogTichael dmeosdcerilptwiaosnbsa.sFeudrothnerK,itnheetimcopdreinlciwpalsesn, tutiinLtedniddendotto prheypsliaocelotghiecanleededsfcorirpmtoironesr.oTbhusetmmooddeellisncthlautdeidnzcelruod-eomredcehranmiastthiecmaatnidcaaplpdreospcrriiaptteions of torhaelvaonldumienhsaolfadtiaoinlyinwpauttearncdoansfurmspttoirodenracnldimaiinabtrieoanthdeesdcrwieprtieonu.seSdttaondrealradtecsdtaiimlaytienstakoef. oufndAePraFOvatroictoyncoefenxtpraotsiuornseocfonAdPitFiOonsinaanidr aunsdeddrtoinckrienagtewaata.blTrheelamtoindgeAlPwFasOeixnctraekiesveida `dmroidneklinpgrowvaitdeer daencids/iooainr-m1a0kePrFsOwibtlhooadn ceoanscielnytraaptpiloinesd. tToohletsoirmepllaitceiAtyPFanOd elxipotsyuroefsthtios ( estimatesof esuling PFO concentrations in human blood. ( DRAFT Page2010 ox004798 GK004798. 000317 en EEireaCnL ( to only one compartment(blood compartment) in orderto provide a conservative: xuro Blood et `and body compartments. It has the unitsofday", but as discussed earlier, itis set to zero rm 000318 sincorridbere1P0FcOriensptuatcionntsoetrhveatbilvoeodnec-ocmopamrpiamremnetn(tg/mdodaeyl).viKUthPeOorial cozteer.o-oKrdUePrLtiesm 0 2in5h1a0l-aotridoenrotuertm.toKdEeLsIriMbeisPaPpOseiundolfnirsot-torhdeebrleoloidmicnoamtipoanrcuomeefnftic(iesn/tdaGya)yv"i) tthhaet sdetsecreiqbueastiroenmsovwaelreofdePvFeOlofpreomftrhoembtlhoeosdcchoemmaptairctmiennFtigvuiraer1enaanldetxhcreciqouna.toDnifsfevreernetial msoaltvheedmautsiicnaglAedqvuaanticoendsCuosndti0nudoeusscSriimbeultahteicoonnLceanntgruaatigoen(oAfPCSFLO, Aincghies bColropo)d, The comparument (CBLOOD) ar shown inth seriesof equations below. "48 - KUPO +KUPL -KELIM *CBLOOD*VOL - RAF o 2AB=(KUPO + KUPI~KELIM *CB*LVOLO~ROAFD} @ J a8=[ (kUP+O KUPI -KELIM *CBLOOD *VOL~RAF} ) ( Jain AB= (KUPO-+ KUPI - KELIM *CBLOOD *VOL~RAF)it o@ tIhnethveolcquumaeti(omnhs aobotfvhe,bAloBodsctohmpaamrotumnenttuagn)doRfAPTFO(gilndbalyo)odi,s thies tritmeeodfaPysF)O, VOL is 'mAoCvSeLmecnodtinbgetowfeethnetshbeobvleoocdquaantdobnosdiy gciovmepnaritmmmeednitast(eRlyAFb=el0onw ahnsd imnoAdpep)e.ndixTh1o. The corresponding ACSLcommand file i providend Appendin2 CRBAL=OKOUDP=OI+NTKEUGPL(-RAK.E0L)IVMO*LCBLOOD*VOL - RAF Model Input Assumptions/Deserptions: B2.l5o0o-dKgCohmupmaarnt(maevnertagVeolhuummea:nTfhemeablleowoedigvho)l.umeThofe3.f3eLluesewedigihntthweamsosdeellecwtesd ttohat of mfauinnttiaoinnotfhbeocdoynswreviaghitvesoaplaprrgoearcbhoddeysiwreeidgfhotshwiisllmqoudaelt.e tOobvliaroguesrlyb,loboldoovodlvuomelsu.mePisFO ( wceoingchsenintcrreaasietn.ibloonosd wiltherefore decreasefor a givenAPFOexposasubrodey Evalliumeionaftio0n.0R19a/tdeayC.onTshtiasnwtassThdeeilviemdiansasiuomninragcea cPoFnsOtahnatl,-KiEfeLI(Myz,) wianshuasmsaingsneodf