2016-09-26 Motion To Dismiss

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS )
CORP., and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL )
INC. f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. and/or
)
)
ALLIEDSIGNAL LAMINATE SYSTEMS,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants.
)
MICHELE BAKER; CHARLES CARR;
ANGELA CORBETT; PAMELA FORREST;
MICHAEL HICKEY, individually and as parent
and natural guardian of O.H., infant;
KATHLEEN MAINLINGENER; KRISTIN
MILLER, as parent and natural guardian of
K.M., infant; JAMES MORIER; JENNIFER
PLOUFFE; SILVIA POTTER, individually and
as parent and natural guardian of K.P, infant; and
DANIEL SCHUTTIG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Civ. No. 1:16-CV-917 (LEK/DJS)
Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY THE MASTER

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support
of Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Stay the Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
dated September 26, 2016, and Declaration of Dale Desnoyers, and upon all of the pleadings and
proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court before U.S. District
Court Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York,
located at 445 Broadway, Albany, New York on the 2nd day of December, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. for
an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6) dismissing the Complaint against
Defendants Honeywell International Inc. and Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation.
Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2
Dated: September 26, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael Koenig

Michael Koenig (507425)
Christopher Fenlon (516392)
HINCKLEY ALLEN
30 S. Pearl Street, Suite 901
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 396-3100
Fax: (518) 396-3101
mkoenig@hinckleyallen.com
cfenlon@hinckleyallen.com
/s/ Dale Desnoyers

Dale Desnoyers (103795)
ALLEN & DESNOYERS LLP
90 State Street, Suite 1009
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 426-2288
Facsimile: (518) 426-2299
dale@allendesnoyers.com
Michael D. Daneker (107356)
Elissa J. Preheim (107355)
Allyson Himelfarb (107357)
Tal Machnes (519954)
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
Michael.Daneker@aporter.com
Elissa.Preheim@aporter.com
Allyson.Himelfarb@aporter.com
Tal.Machnes@aporter.com
Sheila L. Birnbaum (505978)

Mark S. Cheffo (302113)
Douglas E. Fleming, III (519941)
Patrick Curran (519940)
Lincoln Davis Wilson (520260)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
51 Madison Ave.
New York, New York 10010
Tel: 212-849-7000
Fax: 212-849-7100
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com
patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com
Attorneys for Defendant

Honeywell International Inc.
Attorneys for Defendant Saint-Gobain

Performance Plastics Corporation
Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 50

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
INC. f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. and/or
)
)
ALLIEDSIGNAL LAMINATE SYSTEMS,
)
INC.,
)
Defendants.
)
Civ. No. 1:16-CV-917 (LEK/DJS)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

OR STAY THE MASTER CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................4
A.
PFOA Detection in Hoosick Falls and Response by Saint-Gobain and

Honeywell ................................................................................................................5
B.
Recent Test Results and Lifting of Water Use Restrictions ....................................7
C.
New York Regulatory Efforts to Address PFOA in Hoosick Falls .........................8
D.
Federal Regulatory Efforts.......................................................................................9
E.
Plaintiffs Consolidated Class Action Complaint ..................................................10

1.
Claims for Injunctive Relief.......................................................................11
2.
Damages Claims ........................................................................................11
LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................................12

A.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ....................................................................................12
B.
Primary Jurisdiction ...............................................................................................13
C.
Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)..............................................................................13
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................14
I.
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE

DISMISSED, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAYED ..................................................14
A.
B.
This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction To Hear Plaintiffs Claims

for Injunctive Relief...............................................................................................14
1.
EPAs Efforts to Date Are Removal Actions that Trigger

CERCLAs Statutory Bar ..........................................................................15
2.
Plaintiffs Request for Injunctive Relief Amounts to a Challenge

of EPAs Removal Action .........................................................................17
The Court Should Dismiss or Stay the Injunctive Relief Claims Under the
Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine ................................................................................18
1.
Plaintiffs Claims Involve Technical and Policy Considerations

Within the Agencies Expertise .................................................................19
2.
EPA, DEC, and NYDOH Have Discretion and Authority to

Administer the Testing for and Remediation of PFOA .............................22
II.
3.
Plaintiffs Claims Present a Substantial Risk of Inconsistent

Rulings .......................................................................................................25
4.
EPA, DEC, and NYDOH Are Actively Involved in Testing for and
Remediating PFOA in Hoosick Falls.........................................................28
5.
At a Minimum, A Temporary Stay of At Least 90 Days Is

Warranted...................................................................................................29
THE DAMAGES CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED .................................................30

A.
Plaintiffs Property Damage Claims Fail as a Matter of Law................................31

1.
Alleged Groundwater Contamination Is Not Injury to Real

Property......................................................................................................31
2.
Property Damage Claims Fail Without Physical Injury to Property..........32
B.
Plaintiffs Nuisance Claims Fail as a Matter of Law.............................................35
C.
Plaintiffs Request for Medical Monitoring Fails as a Matter of Law...................36

1.
New York Law Requires a Physical Injury for Medical Monitoring ........36
2.
Plaintiffs Do Not Allege a Physical Injury ................................................38
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................41
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
55 Motor Ave. Co. v. Liberty Indus. Finishing Corp.,
885 F. Supp. 410 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) ..........................................................................................35
532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc.,
96 N.Y.2d 280 (2001) ..............................................................................................................34
APWU v. Potter,
343 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................15
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009).................................................................................................................14
B.H. v. Gold Fields Mining Corp.,
506 F. Supp. 2d 792 (N.D. Okla. 2007).......................................................................20, 25, 29
Baykeeper v. NL Indus., Inc.,
660 F.3d 686 (3d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................28
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007)...........................................................................................................13, 14
Boarhead Corp. v. Erickson,
923 F.2d 1011 (3d Cir. 1991).......................................................................................15, 16, 18
Broward Gardens Tenants Assn v. U.S. E.P.A.,
311 F.3d 1066 (11th Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................................17
Browning-Ferris Indus. of S. Jersey, Inc. v. Muszynski,
899 F.2d 151 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Alliance For
Environmental Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid Crossgates Co.,
436 F.3d 82 (2d Cir 2006)..................................................................................................24, 27
Caldarola v. Town of Smithtown,
2010 WL 6442698 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2010), report and recommendation adopted,
2011 WL 1336574 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2011) ...........................................................................36
Camillus Clean Air Coal. v. Honeywell Intl, Inc.,
947 F. Supp. 2d 208 (N.D.N.Y. 2013)...............................................................................17, 18
Cannon v. Gates,
538 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2008) .........................................................................................16, 17
Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
22 N.Y.2d 452 (2013) .............................................................................................. 4, 11, 35-40
iii
City of New York v. Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc.,

20 Misc. 3d 1110, 867 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2008 WL 2572853 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty.
2008), affd, 65 A.D.3d 1071 (2d Dept 2009) .......................................................................36
Collins v. Olin Corp.,
418 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Conn. 2006)............................................................................ 22-25, 28
In re Combustion Equip. Assocs.,
838 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................15
Concerned Pastors for Soc. Action v. Khouri,
2016 WL 3626819 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2016) .........................................................................27
Copart Indus., Inc. v. Con. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 568 (1977)................36
Cornick v. Forever Wild Dev. Corp.,
240 A.D.2d 980 (3d Dept 1997) .............................................................................................33
Davies v. Natl Coop. Refinery Assn,
963 F. Supp. 990 (D. Kan. 1997)........................................................................... 20, 25, 27-28
Dumontier v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.,
543 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................40
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States,
750 F.3d 863 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................17
Ellis v. Tribune Television Co.,
443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006)......................................................................... 13, 18, 19, 22-25, 28
Farmers Against Irresponsible Remediation (FAIR) v. EPA,
165 F. Supp. 2d 253 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).....................................................................................13
Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
292 A.D.2d 118 (1st Dept 2002) ............................................................................................39
Friends of Santa Fe Cty. v. LAC Minerals, Inc.,
892 F. Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1995) ...............................................................................25, 27, 29
Garcia v. Does,
779 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2015).................................................................................................14, 30
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker,
39 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1994).........................................................................................................18
Ham v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
70 F. Supp. 3d 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .....................................................................................13
Hanford Downwinders Coal., Inc. v. Dowdle,
71 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................16
Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v. Parmelees Forest Prods. Inc.,
289 A.D.2d 642 (3d Dept 2001) .......................................................................................34, 38
iv
Integrated Waste Servs., Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc.,

216 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 2000)...................................................................................................33
Ivory v. Intl Bus. Machs. Corp.,
37 Misc. 3d 1221, 2012 WL 5680180 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Broome Cty. 2012), affd, 116
A.D.3d 121 (3d Dept 2014) ..................................................................................32, 33, 37, 39
Jones v. Halliburton Energy Servs.,
2016 WL 1212133 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2016)..............................................20, 22, 24, 25, 28
June v. Union Carbide Corp.,
577 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................40
Lyon v. Gila River Indian Cmty.,
626 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................13
MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp.,
931 F. Supp. 2d 387 (N.D.N.Y. 2013).....................................................................................14
Madden v. Creative Servs., Inc.,
84 N.Y.2d 738 (1995) ..............................................................................................................38
Makarova v. United States,
201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000).....................................................................................................12
Massachusetts v. EPA,
549 U.S. 497 (2007).................................................................................................................21
McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation (MESS) v. Perry,
47 F.3d 325 (9th Cir. 1995) ...............................................................................................15, 17
McCormick v. Halliburton Co.,
2012 WL 1119493 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 3, 2012) ......................................................20, 22, 25, 28
Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc.,
71 F. Supp. 2d 179 (W.D.N.Y. 1999) ......................................................................................33
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig.,
725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013).......................................................................................................32
Metro-N. Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley,
521 U.S. 424 (1997)...........................................................................................................37, 38
Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipeline Co.,
532 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1976) ...................................................................................................28
In re N.Y. Cnty. DES Litig.,
89 N.Y.2d 506 (1997) ..............................................................................................................38
Natl Commcns Assn, Inc. v. Am. Tele. & Tele. Co.,
46 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 1995).......................................................................................................13
New York v. Union Fork & Hoe Co.,
1992 WL 107363 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 1992).............................................................................32
v
Niagara Falls Redevelopment, LLC v. Cerrone,

28 A.D.3d 1138 (4th Dept 2006)............................................................................................33
Oasis Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. Dept of Energy,
718 F.2d 1558 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1983) ..........................................................................19
Ortega v. City of New York,
9 N.Y.3d 69 (2007) ..................................................................................................................38
Patchen v. Govt Emprs Ins. Co.,
759 F. Supp. 2d 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) .....................................................................................14
Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc.,
712 F.3d 705 (2d Cir. 2013).....................................................................................................14
Pilchen v. City of Auburn, N.Y.,
728 F. Supp. 2d 192 (N.D.N.Y. 2010).....................................................................................32
Player v. Motiva Enters. LLC,
2006 WL 166452 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2006), affd, 240 F. Appx 513 (3d Cir. 2007) ...........34, 35
Razore v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington,
66 F.3d 236 (9th Cir. 1995) .........................................................................................14, 16, 17
Rebecca Moss, Ltd. v. 540 Acquisition Co.,
285 A.D.2d 416 (1st Dept 2001) ............................................................................................34
Remson v. Verizon Commcns, Inc.,
2009 WL 723872 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2009), overruled in part on other grounds by
Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 22 N.Y.2d 452 (2013)..............................................35, 39
Residents for Sane Trash Sols., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs,
31 F. Supp. 3d 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)........................................................................................33
Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................34, 40
Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.,
335 Md. 58 (1994) ...................................................................................................................35
Rowe v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.,
262 F.R.D. 451 (D.N.J. 2009)..................................................................................................35
Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.,
857 F. Supp. 838 (D.N.M. 1994) ......................................................... 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 29
Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Drakos,
140 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 1998)...............................................................................................12, 13
Smith v. Potter,
208 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619
(2d Cir. 2003)...........................................................................................................................16
vi
S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. EPA,

681 F. Supp. 1244 (E.D. Mich. 1988)......................................................................................16
State v. Fermenta ASC Corp.,
238 A.D.2d 400 (2d Dept 1997) .............................................................................................32
State v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
147 A.D.2d 77 (3d Dept 1989) .........................................................................................32, 33
Stratford Holding, LLC v. Foot Locker Retail Inc.,
2013 WL 5550461 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2013) ........................................................................25
Sweet v. City of Syracuse,
129 N.Y. 316 on rehg sub nom. Comstock v. City of Syracuse, 129 N.Y. 643 (1891) ....31, 32
United States ex rel. Taylor v. Gabelli,
345 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)......................................................................................13
United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co.,
352 U.S. 59 (1956)...................................................................................................................18
Wanich v. Bitter,
12 Misc. 3d 1165, 2006 WL 1547566 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty. 2006)..............................38
Statutes and Rules
42 U.S.C. 9601..........................................................................................................10, 15, 16, 17
42 U.S.C. 9602............................................................................................................................21
42 U.S.C. 9604................................................................................................................15, 21, 23
42 U.S.C. 9606............................................................................................................................23
42 U.S.C. 9613............................................................................................................2, 14, 29, 30
Fed. R. Evid. 201 ...........................................................................................................................13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.......................................................................................................3, 4, 12, 13, 30
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 3-0301 ..............................................................................................21
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 15-0313 ............................................................................................21
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 15-0103 ............................................................................................23
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 27-1305(2)..................................................................................21, 23
N.Y. Pub. Health Law 201....................................................................................................21, 22
N.Y. Pub. Health Law 1100........................................................................................................22
N.Y. Pub. Health Law 1389-b ....................................................................................................24
vii
Other Authorities
David Freeman et al., Hazardous Waste, in 9A New York Practice Series- Environmental
Law and Regulation in New York (Philip Weinberg et al. eds., 2d ed. updated Oct.
2015) ........................................................................................................................................24
George A. Rodenhausen, Water Supply and Stream Protection, in 9 New York Practice
Series- Environmental Law and Regulation in New York (Philip Weinberg et al. eds.,
2d ed. updated Oct. 2015) ........................................................................................................22
viii
Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (Saint-Gobain) and

Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in
support of their motion to grant the following relief with regard to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint: (1) dismiss or stay the Complaints injunctive relief claims; and (2) dismiss the
Complaints damages claims with prejudice.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This putative class action Complaint was filed pursuant to this Courts order
consolidating four putative class actions concerning the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) in groundwater in Hoosick Falls, New York. (Dkt. 1.) PFOA is a compound that
repels oil, grease, and water, and was widely used by many companies for many years to
manufacture numerous products, including food packaging, clothing, furniture fabrics, and
cookware. (Compl. 37-38.) Plaintiffs allege that PFOA is present in groundwater due to its
use by Honeywell and Saint-Gobain at various facilities in Hoosick Falls. During the time
PFOA manufacturers phased it out from 2004 to 2015 pursuant to voluntary agreements with
regulators, PFOA was not designated or regulated as a hazardous substance under New York or
federal law. PFOA was first designated a hazardous substance by the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) earlier this year.
Following discovery of PFOA in groundwater in Hoosick Falls, federal and state
agencies have been working in cooperation with Saint-Gobain and Honeywell to provide various
remedial measures, many of which have been memorialized in consent orders. In addition,
private plaintiffs have filed several putative class actions seeking various relief from SaintGobain and Honeywell, due to the alleged use of materials containing PFOA by Saint-Gobain
and Honeywell in Hoosick Falls. Those actions have been consolidated in the Complaint at issue
here. (See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs purport to represent five putative classes and seek relief including
abatement of the alleged contamination, damages for alleged diminution of property value, and
medical monitoring. As set forth below, Plaintiffs injunctive relief claims should be dismissed
or stayed and Plaintiffs damages claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
Dismissal of Claims for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs requests for injunctive relief must be dismissed because they constitute
challenges to removal actions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). Under CERCLA, [n]o Federal court shall have jurisdiction ... to review any
challenges to removal or remedial action selected under [CERCLA]. 42 U.S.C. 9613(h).
Here, EPA is conducting ongoing removal actions in Hoosick Falls, including soil and
groundwater testing, and has recently proposed the designation of a facility in Hoosick Falls as a
CERCLA Superfund Site as a high priority for remediation. For several months, EPA has been
conducting testing in Hoosick Falls to assess environmental conditions. Because EPAs actions
in Hoosick Falls constitute removal actions under CERCLA, Plaintiffs demands for remediation
different from or in addition to that being provided by federal agencies are impermissible
challenges barred under CERCLA. Plaintiffs injunctive claims should therefore be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
In addition, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court should dismiss or stay
Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief under the primary jurisdiction doctrine in deference to the
ongoing remedial work of both federal and state agencies in cooperation with Defendants. Since
the presence of PFOA in local groundwater was brought to their attention, Defendants have
engaged in a number of remedial measures for the benefit of the Hoosick Falls community, even
while the source of PFOA has not been determined. These measures include providing free
bottled water to residents of Hoosick Falls, purchasing and installing a filtration system for the
municipal water supply, and providing individual point-of-entry treatment systems (POETs) for
Village residents who obtain water from private wells. Those remedial measures have now been
memorialized in a consent order issued by DEC and executed by Saint-Gobain and Honeywell,
pursuant to which a full-capacity filtration system for the municipal water supply is due to be
delivered and installed later this year. The New York Department of Health (NYDOH) is also
involved in testing in Hoosick Falls and coordinating on other remedial measures. Saint-Gobain
2
and Honeywell continue to cooperate with state and federal regulators with respect to
implementing remedial measures regarding PFOA in Hoosick Falls.
In light of this ongoing multi-agency response, parallel litigation of the same issues in
federal court poses more likelihood of conflicting determinations or, at best, unnecessary
duplication of effort, than it does of prompt adjudication of individuals claims. The substantial
remedial activities that have already been completed, the installation of additional measures later
this year, and the pending federal Superfund designation may each substantially moot or bar
Plaintiffs claims before they can be heard. Accordingly, in deference to administrative expertise
and the interests of judicial and party efficiency, this Court should dismiss or stay the Plaintiffs
claims for injunctive relief under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
Dismissal of Claims for Damages
The Court should dismiss the Complaints damages claims under Rule 12(b)(6) due to
failure to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiffs plead three broad
categories of alleged damagesproperty damage, damages for interference with use and
enjoyment of property, and damages to fund a medical monitoring program. They purport to
allege each of these on behalf of corresponding putative classes and under a variety of causes of
action. Yet they fail to plead facts that plausibly establish a cognizable injury to support any of
this relief under New York tort law, and their claims must therefore be dismissed.
First, Plaintiffs cannot recover for property damage because, quite simply, they plead no
damage to property. Plaintiffs fundamental factual allegation is that the groundwater in Hoosick
Falls is contaminated with PFOA. Yet groundwater is not real property held by Plaintiffs.
Rather, it is a natural resource held by the State for the benefit of the public. Plaintiffs thus lack
standing to sue for an alleged injury to groundwater, and they do not allege any physical injury to
their property. Their property damage claims must therefore be dismissed.
Second, Plaintiffs cannot recover for lost use and enjoyment of property under their
private nuisance cause of action. This is so because a private nuisance claim requires injury to a
small number of persons, which is flatly inconsistent with Plaintiffs allegations that the entire
Hoosick Falls community has been affected in the same way.
Third, Plaintiffs cannot recover medical monitoring as damages because such relief
requires a physical injury that they have not pled. Plaintiffs purport to plead they have each
experienced a physical injurybut somehow not a personal injuryby alleging increased risk
of injury from PFOA, accumulation of PFOA in their blood, and other purported sub-clinical
harm. Yet the New York Court of Appeals in Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc,, 22 N.Y.3d
439 (2013), has definitively rejected such asymptomatic formulations of injury as contrary to
New York law and as insufficient to support medical monitoring. As Caronia cautioned, to
allow medical monitoring based on the mere presence of a chemical in the human body would
authorize millions of new claims based on any alleged exposure allegedly leading to an increased
risk of disease, while at the same time depleting resources for those who have actually sustained
damage. Plaintiffs attempt to obtain medical monitoring based on purported sub-clinical injury
fails for the same reasons as in Caronia.
Accordingly, the Court should stay or dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction or
for failure to state a claim.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege that PFOA is present in groundwater in the Village of Hoosick Falls and
the Town of Hoosick, New York due to the historical use of materials containing PFOA in
manufacturing facilities in and around Hoosick Falls. (Compl. 60.)1 Plaintiffs assert state-law
The facts taken from the allegations in the Complaint are assumed to be true solely for the
purpose of this motion to dismiss. Defendants do not waive their right to challenge any factual
allegations in the Complaint. In addition to the factual allegations in the Complaint, the facts
cited herein are from sources that the Court may consider for purposes of conducting its analysis
under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, see infra Section I.B, and/or may be judicially noticed in
support of Defendants motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), see infra Section II. By reciting
the facts of various governmental assertions and actions in this motion to dismiss, Defendants do
not concede their agreement with all such assertions or actions.
4
claims against Saint-Gobain, the current owner of a coatings manufacturing operation, including
a facility located on McCaffrey Street, and Honeywell, whose corporate predecessor AlliedSignal previously also conducted coatings operations there. (Id. 61-64.) Plaintiffs do not
allege that either Saint-Gobain or Honeywell was a manufacturer of PFOA, but rather purchased
compounds containing PFOA from other companies. 2 Although Defendants used materials
containing PFOA, PFOA was not designated or regulated as a hazardous substance under New
York or federal law until 2016. (Id. 53-54.)
Saint-Gobain and Honeywell have been cooperating and working actively with regulators
to identify, assess, and implement specific remedial measures with respect to PFOA in Hoosick
Falls. They have been doing so both before and since entering into Consent Orders with DEC in
June 2016, which direct the continued investigative and remedial activities. (See id. 118.)
A.
PFOA Detection in Hoosick Falls and Response by Saint-Gobain and

