Document g2gRGb33ZO2DZZOmboqDr6N1L

AR226-1406 {| xI ARBRE -- 406 IN THE CIRCUITCOURT OF WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA JACK W. LEACH, etal., Plaintiffs, v E. L. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, and LUBECK PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO.: 01-C-608 (Judge George W. Hill) RESPONSES OF E. 1. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY TO PLAINTIFES' THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DUPONT ! Pursuant to West Virginia Rule ofCivil Procedure 36, Defendant, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont"), by counsel, makes its Responses to "Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admissions to DuPont" ("Third Setof RFA"). Any admission made isforthe `purposeofthis pending action only and is not an admission for other puzposcs, nor may it be used in anyother proceeding. Aay admission i ls subject 0 al pertinent objections to admissibility otepoast eviadl. Information provdedin thes responses is based upon such informatioans presently is reasonably available to DuPont DuPont responds and objects as follows: IL GENERAL OBIECTIONS k DuPont's responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Admissions are subject (0 the general objections set forth below. These general objections form a partofthe response to cach and every RequestforAdmission and re st forth here t0 vord duplication nd repetition DuPont's specific responses to each Request for Admission are made subject to, and without waving, thse General Objections, hich ar incorporated by reference to cach of DuPont's responses. The fire to ita specie General Objection in a response should not be consiued 000224 rrr sare oe soap ra essen ares em asa waiverofthat objection. By admitting or denying Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission, DuPont does not concede that the subject matterof such Requests are relcvant in the present action or thax DuPons responses are admissible. DuPont reserves the right to amend or supplements responses GENERAL OBJECTION I; DuPont objects Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions (0 the extcat that they seek to characterize the contentsof documents, which documents speak for themselves GENERAL OBJECTION 2: DuPont objects to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions to the extent that they imply that DuPont's "acceptable exposure limits" (*AELs") and "community ! exposure guidelines" ("CEG") are set at levels that are predictiveof adverse 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 aumofbtypeicarlly vary conservative assumptions and safety factors, manyofwhich ae default versus actual figures. Risk assessments are designed to be overly protectiveofhuman health, with a wide `marginofsafety,arenot predictive of any particular health effects, and should not be used in such a manner. Moreover, they cannot be used to support a claim for medical monitoring | GENERAL OBJECTION 3: DuPont objects to Plaintiffs Requests or Admissions to the extent that they seck information that 1s not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this tigation. GENERAL OBJECTION 4: DuPont hereby preserves for tnal its objections as 10 thoseof Plaintiffs' Requests for Adaissions that ask DuPont to authenticate a document, except that Dupont admits to the authenticityofthe documents as set forth below. 2 000225 Jt ee Frente ad Jhon as rm rn `GENERAL OBJECTION 5: DuPont objects to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions to the extent that that they are deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to 2 false conclusion. ILOBJECTIONSANDANSWERSTOREQUESTSFORADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1. Autached hereto at Exhibit A is an authentic and accurate copyofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2. In November of 1982, Bruce W. Karth, M.D, Director of DuPont's Mcdical Division, recommended that available practical steps be taken to i reduce C-8 exposures to DuPont plant employees because, among other things, C-8 is retained in the blood foar fong ime, al employees, notjus Teflon area workers, are exposed, and there is `peat potential for curent or future exposure ofmembersofthe local commusity rom emissions leaviag the DuPont Washington Works plant perimeter. RESPONSE: DuPont objects {0 this Request fo Admission on he ground that tis deliberately incompleteand calculated o lead to 3 false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DuPont admits as follows: that after review of materials sent to Dr. Karrh from JW. Raines about the scrubbing of inc powder exhaust, Dr. Kanth responded to 1. ! Raines that cven though the C-8 exposure to plant employees was small, Dr. Kath recommended that available practical steps be taken to reduce this exposure, because, among other things, C-8 is retained in the blood for a long time, al employees, not just Teflon area workers, ase exposed, and there i great potential for current or future exposure ofmembers ofthe local comsumity from emisions leaving the DuPont Washington Works plant perimeter 3 000226 } ey re sss we ras REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3, Attached hereto at Exhibit B is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitcd. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4. By October of 1983, DuPont had began evaluating the levels of C-8 discharged into the ai from DuPont's Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that by October of 1953, DuPont employees had begun ground level modeling for potential levelsofC-8 discharged into the ai from DuPoat's ! `Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia in order to support installation of an air scrubber for pointofemission in the fine powder area. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5. Atached hereto at ExhibitC is an authentic a0d 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, 6. By October of 1983, DuPont had begun evaluating the potential concentrations of C-8 1n the Ohio River from DuPont's Washington ! Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7. By August of 1933, DuPont had calculated maximum average annual air concentrationsofC8 outside DuPont's Washington Works plant to be 0.0004 mg/m. RESPONSE: Admitted. 4 000227 De tn FreSusios ne sien anus ra ra ean REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8, Attached hereto at Exhibit D is an authentic nd accurate copy of business record ofDuPont prepared and kept inthe regula courseof business of Dupont. - RESPONSE: Admitcd. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9. By Augustof 1984, DuPont had determined that he concentrationsofC-8 that had been detected carler in 1984 by DuPont in th public water supplies near the DuPont Washington Works facilty probably came fom the aquifer under the Ohio River. RESPONSE: Denied. except admitted thatin or around August 1984, DuPont ' determined thatif the small amounts of C-8 detected were actually present in public water supplies around the Washington Works plan, rather than an artifofatchet methodoftesting, that the source of the C-8probably came from an aquifer under the Ohio River. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10, In 1983, DuPont had detected C-8 in concentrations excesding ppb in dninking water supplied by the Lubec Public Service District of Wood County, West Visginia RESPONSE: Admired REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11. Arached hereto at Exhubit E 1s 0 authentic ! and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. : RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12. In 1984, DuPont had detected C-8 at concentration exceeding 0.5 ppb indnnkingwater supplied by the Lice Hocking Water Association of Olio. s 000228 ---- ---- on ran am RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 13. By October of 1986, DuPont's management in Wilmington, Delaware had cxpressed concem about the possible liability resulting from long- term C- exposure 0 ts employees and to the populationinthe communities surrounding. DuPont's Washington Works plant and those downriver from the Washington Works plant. RESPONSE; DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground tha it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead 0a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, denied, except admitted that in an October 20, 1986 memorandum to C.A. Dykes, RJ. Zipfel and G.R. Alms, D.A. Schacider stated, among other things, ! "Wilmington management is concemed abou tke possible lability resulting from long-term C8 exposure 10 its employees and to the population ia the surrounding communities those down- river fiom the [Washingion Works] plant." REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 14, Attached hereto at Exhibit F i an authentic and accurate copy of a business recordofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admired REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15. By December of 1936, DuPont was. ! evaluating the possoifbpuirclhatsiyng the public water supply wells owned by the Lubeck Public Service District tien located near DuPont's Washington Works plant, which wells supplied the drinking water in which DuPont had detected concentrationsof C- exceeding | PRY. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it seis forth more than one mar to be admitted or denied in derogation ofW Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a) 6 000229 ar Gd FrovSuptos ad laboson rss Tm pm fm DuPont objects o this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculatteod Jead 10a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont admits as follows: by December 1986, DuPont was evaluating the possibility of purchasing the public water supply wells owned by the Lubeck Public Service District then located near DuPont's Washington Works plant and further admits that DuPont had detected concentrationsof C-8 exceeding | ppb at two taps suppliedby the Lubeck Public Service District. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16. Attached hereto at ExhibitG isan authentic and accurate copy ofa business record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseof business. ! of DuPont. . RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17. Onc factor taken into consideration by DuPont in December of 1986with respect to the possibility of purchasing the Lubeck Public Service District water wells was the value of protecting DuPont's Washington Works plant site from public liability, both rom proxoifmadijatceynt owners and possible accusation of contamination of groundwater. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it 1s ' deliberately incomplete and calculated 0 lead (0.2 false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, admitted as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18. By January of 1987, DuPont had completed a "fenceline screening" surveyof chemicals emitted into the atmosphere from DuPont's Washington Works plant (hereinafier the "Washington Works Fencelinc Screening Survey") RESPONSE: Admitted. 7 000230 Gar Re roerSustes ad Jonson ssi TC pun fan REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19. Through its Washington Works Fenceline Screening Survey, DuPont calculated C-8 emissions to the atmosphere from its Washiagton Works plant to be 0.0048 mg/m3 at the DuPont Washington Works plant property line. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20. Attached hereto at ExhibitH is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, cxcept denied as to margioalia REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21. As a result of DuPont's Washington Works ! Fenccline Screening Survey, H.A. SmithofDuPont's Safety, Energy & Environmental Affairs Manufacturing Division in Wiliinglon, Delaware requested on June 9,1987, that DuPont's Haskell Laboratory develop coramunity exposure guidelines (*CEGs") for C-8. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22. Attached hereto at Exhibit Tis an authentic and accurate copyof a business recordofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitied that the document attached to Plaintiffs' Third ! Set OfRFAS as Exhibit is an authentic and accurate copyof a portionof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseofbusionfDeuPsonst. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23. By June of 1987, DuPont had identified the eliminationof certain supernate ponds that had been used for disposalof materials containing C8 a DuPont' Washington Works plant as a potential mechanism for reducing public exposure 0 C4 from DuPont Washington Works plaat. s 000231 Lar dtm Frost and dtosen ass) a poene fan RESPONSE: Denied, cxcept admitted that by June of 1987, DuPont had identified that eliminationofcertain supernate ponds that had been used for disposal of materials containing C-8 at DuPont Washington Works plant may have helped to eliminate the presenceof C-8 in an aquifer from which the Lubeck Public Water System drew water. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24. Attachedheretoas ExhibiJt is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business recordofDuPont prepared and kept in theregularcourseof business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Denicd, except admired that ExhibiJt is an authentic and accurate copy of two separate business recordsof DuPont (EID091378-401 and EID091402) prepared and ! Kept in the regular courseofbusiness of DuPont. DuPont further specifically denies as to marginalia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25, By June of 1987, DuPont had determined that eliminationofcertain supernate ponds at DuPont's Washington Works plant site that had been used for the disposalofmaterials containiag; C-8 could help (0 eliminate C-8 contaminationof the aquifer rom which water was then drawn by the Lubeck Public Service District RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than one matter to be admired or denied in derogation ofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(2) ! 