a365 pdlaaycsedainntthhaet20fi0s-to3n0d0edakiynertanigces,atphpely3.65Wdhaiylehaclarleinfe:ihsuamcaonnsheravaltifvecvtailmuafeosrsirnc i] bmeotdweelecnontdhiethioanlsf,iTfhaeodactthuealelviamlienatfoironKaELtTcMownsatsadnterwihveerde ufsrisntgortdheerreilnattiionshairpe: obeyed: wn = nz DRAFT Pcs 1o ) oxo04800 GK004800 000319 cInpoutnofvA(eVmFirOcrtvoigaerDardmisnk(iung)goWfaAtPerF:O DingresteidweatnrerdakyconsciienntgnrtahteigoansssuofmpAtPiFonO wtheatre ainkpinpg wartero2cLoxnotfatiihneinmwgat1paearatesepceeronbilslulimoyend(pppebr)dAayP.FOAnwaesxacmopnlseumfeoldl:ows where 1b=p,ug so ltuHgEix22Li0eb_Zo,2i0egg mIincprugtgorfaAmsPoFfOAPviFaOInahbasloartbieodn:inInohatlheedbcloonocdenutsriantgitohns aosfsAumPpFtOiownetrheacoanpvperrotxeidmattoely 2'A0PFmOowfaasi ianhraelebdr.eathed per day. An example follows wheresiecontaining 1 up? log 20demy 2dgay a0 General Assumptions: "aTshuebsstiimtpultee mfoordealmdoerscrriobbeudsht,ermeecihsadneissigmnbeadstcdbpehycsoinosleorgviactailvemoadnedl.snCootnsiinstteenndtewdiftohbe the design of tismode,several general asurmplions ave been mad. 36 1 Broi svt cy nt hum ood compan. rs 232)) TNohbrinidsinnog moremetchaabniostolifciFdseOsmc.riptions ae included in the model, %$40)Ealcitmuianlaytidoinsoplcacyusrsbipbhyasaiscienlgiemifnastioonncweithpaatnhwinaiyt.ialIraipsidliekleilmyitnhatticoinmipnhaasteion yng,o C`fwoiilthlmotwhoeedcnboynsp aersvhaotwievre e matmuhrieec onofdthhheamsodeecli,innlsyiotnhe.slnowor(edrmitnoable)cpohinsseeCnt eGacy m ( TYE 2 (5 AalblsoArbPedFnitnohatlheedbolroiondgecsotmepdaritnmdernitn.kingSwaaptieuidrsCionsia*nly and completly of 3 (6) APO exposuresoccurevery day throughout the exposure period modeled. Results "TAhPeFsiOmuarleatsehdowPnFnO lFeivgeulrsein2.huAmsawnobullodobdereesxupletcitnegdfbraosmreedpeoanttehde eistnimgateedoshfalt6f-uilgif/oedosnfy PeRaOcihn tohnelhyaufmtarnrbeopdeya,tetdheexspiomsuulraet:iofnorlousvtrseyseatrsh.t sFteiagduyr-est3a1tseaPFsiOmubllaotoidonloefvehlseare cislitmeirnmaitniaotnedo.f PFO fromthebloodonce PFO levels sr 1steadystate and PFO exposore RAFT Puesorio Gxo04s01 G004801 000320 igwe2 SmaleCPFoOCnoionnesScoiaFnmtssiBiooodFlnowiing eR H EGE ae ER 2 137. eiSe hp ee hn STS e e CN flEEa CREE pe LESLE REL ) oBrmnaE nE EE RR IE EL StEBTEhd A EE a a, Ti Fie. SSiFhFal Co ot co a0Tp aimagns AlTodODui od Ale ER ETE i Ema ea we ooCEES SREi RCs R RL W e Es *. CL ee ER Je SRS EEI GE EY Tartan one Passat cro04s0z 000321 c{Aoevmseebrliinersautolifiomnnoogdfeflthoesmitmdwurot.ianikToihnnegsewwisellresisrncugonntetisntiimntagitmeasAtPoeFftOhPe,FsObeescadcohynicsntegantiaeethciuoonmntaaniinnPriFnmOgaAbnlPoFboOldooord . . cssotinegtnsa.hioniwnPngFi1OnpTpbalbboloAedPc1F.oOnTwcaeabnstlsectoIinocsnumba.eedupasnaretddi5cuu0laArnPetFxhpOeodcswuornaeeds.iptriEreoxsnaesmntpdlesechrIieIbefidndihranilnekhdeinatgierxwtt,ehetro - resuling stcady-tte PFO concentration estima in human blood would be 030 pom. wtEhxeaimonphblaeeul0e2d.:1liI5f,pnpdtohmA e.reEsxP uawlmianpsgF lspetree3asO :deIynftstAiaPntFetOhPewFdaOrsicnopkrniecnsegewnnatttiaenirtohnaeneddsrt0ii.nm0ka5itneuggw1/amhtueAmaPatnFOLbplwpoabodsanidn binlotohde waiorualtd0.b3e1ug2/0m'p,ptmh.e resulting steady-statePFO concentration estimate in human "eTxapbloes1e. EtostAimPaFtOevdihsumiacnansdlotrdrsitenatkeiPangFwOadtbelroy.od levels (pr) following. s ( 3 3 Pape brilesnAPE + 5s i in aroking 13 wate Wo 5% @ A2[ooE[orooEidoEnbF aBalrkeo doa BHoFEnsiPEpi aBELpane oe L S ErEsYPaR 127 ~ <EE <Jo[sofoo ioxsofrim noanina: sSM ipEixR eEieosRn2S04S aS0bSGe1: laSoi CCoeai EEors ao ERNAH nn 125 :- = 3|ooLsosolcfkR ibiabevE elos RSKpCOEPicREs ADSAa A d Bho e iSES d S GEft eTE] R 101200222 1n15n:0 : : so2.oo0f0l] EtNEaeRRRE1A 2T32 IA 126ET2rS1e25r22t11h012 B10522 110r58i2ed1111122 11S1E4R2CS111P77E22RO11S520622 111630555322 211185000832 221418.000003 ~ FFEROO Bloosdt evrcsepcanoorn Sip 0tSpop nr lt Hm ( * dUessecroiftbheidsitnatbhleeexrte.qires careful consideration ofsumptions and imiations Discussion 1AAosPrleOasiitenvaldnyreisnsikmitpnilgweamatoanefdttacheonendsPeFirvOnahtcaiovnleceecdnotamriap.tairoTtnhmeiennmhtouldmemalondweballsotwohadesfnoduleslveoedwlio1np0geeGdxpaonedsuaeraxeeeltrcoeised - theleactoinnsgtAsiPntFsOoefxpthoesuarsessumtpoteionss tandiodfmesstcaeiapdtyi-osentasstperoPvFiOdebdlioodhcsonrceentrpataiovoanrsri,ettWyio,tfhin DraFy Page701f0 : GK004803 Gx004803 000322 e`cxopnocseunrtreactoiomnbiinnabtliooonds, cthe moobdeeuelvacloluuladdteadlsuosbiengutsheedm0ocdreela.teGiavpelnaausisbpleeciefxipcoPsEurOe shycpeontahreitoitchaalt sctoeualddy-psrtaotdeucPeFtOhecoonbcsecnetvreadtiPoFn Oofb5lopopdbleivnelb.iooFdo,rtehxeacmoprlree,spifoonndienhgaAdPaFO. exposure estimate using the model would be approximately 16 partspetillon (pp). ``aTnhaelymsoisdoerlpalnadnnaipnpgraocatcihviptreess,enhtoewdevinert,isitrsehpoourltdmnaoyt bseervvaelauaablsefubosrtcitountseefaoqruemnorcee. rporbeussetntmeedchhaenriestisicb,aspehdysoinolsooguincadlclyombpaasretdmmeondtaellsanaasltyhsiesy pbreicncoimpeleasvaainldabslee.xcTlhuesimveodoefl mcoencshearnviasttiivceoarspshuymspitoiloongiscaaalddetshcerriepftoiroensi.s lAiksedlyistcoupsrsoevdiedaerlhiiegr,h etshitsimmaotdeesolfisPbFaOs.edon csiomnpcleinctirtaytiaonndsuinlbylooofdtFhoilslmowoidneglipronvidge odeercinishsailotanti-oimnaokofeaPrnFsnOe.asiNleyvesrptphleileedstso,olthteo relate APFO exposures 10 estimates of resultingPFO concentrations