Honeywell
The Village of Hoosick Falls first detected PFOA in its municipal water supply in
October 2014. (Compl. 89, 94.) Saint-Gobain was advised on December 12, 2014 that PFOA
had been detected at elevated levels in the Villages municipal water supply, and on December
30, 2014, Saint-Gobain voluntarily reported the presence of PFOA in the Villages water supply
to EPA.3 Saint-Gobain conducted voluntary sampling of groundwater at the McCaffrey Street
facility in September 2015, which reported PFOA at elevated levels.4 While investigations were
U.S. manufacturers of PFOA include the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
(3M), Arkema, Asahi, BASF Corp., Clariant, Daikin, DuPont, and Solvay Solexis. (Compl.
35-36.)
3
See Ex. 1, Letter from David G. Sarvadi to EPA at 1 (Dec. 30, 2014), available at
http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/SaintGobainLetterToEPA_Re_TSCA.pdf. All Exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Dale
Desnoyers submitted herewith.
4
See Ex. 2, Letter from David Borge, Mayor of Village of Hoosick Falls to Residents of Village
of
Hoosick
Falls
(Dec.
1,
2015),
available
at
http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Media/PDF/WaterLetter-12012015.pdf.
and are still pending, Saint-Gobain has voluntarily offered a number of remedial measures for
Hoosick Falls, including:
Providing residents of Hoosick Falls with bottled water (Compl. 102);
Funding the installation of a temporary granulated activated carbon (GAC)

treatment system for the municipal water system to remove PFOA from drinking
water (Compl. 103);
Design, installation, operation and maintenance of a long term full capacity GAC
treatment system for the municipal supply wells;5
Funding of installation of POETs for Village residents who obtain their water from
private wells, rather than the municipal supply;6 and
Ongoing work with Hoosick Falls and NYDOH to evaluate additional concerns
related to the presence of PFOA in the vicinity of the McCaffrey Street facility.7
As Plaintiffs Complaint acknowledges, in February 2016, DEC began working with
Saint-Gobain and Honeywell to enter into an enforceable Consent Order to characterize and
investigate the extent of the contamination, to provide interim remedial measures to protect
health and drinking water supplies, to analyze alternatives for providing clean and safe drinking
water and, ultimately, to design and implement a comprehensive clean-up and remediation
protocol. (Compl. 119.) A Consent Order relating to the McCaffrey and Liberty Street sites
was finalized and issued in June 2016. (Id. 125.)8 A second Consent Order involving only
See Ex. 3, Letter from Basil Seggos, N.Y. Dept of Envtl. Conservation to Mayor David Borge,
Hoosick
Falls
(Mar.
8,
2016),
available
at
http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/DECLetterToMayor-03082016.pdf.
6
See Ex. 4, Letter from Mayor David Borge to Residents of Village of Hoosick Falls (June
2016), available at http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/LettertoResidents062316.pdf.
7
See id.
Ex. 5, Executed Consent Order dated June 3, 2016 regarding McCaffrey and Liberty Street
Sites (McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order).
6
Honeywell, also issued in June 2016, provides for environmental investigation into potential
PFOA presence at additional sites in Hoosick Falls. (Id.)9
Pursuant to the Consent Order involving both companies, Saint-Gobain and Honeywell
will, among other things:
Share funding for Saint-Gobains environmental investigations of the McCaffrey and

Liberty Street Plants;
Share costs for providing residents with bottled water and for upgrading the existing
water treatment system to a full capacity system;
Evaluate alternative water supply options for area residents; and
Reimburse the state for costs associated with water and soil sampling, including water
sampling of private wells, and other various administrative costs.10
Environmental testing is currently being conducted pursuant to these Consent Orders. 11

Alteration of the Consent Orders requires DEC approval.12
B.
Recent Test Results and Lifting of Water Use Restrictions
By February 26, 2016, the temporary GAC treatment system at the municipal water
treatment plant, paid for by Saint-Gobain, had been installed and was fully operational (Compl.
121), such that NYDOH found that no detectable level of PFOA exists in the municipal water
supply.13 On September 6, 2016, NYDOH reported that results from the testing of the Village
municipal water supply show that the GAC filters are effectively and consistently removing
PFOA and other PFCs from the water, and that the PFOA levels at locations in the Village
9
Ex. 6, Executed Consent Order dated June 3, 2016 regarding River Road and John Street Sites
(River Road/John Street Consent Order).
10
Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order III.B.
11
Id. at 6; Ex. 6, River Road/John Street Consent Order at 3.
12
Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order at App. A. XVI.E; Ex. 6, River Road/John
Street Consent Order at App. A. XVI.E.
13
Ex. 7, Letter from H. Zucker, N.Y. Dept of Health to Mayor D. Borge, Hoosick Falls (Mar.
30,
2016),
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/hoosick/docs/lettter_to_mayor_tesing_r
esults.pdf.
7
distribution system are non-detectable.14 NYDOH has approved the design for the long-term,
full-capacity GAC treatment system, which is to be installed by December 2016 (Compl. 121),
with all costs paid by Saint-Gobain and Honeywell.15
In addition, NYDOH and DEC have been testing private wells on which POETs have
already been installed and have reported that, as of March 2016, [p]reliminary sampling results
of tap water from eight private wells with treatment systems installed show the systems
effectively remove PFOA to non-detect levels.16 DEC also installed and tested POET systems
on the private wells of residents of Hoosick Falls, including for several of the named Plaintiffs,
which Plaintiffs acknowledge have reduced the concentration of PFOA in their drinking water.
(Compl. 10-12.)
C.
New York Regulatory Efforts to Address PFOA in Hoosick Falls
In addition to the above remedial measures implemented in connection with Saint-Gobain

and Honeywell, New York state agencies maintain an active presence in Hoosick Falls.
Personnel from NYDOH and DEC provide technical advice and assistance to the Village and
maintain regular hours several days each week at the local armory to meet with Hoosick
residents.17 NYDOH also offers Hoosick Falls residents the opportunity to participate in a blood
sampling program. (See Compl. 120.)
14
Ex. 8, Letters from Lloyd R. Wilson, Ph.D., NYSDOH, to Mayor David Borge (Sept. 6, 2016).
15
See Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order.
16
Ex. 9, Press Release, New York State, Governor Cuomo Announces PFOA No Longer
Detected At Hoosick Falls Municipal Water Filtration System, (Mar. 13, 2016),
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-pfoa-no-longer-detectedhoosick-falls-municipal-water-filtration.
17
Ex. 10, Press Release, DEC, DEC and DOH Meet with Local Officials on Actions to Address
PFOA Contamination at Hoosick (Feb. 26, 2016), http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/105254.html; Ex.
11, NYDOH Website, PFOA in Drinking Water in the Village of Hoosick Falls and Town of
Hoosick, http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/hoosick/ (last updated as of
Sept. 14, 2016).
8
DEC added the McCaffrey Street facility to the State Superfund list on January 27,
2016 and directed New York state agencies to use Superfund money to address PFOA in the
municipal water system and in private wells. (See id. 6.) In connection with its inclusion on
the State Superfund list, the State announced an emergency regulation to classify PFOA as a
hazardous substance, pending promulgation of a final agency rule. (See id. 111.) DEC and
NYDOH have asked EPA to provide uniform guidance regarding the levels at which to regulate
PFOA.18
D.
Federal Regulatory Efforts
Parallel to the states efforts have been the federal efforts by EPA to address PFOA in
Hoosick Falls.
PFOA has not been designated a hazardous substance under federal law.
Following Saint-Gobains reports to EPA regarding PFOA in Hoosick Falls groundwater, EPAs
regional office for New York provisionally recommended that Hoosick Falls residents not drink
private-well water with PFOA levels above 100 parts per trillion (ppt). (Compl. 112.) EPAs
efforts to study PFOA are ongoing, and are being actively monitored by state regulators. For
example, on January 14, 2016, the DEC and NYDOH requested, among other things, that EPA
act expeditiously to adopt a protective maximum contaminant level for PFOA in drinking
water. 19 In May 2016, EPA issued a lifetime health advisory level of 70 ppt for PFOA in
drinking water, a lower level than the prior advisory of 400 ppt. (Compl. 2, 53.)
Federal officials initiated the process to have the McCaffrey Street facility declared a
federal Superfund site under CERCLA. (Compl. 6.) In April 2016, EPA installed groundwater
monitoring wells near the McCaffrey Street facility and in mid-May conducted groundwater
18
Ex. 12, Letter from Dr. Howard Zucker (NYDOH) and Basil Seggos (DEC) to EPA
Administrator
Gina
McCarthy
(Jan.
14,
2016),
available
at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/hoosickmccarthy2016.pdf.
19
Id.
9
sampling at and around that facility.20 After such testing, EPA determined that inclusion in the
federal Superfund program was an effective course of action to address the contamination,21 and
on September 9, 2016, EPA proposed to add the McCaffrey Street facilityincluding areas
where PFOA has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be
located22to the federal Superfund National Priorities List, which would provide eligibility for
funding to conduct EPA-supervised cleanup.23
EPA has also sampled soil in a park and ballfield near the McCaffrey Street facility and
has reported its results showing no detection of PFOA or minimal levels, well below EPAs
threshold for action for PFOA in soil.24 EPA accordingly determined that these areas were OK
to Use and that there was no need for cleanup work in any of the areas sampled.25
E.
Plaintiffs Consolidated Class Action Complaint
On August 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint alleging that
improper disposal of PFOA by Saint-Gobain and Honeywell has caused PFOA contamination of
groundwater in Hoosick Falls. (See, e.g., Compl. 5-6.) They assert causes of action for
negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities on behalf
of five putative classes.
20
See Ex. 13, EPA, Press Release, EPA Proposes to Add Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Site
in Hoosick Falls, N.Y. to the Federal Superfund List at 2, available at
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/corrected-epa-proposes-add-saint-gobain-performanceplastics-site-hoosick-falls-ny.
21
Id.
22
See 42 U.S.C. 9601 (defining facility to include any site or area where a hazardous
substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located).
23
See Ex. 14, National Priorities List, 81 Fed. Reg. 62,428, at 62,432, available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/09/2016-21626/national-priorities-list.
24
Ex. 15, EPA, Hoosick Falls Community Update No. 3 (Spring 2016), at 1, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201604/documents/hoosick_falls_fact_sheet_no_3.pdf.
25
Id.
10
1.
Claims for Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs request injunctive relief requiring Saint-Gobain and Honeywell to remediate

PFOA in Hoosick Falls as follows:
an order to institute remedial measures sufficient to permanently prevent PFOAs

from contaminating class members drinking water and/or properties;
implementation of a mandatory testing protocol requiring Defendants to regularly

test the wells of all Private Well Water Property Damage Class members for the
presence of PFOA and to continue that testing until it is determined that the risk of
PFOA contamination in private wells has ceased;
an order to install permanent filtration devices on any private well testing positive
for the presence of PFOA, and to maintain those filtration devices pursuant to
industry best practices; and
a biomonitoring program to monitor putative class members health.26
(Compl. 149, 189.) Much of the injunctive relief that Plaintiffs demand is already occurring
or has been completed at the direction of DEC and NYDOH, and pursuant to enforceable
Consent Orders, such as the installation of filtration treatment systems in municipal and private
water supplies, the institution of maintenance and monitoring of those systems, and other
remedial measures. (Id.. 107, 119, 125.) Furthermore, in light of the proposed federal
Superfund site designation, EPA may direct additional remedial measures.
2.
Damages Claims
Plaintiffs requests for damages correspond to the five putative classes they plead:
Property Damage: On behalf of two classes of property owners (one class for those on
municipal supply, and one for private wells, together, the Property Damage Classes) (see
Compl. 135), Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, strict liability, and trespass, and seek
recovery for alleged diminution of property value which they attribute to alleged contamination
of groundwater with PFOA. (E.g., id. 115, 141, 143.) Although the Complaint contains many
conclusory references to property damage (see, e.g., id. 166, 178), the only factual allegations
26
Although Plaintiffs couch their request for medical monitoring in the form of injunctive relief
(Compl. 189), medical monitoring relief is only available as damages under New York law.
See Caronia, 22 N.Y.3d at 449.
11
of actual damage it asserts are with regard to groundwater. As Plaintiffs summarize, the
drinking water ... has been contaminated with PFOA, causing significant property damage. (Id.
178.)
Nuisance Damage: On behalf of two classes of property owners and renters (one class
for those on municipal supply, and one for private wells, together, the Nuisance Classes),
Plaintiffs seek recovery of nuisance damagesthat is, damages for interference with the use and
enjoyment of property. (Compl. 135, 170.) Plaintiffs assert recovery under a cause of action
for private nuisance, which they purport to assert on behalf of all owners and renters of property
in Hoosick Falls. (Id. 135, 167-72.)
Medical Monitoring: Plaintiffs seek consequential damages sufficient to fund a medical
monitoring program on behalf of one putative class of individuals who have ingested allegedly
contaminated water in or around Hoosick Falls and who have experienced accumulation of
PFOA in their bodies (the Biomonitoring Class). (Compl. 135, 187.) Plaintiffs do not
allege that they have experienced personal injuries as a result of PFOA exposure, and they
specifically exclude from their putative class individuals who have filed a lawsuit for personal
injury for a PFOA-related illness related to exposure to municipal or private well water. (Id.
137.) Instead, Plaintiffs allege that they have experienced an increased risk of human health
effects due to the accumulation of PFOA in their bodies, and, in turn, injury and damage at
the cellular and genetic level. (Id. 48, 165-66.)
Defendants now move to dismiss.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A claim is properly dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the
statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113
(2d Cir. 2000). Because jurisdiction is a threshold issue, a courts jurisdiction must be shown
affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable
to the party asserting it. Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Drakos, 140 F.3d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1998)
12
(citation omitted). As a result, whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise

that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter it must affirmatively dismiss the action.
Farmers Against Irresponsible Remediation (FAIR) v. EPA, 165 F. Supp. 2d 253, 257 (N.D.N.Y.
2001) (citation omitted).
B.
Primary Jurisdiction
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction promot[es] proper relationships between the courts
and administrative agencies and avoids courts and agencies working at cross-purposes. Ellis
v. Tribune Television Co., 443 F.3d 71, 81 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). In deciding whether to dismiss or stay an action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine,
courts consider (1) whether the issues raised by the litigation involve technical or policy
considerations within the agencys particular field of expertise, (2) whether the issues are
particularly within the agencys discretion, (3) whether there exists a substantial danger of
inconsistent rulings, and (4) whether the agency is already involved in addressing the issues. See
id. at 82-83.
On a motion to dismiss or stay an action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, courts
are not limited to the allegations of the complaint, but also may consider extrinsic evidence. See
Natl Commcns Assn, Inc. v. Am. Tele. & Tele. Co., 46 F.3d 220, 223-24 (2d Cir. 1995); United
States ex rel. Taylor v. Gabelli, 345 F. Supp. 2d 340, 351 n.49 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). In addition,
federal courts may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute that can readily
be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, such as
administrative actions, agency orders, press releases, and other matters in the public record. See,
e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Lyon v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 626 F.3d 1059, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010);
Ham v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 70 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1191 n.1, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
C.
Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). For a putative
13
action, the court must determine whether the allegations asserted by the class representatives
state a plausible claim for relief. See Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2015). The fact that
the plaintiffs have asserted putative class claims does not affect the Courts analysis of the
validity of the individual plaintiffs claims. Patchen v. Govt Emprs Ins. Co., 759 F. Supp. 2d
241, 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation omitted). To withstand a motion to dismiss, the named
Plaintiffs must establish the facial plausibility of their claims by pleading sufficient factual
material to permit the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted); Pension Ben. Guar.
Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 717-18 (2d Cir. 2013). Thus, [w]hile
legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. [U]nwarranted deductions of fact need not be accepted
as true, MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp., 931 F. Supp. 2d 387, 392 (N.D.N.Y.
2013) (Kahn, J.) (quotation omitted), and a naked assertion ... without some further factual
enhancement [] stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation omitted).
ARGUMENT
I.
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE DISMISSED,

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAYED
A.
This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction To Hear Plaintiffs Claims for
Injunctive Relief
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief
because it would interfere with and thus challenge EPAs ongoing implementation of removal
actions in Hoosick Falls. To ensure that the cleanup of contaminated sites will not be slowed or
halted by litigation, Razore v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington, 66 F. 3d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1995),
Congress expressly removed jurisdiction from courts to hear challenges to EPAs remedial
decisions pursuant to CERCLA, prior to completion of the cleanup. Specifically, CERCLA
provides that [n]o Federal court shall have jurisdiction ... to review any challenges to removal or
remedial action selected under [CERCLA]. 42 U.S.C. 9613(h). Congress enacted this
14
provision so that the EPA would have the authority and the funds necessary to respond
expeditiously to serious hazards without being stopped in its tracks by legal entanglement before
or during the hazard clean-up. Boarhead Corp. v. Erickson, 923 F.2d 1011, 1019 (3d Cir.
1991). This provision thus make[s] clear that the statute preclude[s] preenforcement judicial
review, In re Combustion Equip. Assocs., 838 F.2d 35, 37 (2d Cir. 1988), providing a blunt
withdrawal of federal jurisdiction over challenges to ongoing CERCLA removal actions.
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 624 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting McClellan Ecological Seepage
Situation (MESS) v. Perry, 47 F.3d 325, 328 (9th Cir. 1995)).
This jurisdictional bar is triggered when (1) EPA has commenced a removal action
under CERCLA; and (2) Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is a challenge to those efforts.
Both requirements are satisfied here.
1.
EPAs Efforts to Date Are Removal Actions that Trigger

CERCLAs Statutory Bar
CERCLA sets forth a comprehensive scheme for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites.
As part of that scheme, EPA has authority to undertake response actions where there is a release
or threatened release of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C. 9604. Such response actions fall into
two categories: (1) removal actions, which include actions to study and clean up contamination,
and (2) remedial actions, which are actions that are consistent with [a] permanent remedy. 42
U.S.C. 9601(23)-(24).
CERCLA defines a removal action to include such actions as may be necessary to
monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C.
9601(23). Such actions include those that are designed to prevent, minimize, or mitigate
damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment, including, but not limited to,
installing security fencing or other measures to prevent access, provision of alternative water
supplies, [and] temporary evacuation. Id. Thus, EPA was considered to have initiated a
removal action where it had already taken several steps toward determining how it will address
the contamination including conducting a preliminary assessment of the property, compiling
15
historical records, conducting interviews, performing site surveys, and planning a site inspection.
Cannon v. Gates, 538 F.3d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir. 2008). Similarly, conducting a remedial
investigation, during which data are collected to determine the nature of the waste and assess
potential risk to human health and environment, has also been found to constitute a removal
action. See Razore, 66 F.3d at 239; see also Boarhead, 923 F.2d at 1014; S. Macomb Disposal
Auth. v. EPA, 681 F. Supp. 1244, 1246 (E.D. Mich. 1988) (stating that [i]t is clear ... that a
[remedial investigation] taken by the EPA is a removal action within the meaning of the
statute); see also Hanford Downwinders Coal., Inc. v. Dowdle, 71 F.3d 1469, 1477 (9th Cir.
1995) (concluding that health assessment and surveillance activities conducted by government
agency were removal actions). Thus, in Smith v. Potter, 208 F. Supp. 2d 415, 420 (S.D.N.Y.
2002), affd sub nom. APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2003), the United States Postal
Services investigatory and precautionary measures taken in the wake of reports of anthrax in the
mailsuch as providing postal workers with protective gloves and masks, conducting testing of
employees for anthrax, and providing instructional safety meetingswere deemed to qualify as
removal actions.
Here, EPA has already undertaken several steps toward determining how it will address
the contamination in Hoosick Falls. Cannon, 538 F.3d at 1334. These steps include:
Provisionally recommending that Hoosick Falls residents not drink private-well

water when PFOA levels are above 100 ppt (Compl. 112);
Initiating the process to have the McCaffrey Street facility declared a federal
Superfund site under CERCLA (Id. 6), including proposing to add those areas to
the federal Superfund National Priorities List, which would provide eligibility for
funding to conduct EPA-supervised cleanup; and
Sampling of groundwater, drinking water, and soil in Hoosick Falls for elevated
levels of PFOA.27
Because, according to EPA, such actions were necessary to monitor, assess, and
evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances and were designed to prevent,
27
Ex. 13; Ex. 15.
16
minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment, 42 U.S.C.
9601(23), they are removal actions that trigger CERCLAs jurisdictional bar.
2.
Plaintiffs Request for Injunctive Relief Amounts to a Challenge of

EPAs Removal Action
Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief are barred by CERCLA because they challenge
EPAs removal action. Courts construe the term challenge broadly, Camillus Clean Air Coal.
v. Honeywell Intl, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 2d 208, 211 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). An action constitutes a
challenge if it is related to the goals of the cleanup, Razore, 66 F.3d at 239, or if it will
interfere with a removal or a remedial action. El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 750
F.3d 863, 880 (D.C. Cir. 2014). In other words, a suit challenges a removal action if it
interferes with the implementation of a CERCLA remedy because the relief requested will
impact the [removal] action selected.
Cannon, 538 F.3d at 1335 (alteration in original)
(quoting Broward Gardens Tenants Assn v. U.S. E.P.A., 311 F.3d 1066, 1072 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Thus, courts have found a challenge to a removal action where plaintiffs attempt[ed] to
dictate specific remedial actions and to alter the method and order for cleanup. Razore, 66 F.3d
at 239. Suits have been barred where adjudication of plaintiffs claims would create new
requirements for dealing with the inactive sites that are now subject to the CERCLA cleanup
[and] clearly interfere with the cleanup. MESS, 47 F.3d at 330. Likewise, where plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief that would change the nature of the ... cleanup, adopt stricter standards than
implemented by EPA, or otherwise modify or replace the remedial plan, such action clearly is
a challenge triggering CERCLAs jurisdictional bar. Broward Gardens, 311 F.3d at 1073.
Here, Plaintiffs suit seeks broad injunctive relief that would require Defendants to
implement specific remedial measures to address PFOA in Hoosick Falls.
These include
remedial measures sufficient to permanently prevent PFOAs from contaminating class

members drinking water and/or properties, the implementation of a mandatory testing
protocol requiring Defendants to regularly test private wells for the presence of PFOA, and the
installation of permanent filtration devices on any private well testing positive for the presence of
17
PFOA. (Compl. 149, 189.) Such relief undoubtedly relate[s] to the goals of the clean up of
the Site, and, as such, impermissibly challenges EPAs removal action. Camillus, 947 F.
Supp. 2d at 213. In essence, Plaintiffs action amounts to a dispute[] about who is responsible
for a hazardous site, what measures actually are necessary to clean-up the site and remove the
hazard, or who is responsible for its costsdisputes that Congress determined should be dealt
with after the site has been cleaned up. Boarhead, 923 F.2d at 1019. Accordingly, because
Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief constitutes a challenge to the removal action by EPA, this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear those claims. They must therefore be dismissed.
B.
The Court Should Dismiss or Stay the Injunctive Relief Claims Under the
Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine
In addition to the mandatory dismissal of the injunctive claims for lack of jurisdiction, the
Court should in its discretion dismiss or stay those claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine
in deference to the ongoing administrative process of federal and state agencies. See United
States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63-64 (1956). To promote proper relationships between
courts and administrative agencies, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction permits the resolution of
technical questions of facts through the agencys specialized expertise, prior to judicial
consideration of the legal claims. Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker, 39 F.3d
51, 59 (2d Cir. 1994). The central aim of the doctrine is to ensure that courts and agencies do
not work at cross-purposes. Ellis, 443 F.3d at 81 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
It also seeks to produce better informed and uniform legal rulings by allowing courts to utilize
an agencys specialized knowledge and expertise. Id. at 82 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
The Second Circuit considers the following four factors in determining whether courts
should abstain from addressing plaintiffs claims:
(1) whether the question at issue is within the conventional experience of judges
or whether it involves technical or policy considerations within the agencys
particular field of expertise;
(2) whether the question at issue is particularly within the agencys discretion;
18
(3) whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings; and