'DuPoar also objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that tis deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject 10 and without waiving these objections, admitted as phrased REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26. ByJune of 1987, DuPont had determined hat the levelsof C-8 detected in water supplicd by the Lubeck Public Water District wells near Duos Washington Works plant had increased from levels derected 1 198410 19 ppb 1n 1987) 9 000232 RESPONSE: Denicd, except admitted that in 1987 DuPont tested several samples of water supplied by the Lubeck Public Service District and one test measured 1.9 ppbofC-3. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27. By Jue of 1987. DuPont's Medical Director, Bruce W. Karth, M.D. staed that DuPont needed to continue o pursue those programs aimed at reducing the public exposare to C-8 as vigorously as DuPont could. RESPONSE; DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that itis deliberatelyincompleteand calculated 0 lead 0 a fase conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, admiastphtraesedd. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28. On June 12, 1987, H.A. Smith with ! `DuPont's Safety, Energy & Environmental Affairs Manufacturing Division again requested that DuPont's Haskell Laboratory establish an acceptable level for C8 in community drinking water, and also requested that DuPont's Haskell Laboratory cstablish an acceptable. evel for C-8 in blood. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than one matter 10 be admitted or denied in derogatoifon W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Subject 10 and without waiving this objection, denied, except admired that on June 12, 1987, H.A. Smith with DuPont's Safety, Energy & Environmental Affairs Manufactunng Division ! requested that G.L. Kennedy with DuPont's Haskell Lab estblish an acceptable level for C-3 in blood, and an acceptable level for C-8 in community drinking water REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29. Ausched hereto a ExhibitK is an authenue and accurate copy of4 business record of DuPoat prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admined. 10 000233 Jee ities FroSston and Jensen sass Te pos fa REFQ ORAU DMIE SSIOS NNOT .30.On June 25,1987, Gerald L. Kennedy of DuPonts Haskell Laboratory issued a Memoranda to H.A. Smith ofDuPont stating that an acceptable level for C-8 in the bloodofworkers would be 0.5 ppm. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. DuPont objects (0 this Request for Admission on the ground that itis deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead 10 a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, DuPont admits as follows: on June 25, 1987, Gerald L. Kennedy of DuPont Haskell Laboratory issued a Memorandum to H.A. Smith ofDuPont sating that an acceptable level for C-8 inthe bloodof workers would be 0.5 ppr. DuPont understands that the ! word "acceptable" was meant to denote a relative goal and not an absolute standard under which reported levels above0.5 ppm would be viewed as not protectiveofhuman health. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31. Attached hereto at Exhibit L is an authentic `and accurate copy of a business record of DuPont prepared und kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32. On June 11, 1987, DuPont's Medical Director, Bruce W. Karth, M.D., advised RogeJr. Zipfelof DuPont's Washingion Works plant that the plant needed to place the highest priority on issucs relating to the presenceofC-8 outside the Washington Works plant boundaries RESPONSE: DuPont objects (0 this Request for Admission on the ground that itis deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead toa false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objcction, admitted 35 phrased u 000234 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33. Attached hereto at ExhibiMt isan authentic: and accurate copy ofa business record ofDuPont prepared and kept inthe regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that the document atached to PLaintifs' Third SetofRFAass Exhibit M is an authentic and accurate copyofaporotfabiusoinenss record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseof businessofDuPont. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34. By Julyof 1987, DuPont's Washingion Works plant had developed aC- contol plan that included the movalofDuPont's Washington Works employees fom C-8 exposure,ifthe evelofC-8 intheiblood exceeded 50% ofthemaximum ! safe levelof C8 in blood established by DuPont's Haskell Laboratory. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated t lead t a false conclusion. Subject to aad without waiving this objection, denied except admitted that in a Jul7y, 1987 memorandum, RogeJt. Zipfel, an employeeofDuPont's Washington Works plant discusses a C- control plan that, among other things, included a provision thatifany Washington Works employee bad a fevel of C-8 i his or her blood at a level more than 50% of the maximum safe level in blood us (0 be set by Haskell Laboratory, that employee would be removed from C-8 exposure. ! REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35. By July of 1987, A.C. Huston with DuPont' Washington Works plant strongly recommended that DuPont puzchase the Lubeck Public Service Disuict propertynearthe DuPont Washington Works plant, noting tha th climinationofthe use of those wells as public drinking source before USEPA's new comective action requirements became fective and before any remediation actions were required would be a distinc advantage to DuPont, recognizing that remediation of the dnaking water wells ould os millionsofdollars. 12 000235 RESPONSE: DuPont objects (0 this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incompleteandcalculated to lead 10a false conclusion. Subjectto and without waiving this objection, denied except admitted that by July of 1987, A.C. Huston with DuPont's Washington Works plant swongly recommended that DuPoat purchase the Lubeck Public Service: Distict property near the DuPont Washington Works plant, noting thatth eliminationofthe use ofthose wells 2s a public drinking source before USEPA new corrective action requirements became effective and before any remediation actions were required would be a distinct advantage: to DuPon, recognizing that remediation could cost millionsofdollars REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36. Atiached hereto at Exbibit N is an authentic and ! accurate copyof a business recordofDuPant prepared and kept in the regular courseofbusiness of Dupont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37. Attached hereto at Exbibit O is an authentic and accurate copyof abusiness record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseof business ofDupont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38. By March of 1988, DuPont's Acceptable Exposure Limit Commitice had accepted 0.3 ug/m3 as a provisional value for DuPont's community exposure guideline (CEG)for C-8 in community air, but did not recommend or accept any community exposure guidelines for C-8 in community drinking water. RESPONSE: DuPont objects (0 this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than one matter to be admitted or denied in derogationof W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a) DuPont also objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately 1 000236 incompleteand calculated to lead to afalse conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, denied, except admitted that by March of 1988, DuPont's Acceptable Exposure Limit Commiteebad accepted 0.3 g/m' as a provisional value for DuPont's community exposure guideline ("CEG") for C-8 in community air. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39. In Marchof 1989, DuPont's Medical Director, Bruce W. Karrh, M.D., met with DuPont Washington Works employees to discuss the statusof the DuPont Washington Works C-8 control plan and restated his position that DuPont should continue to place high priority to reduce the general public's exposure to C-8. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that iis ! deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, admited as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40. Arached hereto at Exhibit P is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record ofDuPont prepared and keps in the regular courseofbusiness of Dupont RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. a1. By April of 1991, DuPont had closed on its purchaseofthe Lubeck Public Service Dismet property that had been located near DuPont's `Washington Works plant. RESPONSE: Admired. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42. Although requested several years cashier in 1987, DuPont Acceptable Exposure List Committee did not place the issuof deteamining an acceptable communily exposure guideline for C-8 in community watet on is agenda nil ler n 000237 avast vm rian 1 rn sass ta usa fan DuPont had closed an its purchase ofthe Lubeck Public Service District propery near DuPonts Washingion Works plant. RESPONSE: DuPont objects o this Request for Admission on the ground th it sts forth more than one mattoebre admitted or denied in derogationofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(o. `Subject to and without waiving ths objection, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43. DuPost had hoped that moving the Lubeck Public Service District public drinking wate supply wells approximately two miles further down he Ohio River rom the DuPont Washington Works plantandputchuse of the old Lubeck Public Service District water supply wells by DuPoot would eliminate the presenceofC- in t drinking water supplied by the Lubeck Public Service District, RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground tht itis - vague and ambiguous. DuPont futher abjecs to this Request for Admission on the ground that itis deliberately incomplete and calculated to leadtoa false conclusion. Subject 1 aad without waiving these objections, DuPont admitsa follows: DuPont considered ane benefit ofthe Lubec Public Service District drawing water fiom new wells located approximately two miles futher down the Oki River from the DuPont Washington Works plant than the old Lubeck wells to be elimination of the prcsenceof C- in drinking water supplied by the Lubeck Public Ce Service District. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. a4. By September of 1991, DuPont had recerved the results of sampling of oneofthe new Luheck Public Service Distnct water supply wells located approximately wo miles furthe down ive from the Lubeck Public Service District property sold to DuPont, indicating the presence ofC-8 n the new Lubeck Public Service District water well st 2.4 pb. 15 000238 RESPONSE: Admitted. REFQ OR U ADMIE SSIOS NNOT .45. By September 1991, DuPont had received the resultsof sampling of water at a home tap served by the Lubeck Public Service District confirming the presence of C- at 3.9 ppb. RESPONSE; Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46. Attached hereto at Exhibit Q s an authentic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared aod kept in the regular courseof businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admifted. t REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47. Although DuPont prepared a standby press release o notify thepublic in 1991 of the presence of C-8 in the Lubeck Public Service District water supply, DuPont did not provide tat release o the public. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that tis deliberately incompleteand calculated tolead o a false conclusion. Subject 0 and without waiving this objection, denied, except admitted that a standby press rclcase was prepared in 1991 discussing the presenceof C-8 in the Lubeck Public Service District water supply aad that DuPont did not issue the press release; however, DuPont informed Lubeck in 1991ofthe ! presenceof C-8 in the Lubeck Public Service Distt water supply REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48. Attached hereto at Exhibit R is an authcatic. and accurate copyof a businessrecord of DuPont prepared and kept in theregular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted 16 ` 000239 REFQ ORAU DMIE SSIOS NNO.T49. By January of 1992, DuPont had detected what it considered to be "high levels of C-8 in water used by a single family on a private well on the wester edgeof DuPont's Washington Works plant (the "Private C-8 Well") RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that tis deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead 0 3 false conclusion. Subject 10 and without waiving tis objection, denied, except admitted that by January of 1992. DuPont was concemed thata private well located on property oa the western edge of DuPont's Washington Works plat would draw water containing a high level of C-5. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50. Attached hereto at Exhibit is an authentic k and accurate copy ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51. DuPont did not disclose 10 the owner(s) of the Private C-8 Well the level of C-8 detected in tat well RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground tha i 1s vague and ambiguous. DuPont also objects (0 this Request for Admission on the ground tha it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to 4 false conclusion. Subject to and without ! waiving these objections, admired as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52. DuPont eventually purchased the property on which the Private C-8 Well was located. RESPONSE: Admiticd REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53. DuPont destroyed records identifying the actual concentrationof C-8 in the Private C-8 Well 17 000240 JRE ssi [Err "RESPONSE: Dexid REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54. DuPont destroyed records identifying the termsofthe sales agreement between DuPont and theprivate owner(s)ofthe Private C-8 Well RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55. By February of 1993, DuPont had stated that it will control C-8 exposure for the general public by being in full compliance with DuPoat's community exposureguidelines [or C-8 (0.0003 my/m3 in air nd 1 pp in drinking water). RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. DuPont also objects 10 tis Request for Admission on the ground that it ! isdeliberately incomplete and calculated to leadto a falsc conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, admits 35 follows: by Februaorfy 1993, DuPont had expressed the sol 1 control C-8 exposure forthe general public by being ia full compliance with DuPont's coromunity exposure guidelines for C-8 (0.0003 mg/m' in air and 1 ppb in drinking water). REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56. Attached hereto at Exhibit T is an authentic and accurate copyofa business record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular couse of business ofDuPont. RESPONSE; Denied ! REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57. By May of 1993, DuPont Washington Works employees Woody Irelsad, David Ramsey, and Walter Stewart had completed thie responsibilities with respect to climinating what DuPont considered to be "high" levels of C-8 in te Private C-8 Well RESPONSE: Denied, cxcept admitted that by May of 1993. DuPont Washingion Works employees Woody Ireland, David Ramsey, ind Walter Stewart had completed their 8 000241 esponsibilites wilh respect fo ciminating any potential exposure to C-8 rom a private well which DuPont was concerted may have drawn water wih high levels ofC-8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58. DuPont hs interviewed Woody Irland, David Ramsey, and Walter Stewart and hs confirmed tht noneofthose individuals now remember anything wit respec othe level of C-8 detected in the Private C-8 Well or remember anything with respect to what DuPont did i response to finding C3 in that well, RESPONSE: DuPont objects o this Request for Admission on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous ad makes unsupported sssetions of facts. DuPont also objects 0 is Request for Admission on the ground tha it sci forth mare than one mater fo be adied or : denied in derogation of W.Va. R Civ. . 36a), Based upon such objections, denied REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59. Atsched hereto at Exhibit Ui aa suthenic and accurate copyof a busiaes record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPort. RESPONSE: Admited REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60. By March of 1994, DuPont had received {he results ofa report prepared by the Univessty of Delaware indicating tha cectroosmosis appeared 0 be a cost-effecive tshnology for remediating C5 contaminated Washington ! Works facility soil in sits but DuPont decided not to implement that technology: RESPONSE: DuPont objects (0 tis Request or Admission o the ground tht it ses forth more than one matter to be admited or denicd in derogation of W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(s) DuPont also abjects 0 tis Reques for Admission on the ground thats deliberatly incompleteand calculated to ad 03 ase conclsion. Subject 3nd without waiving these abjections, DuPont admits as follows: by March of 1994, DuPont hd received the rests of 1 000242 - wostasees ran report prepared by the University of Delaware which indicated that clectroosimosis under _ ceruain conditions appeared to be a cost-effective technology for remediating C-8- contaminated Washington Works facility soil in sit, but DuPont decided not to implement hat technology. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6). Attached hereto at ExhibiVt is an authentic and accurate copy of business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except deaicd as to marginalis. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62. Atiached hereto at Exhibit W is an authentic ! and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied 2s to marginalia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63. Following a DuPont C-8 global meeting io `October of 1994,ane-mail from DuPoncs in-house counsel, James B. Alle, was distributed to certain DuPont employes reminding those employees that there is no need to retain documents relating to C-8 beyond DuPont' thee year corporate documentation retention policy, unless the documents come within a special records category exception. aad that all C- ! records thatdo not fall within oneoftke special records category exceptions must be properly destroyed at the end of their corporate document retention penod RESPONSE: DuPont object to this Request or Admission on the ground tha it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to. false conclusion. Subject to sad whut waiving this objection, admitted, as phrased. 2 000243 rn Gite FronSuustos ad Jobaen aussi rae an REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64. Attached hereto at Exhibit X is aa authentic and accurate copyof a business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admilted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65. By October of 1995, DuPont had determined tha C-8 was present in groundwater under the DuPont Washington Works plant in areas that were not contained by DuPont's geohydrological containment system, thercby allowing the C-8 to flow into the Ohio River. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets ! forth more than one matte to be admitted or denied inderogation of W.Va. R. Civ. . 36(3). Subject to and without waiving this objection, denied. REFQORAU DMIE SSIOS NNOT .66. Attached hereto at Exhibit Y is an authentic and accurate copy of a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except denied as to marginalia, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67. By January of 1997, DuPont had developed a C8 Program Concept Evaluation Plan, which included development ofa nsk analysis and ! assessment to evaluate the potential rapact of DuPont' useof C- on buman health and the environment. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68. Attached lireto at Exhibit Z is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kepti the regular course of busiess of Dupont, 2 000244 art Rn Front asd ohn aussi a pase fon RESPONSE: Admirted. except denied 2s to marginalia. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69. Attached hereto at Exhibit AA is an authentic and accurate copyofa business record ofDuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 70. By the fall of 1998, DuPont had prepared proposals to conducta gencral human health and environmental effects risk analysis on C-3 and an ecological risk assessment on C8, RESPONSE: Admitted ! REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71. Attached hereto at Exhibit BB is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseofbusinessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that the document ariached to Plaintiffs' Third Set of RFA as Exhibit BB together with the document produced at EID 219509-521 is an authentic aad accurate copyofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessofDuPont REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72. In ifs proposal to conducta general human ' health and environmental effects isk alysis on C-3, DuPont props to sumimanze such risks according (0 the major routesof exposure (air, water, dermal, other oral) for each C- application and to characterize the risks by comparing the likely exposure concenuations to the dose-response relationship thiough a method referred 10 33 3 "Marginof Exposure." RESPONSE: Admitted. 