Georjean L Adams
03/29/99 04:22 PM
Corporate Product Responsibility
290-O4-O1
Tel: 737-4795
Fax: 736-927B

To:
cc:
Subject:

David A. Sonstegard/US-Corporate/3M/US@3M-Corporate
Re: 8e Follow up - Fish

What I sent to the Be commitlee on Fdday 1:30pm and Tom’s reply:
To:

Dale L. Bacon/ET.ET&S/3M/US@3M-Coqx)rate
Thomas J. DiPasquale/I.A-Legal/3M/US@3M-Corporate
Bill Weppner/LIS-Corporate/3M/US @ 3M-Corporete
John P. Pasinski/US-Corporate/3M/US@3M-Corporate
John L. Butenhoff/US-Corporetei3M/US@3M-Corporete
Richard E. PurdyAJS-Corporale/3M/UB@3M-Corporate
Jeffrey H. Mandel/US-Corporate/3M/US@3M-Corporete

Subject:

8e Follow up - Fish

03 166319

03 166320

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

It has been more than 3 months since we reviewed Rich’s hypothesis on food chain contamination. At that
time we decided there was insufficient data to support a submission. What is the status of obtaining data
to either support or refute the need to report?
Forwamled by Georjean L. Adams/US.Corporate/3MAJS on 03/29/99 04:12 PM
~-~.... :

!..,,,!,

.:

~,,

Thomas J. DiPasquale
03/26/99 03:21 PM
Office of General Counsel
This communicat~n co(ltaJns confide~ial infonv,alJo~ intended only for Ihe addressee(s) named below and may
contain information that is legally privileged.
Building 220-12E-02, 3M Center, St. Paul, MN 55144 USA
Tel: (651) 733-1891
Fax: (651) 736-94~9

To:
CC:

Subject:.

Georjean L Adams/US-Coqx)rate/3M/US @ 3M-Corporate
Dale L Bacon/ET-ET&S/3M/USO3M-Corporate
Bill Wepprmr/!.l~.,orporate/3M/US @ 3M-Corporate
John P. Pas~nsld/U,S~rate/3M/U$@3M-Coq0orate
John L Butenhoff/US-Colporater3M/US@ 3M-Coq)orete
Richard E. Purdy/US-~rate/31WUS@3M.Coq)orate
Jeffrey H. Mandel/US-Coq~orate/3M/US@ 3M-Corporate
Re: 8e Follow up - Fish ~

Georjean. I’m not sure there is a need to support or refute the hypothesis within any particular time frame.
ff I recall correctly, the work was itself not part of our formal plan for assessment of environmental

03 166321

Made Available by 3M for Inspection and Copying as Confidential Information:
Subject to Protective Order In Palmer v. 3M, No. C2-04-6309

1003.0001

3MA01373218

 exposure. There are many other theories circulating within the company about paths of exposure, but we
cannot undertake extensive efforts to confirm or refute them in each instance. As we discussed eadier this
week, a comprehensive exposure assessment plan, with timetables, milestones, objectives, etc. should be
our guiding document. This will be needed both for the EPA and for our own purposes. If in the judgment
of those who are managing the environmental exposure project the Purdy hypothesis deserves
consideration, then it should be incorporated into the comprehensive plan, assigned a pdodty, and given
the necessary resource allocation. I don’t see it as standing alone or separate from the broader plan.
Tom
Rich’s response to Tom:
Plan! That is the same stalling technique you have been using for the last year. There is a high probability
that PFOS is killing madne mammals and you want another plan when we could have had data to support
the dsk assessment long ago. You were given a plan in 1983. Again in the eady 90s. And you
authorized no testing.
As I recall we obtained data that eaglets contain PFOS in their plasma last April. Then you as part of an
upper management team dispersed the team that initiated the collecting of that data as part of their plan.
And then you said we had to put together a plan under the Battelle umbrella. As of now we still have not
gotten any data because of that tactic. Battelle is an albatross around our necks and so are you.
Preliminary data indicates that adult eagles have 50 times as much in their plasma than those eaglets. We
could have gotten that data and more last summer if we were not stuck planning with Battelle. Don’t you
realize we have a plan. You continually ignore our plans and start new plans that slows the collection of
data essential for our risk assesssments. You slow our progress in understanding the extent of PFOS
pollution and damage. For 20 years the division has been stalling the collection of data needed for
evaluating the environmental impact of fluorochemicals.
PFOS is the most onerous pollutant since PCB and you wahl to avoid collecting data that indicates that it
is probably worse. I am outrage.

03 166322
Made Available by 3M for Inspection and Copying as Confidential Information:
Subject to Protective Order In Palmer v. 3M, No. C2-04-6309

1003.0002

3MA01373219