(4) whether a prior application to the agency has been made.
Ellis, 443 F.3d at 82-83. All four of these factors favor abstention here. This case implicates the
experience of not just one, but three, state and federal agencies with authority over these issues.
Those agencies are actively investigating and addressing the issues in this case at the local level
and in addressing PFOA more generally. Litigation at this time, considering the same issues
simultaneously under the rubric of New York tort law, would simply duplicate efforts, invite
inconsistent determinations with regard to injunctive relief, and risk interrupting ongoing
remedial work. The Court should therefore dismiss or stay Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief
under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
1.
Plaintiffs Claims Involve Technical and Policy Considerations Within

the Agencies Expertise
The first Ellis factor weighs heavily in favor of dismissing this action. Courts have
repeatedly held that the sorts of technical and policy-based questions raised by Plaintiffs
groundwater contamination and remediation claims are uniquely within the specialized expertise
of federal and state environmental agencies. In such cases, courts often first obtain the benefit
of [the] agencys expertise before undertaking to resolve the issues on [their] own. Oasis
Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. Dept of Energy, 718 F.2d 1558, 1564 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1983).
For example, the court in Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine when confronted with tort claims alleging groundwater
contamination. See 857 F. Supp. 838, 841-42 (D.N.M. 1994). There, as here, EPA had proposed
listing the site at issue on the National Priorities List. Id. at 841. Pursuant to a consent order, the
defendant was engaged in investigation and cleanup efforts under agency supervision. Id. The
court recognized that, to address plaintiffs groundwater contamination claims, it would have to
assess the adequacy of the investigation at the site, the tolerability of contamination levels there,
the adequacy of proposed remedial measures, and myriad other technical matters. Id. at 842.
Moreover, if plaintiffs were to prevail, the court would have to fashion an appropriate
investigatory and remediation order, including the proper number and placement of monitoring
19
wells, how deep the wells should be drilled, [and] the adequacy of various proposed sampling
methods. Id. While acknowledging it could receive extensive expert testimony or appoint a
special master to address these issues, the court found that those methods would represent a
serious drain of judicial resources and largely duplicate EPA and the state agencys efforts.
Id. Instead, the court concluded that [e]valuating the proper components of such a plan is best
left to EPA, a body that is far better suited to resolve such issues by reason of specialization, by
insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure.
Id. at 842 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also B.H. v. Gold Fields Mining Corp., 506 F. Supp.
2d 792, 803-04 (N.D. Okla. 2007); Davies v. Natl Coop. Refinery Assn, 963 F. Supp. 990, 997
(D. Kan. 1997).
Similarly, a federal court recently held, in Jones v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., that
deference to a state environmental agency was warranted where plaintiffs claims concerned a
threat of potential perchlorate in groundwater, raising questions regarding whether remedial
measures were required and, if so, what measures would be most appropriate.
2016 WL
1212133, at *1-3 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2016). Likewise, in McCormick v. Halliburton Co., 2012
WL 1119493, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 3, 2012), where plaintiffs claims concerned the extent of
the threat posed by the perchlorate in the groundwater at and around the Site, whether immediate
remediation is required to protect health or the environment, and what type of remedy is best
suited to the Site, the court held that such claims unquestionably raised issues outside the
conventional experience of judges but within the special expertise of the state agency, which
was charged by statute with the responsibility for investigating hazardous waste problems and
protecting human health and the environment. Id. Despite having subject matter jurisdiction,
the court found that its own involvement would likely cause further delay of the investigation of
the Site and would result in substantial duplication of the agencys work. Id.
Here too, Plaintiffs claims for recovery based on groundwater contamination involve
technical matters and policy considerations within the authority and expertise of EPA, DEC, and
NYDOH, to which the Court should defer:
20
1. EPA. EPA has been charged with protecting the publics health and welfare.
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Under CERCLA, EPA is authorized to designate hazardous substances and regulate what
quantities of each substance are reportable. See 42 U.S.C. 9602(a). EPA is further authorized
to remove or arrange for the removal of, and provide for remedial action[,] relating to such
hazardous substance[s], id. 9604(a)(1), and to issu[e] such orders as may be necessary to
protect public health and welfare and the environment in addition to any other action taken by
a State or local government, id. 9606(a). That authority is clearly manifest in CERCLAs
jurisdictional bar on challenges to EPA remedies, which also supports abstention under the
primary jurisdiction doctrine.
2. DEC. DEC has authority and specialized expertise in the issues central to Plaintiffs
groundwater contamination claims.
Specifically, DEC is charged with coordinating and
developing policies and programs related to the environment in New York, see N.Y. Envtl.
Conserv. Law 3-0301(1), such as prevention and abatement of all water, land or air pollution
including ... that related to hazardous substances.28 Id. 3-0301(1)(i). DEC is authorized to
investigate such environmental concerns, see id. 27-1305(2)(a), and require the development
and implementation of DEC-approved remedial plans. See id. 27-1313(1)(b). Notably, DEC
is entrusted with develop[ing] a strategy to address contaminated groundwater and
implement[ing] a program to remediate and manage groundwater resources. See id. 15-3105.
3. NYDOH. Similarly, NYDOH is responsible for regulating sanitary aspects of New
Yorks water supplies, including the pollution of waters of the state.29 See N.Y. Pub. Health
28
To further assist in carrying out these objectives, DEC is authorized to [a]dopt, amend or
repeal environmental standards and criteria to carry out the purposes and provisions of the
Environmental Conservation Law. N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 3-0301(2)(a). In particular, it
may [e]stablish new, or alter, modify, change or amend existing standards of quality and purity
of the waters of the state applicable to the classification of waters. Id. 15-0313(2)(c).
29
Regulation of the public water supply in New York is a field in which the environmental
responsibilities given to DEC and the health responsibilities given to the State Department of
21
Law 201(1)(l). Accordingly, NYDOH is authorized to make rules and regulations for the
protection from contamination of any or all public supplies of potable waters and water supplies
of the state. Id. 1100(1). In the event of possible contamination, NYDOH is responsible for
assessing health problems in the immediate vicinity of, or related to conditions at, the site, id.
1389-b(1)(a), and for (a) monitoring the site, (b) approving proposed remedial programs for the
site and (c) certifying the completion of those programs, see id. 1389-b(2).
In this action, Plaintiffs claim injury from, and seek remediation of, alleged groundwater
contamination. Their claims raise questions over which EPA, DEC, and NYDOH have exercised
their expertise, such as the extent of PFOA in Hoosick Falls, whether PFOA has effects on
human health and property, the selection of appropriate remedial measures for the area, and the
proper implementation of such remedial measures. These are precisely the types of technical and
policy considerations that have prompted federal courts to apply the doctrine, and which favor
deference to the agencies expertise here. See, e.g., Jones, 2016 WL 1212133, at *2; McCormick,
2012 WL 1119493, at *2; Schwartzman, 857 F. Supp. at 842.
2.
EPA, DEC, and NYDOH Have Discretion and Authority to

Administer the Testing for and Remediation of PFOA
Application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine is also appropriate where, as here,

matters raised by plaintiffs claims are particularly within the agencies discretion. For example,
in Collins v. Olin Corp., a putative class alleging soil and groundwater contamination sought
injunctive relief requiring defendants to investigate and remediate the contamination. 418 F.
Supp. 2d 34, 38 (D. Conn. 2006). The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection and defendants had agreed to a consent order requiring defendants to investigate and
remediate any contamination. Id. at 40-41. The court found the first two Ellis factors to be
satisfied because [d]eciding what remedy is appropriate for varying levels of contamination,
Health (DOH) frequently overlap. George A. Rodenhausen, Water Supply and Stream
Protection, in 9 New York Practice Series- Environmental Law and Regulation in New York
7:1 (Philip Weinberg et al. eds., 2d ed. updated Oct. 2015).
22
and overseeing that remedial effort, is a matter more properly within the technical expertise and
experience of the [agency]. Id. at 45. Here also, questions raised by Plaintiffs claims are
particularly within the agencies discretion and authority, individually and collectively, as
demonstrated by their active involvement in remediation at this time. See Ellis, 443 F.3d at 83.
1. EPA. EPA has broad powers to remove or provide for remedial action it deems
necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment when there is a release, or
threat of release, into the environment of any hazardous substance or any pollutant or
contaminant which may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. See 42 U.S.C. 9604(a)(1), (a)(4). It may also require actions necessary to abate an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment
because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility, including
through the issuance of administrative orders. See id. 9606(a). EPA has proposed a Superfund
site designation and is gathering information to address concerns about potential environmental
or health matters posed by PFOA in Hoosick Falls.30
2. DEC. DEC likewise has considerable discretion in protecting the states resources
(including state waters) and responding to environmental incidents.
See, e.g., N.Y. Envtl.
Conserv. Law 15-0103(12). Specifically, DEC is authorized to investigate and assess the need
to remedy environmental and health problems resulting from the presence of hazardous wastes,
id. 27-1305(2)(b), and has broad authority to develop and implement inactive hazardous waste
disposal site remedial programs, id. 27-1313(5)(d); see also id. 27-1313(1)(a), (b). DEC has
led the investigation into the sources and the extent of PFOA in the Hoosick Falls groundwater
and water supply and is overseeing provision of POETs to individual homeowners.31
30
See Ex. 16, Letter from Judith Enck, EPA Regional Administrator, to Mayor David B. Borge,
at 2 (Apr, 6, 2016), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201604/documents/20160406_-_112016_-_ocr-_scan.pdf; Ex. 13.
31
Ex. 16; Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order II.C, II.E.

23
3. NYDOH. NYDOH is afforded significant discretion in working with DEC to address

environmental concerns.32 NYDOHs role includes commenting on proposed remediation plans,
reviewing remedial investigation results, and assisting in identifying appropriate cleanup levels.33
At its discretion, NYDOH may request that DEC order responsible parties to design and
implement remedial programs (if not yet developed), or that DEC develop such a program itself.
See N.Y. Pub. Health Law 1389-b(3). NYDOH has worked with Saint-Gobain and Honeywell
on the installation and testing of both short-term and long-term filtration systems for the
municipal water supply.34 NYDOH is also conducting blood testing of Hoosick Falls residents.35
Resolution of Plaintiffs claims by the Court would require the Court to make judgments
regarding the adequacy of investigative efforts and remedial measures. Such regulatory
decisions should be made by the agencies currently investigating, monitoring, and responding to
the presence of PFOA in Hoosick Falls. Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned courts to be
particularly reluctant to second guess agency choices involving scientific disputes that are in the
agencys province of expertise. Browning-Ferris Indus. of S. Jersey, Inc. v. Muszynski, 899
F.2d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Alliance For Environmental
Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid Crossgates Co., 436 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2006). The second Ellis factor
therefore also weighs in favor of staying this action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. See,
e.g., Collins, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 44-45; Schwartzman, 857 F. Supp. at 842; see also Jones, 2016
WL 1212133, at *2.
32
See David Freeman et al., Hazardous Waste, in 9 New York Practice Series- Environmental
Law and Regulation in New York 9:154 (Philip Weinberg et al. eds., 2d ed. updated Oct. 2015)
([T]he DOH serves as an advisor to the DEC on all matters related to the public health effects of
[an inactive hazardous waste disposal] site.).
33
See id.; N.Y. Pub. Health Law 1389-b.
34
Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order, 4.B, 12, & II.E.
35
Ex. 11; see also Compl. 120.

24
3.
Plaintiffs Claims Present a Substantial Risk of Inconsistent Rulings
The third factor, whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings, Ellis,
443 F.3d at 83, weighs in favor of invoking the doctrine as well. Courts have found this factor
satisfied where agencies investigations are ongoing and particularly where, as here, government
agencies actively are designing and implementing investigative or remedial plans or actions.
For example, in Jones, the court applied primary jurisdiction where there was risk that the
court and state agency would approve of different work plans and/or remediation plans,
subjecting [defendant] to conflicting remediation responsibilities and potentially delaying
remediation. 2016 WL 1212133, at *2. Likewise, in Collins, the court found that granting
plaintiffs requested injunctive relief could create a situation where [defendants] may be
substantially complying with their obligations under the consent order ... yet they may also need
to conduct additional or different remedial actions on those same assigned pieces of property
pursuant to an injunction issued by th[e] Court. 418 F. Supp. 2d at 45.
Moreover, the
Schwartzman court made this finding even when EPAs Superfund designation for the site was
still pending, concluding that litigation may contradict aspects of the pending regulatory
remedial investigation and feasibility study and thereby subject [the defendant] to conflicting
obligations. 857 F. Supp. at 842. In addition to these cases, several other courts have followed
similar reasoning and applied the primary jurisdiction doctrine when the relief requested in the
litigation could result in conflicting orders issued by the court and the agency overseeing
remediation. See, e.g., Stratford Holding, LLC v. Foot Locker Retail Inc., 2013 WL 5550461, at
*6 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2013); Gold Fields Mining Corp., 506 F. Supp. 2d at 804; McCormick,
2012 WL 1119493, at *2; Davies, 963 F. Supp. at 998; Friends of Santa Fe Cty. v. LAC Minerals,
Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1350 (D.N.M. 1995).
The same result is warranted here, where the broad relief Plaintiffs seek may be
inconsistent with or duplicative of the relief provided by the Consent Orders. As Plaintiffs
recognize, the purpose of the Consent Orders between Defendants and DEC is to characterize
and investigate the extent of the contamination, to provide interim remedial measures to protect
25
public health and drinking water supplies, to analyze alternatives for providing clean and safe
drinking water and, ultimately, to design and implement a comprehensive clean-up and
remediation protocol. (Compl. 119.) Thus, much of what Plaintiffs seek has already been, or
is being, implemented under the oversight of DEC and NYDOH. Saint-Gobain, Honeywell, and
the agencies also are in the process of assessing and designing additional investigative and
remedial plans. And as in Schwartzman, there is a significant likelihood that EPA will become
more involved in remedial planning during the course of its consideration of Hoosick Falls as a
federal Superfund site. The relief Plaintiffs seek here would therefore significantly interfere with
or duplicate the efforts already being taken under agency oversight and would invite rulings
inconsistent with the Consent Orders to which Saint-Gobain and Honeywell are bound.
For example, Plaintiffs ask this Court to order Defendants to institute remedial measures
sufficient to permanently prevent PFOAs from contaminating class members drinking water
and/or properties. (Compl. 149.) However, Saint-Gobain has already designed and installed a
temporary municipal water filtration system that the agencies have concluded is fully
operational (Id. 121), and is removing PFOA to non-detectable levels,36 with a full-capacity
long-term system expected to be fully operational by December 31, 2016.37 Thus, if this Court
were to conclude, as Plaintiffs allege, that the NYDOH-approved treatment system was not
sufficient to permanently prevent PFOAs from contaminating class members drinking water
(Compl. 149), and instead order Defendants to install a different filtration system on the same
municipal water supply, Saint-Gobain and Honeywell would be at risk of having to choose
between violating DECs Consent Orders or violating the Courts order. This type of conflict
36
See Ex. 17, Press Release, DEC, New York State Announces Additional Progress in
Addressing
PFOA
Contamination
(March
22,
2016),
available
at
https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2016/2016-0323_nys_addressing_pfoa_contamination.htm.
37
See Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order II.C.1.b.

26
and second-guessing is precisely what primary jurisdiction seeks to avoid. See Browning-Ferris,
899 F.2d at 160; Davies, 963 F. Supp. at 998; Friends of Santa Fe Cty., 892 F. Supp. at 1349-50.
Similarly, Plaintiffs ask this Court to impose a mandatory testing protocol requiring
Defendants to regularly test the wells of all Private Well Water Property Damage Class
members ... until ... the risk of PFOA contamination in private wells has ceased, and to order
the installation of permanent filtration devices on any private well testing positive for the
presence of PFOA to be maintained pursuant to industry best practices. (Compl. 189.) But
DEC and NYDOH have already taken the lead in directing the testing and monitoring of private
wells and the installation of filtration systems on those wells, and these agencies have been
actively sampling private wells for PFOA in and around the Town of Hoosick. 38 DEC already
has installed POET systems on many of these wells, 39 including for any resident who
requests a system, 40 and DEC and NYDOH continue to sample and install POET systems. 41
Were this Court to order the relief Plaintiffs seekmandatory testing of private wells and
installation of permanent filtration devices on any private well testing positive for PFOA
Defendants would be directed to take duplicative actions and/or actions that directly interfere
with these agencies ongoing monitoring of private wells in Hoosick Falls. Moreover, the
unspecified industry best practices that Plaintiffs demand for the installation and maintenance
of filtration systems on private wells (Compl. 189) may conflict with the standards being
applied within the agencies province of expertise. See Browning-Ferris, 899 F.2d at 160.42
38
Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order II.E.
39
Id.
40
Id. 4.b.
41
Id. II.E.
42
Unlike cases involving well-understood and regulated contaminants such as lead, this case
does not implicate any statutory standards that a court could apply. Cf. Concerned Pastors for
Soc. Action v. Khouri, 2016 WL 3626819 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2016). For example, the litigation
over lead contamination in Flint, Michigan involves a determination of whether state and city
actors violated requirements for monitoring and reporting the presence of lead at levels in excess
27
Granting Plaintiffs requested relief could create a situation where Saint-Gobain and
Honeywell may be substantially complying with their obligations under the Consent Order, but
are then required to conduct conflicting remedial action on the same water supplies pursuant to a
court order. See Collins, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 45; see also Jones, 2016 WL 1212133, at *2,
Schwartzman, 857 F. Supp. at 842. This would substantially interfere with both the agencies
and Defendants ongoing remedial efforts adopted pursuant to the active administrative process.
The third Ellis factor also supports application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
4.
EPA, DEC, and NYDOH Are Actively Involved in Testing for and
Remediating PFOA in Hoosick Falls
The final factorwhether a prior application to the agency has been madealso favors
application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine. See Ellis, 443 F.3d at 83. Deference under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction is particularly appropriate where, as here, the investigation of the
relevant issues by the agencies is ongoing and the planning and implementation of remedial
measures are underway. 43 In short, [t]he advisability of invoking primary jurisdiction is
greatest when the issue is already before the agency. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas
Pipeline Co., 532 F.2d 412, 420 (5th Cir. 1976).
of those statutorily defined by the Safe Water Drinking Act. See id. at *7. The court in that case
declined to abstain because resolution of plaintiffs claims would not require reviewing
environmental impact reports or considering the content of lead in the drinking water, but
instead would merely require[] determining whether defendants complied with the statute. Id.
(declining to apply primary jurisdiction doctrine). In this case, however, PFOA was not a
regulated substance before January 2016, and it is still being studied. As a result, deference to
agency expertise is warranted here.
43
See, e.g., Baykeeper v. NL Indus., Inc., 660 F.3d 686, 692 (3d Cir. 2011) (factor satisfied
where state environmental agency had previously considered [the] contamination at issue);
McCormick, 2012 WL 1119493, at *2 (same, where agency entered into a consent order with
defendant providing for remediation of potential contamination); Davies, 963 F. Supp. at 998
(same); Schwartzman, 857 F. Supp. at 842 (same, where EPA ha[d] already begun the process
of initiating a remedial investigation and feasibility study); Jones, 2016 WL 1212133, at *2
(deference to state agency warranted where agency had been actively overseeing on-site and offsite investigation and had entered into a consent order under which the defendant agreed to
develop remedial plans subject to agency approval and oversight).
28
Here, as set forth above, EPA, DEC, and NYDOH are all actively investigating and
remediating the presence of PFOA in Hoosick Falls at issue in Plaintiffs claims. Because these
agencies are already act[ing] to ensure that Defendants investigate and contain potential PFOA
groundwater contamination in Hoosick Falls, and are continu[ing] to exercise regulatory
oversight, Friends of Santa Fe Cty., 892 F. Supp. at 1350, the fourth and final factor supports
application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
5.
At a Minimum, A Temporary Stay of At Least 90 Days Is Warranted
As set forth above, both the jurisdictional bar of section 9613(h) and the primary
jurisdiction doctrine warrant dismissal of Plaintiffs injunctive claims in light of the extensive
involvement of the federal and state agencies. In the alternative, however, if the Court should
wish to revisit this issue on a more fully developed record, it should temporarily stay the
injunctive relief claims.
Courts routinely stay civil suits in deference to ongoing agency-
supervised remediation or active regulatory efforts. See, e.g., Gold Fields Mining Corp., 506 F.
Supp. 2d at 803; Schwartzman, 857 F. Supp. at 851. The Court and all the parties will benefit
from the agencies continuing investigatory and remedial actions.
Here, Defendants accordingly ask this Court to stay the injunctive relief claims for at
least 90 days, which is appropriate for several reasons. First, the installation of the full capacity
treatment system is expected to be completed by December and may significantly affect, and
may ultimately resolve, some or all of Plaintiffs claims.
Second, Defendants have already submitted to DEC pursuant to the Consent Order an
investigation plan and have commenced implementing that work plan.44 At the conclusion of a
90-day stay, both the Court and the parties here will have a better sense of what investigation
remains and consider whether an additional 90-day stay is warranted.
44
Ex. 5, McCaffrey/Liberty Street Consent Order II.A-B.