2 000245 sirens wn presses ns eis ass Ta pws ean REQ FORU ADMIE SSIS ONNOT .73. In Juneof 1999, DuPont was sued by Several membersof the Teanant family of Wood County, West Virginia who alleged emissions from DuPont's Dry Run Landsill in Wood County, West Virginia had resulted in personal and property damage to the Tenants, including the death of scveral hundred head of cattle and physical injuries to the Tennants. RESPONSE: Admired. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74. Atthetime DuPontwas sued by the Tennants in connection with the Dry Run Landfill. DuPont was aware that C-8 was among the contaminants present al the Dry Run Landfill and Dry Run Creek in Wood County, West ! Virginia. RESPONSE: Admired. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75. On June 24, 199, DuPont submited to te United States Envizonmental Protection Agencay RCRA Facility Investigation Report for ts `Washington Works facility (the "RFI Report"). RESPONSE: Admited. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76. Attached hereto at Exhibit CCisan authentic and accurate copyofpotions ofa business recordof DuPont prepared and kept in the regular ! courseof business of DuPont. RESPONSE; Admitted, except DuPont notes that the following are the portions that have been included at Exhibit CC: Section Six (EID109687 - ED109696), Table 4.6 (EID109767 - EID109768), Table 6.5 (EID109781), Table 6.6 (ETD109782), Table 6.7 (ETD109783), Table 6.8 (EID109784), and Tabl6e.10 (E1D109786). n 000246 Lr Gite FrosSussion and Joasn ans) asa rm REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77. In tsRF Report, DuPont included a scresning Level health risk evaluatitoon identify the constituents and exposure pathways Uaat may be a concen for humambeaith and that may warrant further evaluation or action for DuPont's Washington Works plant. RESPONSE: Admincd, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78. In its RFI Report, DuPont derived preliminary screening levels for C-8 from DuPont community exposure guideline of 0.0003 my/m3 for C-8 in air. RESPONSE: DuPont object to this Request for Admission on the ground that tis t deliberately incompleteand calculated to lead to a fase conclusion. Subject 10 and without waiving this objection, admitted as phased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79. In its RFI Report, DuPont calculated preliminary screening levels for C-8 in soil and groundwater using an allowable daily intake of 0.006 mg/dayof C8 RESPONSE: DuPont objects o this Request or Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to afalse conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, admitted as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80. In ts RFI Report, DuPont selected 3 ppo 35 its preliminary screening levelfor C-8 in groundwater used as drinking water. RESPONSE: DuPont objects fo this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated 0 lead 10 3 false conclusion. Subject 10 and without waiving this objection, admiticd as phrased. 2 000247 anus wise ricsmBon an0 somian anzussi TMP onne fam REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81. In Augustof 1999, DuPont was proceeding with both its ecological and human health risk asscssments for C-8 and still anticipated. completing the projects by Januaryof 2000. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82. Attached hereto at Exhibit DD is an authentic and accurate copyof the business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83. In Septemberof1999, DuPont was advised { that the Supreme Court ofWest Virginia had relcased an opinion expanding the ability to recover `medical monitoring costs in situations where there has been exposure to toxic chemicals. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subjcet to 2nd without `waiving this objection, denied, except admitted that in September of 1999, certain cmployees of DuPont were informed that the West Virginia Supreme Courtof Appeals had recently entered an opinion that created a new legal claim allowing plaintiffs to sue for future costs of `medical monitoring. ' REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 84. Attached hereto at Exhibit EEisan authentic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 85. DuPont never finalized cither its ecological or human health risk assessmeats for C-8 in writing after the West Virginia Supreme Count 25 000248 Dn ite FenStaton 0d nen nasi tn pana fn issued its medical monitoring decision in Bower v, Westinghouse Electric Corp. 522 5.6.24 424 (1999). "RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that itis vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, denied, except admired hat DuPont had begun its extensive human health and ecological isk assessments prior to 1999, such risk assessmentsand research related t them are ongoing and portions have been reduced to writing afer 1999. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 86. By April of 2000, DuPont had performed modeling indicating tha, at the then-current emissions levels of C8 rom the DuPont t Washington Works plant, the concentration of C-8 in the Ohio River was predicted to be above DuPonr's 1 ppb communityexposure guideline for community water approximately 50% ofthe time. RESPONSE: DuPont objcts o this Request for Admission on the ground tht itis vague and ambiguous. DuPont also objectstothis Request for Admission on the ground that it isdeliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to 3 ase conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, admitted as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 87. Aachcd hereto at Exhibit FF is an authenic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseofbusiness of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 88. On August 15, 2000, atormeys for the Tennants advised DuPont's counsel that they had become sware that they had not received 2 000249 Janeen Gites FronStson aad iobsen si Ta we ean all of DuPont's documents relating to C-8 in connetion with the Tennant litigation and that the Teanants' counsel intended to seek immediate production of DuPont's C-8 documents. RESPONSE: DuPoat objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. DuPont also objects to this Request for Admission on the ground tha it is deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, denied. except admitted that in August 2000, Plaintils' counsel in the Tennant litigation claimed that he had not received all of DuPont's documents related to C- 8 and that he intended (0 seek immediate productionofthose documents REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 89. Attached hereto at Exhibit GG is an ` authentic and accurate copyof a leter that DuPont's counsel received from counsel for the `Teanants on or about August 15, 2000. RESPONSE: Admincd REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90. On August 16, 2000, executive officers of DuPont, including Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer, were notified that counsel for the Tennants was seeking additional ime to study the impact ofC- on the litigation. RESPONSE: Denied, except admited that in his August 16, 2000 Daily ! `Communications Repor, seat to executive officersof DuPont, including Charles O. Holliday, Jr, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, R. Clifton Webb stated: "Plaintiffs counsel requested a 6 month extension ( the proceedings for additional time to stady the impact of C-8." 