Document by5enBJGNpbpMyEVLk29e52DO

I AR226-2462 From: To: cc: Subject: Dawn D Jackson on 06/23/99 07:55 AM Robert L Rrtchey/CL/DuPont@DuPont, Anthony J PIaytis/CUDuPont@DuPont, Roger J Zipfel/AE/DuPont@DuPont Outline of communications with GE Plastics regarding C-8 Gentlemen, I have attached a draft of an outline of points to be made in communications with 6E Plastics. If there are omissions or errors, please let me know. I will attempt to send you a revision before I leave today at 4:30. I will be out of town until Monday. Dawn GE Communication EID082078 A 6/22/99 Bob Ritchey, Tony Playtis, Roger Zipfel, Dawn Jackson Planning for Communications with GE Plastics regarding C-8 Scenario 1: Results of early June testing ofGE drinking well show <3 ppb Recommended communication: John Little calls Dallas Silverthome to report test results and speak from talking points such as those below; John also offers to send MSDS on C-8 and Community Exposure Guideline (CEG) information. Outline of talking points (in brief form; to be developed farther): "Why ? - Why we did the sampling (RFI; C-8 in groundwater, need to know if it crosses site boundary; model says no; WW wanted to sample to be sure.) What ? -- What is C-8? (Explain what it is: detergent-like material; surfactant; used in manufacture of Teflon fluoropolymer resins) Where? --Where is it coming from? (old supemate ponds - anaerobic digestion ponds constructed in mid-1950's (one) and mid-1970's (two); decommissioned in 1988.) Re: concentration -- represents dose lower than TLV would allow; it's __% of the TLV; below the CEG. Toxicity piece: Refer to MSDS; offer to provide copy of MSDS; at these levels, no acute health effects ever observed; however, it does persist in the bloodstream; in animal testing at high doses, liver is the target organ. Path forward: Emphasize that concentration in GE well is comparable to concentration in WW drinking water, WW will continue to monitor; if there is an increase at WW, we will contact GE; Site EA will prepare standby statement and Qs/As, in the event of media inquiries. Scenario 2: Test results - 3-25 ppb Recommended communication: John Little calls Dallas Silverthome to request a meeting (1/2-day?) with Silverthome and his Playtis, Ritchey counterparts; to attend from WW - Little, Ritchey, Playtis, Zipfel. Outline of talking points (to be more detailed than for first scenario): Why? - Same info as above, + some detail about its being the only chemical in the RFI above EPA screening levels; assurance that WW will work with EPA to define levels acceptable to EPA and methods/controls to reach those levels- What? -- Same info as above + a review ofthe C-8 molecule itself; possible other applications outside DuPont Where? -- Same info as above + hydrogeology, including river recharge, plume in groundwater EID082079  Re: concentration: Provide MSDS; discuss toxicologic information in detail, such as major exposure routes (inhalation, skin absorption) vs. ingestion; discuss CEG and intent to reduce or eliminate human health exposure route. Toxicity piece: Talk through elements of MSDS, vs. just providing a copy; provide occupational health background - animal studies details, human health-related information, U. of Minnesota paper (flawed study); review what we've done with our own employees since 1981, including employee communications; share Pace Team strategies? Path forward: DuPont will take necessary action to protect human health and meet regulatory requirements; Site EA will prepare standby statement and Qs/As, in the event of media inquiries. Anticipated Qs from GE: 1. What kind of engineering controls are effective to handle elevated levels ofC-8? 2. What exposure routes are there besides drinking water? 3. Do the levels in GE drinking water indicate a probability of measurable levels in employees' blood? 4. ... EID082080