29
Third, during the requested stay, EPA will proceed with its proposed administrative
process for designating areas in Hoosick Falls as a federal Superfund site. If the facility is added
to the National Priorities List, as EPA has proposed to do, it would increase EPAs level of
involvement in and oversight of investigative and remedial efforts, and would bar this courts
jurisdiction over any claims that would affect the ongoing administrative remedial efforts
pending completion of those efforts. See 42 U.S.C. 9613(h). Thus, factual and jurisdictional
issues underlying many of Plaintiffs claims may change dramatically in light of these regulatory
actions.
Even a temporary stay would allow the Defendants to focus on their ongoing work with
the agencies to actively investigate PFOA levels to the benefit of all Hoosick Falls residents, and
would avoid the risk of disrupting ongoing efforts to investigate and implement effective
remedial measures. Accordingly, as an alternative to dismissal or an indefinite stay, the Court
should temporarily stay Plaintiffs injunctive relief claims for 90 days.
II.
THE DAMAGES CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED

Plaintiffs damages claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). Plaintiffs seek to recover for three general categories of damage, each of which
corresponds to a putative class or classes: (A) property damage, asserted on behalf of the
Property Damage Classes; (B) damage for interference with use and enjoyment of property,
asserted on behalf of the Nuisance Classes; and (C) medical monitoring, asserted on behalf of the
Biomonitoring Class. (See Compl. 135, 164-66, 170-72, 176-78, 186-87.)45
Here, Plaintiffs
do not plead a cognizable injury sufficient to support recovery of any of these damages for three
principal reasons: (A) Plaintiffs property damage claims fail because they are premised on an
alleged injury to groundwater, which is a public resource that Plaintiffs do not own; (B) Plaintiffs
45
Although Plaintiffs seek this relief on behalf of putative classes, the Court must determine the
sufficiency of the Complaint based on the claims of the named Plaintiffs only. See Garcia, 779
F.3d at 87 n.1.
30
private nuisance claims fail because they are based on alleged public harm; and (C) Plaintiffs
request for medical monitoring fails because Plaintiffs do not allege a physical injury. Plaintiffs
damages claims must therefore be dismissed.
A.
Plaintiffs Property Damage Claims Fail as a Matter of Law
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants actions have resulted in contamination of groundwater

with PFOA (see Compl. 5, 72, 80), for which they seek recovery in tort on behalf of two
Property Damage Classesone for persons on the municipal supply, and one for private well
owners. (See id. 135.) Yet under New York law, groundwater is not private property, but is
rather a public resource held by the State for the benefit of the public.
As a result, Plaintiffs
have failed to plead an injury to private property sufficient to support any of their property
damage tort claimstrespass, nuisance, and strict liability. Those claims should therefore be
dismissed as a matter of law.
1.
Alleged Groundwater Contamination Is Not Injury to Real Property
The central factual allegation of the Complaint is that Defendants contaminated the
aquifer beneath Hoosick Falls with PFOA. (Compl. 5 (emphasis added).) The criteria for
membership in the Property Damage Classes is the source of a property owners water supply
from the aquiferi.e., municipal supply or private wells. (Id. 135.) The Complaint alleges
that Plaintiffs have experienced significant property damage because the drinking water of
Plaintiffs and the Private Well Water Property Damage Class has been contaminated with PFOA.
(Id. 178 (emphasis added).) Thus, the only purported damage they allege is purely economic,
rather than physical: that groundwater contamination adversely impacted and continues to
adversely impact property values in the Village and the Town. (Id. 7.)
This alleged groundwater contamination is not a cognizable injury to real property under
New York tort law. The Court of Appeals long ago explained that no absolute property can be
acquired in flowing water, because [l]ike air, light, or the heat of the sun, it has none of the
attributes commonly ascribed to property, and is not the subject of exclusive dominion or
control. Sweet v. City of Syracuse, 129 N.Y. 316, 335, on rehg sub nom. Comstock v. City of
31
Syracuse, 129 N.Y. 643 (1891). Water is a movable, wandering thing, and must of necessity
continue common by the law of nature, such that [n]either sovereign nor subject can acquire
anything more than a right to use the water, and not to own it. Id. (quoting 2 Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England 18).
Because of waters unique characteristics, New York law does not treat groundwater as
property. As the Third Department held in rejecting tort claims based on alleged groundwater
contamination, groundwater does not belong to the owners of real property, but is a natural
resource entrusted to the state by and for its citizens. Ivory v. Intl Bus. Machs. Corp., 116
A.D.3d 121, 130 (3d Dept 2014). Because groundwater is a natural resource protected by [the
State] as trustee for its people, allegations of harm to groundwater do not implicate the
[landowners] property, but rather property entrusted to [New York] by its citizens. State v.
New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 147 A.D.2d 77, 79 (3d Dept 1989). The State and its
municipalities are empowered to address alleged injuries to that public resource.46 As set forth
above, the State has been working closely with Defendants to effect both temporary and
permanent remedies for PFOA in groundwater in the Hoosick Falls area. Although Plaintiffs
have an interest in the use of water, see Pilchen v. City of Auburn, N.Y., 728 F. Supp. 2d 192,
197-98 (N.D.N.Y. 2010), they do not own that groundwater. See Ivory, 116 A.D.3d at 130.
Without such an interest, their tort claims seeking recovery on behalf of the Property Damage
Classes fail as a matter of law.
2.
Property Damage Claims Fail Without Physical Injury to Property
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged property damage under three causes of action:
trespass, negligence, and strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. (See Compl. 166,
46
See, e.g., In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65, 105 (2d
Cir. 2013) (action by New York City for alleged contamination of municipal groundwater); New
York v. Union Fork & Hoe Co., 1992 WL 107363, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 1992) (action by state
and local authorities under CERCLA and common law for alleged groundwater contamination);
State v. Fermenta ASC Corp., 238 A.D.2d 400, 403 (2d Dept 1997) (action by state and county
to abate alleged groundwater contamination).
32
178, 184.) Yet because the alleged groundwater contamination is not a physical injury to
property, Plaintiffs ultimately plead claims only for diminution of property value. [T]he widely
accepted if not universal view among the courts in this country is that causing the value of
anothers property to diminish is not in and of itself a basis for tort liability. Mehlenbacher v.
Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 179, 188 (W.D.N.Y. 1999), affd in pertinent part sub nom.
Integrated Waste Servs., Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 2000). Something
more, such as physical invasion or damage, is required. Id. at 188, 193. Plaintiffs fail to
allege anything more here, and thus their claims for property damage must be dismissed.
Trespass: Plaintiffs allegations of harm to a publicly held natural resource cannot state
a claim for trespass; by its very nature, trespass presumes physical intrusion into the Plaintiffs
legal property interest. [P]ossession is an essential element of a trespass action, Niagara Falls
Redevelopment, LLC v. Cerrone, 28 A.D.3d 1138, 1139 (4th Dept 2006) (citation omitted), and
thus failure to specifically plead and prove the right to possession is fatal to a trespass claim.
Cornick v. Forever Wild Dev. Corp., 240 A.D.2d 980, 981 (3d Dept 1997); see also Residents
for Sane Trash Sols., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs, 31 F. Supp. 3d 571, 598 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
(licensee not permitted to assert trespass claim).
The Third Department rejected trespass claims in another environmental litigation
involving the same Plaintiffs counsel as here.
In Ivory, a group of Plaintiffs alleged
contamination of the groundwater at their real property. 116 A.D.3d at 129-130. The appeals
court held that the plaintiffs could not state trespass claims based on contaminated groundwater,
because groundwater does not belong to the owners of real property, but is a natural resource
entrusted to the state by and for its citizens. 116 A.D.3d at 130; accord New York Cent. Mut.
Fire Ins. Co., 147 A.D.2d at 79. The plaintiffs in Ivory, like Plaintiffs here, had a right to use
groundwater, but that right to use a public resource was insufficient to state a claim for trespass,
which requires legal title. See Ivory, 116 A.D.3d at 130.
Without an intrusion on a legal
property interest, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a trespass, and those claims should be dismissed
with prejudice.
33
Negligence: Negligence requires not just a breach of duty but a resulting injury to
plaintiff. Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v. Parmelees Forest Prods. Inc., 289 A.D.2d 642, 643
(3d Dept 2001). It is black-letter New York law that this injury must be a physical injury to the
plaintiff or the plaintiffs property, and thus a plaintiff may not recover damages for negligently
caused financial harm without accompanying physical injury. Rebecca Moss, Ltd. v. 540
Acquisition Co., 285 A.D.2d 416, 416 (1st Dept 2001) (emphasis added). New York law thus
imposes no duty in negligence to protect against purely economic losses, such as the
diminution of value claims that Plaintiffs assert under the label of property damage. 532
Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 290 (2001).
Plaintiffs negligence claim is squarely foreclosed under the New York Court of Appeals
holding in 532 Madison. There, several businesses in the vicinity of a crane collapse brought
negligence claims for pure economic harm, alleging loss of income due to street closures
following the incident. 96 N.Y.2d at 286-87. The Court of Appeals held that such claims must
be dismissed, because there is no legal duty to protect against foreseeable economic harm. Id. at
292. As the Court of Appeals explained, foreseeability of harm does not define duty, because
New York does not subject defendants to unlimited liability to an indeterminate class of persons
conceivably injured by any negligence in a defendants act. Id. at 289. Instead, the Court
limited the defendants duty to those who suffered personal injury or property damageas
historically courts have done, to afford[] a principled basis for reasonably apportioning
liability. Id. at 291-92. Here also, without any duty supporting Plaintiffs allegations of pure
economic harm, Plaintiffs negligence claim fails as a matter of law.
Consistent with these principles of New York law, courts considering negligence claims
alleging groundwater contamination under other states laws have held that contamination alone
does not constitute an injury sufficient to substantiate a negligence claim. Rowe v. E.I.
Dupont De Nemours & Co., 262 F.R.D. 451, 465 (D.N.J. 2009); accord Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 95 (4th Cir. 2011). [T]he release of contaminants into the
groundwater aquifer does not itself generate damages, unless Plaintiffs can show that they
34
suffered harm. Player v. Motiva Enters. LLC, 2006 WL 166452, at *9 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2006)
(alleged contamination of groundwater with MTBE), affd, 240 F. Appx 513 (3d Cir. 2007).
Because Plaintiffs here do not allege physical harm to their property, the negligence claims they
purport to assert on behalf of the Property Damage Classes must be dismissed for failure to state
a claim.
Strict Liability:
Claims for strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities also
require a physical injury, which is not alleged in relation to Plaintiffs property damage claims
here. Under New York law, a claim for strict liability requires harm to the person or property
of another. 55 Motor Ave. Co. v. Liberty Indus. Finishing Corp., 885 F. Supp. 410, 423
(E.D.N.Y. 1994) (quoting Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 335 Md. 58, 75 (1994)) (emphasis
added).
Thus, [t]he doctrine of strict liability, by its express language and traditional
application, is aimed at protecting against harm to person or property which arises from the
dangerous activity and does not extend to purely economic losses. Rosenblatt, 335 Md. at 75.
Accordingly, courts dismiss strict liability claims that do not plead physical harm. Remson v.
Verizon Commcns, Inc., 2009 WL 723872, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2009), overruled in part on
other grounds by Caronia, 22 N.Y.3d 439. As the Remson court explained, where plaintiffs do
not allege the element of physical injury ... [,] they fail to allege an element essential to the
stating of a claim for ... strict liability, and those claims must be dismissed. Id.
In sum, Plaintiffs property damage claims are premised on a harm to a public resource
rather than private property belonging to the Plaintiffs, and thus Plaintiffs have alleged no
property damage sufficient to support their claims. In the absence of any such property damage,
Plaintiffs cannot recover for purely economic harm. Plaintiffs have, therefore, failed to state
claims for trespass, negligence, and strict liability based on alleged property damage.
B.
Plaintiffs Nuisance Claims Fail as a Matter of Law
Plaintiffs purport to assert two Nuisance Classes on behalf of owners and lessors of
propertyone for those on municipal water, and one for those on private wells. (Compl. 135.)
These nuisance claims are predicated on an alleged classwide injury, and are, therefore,
35
internally contradictory: Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for private nuisance based on an alleged
public harm. A private nuisance is that which threatens one person or a relatively few.
Caldarola v. Town of Smithtown, 2010 WL 6442698, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2010) (emphasis
added) (quoting Copart Indus., Inc. v. Con. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 568
(1977)), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 1336574 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2011).
Plaintiffs allegations of widespread harm to the enjoyment of a public resource in Hoosick Falls
are inconsistent with that cause of action. Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs allege that these public
issues with public groundwater impact all renters and owners in Hoosick Falls, those allegations
are common to the entire community and thus cannot support a legally cognizable claim of
a private nuisance. City of New York v. Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc., 20 Misc. 3d 1110(A), 867
N.Y.S.2d 373, 2008 WL 2572853, at *8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2008), affd, 65 A.D.3d 1071
(2d Dept 2009). Accordingly, the private nuisance claims Plaintiffs purport to assert on behalf
of the Nuisance Classes should be dismissed with prejudice.
C.
Plaintiffs Request for Medical Monitoring Fails as a Matter of Law
Just as Plaintiffs failure to plead injury to property is fatal to their property damage
claims, Plaintiffs failure to plead injury to their persons is fatal to their negligence and strict
liability claims seeking medical monitoring on behalf of the Biomonitoring Class. The Court of
Appeals has held that medical monitoring is an element of damages that may be recovered only
after a physical injury has been proven.
Caronia, 22 N.Y.3d at 448 (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs attempt to plead a classwide physical injury to their persons based on a purported
increased risk of human health effects, the accumulation of PFOA in their bodies, and, in
turn, injury and damage at the cellular and genetic level. (Compl. 45, 49, 135, 165-66.) Yet
such allegations do not amount to cognizable injuries under New York law, and Plaintiffs
negligence and strict liability claims seeking medical monitoring must therefore be dismissed.
1.
New York Law Requires a Physical Injury for Medical Monitoring
To sustain their request for medical monitoring premised on claims of negligence or strict
liability, Plaintiffs must plead a physical injury. The New York Court of Appeals made this clear
36
when it reiterated in Caronia that [t]he requirement that a plaintiff sustain physical harm before
being able to recover in tort is a fundamental principle of our states tort system. 22 N.Y.3d at
446 (citation omitted). Because the plaintiffs in Caronia did not claim to have suffered physical
injury or damage to property, the court held that their only potential pathway to relief is for
this Court to recognize a new tort, namely, an equitable medical monitoring cause of action. Id.
at 446-47. After accepting certification from the Second Circuit as to whether New York law
recognized a standalone cause of action for medical monitoring, the court held that it did not,
explaining that [a]llowance of such a claim would constitute a significant deviation from our
tort jurisprudence. Id. at 452; accord Ivory v. Intl Bus. Machs. Corp., 37 Misc. 3d 1221(A),
2012 WL 5680180, at *11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Broome Cty. 2012), affd, 116 A.D.3d 121 (3d Dept
2014).
The Caronia court explained in detail the reasons for insisting on a physical injury as a
predicate for medical monitoring damages. Relying on the Supreme Courts rejection of a
federal medical monitoring cause of action, the court stated that dispensing with the physical
injury requirement could permit tens of millions of potential plaintiffs to recover monitoring
costs, effectively flooding the courts while concomitantly depleting the purported tortfeasors
resources for those who have actually sustained damage. 22 N.Y.3d at 451 (quoting Metro-N.
Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424, 442 (1997)). As the Supreme Court explained in
Buckley, allowing recovery without physical harm would have disastrous consequences, since
countless individuals may have suffered exposure to substances that might justify some form of
substance-exposure-related medical monitoring. Buckley, 521 U.S. at 442. Those risks are
particularly acute with regard to PFOA, a substance that Plaintiffs allege can be detected in the
blood of an average American, the mere accumulation of which they say causes subclinical harm.
Compl. 127, 166. The physical injury requirement, in contrast, provides meaningful limits
as it defines the class of persons who actually possess a cause of action, provides a basis for the
factfinder to determine whether a litigant actually possesses a claim, and protects court dockets
from being clogged with frivolous and unfounded claims. Caronia, 22 N.Y.3d at 446.
37
New York courts are mindful of issuing decisions that will have foreseeable and
unforeseeable consequences, most especially the potential for vast, uncircumscribed
liability. Madden v. Creative Servs., Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 738, 746 (1995). As a general rule, New
York courts have been reluctant to embrace claims that rely on hypothetical theories or
speculative assumptions about the nature of the harm incurred or the extent of plaintiffs
damages. Ortega v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 69, 81 (2007). Yet as the Supreme Court
explained in Buckley, the systemic harms that can accompany unlimited and unpredictable
liability from abandonment of the physical injury requirement would create uncertainty as to
the amount of liability, and threaten a flood of less important cases. 521 U.S. at 442.
Based on these principles and concerns, Caronia treated medical monitoring as an
element of damages and limited the remedy to circumstances in which plaintiffs have in fact
sustained [a] physical injury. 22 N.Y.2d at 452. Physical injury is essential to both of Plaintiffs
causes of action under which they assert a right to medical monitoring. To establish negligence,
a plaintiff must demonstrate resulting injury of defendants tortious conduct, Hidden Meadows,
289 A.D.2d at 643, and even in strict liability, the [d]efendants activities must have been the
proximate cause of some harm. Wanich v. Bitter, 12 Misc. 3d 1165(A), 2006 WL 1547566, at
*7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty. 2006). Plaintiffs have failed to allege such an injury.
2.
Plaintiffs Do Not Allege a Physical Injury
Plaintiffs allegations of increased risk of harm from PFOA exposure do not constitute a
physical injury under New York law. Caronia so held, stating that [a] threat of future harm is
insufficient to impose liability against a defendant in a tort context, and rejecting a request to
establish a medical monitoring cause of action predicated on an alleged increased risk. Caronia,
22 N.Y.3d at 446, 452. Injury is the condition on which the claim is based, the resulting
illness, the discernible bodily symptoms, the manifestations of exposure, and the
manifestations or symptoms of the latent disease that the harmful substance producedit is
not the contingent risk that exposure might create. In re N.Y. Cnty. DES Litig., 89 N.Y.2d 506,
508, 512-14 (1997). Therefore, failure to allege more than the possibility of future injury
38
warrants dismissal of a plaintiffs cause of action. Remson v. Verizon Commcns, Inc., 2009 WL
723872, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2009) (dismissing claims for negligence and strict liability
where they were based on only an increased risk of future disease); accord Frank v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 A.D.2d 118, 128 (1st Dept 2002) (dismissing tort claims where
plaintiff alleged only the risk of injury, rather than any actual personal injuries or property
damage). As a result, increased risk cannot in and of itself support a tort action in New
York. Ivory, 37 Misc. 3d 1221(A), 2012 WL 5680180, at *11. In short, [t]here is no doubt but
that New York law requires an injury to sustain a tort cause of action, rather than the possibility
of some future injury. Id. (citation omitted).
Nor can allegations of PFOA accumulation and cellular and genetic damage support
Plaintiffs request for medical monitoring. (Compl. 136, 165-66.) Caronia considered and
rejected such notions of subclinical injury. There, the plaintiffs argued that they had experienced
subcellular harm from smoking the defendants cigarettes and sought to establish a medical
monitoring cause of action on that basis.
Br. for Plaintiffs-Appellants at *4, *38 n.33,
*56, Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2013 WL 8023761 (N.Y. July 29, 2013). Yet the
Caronia decision characterized these allegations as not claim[ing] to have suffered physical
injury, but only an increased risk for developing lung cancer. Caronia, 22 N.Y.3d at 446.
Such allegations of subclinical harm are simply increased risk by another name, and thus do not
constitute a cognizable injury in tort.
The same argument was advanced in Ivory, where Plaintiffs counsel from this action
argued that chemical exposures caused damage to chromosomes that might grow into a
cancer. 2012 WL 5680180, at *10. Yet the court dismissed those claims, given the plaintiffs
failure to establish a present disease, its physical effects, or a reasonable certainty of its eventual
development. See id. at *11, *12 n.8. As in Ivory, Plaintiffs attempt[] to steer the injury
discussion away from the phrase increased risk of disease is unavailing; in reality, that
is the only plausible description of the injury alleged by the asymptomatic plaintiffs, since they
suffer from no current actual physical injury. Id. at *11.
39
Likewise, the Fourth Circuit rejected an attempt to plead negligence based solely on
PFOA accumulation in an environmental action. Rhodes, 636 F.3d at 95. The presence of
PFOA ... in the plaintiffs blood does not, standing alone, establish harm or injury for purposes
of proving a negligence claim. Id.
Rather, the plaintiff also must produce evidence of a
detrimental effect to the plaintiffs health that actually has occurred or is reasonably certain to
occur due to a present harm. Id. (emphasis added).
At bottom, whether characterized as increased risk, chemical accumulation, or cellular
and genetic damage, these allegations are speculative, at best, as to whether asymptomatic
plaintiffs will ever contract a disease. Caronia, 22 N.Y.3d at 451. As the Ninth Circuit has
keenly observed, not every alteration of the body is injury. All life is change, but all change
is not injurious. Dumontier v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 543 F.3d 567, 570 (9th Cir. 2008).
DNA damage and cell death creates only a possibility of clinical disease, and, for this
reason courts have not reasoned that subclinical injuries from a toxic agent are bodily or
physical injuries. June v. Union Carbide Corp., 577 F.3d 1234, 1249 (10th Cir. 2009) (first
emphasis added).
The facts that Plaintiffs plead do not constitute a cognizable injury in tort, and thus
cannot support Plaintiffs request for medical monitoring damages in negligence and strict
liability. Those claims should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.
40
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should: (1) dismiss or stay the Complaints
injunctive relief claims; and (2) dismiss the Complaints damages claims with prejudice.
/s/ Michael Koenig

Michael Koenig (507425)
Christopher Fenlon (516392)
HINCKLEY ALLEN
30 S. Pearl Street, Suite 901
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 396-3100
Fax: (518) 396-3101
mkoenig@hinckleyallen.com
cfenlon@hinckleyallen.com
/s/ Dale Desnoyers

Dale Desnoyers (103795)
ALLEN & DESNOYERS LLP
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 426-2288
Facsimile: (518) 426-2299
Sheila L. Birnbaum (505978)

Mark S. Cheffo (302113)
Douglas E. Fleming, III (519941)
Patrick Curran (519940)
Lincoln Davis Wilson (520260)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
51 Madison Ave.
New York, New York 10010
Tel: 212-849-7000
Fax: 212-849-7100
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com
patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com
Michael D. Daneker (107356)

Elissa J. Preheim (107355)
Allyson Himelfarb (107357)
Tal Machnes (519954)
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
Michael.Daneker@aporter.com
Elissa.Preheim@aporter.com
Allyson.Himelfarb@aporter.com
Tal.Machnes@aporter.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Honeywell International Inc.
Attorneys for Defendant Saint-Gobain

Performance Plastics Corporation
41

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
INC. f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 1:16-CV-917 (LEK/DJS)
DECLARATION OF DALE DESNOYERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

OR STAY THE MASTER CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BY
DEFENDANTS SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION AND
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
I, Dale Desnoyers, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court, do
hereby declare as follows:
1.
I am an attorney at law of the State of New York and am a Partner in the firm of
Allen & Desnoyers LLP, attorneys for Defendant Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) in
the above-captioned matter. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of the Defendants
Motion to Dismiss or Stay the Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a Letter from David G.
Savadi, Counsel to Saint-Gobain, to the EPAs TSCA Confidential Business Information Center,
dated December 30, 2014, and available at

http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/SaintGobainLetterToEPA_Re_TSCA.pdf.
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a Letter from David
Borge, Mayor of Village of Hoosick Falls, to Residents of Village of Hoosick Falls dated
December 1, 2015, and available at
http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Media/PDF/WaterLetter-12012015.pdf.
4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a Letter from Basil
Seggos of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to David
Borge, Mayor of Hoosick Falls, dated March 8, 2016, and available at
http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/DECLetterToMayor-03082016.pdf.
5.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a Letter from Mayor
David Borge to Residents of Village of Hoosick Falls, dated June 2016, and available at
http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/LettertoResidents-062316.pdf.
6.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the June 3, 2016 DEC
Consent Order with Saint-Gobain and Honeywell relating to the McCaffrey Street and Liberty
Street sites.
7.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the June 3, 2016 DEC
Consent Order with Honeywell relating to the John Street and River Road Sites.
8.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a Letter from Dr.
Howard Zucker of the New York Department of Health (NYDOH) to David Borge, Mayor of
Hoosick Falls, dated March 30, 2016, and available at
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/hoosick/docs/lettter_to_mayor_tesing_re
sults.pdf.
9.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 are true and correct copies of letters from Lloyd R.
Wilson, Ph.D. of NYDOH to David Borge, Mayor of Hoosick Falls, dated September 6, 2016,
and available at: http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/NYSDOH-letter-labreports-08112016.pdf; http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/Water/Documents/NYSDOHletter-lab-reports-08252016.pdf.
10.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a Press Release issued
by Governor of New York State Andrew Cuomo titled New York State, Governor Cuomo
Announces PFOA No Longer Detected At Hoosick Falls Municipal Water Filtration System,
dated March 13, 2016, and available at https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomoannounces-pfoa-no-longer-detected-hoosick-falls-municipal-water-filtration.
11.
by DEC titled DEC and DOH Meet with Local Officials on Actions to Address PFOA
Contamination at Hoosick, dated February 26, 2016, and available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/105254.html.
12.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a printout from
NYDOHs website at https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/hoosick/, titled

PFOA in Drinking Water in the Village of Hoosick Falls and Town of Hoosick, and updated as
of September 14, 2016.
13.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a Letter from Dr.
Howard Zucker with NYDOH and Basil Seggos with DEC to the Honorable Gina McCarthy,
EPA Administrator, dated January 14, 2016, and available at

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/hoosickmccarthy2016.pdf.
14.
by EPA titled EPA Proposes to Add Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Site in Hoosick Falls,
N.Y. to the Federal Superfund List, dated September 7, 2016, and available at
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/corrected-epa-proposes-add-saint-gobain-performanceplastics-site-hoosick-falls-ny.
15.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is the Federal Register Notice at 81 Fed. Reg.
62,428 (Sept. 9, 2016), and available at

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/09/2016-21626/national-priorities-list.
16.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a document issued by
EPA titled Hoosick Falls Community Update No. 3, dated Spring 2016, and available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201604/documents/hoosick_falls_fact_sheet_no_3.pdf.
17.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Judith
Enck, EPA Regional Administrator, to Mayor David B. Borge, dated Apr. 6, 2016, and available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/20160406_-_112016_-_ocr_scan.pdf.
18.
by DEC titled New York State Announces Additional Progress in Addressing PFOA
Contamination, dated March 22, 2016, and available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/105578.html.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
By: ___________________________
Dale A. Desnoyers
Allen & Desnoyers LLP
Attorneys for Honeywell International Inc.
EXHIBIT 1
KN
KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP
Serving
RECEIVED
OPPT CBIC
Business through Law and Science
1001 G Street, N.W.

Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20001
201 DEC 30 PM 3: 36
tel. 202.434.4100
fax 202.434.4646
Writer's Direct Access

David G. Sarvadi
(202) 434-4164
sarvad i@kh law. com
December 30, 2014

Via Hand Delivery
TSCA Confidential Business Information

Center (7407M)
Courier Deliveries:
1201 Constitution Avenue, NW
WJC East; Room 6428
Washington, DC 20004-3302
Re:
CBIC Control Number
363196
Submission of Information Concerning Allegations of Environmental

Contamination
Dear TSCA Section 8(e) Coordinator:

On behalf of Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (SGPP), we are submitting
this notice to provide information to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
concerning data regarding the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that was detected in
recent tests of the public drinking water supplies of the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York (the
Village). SGPP processes fluoropolymers at a facility within the Village that were made with
PFOA, but it is not and never has been a manufacturer, processor, distributor or user of PFOA
per se anywhere in the United States. Since 2003 SGPP has participated in industry's voluntary
PFOA phase-out effort by purchasing raw materials with decreasing levels of PFOA as an
ingredient.
On December 12, 2014, SGPP became aware of PFOA measurements conducted by the
Village in three wells used to supply drinking water to the community. The wells are located
near one of our facilities in the Village. On December 15, 2014, SGPP learned of the results of
the tests, and obtained a copy of the report. A copy is attached.
EPA has established a provisional health advisory (PHA) level for PFOA of 0.4
micrograms per Liter in drinking water. Even though health advisories serve as guidance only
and are not enforceable, SOPP is reporting this information because the measurement from one
of the wells exceeds this PHA. SGPP has been told that this one well has been removed from
service, but SGPP has no further information at this time about the report, the apparent presence
of PFOA in the wells, or about the laboratory that performed the tests.
SOPP has no information as to whether a significant risk of injury to human health or the
environment is actually presented by the findings. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution
Washington, D.C.
Brussels
San Francisco
www.khlaw.com
Shanghai
KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP

TSCA Confidential Business Information Center (7407M)
December 30, 2014
Page2
and as a matter of good product stewardship we think it prudent to submit this information to
EPA under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
We trust that the Agency finds this information useful. If you have any questions, please
contact Lauren Alterman, Vice President - Health, Safety & Environment of Saint-Gobain
Corporation (parent of Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation), at (610) 341-7838.
David G. Sarvadi
Counsel to Saint-Gobain
Enclosure
cc:
Ms. Lauren Alterman, Saint-Gobain
12/1/14
Lab Analysis f{esufts
EPA range is measured in micrograms per liter.
Lab analysis was measured in nanograms per liter.
micrograms per liter = ppb (parts per bimon)
nanograms per liter = ppt (parts per trmion)
The EPA benchmark range converted from micrograms per liter to nanograms per liter=
0.2 - 0.4 micrograms per liter = 200 - 400 nanograms per liter.
Results from the samples to date:
Sample 1 Pre-treated:
Well 3
Well 6
280
Sample 2 Pre-treated:
170
280
230
Well 7
540
450
Sample 1 Treated = 440
Sample 2 Treated = TBD

the prime water supp l y.
As a result of Sample l, well 3 replaced well 7 as
'\,
eunJflns.
110 South Hill Street
'S'outltBend;.ffi1 466H
Te!: (574) 233-4777
Fax: (574) 233-8207
I 800 332 4345
Laboratory Report
Client:
Attn:
Copies
to:
326785
. Report:
Village of Hoosick Falls

Jim Hurlburt
240 Main Street
Hoosick Falls, NY 12090
Priority:
Standard Written
Status:
Final
PWSlD:
Not Supplied
Lab ELAP #:
11398
None
SampJe lnformatiorl
. .
EEA
ID#
Client ID
Method
Collected
Date /Time
Collected
By:
Received
Date /Time
3116530
WeH#3
537
10/02/14 08:35
Client
10/03/1410:45
3116531
Well#6
537
10/02/14 08:52
Client
10/03/14 10:45
3116532
Well #7
537
10/02/14 08:25
crient
10/03/14 10:45
RePr.t Summ_aey
Detailed quantitative results are presented on the following pages. The results presented relte only to the samples provided for
analysis.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this analysis. !f you have any questions concerning this report, please do not
hesitate to call Nathan Trowbridge at (574) 233-4777.
Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without wn'tt9n approval from EEA.
Digitally signed by Nathan Trowbridge
Date: 2014. l 0.16 11 :3 7 :33 -04'00'

Authorized Signature
Client Name:
ti-iii1'L_
Title

il-------
Page 1 of 3
Date
. .
GIie. it f\Jame:
S3mpling Point
Report#: 326785
PVVS ID: Not Supplied
Well#3
EEA Methods
Ana!yte
Preparation
Date
Analyte
ID#
Analyzed
Date
EEA
ID#
375-73-5
Pertluorobulanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
537
90
< 90
ng/L
10/08114 07:40
10109/14 09:02
3116530
375-85-9
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
537
10
< 10
ngll
10/08/14 07:40
10/09/14 09:02
3116530
355-46-4
Peluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
537
30
< 30
ng/L
10/08/14 07:40
10/09114 09:02
3116530
375-95-1
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
537
20
< 20
ng/L
1 O/OB/14 07:40
10/09114 09:02
3115530
1763-23-1
Pertluorooctane sulfonale (PFOS)
537
40
< 40
ng/L
10/08/14 07:40
10/09/14 09:02
3116530
335-57-1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFDA)
537
20
230
ng/L
10/08/14 07:40
10/09/14 09:02
3116530
Sampling Point
Well#6
PWSID: Not Supplied

EEA Methods
Analyte
10ft,
Analyte
Preparation
Date
MRLt
Result
90
<90
ng/L
10108/14 07:40
EEA
JD#
375-73-5
Pertluorobutanesulfonlc acid (PFBS)
375-65-9
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
537
10
< 10
ngll
10/08/14 07:40
10/09/14 09:33
3116531
355-46-4
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
537
30
< 30
ng/L
10/0B/14 07:40
10/09/14 09:33
3116531
537
10/09/14 09:33
3116531
375-95-1
537
20
< 20
ng/L
1OiOB/14 07:40
10/09/14 09:33
3116531
1763-23-1
Perrluorooctane sulfonate {PFOS}
537
40
< 40
ng/L
10/06114 07:40
10/09/14 09:33
3116531
335-67-1
Perfluorooctanolc acid (PFOA)
537
20
260
ngll
10/08/14 07:40
10/09/14 09:33
3116531
Sampling Point:
Wei!#?
PVVS ID: Not Supplied

EEA Methods
Analyte
Analyte
1011
Method
Reg
Limit
Preparation
Date
Analyzed
Date
EEA
10/08/14 07:40
10/09114 10:04
3116532
ID#
Pertluorobulanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
537
375-85-9
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFhfpA)
537
10
10
ng/L
10/08/14 07:40
10109/14 10:04
3116532
355-46-4
Perf)uorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
537
30
< 30
ng/L
10/08/14 07:40
10/09/14 10:04
3116532
375-73-5
90
< 90
ng/L
Perfluorononanoic acid {PFNA)
537
20
< 20
ng/L
1 OIOB/14 07:40
10/09114 10:04
3116532
1763-23-1
Perfluorooctane suffonate (PFOS)
537
40
< 40
ng/L
10/08114 07:40
10/09/14 10:04
3116532
335-67-1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
537
20
540
ng/L
10/08114 07:40
10109114 13:41
3116532
375-95-1
t EEA has demonstrated it can achieve these report limits in reagent water, but can not document them in all sample matrices,
Reg limit Type:
MCL
SMCL
Symbol;
Page 2 of 3
Al
Client :am,]:
Report#:
326785
Lab Definitions
Con tin uing Ca I ibratio n Chee I, St2 nd 2rd ( GCC} I Cont[DL!.ing,q'.!rJ! Ye!ffieathln (CCV.),{ lnltlat :Oalibt:f.Qn
Verification Standard (ICV) / Initial Performance Checl: (IPf;);IS.a,s_tatldRlcontainlngcineof'mofifort"1!'et.
analytes that is prepared from tha:'same standards used to lit;)ratethe iru.Wmer:it. This stdard lsl:lsed to vei'lfy
the calibration curveat the beginnlng-0, each analytical sequence. andrt)','y:l$o be:aru1Jyz throughout and a.t the
end of the sequen. The concentratlon of continuing standards ma.y bsval'fed'.whan prescribed:bY the refenoa
method, so that the railge of the Ccallbr,ation curve is verified on a regular basis.
Internal Standards (IS) - are pure compounds with properties similar to the analytes of interest, which are added to
field samples or extracts, calibration standards, and quality control standards at a known concentration. They are
used to measure the relative responses of the analytes of interest and surrogates in the sample, calibratio.n standard
or quality control standard.
Laboratory Duplicate (LD) - is a field sample aliquot taken from the same sample container in the laboratory and
analyzed separately using identical procedures. Analysis of laboratory duplicates provides a measure of the
precision of the laboratory procedures.
Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) I Laboratory Control Sample {LCS) - is an aliquot of reagent water to which
known concentrations of the analytes of interest are added. The LFB is analyzed exactly the same as the field
samples. LFBs are used to determine whether the method is in control.
Ubgratory Method Shtrlk (LMB) 11..awratqry cmgnf B!anl< {LRB) 7 is a sample of reagent water included in the
Sa_mple batch ariatjzedtn the samei\VQY;a..s th:ted field samples. The LMB is used to determine if method
aoafyf Qr crtt$rba'rpund contamfnatfon
beenln.lroduced during the preparation or analytical procedure.
The LMBisanalyzed exactly the san,eas,theff'iefd samples.
nave
Laboratory i'rtpS.Jant.(i.l'a)'{FlJd agEtnt Blantc CFRSk Is a sa,;npl Qt ltory reagent.water placed in a

sample conner in laboratOtY ancf tret=l\ed 8$ :a;:.fi&l.d i:;amp. fnt;Jdfttg orage, presaMJUon, nd all a nalytica I
procedures. The FRBJLTSeoner-folw.sthe:CQ!lclton bo1tles to and from tha,coln.sit; but the FRB/LTB is
i
not opened at any.trrneduring the;p. The: Frt{S/Ll'Bis:printaffiy travel b(ank:usec 'to verifythatthe samples were
not contaminated during shipment.
Matrix Spike Duplicate Sampio (f'ill".S-P)J,q.1>1>rat<>ry Fortified SampleMattix,O.upleate(LFSMD) - is a sample
aliquot taken from the same field:sample source as'.the Matrix Spike Sample ti;>'Which known quantities of the
analytes of interest are added iO the f!:lboratory. Th1c: MSD is analyzedexactfy:the same as the field samples.
Analysis of the MSD provides a.me.asuof'the;preaision of the laboratQry pi:ocedur in a specific matrix.
Matrix Splk:e S811lpte (MS) f Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) - is a sample aliquot taken from field
sample-source towhlch known quantities of the analytes of interest are added in the laboratory. The MS is analyzed
exactiy the same-as the field samples. The purpose is to demonstrate recovery of the analytes from a sample matrix
todatermrne itthspecific matrix contributes bias to the analytica! results.
Quality Control Standard (QC$);/ Se.con d source C;tJlbratlon Verificaticm (SSCV} l:s a solution containing
known t:onoentrt1ons of the. anafytes of lnteres.t prepared frpm a so.urce dlffarenHtom the sourea the caHbration
standards. The sofutlon ts obtafnad.from a second n,ar,ufa,c:turer Qf lotifthe rot ean be demenst by the
manufacturer as prepa* lndependenUy. from other lots. Th&QCS sample fs analyzed using the same procedures
as Raid sampres. The QCS is used as a check on the caflbtation. standards used in the method -on a roli.Une basis.
of
Reporting Limit Checlc (RLC) I Initial Calibration .Gheclc Standard {IGCS) - is a procedural standard that is
analyzed each day to evaluate instrument performance at or below the minimum reporting limit (MRL).
Surrogate Standard (SS} I Surrogate Analyte (SUR). is a pure compound with properties similar to the analytes of
interest, which is highly unlikely to be found in any field sample, that is added to the field samples, calibration
standards, blanks and quality control standards before sample preparation. The SS is used to evaluate the efficiency
of the sample preparation process.
Page 3 of 3
.-= .e u,._.LP,o'-JrUJi4....(
i .
--
_____uoS"Gv.th.liiU Str.J:
South Bend, IN 46617
Tel: (574) 233-4777
fax: (574) 233-8207
l 800 332 4345
Laboratory Report
Client:
Attn:
Copies
to:
Report:

Jim Hurlburt
240 Main Street
328480
Priority:
Standard Written
Status:
Final
PWSID:
Not Supplied
Lab EU\P #:
11398
None
....
Sample Jnfonnation
Method
I'
Collected
Received
Date I Tirrie
EEA
ID#
Client ID
3133280
Water Plant Finished water
537
11/04/14 OS:45
Client
11/05/14 09:45
3133281
Well #7 Raw Water
537
11/04/14 09;05
Client
11/05/141- 09:45
Collected
Date /_Time
y:
3133262
Well #3 Raw Water
537
11/04/14 09:40
Client
11/05/14 09:45
3133283
Well #6 Raw Water
537
11/04/1410:10
Client
11/05/14 09:45
Report Summaey
Detailed quantitative results are presented on the following pages. The results presented relate only to the samples provided for
analysis.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this analysis. If you have any questions concerning this report, please do not
hesitate to call Nathan Trowbridge at (574) 233-4777.
Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from EEA.
Digitally signed by Nathan Trowbridge

Date: 2014.11.21 10:01 :35 -05'00'
Authorized Signatu.re
.
Client Name:
--npottS: --
18 -
Date
TItie
Jt
Page 1 of 4
CliAnt Name:
Sampling Point:
Report#:
328480
PWSID: Not Supplied
Water Plant Finished Water

--- :--,....-.--" ---
EEA Methods
Analyte
Analyte
Reg
ID#.
MRLt
Result
Limit
Preparation
Date
Analyzed
Date
EEA
3133280
ID#
375-73-5
Perfluorobutanesutronic acid (PFBS)
537
90
< 90
ng/L
11110/14 07:30
11/11/14 04:19
375-85-9
Per1luoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
537
10
10
ng/L
11110114 07 :30
11/11/1404:19
3133280
355-46-4
537
30
< 30
ng/L
11/10114 07:30
11/11/14 04:19
3133280
375-95-1
537
20
< 20
ng/L
11110/14 07:30
11/11/14 04:19
3133280
1763-23-1
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
537
40
< 40
ng/L
11110/14 07:30
11/11/14 04:19
3133280
335-67-1
Pertluorooctanoic acid {PFOA)
537
20
440
ng/L
11/10i14 07:30
11/11/14 14:06
3133280
Sampling Point:
Well #7 Raw Water
PWSID: Not Supplied

EEA IV]eth.ods
Analyte
Aoatyte
ID#
Preparation
Date
Analyzed
Date
EEA
ID#
375-73-5
Perfluorobutanesutfonic acid (PFBS)
537
90
< 90
ng/L
11/10/14 07:30
11111/14 04:50
3133281
375-85-9
Periluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
537
10
10
ngll
11/10/14 07:30
11/11114 04:50
3133281
3133281
355-46-4
Perfluorohexa.nesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
537
30
< 30
ng/L
11/10/14 07:30
11111/1404:50
375-95-1
Pertluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
537
20
< 20
ng/L
11110/14 07:30
11111114 04:50
3133281
1763-23-1
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
537
40
< 40
ng/L
11110114 07:30
11111/14 04:50
3133281
335-67-1
537
20
450
ng/L
11110114 07:30
11/11/14 14:37
3133281
Sampling Point:
PWSID: Not Supplied
Well #3 Raw Water

EEA Methods
Analyte
!D#
Anatyte
MRLt
Result
Units
Preparation
Date
Analyzed
Date
375-73-5
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
537
90
< 90
ng/L
11/10/14 07:30
11111/14 05:20
3133282
375-65-9
Pertluoroheplanoic acid (PFHpA}
537
10
< 10
ng/L
11/10/14 07:30
11/11114 05:20
3133282
355-46-4
537
30
<30
ng/L
i 1/10114 07:30
11/11 /14 05:20
3133262
375-95-1
Periluorononanoic acid {PFNA)
537
20
< 20
ng/L
11/10/14 07:30
11/11/14 05:20
3133282
1763-23-1
Perfluo,ooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
537
40
< 40
ng/L
11110114 07:30
11/11/14 05:20
3133282
335-67-1
537
20
170
ng/L
11110/14 07:30
11/11/14 05;20
3133282
Page 2 of 4
CliE:nt Name:
Sampling Point:
- - --
-- .
Report#: 328480
Well #6 Raw Water

,; ---<M"
PWS!D: Not Supplied

---------------- ---
--- ..,. - ---- - ..
"-
1:EA Methods
Analyte
Analyte
ID#
Method
Reg
Units
MRLt
Result
ng/L
Umit
EEA
Preparation
Date
Analyzed
11/10/14 07:30
11/11 /14 05:51
3133283
3133283
Date
ID#
375-73-5
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
537
90
< 90
375-85-9
Perfluoroheptanolc acid (PFHpA)
537
10
< 10
ng/L
11/10(14 07:30
11/11 /14 05:51
30
<30
ng/L
11/10/14 07:30
11/11 /14 05:51
3133283
11/10/14 07:30
11/11/14 05:51
3133283
355-46-4
537
375-95-1
Perf[uorononanoic acid (PFNA)
537
20
< 20
ng/l
1763-23-1
Perfluoroodane sulfonate (PFOS)
537
40
<40
ng/l
11/10/14 07:30
11/11/14 05:51
3133283
335-67-1
Perfluorooctanojc acid (PFOA)
537
20
280
ng/L
11/10/14 07:30
11/11/1405:51
3133263
t EEA has demonstrated it can achieve these report llmfts in reagent water, but can not document them In all sample matrices.
Reg Limit Type:
MCL
SMCL
Symbol:
Page 3 of 4
AL
Report#:
Vi:,age of Hoosicl< Falls
328480
Lab Definitiorn
ContinuingCalibra'i:ion ChGdStandard (GCC)f-GontinulngGcJlbrati011-Veriiication.(CC\l/.loiti2.LCalibration ..
Verific&tion Standard {ICV) I l11ida! Performance Cl;ec(; (IPC) - is a standard containing one or more of t11e target
analytes that is prepared from lhe same standards used to calibrate the instrument. This standard is used to veri1
the calibration curve at the beginning of each analtical sequence, and may also be analyzed throughout and at the
end of the sequence. The concentration of continuing standards may be varied, when prescribed bi' the reference
method, so that the range of the calibration curve is verified on a regL1lar basis.
Internal Standards (JS) - are pure compounds with properties similar to the analytes of interest, which are added to
field samples or extracts, calibration standards, and quality control standards at a known concentration. They are
used to measure the relative responses of the analytes of interest and surrogates in the sample, calibration standard
or quality control standard.
Laboratory Duplicate (LO) - is a field sample aliquot taken from the same sample container in the laboratory and
analyzed separately using identical procedures. Analysis of laboratory duplicates provides a measure of the
precision of the laboratory procedures.
Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) I Laboratory Control Sample (LCS). is an aliquot of reagent water to which
known concentrations of the analytes of interest are added. The LFB is analyzed exactly the same as the field
samples. LFBs are used to determine whether the method is in control.
Laboratory Method Blank (LMB} I Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB) - is a sample of reagent water included 1n the
sample batch analyzed in the same way as the associated field samples. The LMB is used to determine if method
analytes or other background contamination have been introduced during tl,e preparation or analytical procedure.
The LMB is analyzed exactly the same as the field samples.
Laboraitory Trip Blank {LTB) I Field Reagent Blank (FRB) - is a sample of laboratory reagent water placed in a
sample container in the laboratory and treated as a field sample, including storage, preservation, and all analytlcal
procedures. The FRB/LTB container follows the collection bottles lo and from the collection site, but the FRB/LTB is
not opened at any time during the trip. The FRB/LTB is primari1 a travel blank used to verify that the samples were
not contaminated during shipment.
MatriK Spil<e Duplicate Sample {IVISDJ f Laboratory Fortified Sample Matri;:: Duplicate (LFSMD) is a sample
aliquot taken from the same field sample source as the Matrix Spike Sample to which known quantities of the
analytes of interest are added in the laboratory The MSD is analyzed exactly the same as the field samples.
Analysis of the MSD provides a measure of the precision of the laboratory procedures in a specific matrix.
Matrix Spike Sample (MS) I Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) - is a sample aliquot taken from field
sample source to which known quantities of the analytes of interest are added in the laboratory. The MS is analyzed
exactly the same as the field samples. The purpose is to demonstrate recovery of the analytes from a sample matrix
to determine if the specific matrix contributes bias to the analytical results.
Quality Control Standard (QCS) I Second Source Calibration Verification (SSCV) - is a solution containing
known concentrations of the analytes of interest prepared from a source different from the source of the calibration
standards. The solution is obtained from a second manufacturer or lot if the lot can be demonstrated by the
manufacturer as prepared independently from other lots. The QCS sample is analyzed using the same procedures
as field samples. The QCS is used as a check on the calibration standards used in the method on a routine basis.
Reporting Limit Check (RLC) / Initial Calibration Check Standard (ICCS) - is a procedural standard that is
analyzed eacQ day to evaluate instrument performance at or below the minimum reporting limit (MRL).
Surrogate Standard (SS) I Surrogate Analyte (SUR). is a pure compound with properties similar to the analytes of
interest. which is highly unlikely to be found in any field sample, that is added to the field samples, calibration
standards, blanks and quality control standards before sample preparation. The SS is used to evaluate the efficiency
of the sample preparation process.
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 2