3 000250 REFQORAUDMIE SSIOS NNOT .91. Avached hereto at Extibit HEL i an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared aad kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted, except that DuPont notes tha the document was redacted prior to production to Plaintiff. REFQORAUDMIE SSIOS NNOT .92. In August of 2000, DuPont sated that ts community exposure guideline of 1 ppb for C-8 in community drinking water is 3 elf regulated public heh limi, RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted that in a drat document prepared for discussion t purposes, a DuPont employee stated that the community exposure guideline of 1 ppb for C- in commit drinking water is a selFregulated public health limit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 93. In August of 2000, DuPont stated tht its community exposure guideline of 0.0003 milligrams per cubic meter ofC-8 in community air is: selfccgulated public health iitfor C3. RESPONSE: Denied, except admitted tha in a raft document prepared for discussion purposes, 3 DuPont employee stated tha the community exposure guidelineof 0.0003 milligrams per cubic meter ofC-8 in community sir is 3 self-regulaed public health limit or ' cs REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 94. Attached hereto at Exhibit lis an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared aad Kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. x 000251 rae vere aires rem entered ae vn fo ps Fos REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 95. Acute overexposureofhumans to C-8 can cause eye irritation with discomfor, tearing or blurringofvision, imitation of the upper . respiratory passages, and possible liver changes. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous and that it sets forth more than one matter to be adminied or denied in derogationofW.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). DuPont also 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 these objections, denied, except admitted that, based on animal testing, acute overexposureofanimals to C-8 can result in eye iritation, respirstory tract imitation and ! liver changes and it is assumed that acute overexposure of humans to C-8 may cause the same acute effects. However, DuPont specifically denies that acute overexposure to C-8 has produced chronic health effects in humans, REQUESTFOR ADMISSION NO. 96. Attached hereto at Exhibit J is an authentic and accurate copyof a busiaess record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course of business of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admined. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 97. In March of 2001, DuPont received a copy of ' a letter sent by counsel for the Tennants notifying various government agencies and DuPont of certain facts related to DuPont's handling of C-8 issues and, among other things, the Tennant's request for govemmental action in response (the "Tennant Letter") RESPONSE: DuPont objects 10 this Request for Admission on the ground that it 15 deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead 10 a flse conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, denied, except admitted that, in March 2001, DuPont received a copy of 2 000252 Jared lien FrovSustos and Lovsan wisi Ta rman aletter sent by counsel for the Tenants to various goverment agencies alleging certain things related to DuPont and C-8. DuPont specifically denies maonftyhe allegations in the March 2001 ener. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 98. Attached hereto at ExhibitKKis an authentic and accurate copyofthe text ofa leter DuPont received in March of 2001, RESPONSE: Admited. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 99. DuPont received adraftofthe Tennant Letter in November of2000. RESPONSE: DuPont objects [0 this Request for Admission on the ground that it is f deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject 10 and without waiving this objection, denied, except admitied that DuPont received a draft in November 2000 oaf letter from counsel for the Tennants to various govemment agencies alleging certain things related to DuPont and C-8. DuPont specifically denies that the draft received in November 2000 is identical to the Teanant letter received in March 2001 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 100. On March 9, 2001, Diane R. Shomper of DuPont stated that there arc potential ramifications to the entire fluoropolymers industry if there is very negative fallout from the Tennant Leter. ' RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that if 1s deliberately incomplete and calculated to lead to a false conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, admitted as phrased. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 101. Atached here as Exhibit LL is an authentic and accurate copyof a business record of DuPont prepured and kept :n the regular course of business ofDuPont. 30 000253 Leen we rae ws ine rescesisn ose fw RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 102. On March 9, 2001, executive officers of DuPon,including Charles 0. Holliday, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, were advisedofthe Tennant Letter and were informed that leadersof DuPont's fluoroproducts business would be meeting with DuPont's legal staff and public and `government affairs staff to refine its strategy in lightof the Tennant Letter. RESPONSE: DuPont objects to this Request for Admission on the ground that it sets forth more than onicmaterto be admitted or denied in derogation of W.Va. R. Civ. P. 36(a). Subject to and without waiving this objection, admitted. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 103. Attached hercto at Exhibit MM is an authentic and accurate copy ofa business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular course ofbusiness of DuPont. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 104. On March 22, 2001, DuPont was advised that counsel for the Tennants intended to make a presentation to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") relating to C-8 during an upcoming public hearing, ' RESPONSE; Deaicd, except admuted that on March 22, 2001, certain DuPont employees ware told that an attorney in the Tennant ligation had gotten on the agenda for an EPA mecting on PFOS and that the attorney's inieat was to discuss APFO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 105. Attached hereto at Exhibit NN is an authentic and accurate copyofthe business record of DuPont prepared and kept in the regular courseofbusiness of DuPont 3 000254 RESPONSE: Admitted. REFQ ORAU DMISE SIOS NNO.T 106. In March of2001, DuPont's counsel filed papers with the United States District Court for the Southem District of West Virginia seeking a gag order to prevent the Tennants' counsel from publicly discussing cerain C-3 issues. RESPONSE: DuPont admits as follows: in Marchof 2001,inthe United States District . Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, DuPont's counsel flead Motion for Temporary RestrainingOrderaad Preliminary Injunction to prevent Tennants' counsel from making any extrajudicial statements regarding the Tennant case. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 107. DuPont's attempt to obtain a gag order against the Tennants counsel was rejected by the Federal Court in West Virginia in March of 2001. RESPONSE: DuPont admits as follows: on March 26, 2001, the United States District Cout for the Southern District of West Virginia denied DuPont's Motion for `Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108. On May 23, 2001, 3letter dated May 19, 2001, was received in the office of DuPont's Chairmanofthe Board in which aa alleged ' former employeeofDuPont stated that he had knowledge of facts indicating that the DuPont Washington Works plant and local drinking water supply was seriously contaminated with C- 8 and alleged that DuPont management's response to the situation was illegal and immoral. RESPONSE: Denied, except admired that on May 23, 2001, the office of DuPont's Chairmanof the Board received a copy ofa letter addressed to Christine T. Whitman, EPA Administrator, authored by an unidentified person who claimed in the bodyof the lewer 0 be 2 000255 ns wien rie 0 ari zs pa pm 4 former employee of DuPont. DuPont further admits that in the leter the alleged former employee stated thathe had knowledge of facts indicating thal the DuPont Washington Works plant and local drinking water supply was seriously contaminated with C- and alleged that DuPont management's response to the situation was illegal and immoral. DuPont specifically denies the allegations in the body of the letter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109. Attached hereto at Extibit OOisan authentic and accurate copy ofa letter thas was received inthe office of DuPont's Chaismanofthe Board onor about May 23, 2001. RESPONSE: Admitted. { REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 110. In Juneof 2001, DuPont initiated discussions with the State of West Virginia's DepartmentofEnvironmeatal Protection (*WVDEP) regarding a potential consent order ( address the nature and exteat of C- released fiom DuPont's Washington Works plant RESPONSE: Deaicd. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11. On November 1, 2001, DuPont publicly announced that it would begin the manufactureofC-8 a ts Fayerteville, North Carolina facility RESPONSE: Admitted REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12, Attached hereto at Exhibit PP is an authentic and accurate copyof a business recordofDuPont prepared and kept a the regular course of businessof DuPont. RESPONSE: Admined. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113. On August 30, 2002. employees of USEPA met with, among others. employeesof DuPont and discussed, among other things, 000256 Lar Sit rotision ind etn asus va pase ran the USEPA's interpretation of existing PFOA toxicity studies, and the USEPA representatives specifically requested that aay disagreements with USEPA's interpretation of PFOA toreiy stuies bests and resolved with USEPA's ff prioe any subsequent meeting with he USEPA. RESPONSE; DuPont objects 0 tis Request for Admission on he ground tht it sts forth more than ane panier to be admit or dened in derogation ofW.Va. . Civ. 2. 360 Subject to and without waiving tis cbjection, denied except admiced tha on August 30, 2002, employees of DuPont met with employeesofthe USEPA and discussed the Intrpemaion of ara PFOA soiely sien. ( REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14. During a conference call among USEPA AR a Ee nse on SAT LOE eon DuPont paricipants on the call acknowledged any differenceofapinion with he USEPA `with respect to PFOA hazard issues. RESPONSE: DuPont abies to this Request for Admission onthe ground that iis vag targus, Subs and wit wali ts funn, denied REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15. Wik respect to USEPA's interpretation of PFOA toxicity and hazard issues, USEPA advised DuPont, among others. in September of ( 2002 that the toxicology data submitted t0-&SEPA suggests a potenual for reproductive/ developmental toxicity and low level C- exposures othe general populton tht were unexplained aof September 2002. RESPONSE: DuPont objects t tis Request for Admission onthe geound that i sets forth mor han one mater be admied or denied in derogation of W.Va. &. Civ 2. 36s) Pon to ehfot vo i gat fo Ado hs gros tho es vgn sn ' 000257 Leese mn Coit ann resis ee pn ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, denied, except admitted that with respect to USEPA's interpretation of PEOA toxicity and hazard issues, USEPA advised DuPont, among others, in September of 2002 thal the toxicology data submitted to USEPA suggests a potential for reproductive/ developmental toxiciy. Respectfully submited, EL DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY By SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC { CHheaartlheesr LH.eiWsokeoldlyJo(nWesV(SWtaVteSBtaaterBa#r41#304)913) P5.000.KBaonxa2w7h3a Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25321-0273 304-340-3800 Laurence F. Janssen 6S3T3EWPeTsOtE5&" SJtrOeeHtN,SSOiNe, 7L0L0P Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-439-9400 SStTeEpPheTnOEA. &FeaJnOeHilNSON, LLP ( W1a3s3h0iCnogninoenc,tiD.cCu.t A2v0e0n3u6e, NW 2020429-3000 3 000258 Je ise FroStaton ad doesn anus ta pa fan IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA JACK W. LEACH, ET AL. Plaintiffs, v. E.1 DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, and LUBECK PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, Defendants. . CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-C-608 (Judge George W.Hill, Jr.) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ( 1, Heather Heiskell Joncs, do hereby certify that have scrved a true and exact copy "ResponsesofE. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company to Plaiafiffy' Third Set of Requests for Admissions to DuPoat" upon the following counselof ecord in the manner indicated. below on this 23" day of January 2003, addressed as follows: LWaamtyerA.JoWhinnstoenr,&EsHqill PLLC 5Ch0a0rlE.estVoinr,giWniVa S2tr5e3e0t1 Counselfor Plainnffs Via Hand Delivery ( R. Edison Hill, Esq HHiallr. rPGeyt.erDseonnz,leCra,rpEesr,q Bee & Deutzler, PLLC `5N0o0rThrGaactyeWBuasyiness Park CChoaurnlseesltofno.r WPlVain2t5y3fs11-1261 Via Hand Delivery 000259 LarB Sie Fonsi 1d oben ass pu san TRoabhe,rStteAr.tiBniiluosts&, EHsoql.lister LLP 4128500WFailrnsutatr STwoeweetr : Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 Counselfor Plaintiffs Via Facsimile (513) 381-0205 and U.S. Mail John R. MecGhes, Esa. K16a0y0CBaastnok &OnCehaCennetyerPLLC P.0. Box 2031 CChoaurnlseesltofno,rWLuVbe2c5k3P2u7blic Service District Via Hand Delivery ( 4Ri1c4hMaarrdkAe.tHSaiyrheuexrst, Esq. PPa.r0k.eBrsobxur8g6, WV 26102 VCioaun" selfh or Lue beck P4u2b8l.i2c6S7e4rv5ice DUi.sSt,ricMtait Feather Reiskell Janes (WV State Ba#r 4913) ( 2. 000260