in human blood. ( DRAFT PageBorio GK004804 ox004804 000323 Appendis 1: ACSL Model Cote rIORoDREcLATaLOSAITOMUFILAOATTNEOROBLOOD LEVELSFOLLOWINGORALAND aEve sma CSONSPTANOTFASCTAENRTEBESTGIVENVALUESTO SIMULATEEXPOSUREAND CCCOOONNNTTATANATTKKEURIRDM <"CZE0oRO ZiEaRrOOOORRRDDDEEERRRDEORUALLIUPTATALOKEATNATKEItOeN) CSSONEUTTAaAVMTEIEAeCS ZIIoth. [aBIloRbSaaTn.vOvRvoDroERuDmISeTRIBUTIONTOR00YUb) Ie mmeCoeuwDs ' (CSCOOENTSANTVANIITrTOOSNTROTPS~~ =DS36i5n0e. L NmOwOeE PrPOOsN NFeTESoXIG PnNOESRULT TROEmT(EdH aoysA) S cBaroarstomsonns CEoRNMUCAALTIONINTERVAL brn AcoRTID ALG: pB Kiraa.oa mn ron m Timm ors oo wreGeTSTOn ( EKCBiLOmOOoDBNKTuEpOC.BAKOGEFEILPVFOONCLIhTTLEOBLROOODDAOSCOALMRTPARTIMENOTGgN ECoEACRRSNTKcEACGCaOAACRTPBLOOoRONFDTAFrOoTLTIHEYOBODNY BBBOOo m mooao omer Pessotto axoossos Gro04s05 000324 Appendix 2: ACSL Command File for Assigning Appropriate Parameter Values TSTOP=10365; POINTS=50; TOFF=TSTOP+1; VOL=3500; KKEALCICM==00.;0019; KKUUPPIO==62;; Keyboard f{iSguTreA;RT ( _licnbel(o_toidm(eP,O_IcNbTloSo)d, @linestyle="+"); yllaabbeell((TCoinmee. (iDnabylso)o:d (g/mL): {itle(BLOOD CONCENTRATION): DRAFT Page 100110 GK004806 GK004806. 000325 Jt G3 re Stston and bass pre an pan fon IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, `WEST VIRGINIA. JACK W. LEACH, ET AL, Paintits, v. Defendants. E. 1. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, `and LUBECK PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-C-608 (Judge George W. Hill, Jr.) ( CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Heather Heiskell Jondoehesre,by cerify tht I have served 2 rue and exact copy "Responses of. . du Pont de Nemours and Company to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admissions to DuPont" upon the following counsel ofrecord in the manner indicated `below on this 23" dayof January 2003, addressed as follows: LWSa0ir0nrEty.erA.VJioWrhignnisntieoarn,S&tErsHeqie.ltl PLLC CChoaurnlseesltofno,r WPlYei2n5t3f0s1 Via Hand Delivery ( RHHialrBlrdyPiesGto.enrDsHeolinl,leCEras,rapE.esra,.Bee &Deizler, PLLC 5N0o0riTGraactyeWBausyiness Park CChoaurnlseesltofno,r WPlaYin2ti5f3l1s1-1261 Via Hand Delivery 000326 Lar iit Fros-Staston snd eben pre) Ta pun on RToabfte,rtSAte.tnBiiulost,&EHsoql.lister LLP 4128500WFailrnsutatr STtoreweetr CCionucnisnenaltfio,rOPHlai4n5t2if0f2-3957 Via Facsimile (513) 381-0205 and U.S. Mail KJaoyaCRa.stMocG&heCeh,anEesyq.PLLC 1.6000.BBoaxnk20O3n1e Center CChoaurnlseesltofno,rWLuYbe2c5k3P2u7blic Service District Via Hand Delivery Richard A. Hashurst, Esq. ( P4.104.MBaorxke8t6Street PCaoruknesreslbufrogr,LWubVec2k6P1u0b2lic ServiceDisirici Via Facsimile(304) 428-2674 {nd US. Mail Ju1 iebi ayIL diy13) ( 2. 000527