December 1, 2015
Hello All,
This is the 4th consecutive summary sent to those who pay for utilizing the
Village of Hoosick Falls Municipal Water Supply. Each summary has been
enclosed with your water bills. As requested with previous summaries, I ask
that you share this with tenants and others as appropriate.
At the Village Board meeting held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015,
representatives from Saint-Gobain presented the results of their voluntary
sampling for PFOA conducted at their McCaffrey Street property in August of
this year. During that presentation Saint-Gobain made it known publicly that
they will fund a Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) filtration system to be
added to the existing filtration system at the Municipal Water Treatment Plant.
Based on a pilot study of our existing water, it has been determined that a GAC
filtration system will, in fact reduce the currently measurable amounts of
PFOA in our system to non-measurable or negligible results. Saint-Gobain also
agreed to fund an alternative water source for drinking and cooking bottled
water for those who choose this option.
Effective Sunday, November 29, 2015, bottled water in 1 gallon and 2.5 gallon
containers became available to residents of Hoosick who utilize the Village
water supply. Tops Market in Hoosick Falls is distributing this bottled water
and is open 7 days per week. Sign in at the Service Desk to receive your
coupon(s) and turn them in at the register as you check out. Alternative water
will be available until a temporary or permanent system is in place and
confirmed to be effective. Construction is expected to be completed no later
than by the fall of 2016 and most likely sooner, however much depends on the
coming winter.
Further discussions with Saint-Gobain are on-going and continue to be
positive. There are many steps in this process and our community will benefit
by having the highest quality of water.
The Village Board will continue to be pro-active and very much appreciates
your patience. Unfortunately, a quick fix does not exist, but we are well on
our way to a permanent resolution.
Once again, I ask for copies of any sample results you may have had
completed privately. This information will help the Departments of Health in
their combined efforts to determine the extent of the PFOA.
I thank the individuals who have volunteered to help in any capacity. Please
feel free to share suggestions as we move forward.
Thank you.
David Borge, Mayor
Village of Hoosick falls
EXHIBIT 3
March 8, 2016
Honorable David Borge

Mayor
Municipal Building
24 Main Street
Hoosick Falls, New York 12090
Dear Mayor Borge:
I write this letter to update you on the status of the Departments discussions with
Honeywell International and Saint Gobain Performance Plastics (the Companies)
regarding the investigation and cleanup of PFOA contamination in the Village of
Hoosick Falls and Town of Hoosick. Those discussions, which build upon the previous
conversations among the Village, Saint Gobain and the State, involve securing the
Companies commitment through an Order on Consent under the State Superfund law
to continue the work they have thus far voluntarily agreed to perform. Specifically, the
continued commitment to provide bottled water to village residents and to install,
operate and maintain the temporary Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) system that
would treat the village drinking water supply.
Additionally, the Order on Consent that the parties are currently negotiating would
require the installation of a full capacity GAC system that would be designed to remove
PFOA contamination from the Village water supply. The Companies have indicated a
willingness to implement these measures to protect drinking water supplies in the
Village, along with conducting an investigation to determine the location of sources of
PFOA, and ultimately a full remedy that would cleanup that contamination. The Order
on Consent would unambiguously place the Companies in the State Superfund program
through an enforceable document.
As the enclosed letter indicates, Saint Gobain specifically has reaffirmed its promise to
proceed with these commitments while the Department and the companies finalize an
Order on Consent. In this respect, Saint Gobain stated that its commitment on these
matters will not alter, and will be maintained, during any period of negotiations
concerning a consent order.
Finally, to ensure that the full capacity GAC system is put in place in a timely fashion,
DOH has completed its initial review of Saint Gobains design submission and today
sent the company a comment letter that identified a few areas that Saint Gobain needs
to address. Once Saint Gobain has addressed these areas, DOH expects to be able to
approve the design, which would allow installation and construction to begin in an
expeditious manner. While these immediate measures proceed, the State remains
committed to evaluating the feasibility of an alternative water supply for the Village as a
potential remedy for the present contamination of the ground water caused by PFOA.
Sincerely,
Basil Seggos
Acting Commissioner
Enclosure
EXHIBIT 4
Municipal Building
24 Main Street
Phone: 518-686-7072
Fax: 518-686-4902
village@hoosick.org
villageofhoosickfalls.com
Mayor:
David B. Borge
Deputy Mayor:
Ric DiDonato
Trustees:
Robert Downing
Kevin O'Malley
Robert Ryan
Ben Patten
Karen Sprague
!"#$%&'()%
%
%
*$+,%-$./012,34%
%
-$5%62,7%89+9$%2::.;.+<3%0+=$%>+?$%>+@2,%0$+?5+A%,$;$#9<A4%:.#+<.B.#/%+#%+/,$$>$#9%5.90%
8+.#9CD21+.#%E$,:2,>+#;$%E<+39.;3%+#?%F2#$A5$<<%G#9$,#+9.2#+<%50$,$1A%90$%;2>H+#.$3%5.<<%
.#=$39./+9$%EIJK%;2#9+>.#+9.2#%+9%90$.,%:+;.<.9.$3%.#%2",%;2>>"#.9AL%M0$%+/,$$>$#9%+<32%
32<.?.:.$3%3$=$,+<%;2>>.9>$#93%8+.#9CD21+.#%+<,$+?A%>+?$%92%90$%N.<<+/$L%O2,$%.#:2,>+9.2#%
+12"9%90.3%+/,$$>$#9%.3%1$<25L%
%
G#%+%3$H+,+9$%+;9.2#4%90$%N.<<+/$%,$;$.=$?%:"#?3%:,2>%-$5%62,7%89+9$%92%,$.>1",3$%<2;+<%5+9$,%
"3$,3%:2,%H+39%5+9$,%"3+/$L%M0$%,$1+9$3%+,$%1+3$?%2#%+;9"+<%"3+/$%?",.#/%+%3.PC>2#90%H$,.2?4%
32%90$%+>2"#9%,$;$.=$?%1A%$+;0%02"3$02<?%=+,.$3L%Q$.>1",3$>$#9%;0$;73%0+=$%1$$#%
H,2;$33$?%+#?%>+.<$?L%G:%A2"%0+=$%#29%,$;$.=$?%+%,$.>1",3$>$#9%;0$;74%+#?%1$<.$=$%A2"%
2"/09%92%,$;$.=$%2#$4%H<$+3$%;2#9+;9%90$%N.<<+/$%;<$,7R3%2::.;$L%
%
I.#+<<A4%.:%A2"%H+,9.;.H+9$?%.#%90$%-$5%62,7%89+9$%*$H+,9>$#9%2:%F$+<90R3%ST-68*JFUV%EIJK%
1<22?%9$39.#/%H,2/,+>4%A2"%>+A%0+=$%+<,$+?A%,$;$.=$?%A2",%,$3"<93L%G:%A2"%0+=$%W"$39.2#3%
+12"9%90$%.#:2,>+9.2#%A2"%,$;$.=$?4%A2"%+,$%+?=.3$?%92%;2#9+;9%A2",%25#%0$+<90%H,2:$33.2#+<%
2,%-68*JF%+9%X(YCZ'&C[\X'%2,%1$2$]0$+<90L#AL/2=L%G#%+??.9.2#4%-68*JF%,$H,$3$#9+9.=$3%
5.<<%1$%+=+.<+1<$%+9%=+,.2"3%?+9$3%+#?%9.>$3%+9%90$%FK6^_%K,>2,A4%Y'%^0",;0%89,$$9L%I2,%+%
5$$7<A%3;0$?"<$4%=.3.9%099Hàa555L0$+<90L#AL/2=a$#=.,2#>$#9+<a.#=$39./+9.2#3a0223.;7aL%
%
!"##$%&'()'!$*+,-.(/$*+0'1(+2&3244'5(##*,#2+,6',('7"%'8*44$92'
%
M0$%>+@2,%$<$>$#93%2:%90$%+/,$$>$#9%;+<<%:2,%8+.#9CD21+.#%+#?%F2#$A5$<<%92`%
%
b%E+A%:2,%90$%;2#9.#"$?%2H$,+9.2#4%>2#.92,.#/%+#?%>+.#9$#+#;$%2:%90$%9$>H2,+,A%
D,+#"<+,%K;9.=+9$?%^+,12#%STDKÛV%3A39$>4%+#A%>2?.:.;+9.2#3%#$$?$?%.#%90$%:"9",$4%
+#?%;2#9.#"$?%>2#.92,.#/%2:%90$%3A39$>%92%$#3",$%.9%;2#9.#"$3%92%1$%$::$;9.=$%+9%
$<.>.#+9.#/%EIJK%:,2>%90$%>"#.;.H+<%5+9$,%3"HH<AL%8+.#9CD21+.#%0+3%+<,$+?A%H+.?%
:2,%90$%?$3./#%+#?%.#39+<<+9.2#%2:%90$%3A39$>4%50.;0%0+3%1$$#%2H$,+9.#/%$::$;9.=$<A%
3.#;$%O+,;0%_'4%&'()L%
%
b%I"#?%90$%?$3./#4%.#39+<<+9.2#%+#?%2H$,+9.2#%2:%+%I"<<%^+H+;.9A%DK^%5+9$,%9,$+9>$#9%
3A39$>4%+#?%H$,:2,>%#$$?$?%>+.#9$#+#;$%+#?%+9%<$+39%>2#90<A%>2#.92,.#/%2#;$%
90$%3A39$>%.3%.#%H<+;$%92%?$>2#39,+9$%.93%;2#9.#"$?%$::$;9.=$#$33L%*$3./#%2:%90$%I"<<%
^+H+;.9A%3A39$>%0+3%+<,$+?A%1$$#%+HH,2=$?%1A%-68*JFL%K<<%90$%$W".H>$#9%0+3%
1$$#%2,?$,$?%+#?%32>$%0+3%+<,$+?A%1$$#%,$;$.=$?L%
%
b%^2#9.#"$%92%H+A%:2,%90$%1299<$?%5+9$,%H,2/,+>%+=+.<+1<$%+9%M2H3%I,.$#?<A%O+,7$9%:2,%
,$3.?$#93%"#9.<%90$%I"<<%^+H+;.9A%3A39$>%.3%.#39+<<$?%+#?%2H$,+9.2#+<4%+#?%;2#9.#"$%92%
H,2=.?$%1299<$?%5+9$,%?$<.=$,A%3$,=.;$3%92%9023$%"#+1<$%92%219+.#%90$%5+9$,%:2,%
90$>3$<=$3L%Q$3.?$#93%5.<<%;2#9.#"$%92%1$%+1<$%92%219+.#%:.=$%/+<<2#3%2:%1299<$?%
5+9$,%H$,%?+A4%H$,%02"3$02<?4%2,%>2,$%.:%,$W"$39$?L%
%
!"#$%#&'()"#)*+!,)
b%O+.#9+.#%90$%H,2H$,9AC3H$;.:.;%5+9$,%9,$+9>$#9%3A39$>34%;+<<$?%EJcM%3A39$>34%.#39+<<$?%+9%
3$=$#%<2;+<%1"3.#$33$3%+#?%+?"<9%;+,$%:+;.<.9.$3%+#?%H+A%92%,$>2=$%90$%3A39$>34%.:%,$W"$39$?4%2#;$%
90$%I"<<%^+H+;.9A%DK^%3A39$>%0+3%1$$#%.#39+<<$?%+9%90$%5+9$,%9,$+9>$#9%H<+#9L%%
%
b%I"#?%90$%.#39+<<+9.2#%+#?%>+.#9$#+#;$%2:%EJcM%3A39$>3%2#%952%H,.=+9$%5+9$,%3"HH<A%5$<<3%
+<,$+?A%.#39+<<$?%+9%952%H,.=+9$%,$3.?$#;$3%.#%90$%N.<<+/$L%M0$3$%+,$%90$%2#<A%952%02>$3%5.90%
H,.=+9$%?,.#7.#/%5+9$,%5$<<3%.#%90$%N.<<+/$L%M0$%;2>H+#.$3%5.<<%+<32%:"#?%90$%.#39+<<+9.2#%+#?%
>+.#9$#+#;$%2:%EJcM%3A39$>3%.#39+<<$?%2#%H,.=+9$%5$<<3%.#%90$%M25#%2:%F223.;7L%
%
b%E$,:2,>%+%;2>H,$0$#3.=$%.#=$39./+9.2#%.#92%90$%32",;$3%2:%EIJK%.#%2",%;2>>"#.9A%d%+%39"?A%
;+<<$?%+%Q$>$?.+<%G#=$39./+9.2#%+#?%I$+3.1.<.9A%89"?A%S2,%QGaI8VL%M0.3%.#=$39./+9.2#%5.<<%$=+<"+9$%90$%
>$902?3%90+9%;2"<?%1$%.>H<$>$#9$?%92%$<.>.#+9$%2,%,$?";$%EIJK%.#%90$%>"#.;.H+<%5+9$,%3"HH<A4%
3";0%+3%;,$+9.2#%2:%+#%+<9$,#+9$%5+9$,%3"HH<Ae%;<$+#"H%2,%9,$+9>$#9%2:%90$%32",;$3%2:%EIJK%92%
/,2"#?5+9$,%+#?%90$%>"#.;.H+<%5+9$,%3"HH<Ae%"H/,+?$3%92%90$%>"#.;.H+<%5+9$,%3"HH<A%3A39$>%
1$A2#?%.#39+<<+9.2#%2:%90$%I"<<%^+H+;.9A%DK^%3A39$>e%;2#9.#"+9.2#%2:%90$%*JFC+HH,2=$?%S1"9%#29%
A$9%.#39+<<$?V%I"<<%^+H+;.9A%DK^%3A39$>e%2,%#2%:",90$,%+;9.2#L%G9%5.<<%<.7$<A%9+7$%3$=$,+<%>2#9034%2,%
H233.1<A%A$+,34%:2,%90$%;2>H+#.$3%92%H$,:2,>%90.3%52,7L%
%
f+3$?%2#%90$%:.#?.#/3%2:%90.3%QGaI84%90$%-$5%62,7%89+9$%*$H+,9>$#9%2:%c#=.,2#>$#9+<%
^2#3$,=+9.2#%5.<<%?$=$<2H%+%?,+:9%;<$+#"H%H<+#4%;+<<$?%+%E,2H23$?%Q$>$?.+<%K;9.2#%E<+#4%50.;0%
5.<<%,$=.$5%$+;0%+<9$,#+9.=$%+#?%90$%,$+32#3%90$%39+9$%3$<$;9$?%2,%,$@$;9$?%.9L%%
%
b%Q$.>1",3$%90$%39+9$%:2,%90$%;2393%.9%.#;",,$?%92%3+>H<$%H,.=+9$%5+9$,%5$<<34%90$%F223.;7%Q.=$,4%
290$,%3",:+;$%5+9$,3%+#?%32.<3e%92%$=+<"+9$%+<9$,#+9.=$%5+9$,%3"HH<.$3e%+#?%90$%89+9$R3%H$,32##$<%
+#?%+?>.#.39,+9.=$%;2393L%
%
b%*.3;"33%,$.>1",3$>$#9%2:%90$%N.<<+/$R3%2"9C2:CH2;7$9%H+39%+#?%:"9",$%$PH$#3$3%+332;.+9$?%5.90%
90$%H,$3$#;$%2:%EIJK%.#%90$%N.<<+/$R3%?,.#7.#/%5+9$,%3"HH<AL%M0$3$%?.3;"33.2#3%0+=$%1$$#%2#/2.#/%
+#?%N.<<+/$%2::.;.+<3%+,$%;2#:.?$#9%90+9%,$3.?$#93%5.<<%#29%0+=$%92%1$+,%90$3$%;23934%50.;0%.#;<"?$%
2=$,9.>$%:2,%2",%39+::%+#?%90$%52,7%2:%90$%<$/+<4%$#/.#$$,.#/%+#?%;2>>"#.;+9.2#3%9$+>%5$%0+=$%
+33$>1<$?%92%+??,$33%90.3%;,.3.3L%G:4%:2,%+#A%,$+32#4%8+.#9CD21+.#%?2$3#R9%+/,$$%92%+%3+9.3:+;92,A%
,$.>1",3$>$#9%5.90.#%ZX%?+A3%2:%90$%$::$;9.=$%?+9$%2:%90$%+/,$$>$#94%-$5%62,7%89+9$%5.<<%3$$7%92%
,$;2=$,%90$3$%;2393%2#%90$%N.<<+/$R3%1$0+<:L%
%
8+.#9CD21+.#%+#?%F2#$A5$<<%0+=$%H,2=$#%92%1$%5.<<.#/%H+,9#$,3%+#?%0+=$%39$HH$?%"H%92%90$%H<+9$%92%
+??,$33%90$%EIJK%.33"$L%g$%90+#7%90$>%:2,%90$.,%;2>>.9>$#9%+#?%:2,%90$.,%5.<<.#/#$33%92%?2%90$%,./09%
90.#/L%g$%1$<.$=$%90+9%1A%52,7.#/%92/$90$,4%+#?%#29%.#%+#%+?=$,3+,.+<%>+##$,4%5$%0+=$%>2=$?%2",%
;2>>"#.9A%:2,5+,?L%M2?+A4%5$%+,$%>.<$3%+0$+?%2:%90$%290$,%;2>>"#.9.$3%90+9%"#:2,9"#+9$<A%:.#?%
90$>3$<=$3%.#%3.>.<+,%;.,;">39+#;$3L%
%
M0$,$%.3%;$,9+.#<A%>2,$%:2,%"3%92%?2%+#?%5$%+,$%;2>>.99$?%92%39+A.#/%:2;"3$?%2#%90$3$%.33"$3%$=$,A%?+AL%G:%
A2"%0+=$%+#A%3"//$39.2#3%:2,%025%5$%>./09%>2=$%:2,5+,?%92/$90$,4%2,%.:%A2"%0+=$%+#A%W"$39.2#3%2,%
;2#;$,#3%A2"R?%<.7$%90$%N.<<+/$%f2+,?%92%7#254%5$%$#;2",+/$%A2"%92%;2#9+;9%"3L%g$R?%1$%0+HHA%92%0$+,%
:,2>%A2"L%%
%
%
%
%
8.#;$,$<A4%
%
%
%
%
O+A2,%*+=.?%f2,/$%
%
%
M,"39$$%Q21$,9%QA+#%
%
%
%
*$H"9A%O+A2,%Q.;%*.*2#+92%
%
M,"39$$%f$#%E+99$#%
%
%
%
M,"39$$%Q21$,9%*25#.#/%
%
M,"39$$%h+,$#%8H,+/"$%
%
%
%
M,"39$$%h$=.#%JRO+<<$A%
EXHIBIT 5
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

STATE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
ECL 527-1301 ef seq.
ln the Matter a Remedial Program for
ORDER ON CONSENT AND

ADM INISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT
lndex No. GO 4-20160212-18
PFOA impacting the Village of Hoosick Falls Municipal Water Supply, private
drinking water wells in the Town of Hoosick,
and
DEC Site Name:

DEC Site No.:
Site Address:
Saint-Gobain McGaffrey Street

442046
14l{icCaffrey Street
Rensselaer County
Hereinafter referred to as "McCaffrey Site" or "Site"
and
DEC Site Name

DEC Site No.:
Site Address:
Saint-Gobain Liberty Street Site

442048
1 Liberty Street
Rensselaer County
Hereinafter referred to as "Liberty Site" or "Site"
by:
Sai nt-Goba i n Performa nce
lastics Co rporatio
and
Honeywell lnternational lnc

Hereinafter referred to as "Respondent" or
"Respondents"
1.
A. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

("Department" or "DEC") is responsible for inactive hazardous waste disposal site
remedial programs pursuant to Article 27,Title 13 of the Environmental Conservation
Law ("ECL") and Part 375 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
1
Regulations ("6 NYCRR") and may issue orders consistent with the authority granted to
the Commissioner by such statute.
B. The Department is responsible for carrying out the policy
of the State of New

York to conserve, improve and protect its natural resources and environment and
controlwater, land, and air pollution consistent with the authority granted to the
Department and the Commissioner by Article 1, Title 3 of the ECL.
C. This Order is issued pursuant to the Department's authority under, inter alia,
ECL Article 27, Title 13 and ECL 3-0301.
2.
By letter dated January 27,2016, New York State Department of Health

Commissioner Howard A, Zucker requested that the Department list perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) as a hazardous substance under 6 NYCRR Part 597.
3.
On January 27,2016, the Department added PFOA to the 6 NYCRR 597.3 list of
hazardous substances by emergency regulation, thereby making PFOA a hazardous
waste as defined by ECL 27-1301.'l and 6 NYCRR 375-1 .2(w) during the period of such
temporary emergency regulation and any re-adoption of same. The Department intends
to promulgate a final rule making PFOA a 6 NYCRR 597.3 hazardous substance.
4.
A.
PFOA was detected in the Village of Hoosick Falls' ("Village") public

drinking water supply wells, and the Village conducted a pilot study which demonstrated
that granulated active carbon treatment effectively removed PFOA from the Village's
water.
B.
New York State Department of Health ("DOH') has commenced sampling

of private water wells and the Department has commenced installation of Point-of-Entry
Treatment ("POET") systems on private drinking water systems in and around the Town
of Hoosick for any resident who requests a system.
C.
Respondents and New York State, through the Department, and DOH, are
committed to coordinating with the Village, the Town of Hoosick, and the USEPA in
order to protect human health and the environment, provide drinking water that meets
all applicable guidelines, rules, and regulations to residents, and protect groundwater in
the region in as expedited a manner as possible.
5.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation ("Respondent Saint-Gobain") is

a California corporation doing business in the State of New York.
6.
Respondent Saint-Gobain owns and operates the following properties in the

Village, Town of Hoosick, Rensselaer County: a6.44 acre facility at 14 McCaffrey
Street with a Tax Map/Parcel Number of Section 37.6, Block 3, Lot 1 (McCaffrey Site)
and an 11. -acre facility at 1 Liberty Street (Liberty Site) with a Tax Map/Parcel Number
2
of Section 27.10, Block 9, Lot 20 (collectively the "Sites"). Maps showing the location
of the Sites are attached as follows: McCaffrey Site is Exhibit A-1 and Liberty Ste is
A-2.
7.
Respondent Honeyrrrrell lnternational lnc. ("Respondent Honeywell") is a

Delaware corporation whose predecessors, Allied-Signal lnc. and/or AlliedSignal
Laminate Systems, lnc., owned and/or operated the Sites and other industrial facilities
in and around the Village of Hoosick Falls.
8.
The McCaffrey Site is currently listed in the Registry of lnactive Hazardous

Waste Disposal Sites in New York State ("Registry") as Site Number 442046 with a
Classification of 02 pursuant to ECL 27-1305.
9.
The Department has not currently listed the Libedy Site in the New York State
Registry of lnactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites ("Registry"), but has designated it
Site Number 442048 and classified it as a potential site or "p:site," meaning that
preliminary information suggests that the site and surrounding areas may be
contaminated and that a Site Characterization is necessary.
10.
The Village Municipal Water Supply ("MWS") is an off-site area impacted by

PFOA contamination alleged by the Department to be associated with one or more
inactive hazardous wast disposal sites, currently identified or unidentified, located in
the Village and its vicinity.
11.
Respondent Saint-Gobain, the DOH and the Village have been negotiating the
terms of a commitment to undertake lnterim Remedial Measures ("lRMs") to address
PFOA contamination impacting the MWS.
12.
The State has incurred costs in addressing PFOA contamination impacting the
MWS. Additionally, the State has incurred costs in sampling private water wells and
installing Point-of-Entry Treatment (POET) systems on private drinking water systems
13.
The presence of PFOA in private drinking water wells is alleged by the

Department to be an off-site area impacted by PFOA contamination associated with one
or more hazardous waste disposal sites, currently identified or unidentified, located in
the Village and its vicinity.
14.
Respondents consent to the issuance of this Order without (i) an admission or

finding of liability, fault, wrongdoing, or violation of any law, regulation, permit, order,
requirement, or standard of care of any kind whatsoever; (ii) an acknowledgment that
there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous waste at or from the Sites
or any other industrial facilities now or formerly owned or operated by Respondents,
either identified or unidentified; and/or (iii) an acknowledgment that a release or
threatened release of hazardous waste at or from the Sites constitutes a significant
3
threat to the public health or environment.
15.
Solely with regard to the matters set fodh below, Respondents hereby waive any
right to a hearing as may be provided by law, consent to the issuance and entry of this
Order, and agree to be bound by its terms. Respondents consent to and agree not to
contest the authority or jurisdiction of the Department to issue or enforce this Order, and
agree not to contest the validity of this Order or of its terms or the validity of data
submitted to the Department by Respondents pursuant to this Order.
NOW, having considered this matter and being duly advised, IT lS ORDERED
THAT:
l.
Real Propertv
The locations addressed by this Order are the McCaffrey Site and Liberty Site
ln addition, provisions are made to address the MWS and the private drinking water
wells in the Town of Hoosick and Village of Hoosick Falls.
ll.
lnitial Work Plans and Commitments
The elements of a full remedial program for an inactive hazardous waste disposal
site are set forth in Appendix A of this Order ("Appendix A"). lnitial elements of the
work to be carried out pursuant to this Order are set forth in this Section. DEC shall
have no authority under this Order to require Respondents to perform any work other
than as expressly set forth herein, including Appendix A.
A. McCaffrev
Site
1. The McCaffrey Site has been designated a "significant threat to public health
or the environment." Therefore, one of the initial elements of work to be undertaken
pursuant to this Order is a Remedial lnvestigation/Feasibility Study for the McCaffrey
Site.
2. A proposed Remedial lnvestigation/Feasibility Study ("R|/FS") work plan shall

be submitted to the Department within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this
Order. The Department will make a good faith effort to provide comment to the
Respondents within 30 (thirty) days of the work plan being submitted to the Department
Upon the Department's approval of the Work Plan, Respondents shall implement the
Work Plan in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs lll.A and lll.B of Appendix
A.
The RI/FS Work Plan will include, but not be limited to, a study and assessment
("Study") of alternatives to eliminate or reduce PFOA in the MWS in the Village of
Hoosick Falls. The Study will evaluate at least the following alternatives:
4
1. Creation of an alternate
2.
water supply for the Village of Hoosick Falls, including,

but not limited to, a new well field, a surface water supply source, and
interconnection with an existing municipal water supply system, or any
combination of those alternatives;
Remediating and or treating the sources of PFOA to the groundwater and the
MWS;
3. Upgrading the existing MWS beyond the Full Capacity System;

4. Continuation of the existing lRMs, including a full capacity GAC treatment system
5.
to address PFOA in the MWS for the permitted maximum daily flow ("Full
Capacity System"); and
No Further Action.
The Respondents shall contract to conduct this Study with a contractor approved
by the Department.
3. Upon the Department's approval of an RI/FS Work Plan, Respondents
shall
provisions
of Paragraph lll.A and lll.B
implement the Work Plan in accordance with the
of Appendix A to this Order.
B. Libertv Site
1.
A Proposed Site Characterization work plan for the Libefty Site

shall be submitted to the Department within forty-five (45) days after the effective date
of this Order. The Department will make a good faith effort to provide comment to the
Respondents within 30 (thirty) days of the work plan being submitted to the Department.
Upon the Department's approval of the Work Plan, Respondents shall implement the
Work Plan in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph lll.B of Appendix A.
2.
lf the Department lists the Liberty Site on the Registry with a "2"
classification, Respondents shall undertake a Remedial lnvestigation/Feasibility Study
for the Site in accordance with the terms of this Order.
C. IRM - Villaqe of Hoosick Falls
Municipal Water Supplv Emerqencv Measures
1.
a. Respondent Saint-Gobain has paid for the design and installation of a

temporary granular activated carbon (GAC) water treatment system to address PFOA in
the Village's municipalwater supply system ("Temporary System"). The Temporary
System was selected and designed as the best available technology to reach the lowest
achievable levels of PFOA. The Temporary System is now fully operational and DOH
announced on March 30, 2016 that repeated testing of the MWS shows non detection of
PFOA. Respondents shall pay for all costs associated with the continued operation,
monitoring and maintenance, and any additional modifications thereto, of the Temporary
System by the Village until a full capacity treatment system is installed as per
5
Subparagraph '1.b below, as well as any outstanding installation costs. The State,
and/or the Village, pursuant to DOH direction, intends to continue to monitor and
sample the Temporary System. Respondents shall cooperate with the Village to assess
and make appropriate modifications to ensure continued operation of the System.
b. Respondent Saint-Gobain shall cooperate with the Village regarding
design, installation and operation of a full capacity GAC treatment system to address
PFOA in the MWS for the permitted maximum daily flow ("Full Capacity System"). The
design of the Full Capacity System was completed and was approved by DOH by letter
dated April 5, 2016. The Full Capacity System was selected and designed as the best
available technology to reach the lowest achievable levels of PFOA. lt is expected that
the Full Capacity System will be fully operational by December 31 ,2016, subject to
approval for use by DOH. Respondents shall request approval from DOH for use of the
Full Capacity System ("Use Approval Request"). Prior to receiving DOH's approval of
the Use Approval Request, and in no event later than November 18,2016,
Respondents shall submit to DEC and DOH an approvable sampling, monitoring, and
carbon replacement protocol (Protocol Work Plan) for the Full Capacity System, which
may be incorporated into a Site Management Plan. The Protocol Work Plan shall
include an evaluation of all available monitoring data for, and experience with GAC
systems on the Village's public water supply system, and shall provide for sampling at
the water treatment plant at three locations - prior to the carbon filter system, in between
the lead and lag filters, and after the lag filter - on a monthly basis at a minimum. All
sampling data shall be made available to the public in a timely manner. Respondents
shall pay, on a timely basis, for all costs associated with the design, installation,
operation, monitoring and maintenance and any necessary additional modifications or
assessments of the Full Capacity System, and all additional incidental operation and
maintenance costs of the MWS caused by the installation of Full Capacity System. All
submittals pursuant to this Subsection ll.C.1.b shall be deemed submittals to DEC
pursuant to this Order.
c. Respondents each reserve its rights to seek reimbursement for all costs
it incurs associated with the Temporary System and the Full Capacity System against
any and all other parties responsible under any and all applicable law.
D.
IRM - Temoorarv Provisions of Alternate Water
1. Since November 2015, Respondent Saint-Gobain has been

providing bottled water to residents of the Village and Town of Hoosick. Respondents
will continue to pay to provide residents of the Village of Hoosick Falls with bottled water
free of charge at the Tops Friendly Markets grocery store located at21501 NY State
Route 22, Hoosick Falls, NY 12090 ("Tops") until the Full Capacity System is installed
and operational. ln addition, Respondents will continue to pay to provide residents of
the Town of Hoosick with bottled water free of charge at Tops provided such resident
has requested a POET and such system is not yet operational. Pursuant to the
6
program, eligible residents of the Village and the Town of Hoosick Falls may receive up
to, but not in excess of, five gallons of bottled water per day/per household.
Respondents shall pay Tops directly for all such water. Respondents are not obligated
under this Agreement to pay for any water that is obtained at any location other than
Tops, unless the Respondents and the Village agree to additional providers in writing.
To the extent certain Village and/or Town residents or businesses require more than
five gallons of bottled water per day/per household, Respondents agree to provide
additional water after a request and justification has been submitted to and approved by
the Village Clerk. Respondents shall provide bottled water delivery services to aged
and infirm Town of Hoosick and Village residents after a request and justification has
been submitted to and approved by the Village Clerk.
2.
Alternative Water for Ceftain Businesses/Facilities
a.
The following businesses and other facilities connected to the

MWS have been provided with a POET water system: Bagels & Brew Caf,30 Elm
Street, Hoosick Falls, NY; St. Mary's Academy, 4 Parsons Avenue, Hoosick Falls, NY;
The Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, 21 Danforth Street, Hoosick Falls, NY; The
Danforth Adult Care Center, 19 Danforth Street, Hoosick Falls, NY; Hoosick Falls Country
Club; Bobinski Dental, Classic Street, Hoosick Falls, N.Y.; and Society of Saint Stanislaw,
12 Mechanic Street, Hoosick Falls, N.Y. Respondents will pay the full costs of
maintenance until the Full Capacity System has been installed and approved for use by
DOH. Respondents will pay for the full costs of removing these systems after the Full
Capacity System has been installed and approved for use by DOH, and such systems
shall be the property of Respondents.
b.
Respondents shall provide Tops a POET water system and

pay the full cost of maintenance and removal of the system.
3.
Respondents each reserve its rights to seek reimbursement for all

costs it incurs associated with the Temporary Provisions of Alternative Water against
any and all other parties responsible under any and all applicable law.
E. IRM - Samplinq and lnstallation and Maintenance of POET svstems on

private water supplv wells
The Depadment and DOH has sampled certain private water supply wells
for PFOA in and around the Town of Hoosick and Village, and the Department has
installed POET systems on many of these wells. DOH and the Department intend to
continue to sample and install POET systems based on requests from residents of the
Town or Village.
F.
The Department reserves the right to request the implementation or

funding of any additional measures necessary to protect public health or the
7
environment including a biomonitoring program for residents of the Town of Hoosick

and the Village.
lll.
Pavment of State and Villa oe Costs
A.
lnvoices for payment pursuant to this paragraph shall be sent to

Respondents at the addresses designated below:
Edward Canning
Director, Environment, Health and Safety
Saint-Gobain Corporation
14 McCaffrey Street
With a cc: to
John McAuliffe, P.E.
Honeywell lnternational, lnc.
301 Plainfield Road, Suite 330
Syracuse, New York 13212
B.
1.
ln accordance with Appendix A, Respondents shall pay certain past

and future State Costs identified in this paragraph within 60 days of receipt of an
invoice. lncluded as State Costs that are to be paid pursuant to this paragraph are the
costs of the State's sampling of private water wells in and around the Town of Hoosick,
the Village of Hoosick Falls, and the Bus Garage on River Road, the State's sampling of
the Hoosick River, and other surface waters, the State's sampling of soils, the State's
preliminary efforts to evaluate alternative water supplies, the State's personnel costs
associated with the foregoing activities, the cost of negotiating this Order, the costs
associated with overseeing, administering, or enforcing this Order, and the work
performed and deliverables submitted by Respondents as required under this Order.
2.
To the extent any such costs are paid to the State or reimbursed to
the State from a third party, the State will not seek double recovery for those costs.
3.
The Department reseryes all rights to seek recovery of any costs

not paid pursuant to this Order. Respondents reserve their rights to contest payment of
any costs not set forth in paragraph lll.B.1 above. The payment of State Costs under
this Order in no way resolves any rights of the Department to seek reimbursement of
additional unpaid state costs. The payment of state costs by Respondents in no way
obligates Respondents to pay other state costs in the future. Any such payments shall
not be construed as a waiver of any defense Respondents may have concerning costs.
4.
ln addition to the bases for contesting invoiced costs set forth in the
provisions of 6 NYCRR 375-1.5 (b)(3)(v), Respondents may also contest an invoice
pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions in Appendix A, under the additional basis
that the costs sought are not covered under this Order pursuant to Paragraph lll.B.1
above.
C. 1.
The Village of Hoosick has indicated that it has incurred costs

relating to the presence of PFOA alleged by the Department to be associated with one
or more industrial facilities in and around the Village of Hoosick Falls, currently identified
or unidentified. Within forty-five (a5) Days after the effective date of this Consent Order,
Respondents shall meet with the Village and negotiate for reimbursement to the Village
of some or all of its past and future costs allegedly associated with the presence of
PFOA in the Village's drinking water supply system.
2.
The Department reserves its right to seek cost recovery in the

event the Village and Respondents do not reach an agreement regarding Village costs.
Respondents reserve their rights and defenses to contest any such action by the
Department.
lV.
Communications
A.
All written communications required by this Consent Order shall be

transmitted by United States Postal Service, by private courier seryice, by hand
delivery, or by electronic mail.
1.
Communication from Respondents shall be sent to
William Daigle (1 hard copy (unbound for Work Plans) & 1 electronic copy)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233
wilIiam.daiqle@dec. nv.qov
Krista Anders (electronic copy only)

New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Environmental Exposure lnvestigation
Empire State Plaza
Corning Tower Room 1787
Albany, NY 12237
krista.anders@doh. ny.gov
Dolores A. Tuohy, Esq. (correspondence only)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Office of General Counsel
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-1500
dolores.tuohy@dec. ny. gov
2.
Communication from the Department to Respondents shall be sent
to
Respondent - Honevwell
Dale A. Desnoyers, Esq.
Albany, New York 12207

io h n.
mca
iffe(O honevwel
co m
Thomas Byrne, Esq.

Honeywell lnternational lnc.
llSTaborRoad
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
byrne@honeywell. com
to m.
Resoondent Saint-Gobain
Edward Canning
Director, Environment, Health and Safety
Sa int-Gobain Corporation
14 McCaftrey Street
10
Lauren P. Alterman, Esq.

Vice President, Environment Health and Safety
Saint-Gobain Corporation
20 Moores Road
Malvern, PA 19355
Christopher R. Gibson, Esq.
Archer & Greiner, P.C.
One Centennial Square
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
B.
The Department and Respondents reserve the right to designate

additional or different addressees for communication on written notice to the other.
Additionally, the Department reserves the right to request that the Respondents provide
more than one paper copy of any work plan or report.
C.
Each party shall notify the other within ninety (90) days after any change
in the addresses listed in this paragraph.
V.
Miscellaneous
A.
Appendix A - "Standard Clauses for All New York State Superfund

Administrative Orders" is attached to and hereby made a part of this Order as if set forth
fully herein.
B.
ln the event of a conflict between the terms of this Order (including any
and all attachments thereto and amendments thereof) and the terms of Appendix A, the
terms of this Order shall control.
C.
The effective date of this Order is the day it is signed by the Commissioner
or the Commissioner's designee.
D.
Respondents each reserve all of its rights in law and equity to assert all
claims and defenses that each Respondent has or may have against the other
Respondent relating to claims for indemnification, contribution, cost recovery or any
other statutory or common law legal theory to obtain payment, reimbursement, or a
declaration of liability with respect to any costs, expenses, losses, or liabilities arising
out of or related to any alleged PFOA contamination in the Village or Town of Hoosick,
or both.
E.
This Order shall not inure to the benefit of any third party. The existence
of this Order or Respondents' compliance with it, shall not give rise to any presumption
of law or finding of fact, or create any rights, or grant any cause of action, which shall
inure to the benefit of any third party.
11
F.
ln the event this Order terminates pursuant to the provisions of

Subparagraph XIV.A.1 of Appendix A, in addition to the provisions described in
Subparagraph XIV.B that survive termination, the provisions of Paragraph ll.C (lRM
Village of Hoosick Falls MunicipalWater Supply Emergency Measures) and ll.D (lRM
Temporary Provisions of Alternative Water) shall survive termination of this Order for as
long as the ROD or Department requires the continuation of the provisions of
Paragraph ll.C (lRM - Village of Hoosick Falls MunicipalWater Supply Emergency
Measures) as a remedial measure.
G.
This Order may be signed in any number of counterpas, each of which

when executed and delivered shall constitute a duplicate original, but all
counterparts taken together shall constitute a single Order and be given full force
and effect as such.
12
DArED: "T*ou & n &

"
BASIL SEGGOS
ACTING COMMISSIONER
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVI RONMENTAL CONSERVATION
By:
Ro rt W. Schick, P.E., Director

13
CONSENT BY RESPONDENT SAINT-GOBAIN
Respondent Saint-Gobain hereby consents to the issuing and entering of this

Order, waives its right to a hearing herein as provided by law, and agrees to be bound by
this Order.
g/-%
Th|rnas Kln ,S
Date:
L^^ 1t"tls
U
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF
Ponane
) SS:
)
On the
day of
in the year 2016, before me, the undersigned,
personally appeared
personally known to me or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name is (are) subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the
individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
Signature and
of individual
taking acknowledgment
BARBARA KATUSHA
|{0TARY RJBLlC, STAE 0F oHlo
W Co{otolon ErPIts 8mmf 7
14
COhS\T BV
Rffi
SPONDENT HONYWELt
Respondent l*loneynell hereby consents to the issuing and entering of this Order,
waives its iight to a hearing herein as provided by law, and agrees to be bound by this
OrcJer
'.i
i..
Date
STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY
..i
l'
)ss
Q[ \';i \'\ i, ., ..,r.,
year 2016, before me, the undersigneci,

i',
day
On the
personally appeared
nally known to me or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name is (are) subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sheithey executed the same in
his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the
individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the indvidual(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
'i.r
Signature and Office of individua

taking acknowledgment
ffiffi8gT8NAM. MAKM
Mry
Publ, Sets
hE"
&ua$fred
effimhs$n
e&w ywk
018A8$0rw
tn ffihew fuW
H4plffie Apd0
t4,ii**,
15
Saint-Gobai n MccaffreY Street Site Location Map
Saint-Gobain
McCaffrey Street
Site No"
750
1,500
Exitibit A-'l
3,000 Feet
rl
Saint-Gobain Li be rty Street Site Location MaP
Sant-Gobain
Liberty Street (Site
No.442048
750
1,500
Exlriblt A-2
3,000 Feet
rl
EXHIBIT ''B''
RECORDS SEARCH REPORT
1.
Detail all environmental data and information within Respondents' or

Respondents' agents' or consultants' possession or control regarding environmental
conditions at or emanating from the Site.
2.
To the extent known by Respondents, a comprehensive list of all existing

relevant reports with titles, authors, and subject matter, as well as a description of the
results of all previous investigations of the Site and of areas immediately surrounding
the Site which are or might be affected by contamination at the Site, including all
available topographic and property Surveys, engineering studies, and aerial
photographs held by Respondents and Respondent's agents or consultants.
3.
A concise summary of information held by Respondents and Respondents'

agents and consultants with respect to:
(i)
a history and description of the Site, including the nature of
operations;
(ii)
the types, quantities, physical state, locations, methods, and dates

of disposal or release of hazardous waste at or emanating from the Site;
(iii)
(iv)
a description of current Site security (i.e. fencing, posting, etc.); and
the names and addresses of all persons responsible for disposal of

hazardous waste, including the dates of such disposal and any proof linking each such
person responsible with the hazardous wastes identified.
1B
APPENDIX A
STANDARD CLAUSES FOR ALL NEW YORK STATE
SUPERFUND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
The parties to the State Superfund
Order (hereinafter "Order") agree to be
bound by the following clauses which
are hereby made a part of the Order.
The word "Respondent" herein refers to
any party to the Order, other than the
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (hereinafter
"Department").
l.
A.
All activities at the Site that comprise

any element of an lnactive Hazardous
Waste Disposal Site Remedial Program
shall be conducted pursuant to one or
more Department-approved work plans
("Work Plan" or "Work Plans") and this
Order and all activities shall be
consistent with the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part
300, as required under CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. S 9600 ef seq. The Work Plan(s)
under this Order shall address both onSite and off-Site conditions and shall be
developed and implemented in
accordance with 6 NYCRR S 375-1.6(a),
375-3.6, and 375-6. Subject to
Subparagraph lll.E.3, all Departmentapproved Work Plans shall be
incorporated into and become
enforceable parts of this Order. Upon
approval of a Work Plan by the
Deparlment, Respondent shall
implement such Work Plan in
accordance with the schedule contained
therein. Nothing in this Subparagraph
shall mandate that any padicular Work
Plan be submitted.
Citizen Participation Plan
Within twenty (20) days after the

effective date of this Order, Respondent
shall submit for review and approval a
written citizen participation plan
prepared in accordance with the
requirements of ECL 527-1 417 and 6
NYCRR sections 375-1.10 and 3753.10. Upon approval, the Citizen
Participation Plan shall be deemed to be
incorporated into and made a part of this
Order.
ll.
Work Plan Reouirements
lnitial Submittal
Within thirty (30) days after the effective

date of this Order, Respondent shall
submit to the Department a Records
Search Report prepared in accordance
with Exhibit "B" attached to the Order.
The Records Search Report can be
limited if the Department notifies
Respondent that prior submissions
satisfy specific items required for the
Records Search Report.
The Work Plans shall be captioned as

follows:
1. Site
Characterization ("SC") Work Plan: a
Work Plan which provides for the
identification of the presence of any
lll.
Development, Performanc-nd
Reportino of Work Plans
19
which the Department shall review for

appropriateness and technical
sufficiency.
hazardous waste disposal at the Site;
2.
Remedial lnvestigation/
Feasibility Study ("R|/FS") Work Plan: a
Work Plan which provides for the
investigation of the nature and extent of
contamination within the boundaries of
the Site and emanating from such Site
and a study of remedial alternatives to
address such on-site and off-site
contamination;
2.
Any proposed Work Plan

shall be submitted for the Department's
review and approval and shall include,
at a minimum, a chronological
description of the anticipated activities, a
schedule for performance of those
activities, and sufficient detail to allow
the Department to evaluate that Work
3.
Plan.
Remedial
Design/Remedial Action ("RD/RA")
Work Plan: a Work Plan which provides
for the development and implementation
of final plans and specifications for
implementing the remedial alternative
set forth in the ROD;
i.
The Department
shall notify Respondent in writing if the
Department determines that any
element of a Department-approved
Work Plan needs to be modified in order
to achieve the objectives of the Work
Plan as set forth in Subparagraph lll.A
or to ensure that the Remedial Program
othenruise protects human health and
the environment. Upon receipt of such
notification, Respondent shall, subject to
dispute resolution pursuant to
Paragraph XV, modify the Work Plan.
4.
"lRM Work Plan" if the

Work Plan provides for an interim
remedial measure;
5.
"Site Management Plan" if

the Work Plan provides for the
identification and implementation of
institutional and/or engineering controls
as well as any necessary monitoring
and/or operation and maintenance of
the remedy; or
i.
The Department
may request, subject to dispute
resolution pursuant to Paragraph XV,
that Respondent submit additional or
supplemental Work Plans for the Site to
complete the current remedial phase
within thirty (30) Days after the
Department's written req uest.
6.
"Supplemental" if
additional work plans other than those
set forth in ll.A.1-5 are required to be
prepared and implemented.
3.
B.
A Site Management Plan,

if necessary, shall be submitted in
accordance with the schedule set forth
in the IRM Work Plan or RemedialWork
Submission/lmplementation of
Work Plans
1.
Respondent may opt to

propose one or more additional or
supplemental Work Plans (including one
or more IRM Work Plans) at any time,
Plan.
4.
20
During all field activities
terminated. Such petition must be

supported by a statement by a
Professional Engineer that such controls
are no longer necessary for the
protection of public health and the
environment. The Department shall not
unreasonably withhold its approval of
such petition.
conducted under a Departmentapproved Work Plan, Respondent shall

have on-Site a representative who is
qualified to supervise the activities
undertaken in accordance with the
provisions of 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(aX3).
5.
A Professional Engineer
must stamp and sign all Work Plans
other than SC or RI/FS Work Plans.
C.
Submission of
Periodic Reports
4. Within sixty (60) days of

the Department's approval of a Final
Report, Respondent shall submit such
additional Work Plans as is required by
the Department in its approval letter of
such Final Report. Failure to submit any
additional Work Plans within such period
shall be a violation of this Order.
nal Reoorts and
1.
ln accordance with the

schedule contained in a Work Plan,
Respondent shall submit a final report
as provided at 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(b) and
a final engineering report as provided at
6 NYCRR 375-1.6(c).
D.
Review of Submittals
1.
The Department shall

make a good faith effort to review and
respond in writing to each submittal
Respondent makes pursuant to this
Order within sixty (60) Days. The
Department's response shall include, in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(d),
an approval, modification request, or
disapproval of the submittal, in whole or
in part.
2.
Any final report or final

engineering report that includes
construction activities shall include "as
built" drawings showing any changes
made to the remedial design or the IRM
3.
ln the event that the final

engineering report for the Site requires
Site management, Respondent shall
submit an initial periodic report by in
accordance with the schedule in the Site
Management Plan and thereafter in
accordance with a schedule determined
by the Department. Such periodic
report shall be signed by a Professional
Engineer or by such other qualified
environmental professional as the
Department may find acceptable and
shall contain a certification as provided
at 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(hX3). Respondent
may petition the Department for a
determination that the institutional
and/or engineering controls may be
i.
Subject to
Subparagraph lll.E.3 and upon the
Department's written approval of a Work
Plan, such Department-approved Work
Plan shall be deemed to be incorporated
into and made a part of this Order and
shall be implemented in accordance
with the schedule contained therein.
ii.
lf the Department
modifies or requests modifications to a
submittal, it shall specify the reasons for
such modification(s). Within fifteen (15)
21
for such disapproval in writing and

Respondent shall be in violation of this
Order unless it invokes dispute
resolution pursuant to Paragraph XV
and its position prevails. Failure to
make an election or failure to comply
with the election is a violation of this
Order.
Days after the date of the Department's

written notice that Respondent's
submittal has been disapproved,
Respondent shall notify the Department
of its election in accordance with 6
NYCRR 375-1.6(dX3). lf Respondent
elects to modify or accept the
Department's modifications to the
submittal, Respondent shall make a
revised submittal that incorporates all of
the Department's modifications to the
first submittal in accordance with the
time period set forth in 6 NYCRR 3751.6(dX3). ln the event that
Respondent's revised submittal is
disapproved, the Department shall set
foh its reasons for such disapproval in
writing and Respondent shall be in
violation of this Order unless it invokes
dispute resolution pursuant to
Paragraph XV and its position prevails.
Failure to make an election or failure to
comply with the election is a violation of
this Order.
2.
Within thirty (30) Days

after the Department's approval of a
final report, Respondent shall submit
such final report, as well as all data
gathered and drawings and submittals
made pursuant to such Work Plan, in an
electronic format acceptable to the
Department. lf any document cannot be
converted into electronic format,
Respondent shall submit such
document in an alternative format
acceptable to the Depadment.
E
Deoartment's lssuance of a ROD
1. Respondent shall
cooperate with the Department and
provide reasonable assistance,
consistent with the Citizen Participation
Plan, in soliciting public comment on the
proposed remedial action plan
("PRAP"), if any. After the close of the
public comment period, the Department
shall select a final remedial alternative
for the Site in a ROD. Nothing in this
Order shall be construed to abridge any
rights of Respondent, as provided by
law, to judicially challenge the
Department's ROD.
ii.
lf the Department
disapproves a submittal, it shall specify
the reasons for its disapproval. Within
fifteen (15) Days after the date of the
Department's written notice that
Respondent's submittal has been
disapproved, Respondent shall notify
the Department of its election in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 3751.6(dX4). If Respondent elects to
modify the submittal, Respondent shall
make a revised submittal that addresses
all of the Department's stated reasons
for disapproving the first submittal in
accordance with the time period set
forth in 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(dX4). ln the
event that Respondent's revised
submittal is disapproved, the
Department shall set forth its reasons
2.
Respondent shall have 60

days from the date of the Department's
issuance of the ROD to notify the
Department in writing whether it will
implement the remedial activities
22
cannot comply with any requirement of

this Order as a result of any Force
Majeure Event as provided at 6 NYCRR
375-1.5(bX4). Respondent must use
best efforts to anticipate the potential
Force Majeure Event, best efforts to
address any such event as it is
occurring, and best efforts following the
Force Majeure Event to minimize delay
to the greatest extent possible. "Force
Majeure" does not include Respondent's
economic inability to comply with any
obligation, the failure of Respondent to
make complete and timely application
for any required approval or permit, and
non-attainment of the goals, standards,
and requirements of this Order.
requred by such ROD. lf the

Respondent elects not to implement the
required remedial activities, then this
order shall terminate in accordance with
Paragraph XIV.A. Failure to make an
election or failure to comply with the
election is a violation of this Order.
3.
Nothing in this Order, in

any submittal, or in any work plan(s)
submitted pursuant to this Order shall
modify, expand, reduce, or othenruise
change the remedial activities (including
site management) required by a ROD
issued by the Department.
F.
lnstitutional/Enqineerinq Control
Certification
2.
Respondent shall notify

the Department in writing within five (5)
Days of the onset of any Force Majeure
Event. Failure to give such notice within
such five (5) Day period constitutes a
waiver of any claim that a delay is not
subject to penalties. Respondent shall
be deemed to know of any circumstance
which it, any entity controlled by it, or its
contractors knew or should have known.
ln the event that the remedy for the Site,

if any, or any Work Plan for the Site,
requires institutional or engineering
controls, Respondent shall submit a
written certification in accordance with 6
NYCRR 375-1.8(hX3) and 3753.8(hX2).
lV.
Penalties
A. 1.
3.
Respondent shall have the

proving
by a preponderance
burden of
of the evidence that (i) the delay or
anticipated delay has been or will be
caused by a Force Majeure Event; (ii)
the duration of the delay or the
extension sought is warranted under the
circumstances; (iii) best efforts were
exercised to avoid and mitigate the
effects of the delay; and (iv) Respondent
complied with the requirements of
Subparagraph lV.B.2 regarding timely
notification.
Respondent's failure to
comply with any term of this Order
constitutes a violation of this Order, the
ECL, and 6 NYCRR 375-2.11(a)( ).
Nothing herein abridges Respondent's
right to contest any allegation that it has
failed to comply with this Order.
2.
Payment of any penalties

shall not in any way alter Respondent's
obligations under this Order.
B. 1.
Respondent shall not

suffer any penalty or be subject to any
proceeding or action in the event it
4.
23
lf the Department agrees
and (ii) permit the Department full

access to all non-privileged records
relating to matters addressed by this
Order. Raw data is not considered
privileged and that portion of any
privileged document containing raw data
must be provided to the Department. ln
the event Respondent is unable to
obtain any authorization from third-party
property owners necessary to perform
its obligations under this Order, the
Department may, consistent with its
legal authority, assist in obtaining such
authorizations.
that the delay or anticipated delay is

attributable to a Force Majeure Event,
the time for performance of the
obligations that are affected by the
Force Majeure Event shall be extended
for a period of time equivalent to the
time lost because of the Force majeure
event, in accordance with 375-1.5(4).
5.
lf the Department rejects

Respondent's assertion that an event
provides a defense to non-compliance
with this Order pursuant to
Subparagraph lV.B, Respondent shall
be in violation of this Order unless it
invokes dispute resolution pursuant to
Paragraph XV and Respondent's
position prevails.
V.
A.
B.
The Department shall have the

right to take its own samples and
scientific measurements and the
Department and Respondent shall each
have the right to obtain split samples,
duplicate samples, or both, of all
substances and materials sampled. The
Department shall make the results of
any such sampling and scientific
measurements available to Respondent.
Entry upon Site
Respondent hereby consents,

upon reasonable notice under the
circumstances presented, to entry upon
the Site (or areas in the vicinity of the
Site which may be under the control of
Respondent) by any duly designated
officer or employee of the Department or
any State agency having jurisdiction
with respect to matters addressed
pursuant to this Order, and by any
agent, consultant, contractor, or other
person so authorized by the
Commissioner, all of whom shall abide
by the health and safety rules in effect
for the Site, for inspecting, sampling,
copying records related to the
contamination at the Site, testing, and
any other activities necessary to ensure
Respondent's compliance with this
Order. Upon request, Respondent shall
(i) provide the Department with suitable
work space at the Site, including access
to a telephone, to the extent available,
Vl.
A.
Pavment of State Costs
Within forty-five (45) days after

receipt of an itemized invoice from the
Department, Respondent shall pay to
the Department a sum of money which
shall represent reimbursement for State
Costs as provided by 6 NYCRR 375-1.5
(bX3Xi). Failure to timely pay any
invoice will be subject to late payment
char:ge and interest at a rate of 9% from
the date the payment is due until the
date the payment is made.
B.
Costs shall be documented as

provided by 6 NYCRR 375-1.5(bX3).
The Department shall not be required to
provide any other documentation of
24
costs, provided however, that the

Department's records shall be available
consistent with, and in accordance with,
Article 6 of the Public Officers Law.
Respondent shall obtain the benefits

conferred by such provisions, subject to
the terms and conditions described
therein.
C.
Vlll. Reservation of Riqhts
Each such payment shall be

made payable to the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation and shall be sent to:
A.
Except as provided at 6 NYCRR

375-1.9 and 375-2.9, nothing contained
in this Order shall be construed as
barring, diminishing, adjudicating, or in
any way affecting any of the
Department's rights or authorities,
including, but not limited to, the right to
require performance of further
investigations and/or response action(s),
to recover natural resource damages,
and/or to exercise any summary
abatement powers with respect to any
person, including Respondent.
Director, Bureau of Program

Management
New York State Depament of
Environmenta I Conservation
625 Broadway
D.
The Department shall provide

written notification to the Respondent of
any change in the foregoing addresses.
B.
Except as othenruise provided in

this Order, Respondent specifically
reserves all rights and defenses under
applicable law respecting any
Departmental assertion of remedial
liability and/or natural resource
damages against Respondent, and
further reserves all rights respecting the
enforcement of this Order, including the
rights to notice, to be heard, to appeal,
and to any other due process. The
existence of this Order or Respondent's
compliance with it shall not be construed
as an admission of liability, fault,
wrongdoing, or breach of standard of
care by Respondent, and shall not give
rise to any presumption of law or finding
of fact, or create any rights, or grant any
cause of action, which shall inure to the
benefit of any third party. Further,
Respondent reserves such rights as it
may have to seek and obtain
contribution, indemnification, and/or any
E.
lf Respondent objects to any

invoiced costs under this Order, the
provisions of 6 NYCRR 375-1.5 (bX3Xv)
and (vi) shall apply. Objections shall be
sent to the Department as provided
under subparagraph Vl.C above.
F.
ln the event of non-payment of

any invoice within the 45 days provided
herein, the Department may seek
enforcement of this provision pursuant
to Paragraph lV or the Depadment may
commence an enforcement action for
non-compliance with ECL'27 -1 423 and
ECL71-4003.
vil.
Release and Covenant Not to
Sue
Upon the Department's issuance of a
Certificate of Completion as provided at
6 NYCRR 375-1.9 and 375-2.9,
25
notify the transferee in writing, with a

copy to the Department, of the
applicability of this Order. However,
such obligation shall not extend to a
conveyance by means of a corporate
reorganization or merger or the granting
of any rights under any mortgage, deed,
trust, assignment, judgment, lien,
pledge, security agreement, lease, or
any other right accruing to a person not
affiliated with Respondent to secure the
repayment of money or the performance
of a duty or obligation.
other form of recovery from its insurers

and from other potentially responsible
parties or their insurers for past or future
response and/or cleanup costs or such
other costs or damages arising from the
contamination at the Site as may be
provided by law, including but not limited
to rights of contribution under section
1 13((3XB) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S
e613(fX3XB).
lX.
lndemnificat
Respondent shall indemnify and hold

the Department, the State of New York,
the Trustee of the State's natural
resources, and their representatives and
employees harmless as provided by 6
NYCRR 375-2.5(aX3X).
X.
Xl.
Chanse of Use
Applicant shall notify the Department at

least sixty (60) days in advance of any
change of use, as defined in 6 NYCRR
375-2.2(a), which is proposed for the
Site, in accordance with the provisions
of 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(d). ln the event
the Department determines that the
proposed change of use is prohibited,
the Department shall notify Applicant of
such determination within forty-five (45)
days of receipt of such notice.
Public Notice
A.
Within thirty (30) Days after the

effective date of this Order, Respondent
shall provide notice as required by 6
NYCRR 375-1.5(a). Within sixty (60)
Days of such filing, Respondent shall
provide the Department with a copy of
such instrument cedified by the
recording officer to be a true and faithful
copy.
Xll.
A.
Environmental Easement
lf a Record of Decision for the

Site relies upon one or more institutional
and/or engineering controls,
Respondent (or the owner of the Site)
shall submit to the Department for
approval an Environmental Easement to
run with the land in favor of the State
which complies with the requirements of
ECL ArticleTl, Title 36, and 6 NYCRR
375-1.8(hX2). Upon acceptance of the
Environmental Easement by the State,
Respondent shall comply with the
requirements of 6 NYCRR 3751.8(hX2).
B.
lf Respondent proposes to
transfer by sale or lease the whole or
any part of Respondent's interest in the
Site, or becomes aware of such transfer,
Respondent shall, not fewer than fortyfive (45) Days before the date of
transfer, or within forty-five (45) Days
after becoming aware of such
conveyance, notify the Department in
writing of the identity of the transferee
and of the nature and proposed or
actual date of the conveyance, and shall
26
unresolved delays encountered or

anticipated that may affect the future
schedule and efforts made to mitigate
such delays; and information regarding
activities undertaken in support of the
Citizen Participation Plan during the
previous reporting period and those
anticipated for the next reporting period
B.
lf the ROD provides for no action

other than implementation of one or
more institutional controls, Respondent
shall cause an environmental easement
to be recorded under the provisions of
Subparagraph Xll.A.
C. lf Respondent does not cause

such environmental easement to be
recorded in accordance with 6 NYCRR
375-1.8(hX2), Respondent will not be
entitled to the benefits conferred by 6
NYCRR 375-1.9 and 375-2.9 and the
Department may file an Environmental
Notice on the site.
XlV. Termination of Order
A.
This Order will terminate upon

the earlier of the following events:
1.
Respondent's election in
accordance with Paragraph lll.E.2 not to
implement the remedial activities
required pursuant to the ROD. ln the
event of termination in accordance with
this Subparagraph, this Order shall
terminate effective the Sth Day after the
Department's receipt of the written
notification, provided, however, that if
there are one or more Work Plan(s) for
which a final report has not been
approved at the time of Respondent's
notification of its election not to
implement the remedial activities in
accordance with the ROD, Respondent
shall complete the activities required by
such previously approved Work Plan(s)
consistent with the schedules contained
therein. Thereafter, this Order shall
Deparlment's approval of the final report
for all previously approved Work Plans;
or
Xlll. Proqress Reports

Respondent shall submit a written
progress report of its actions under this
Order to the pafties identified in
Subparagraph lV.A.1 of the Order by the
1Oth day of each month commencing
with the month subsequent to the
approval of the first Work Plan and
ending with the Termination date as set
forth in Paragraph XlV, unless a
different frequency is set forth in a Work
Plan. Such reports shall, at a minimum,
include: all actions relative to the Site
during the previous reporting period and
those anticipated for the next reporting
period; all approved activity
modifications (changes of work scope
and/or schedule); all results of sampling
and tests and all other data received or
generated by or on behalf of
Respondent in connection with this Site,
whether under this Order or othenruise,
in the previous reporting period,
including quality assurance/quality
control information; information
regarding percentage of completion;
2.
The Depadment's written

determination that Respondent has
completed all phases of the Remedial
Program (including Site Management),
in which event the termination shall be
effective on the Sth Day after the date of
27
the Department's letter stating that all

phases of the remedial program have
A.
ln the event disputes arise under

this Order, Respondent maY, within
fifteen (15) Days after Respondent knew
or should have known of the facts which
are the basis of the dispute, initiate
dispute resolution in accordance with
the provisions of 6 NYCRR 3751.5(bX2).
been completed.
B.
Notwithstanding the foregoing,

the provisions contained in Paragraphs
Vl and lX shall survive the termination of
this Order and any violation of such
surviving Paragraphs shall be a violation
of this Order, the ECL, and 6 NYCRR
37 5-2.11 (a)(4), subjecting Respondent
to penalties as provided under
Paragraph lV so long as such
obligations accrued on or prior to the
Termination Date.
B.
All cost incurred by the

Deparlment associated with dispute
resolution are State costs subject to
reimbursement pursuant to this Order.
C.
Nothing contained in this Order

shall be construed to authorize
Respondent to invoke dispute resolution
with respect to the remedy selected by
the Department in the ROD or any
element of such remedy, nor to impair
any right of Respondent to seek judicial
review of the Department's selection of
any remedy.
C.
lf the Order is terminated

pursuant to Subparagraph XIV.A.1,
neither this Order nor its termination
shall affect any liability of Respondent
for remediation of the Site and/or for
payment of State Costs, including
implementation of removal and remedial
actions, interest, enforcement, and any
and all other response costs as defined
under CERCLA, nor shall it affect any
defenses to such liability that may be
asserted by Respondent. Respondent
shall also ensure that it does not leave
the Site in a condition, from the
perspective of human health and
environmental protection, worse than
that which existed before any activities
under this Order were commenced.
Further, the Department's efforts in
obtaining and overseeing compliance
with this Order shall constitute
reasonable efforts under law to obtain a
voluntary commitment from Respondent
for any further activities to be
undertaken as parl of a Remedial
Program for the Site.
XV.
XVl. Miscellaneous
A.
Respondent agrees to comply

with and be bound by the provisions of 6
NYCRR Subparts 375-1 and 375-2; the
provisions of such Subparts that are
referenced herein are referenced for
clarity and convenience only and the
failure of this Order to specifically
reference any particular regulatory
provision is not intended to imply that
such provision is not applicable to
activities performed under this Order.
B.
The Department may exemPt

Respondent from the requirement to
obtain any state or local permit or other
authorization for any activity conducted
pursuant to this Order in accordance
Dispute Resolution
28
to modify or vary any term of this Order

shall be binding unless made in writing
and subscribed by the party to be
bound. No informal advice, guidance,
suggestion, or comment by the
Department shall be construed as
relieving Respondent of Respondent's
obligation to obtain such formal
approvals as may be required by this
Order. ln the event of a conflict
between the terms of this Order and any
Work Plan submitted pursuant to this
Order, the terms of this Order shall
control over the terms of the Work
Plan(s). Respo.ndent consents to and
agrees not to contest the authority and
jurisdiction of the Department to enter
into or enforce this Order.
with 6 NYCRR 375-1.12(b), (c), and (d).
C.
1.
Respondent shall use best

efforts to obtain all Site access, permits,
easements, approvals, institutional
controls, and/or authorizations
necessary to perform Respondent's
obligations under this Order, including
all Department-approved Work Plans
and the schedules contained therein. lf,
despite Respondent's best efforts, any
access, permits, easements, approvals,
institutional controls, or authorizations
cannot be obtained, Respondent shall
promptly notify the Department and
include a summary of the steps taken.
The Department may, as it deems
appropriate and within its authority,
assist Respondent in obtaining same.
2.
i.
Except as set forth

herein, if Respondent desires that any
provision of this Order be changed,
Respondent shall make timely written
application to the Commissioner with
copies to the parties listed in
Subparagraph lV.A.1.
2.
lf an interest in property is
needed to implement an institutional
control required by a Work Plan and
such interest cannot be obtained, the
Department may require Respondent to
modify the Work Plan pursuant to 6
NYCRR 375-1.6(dX3) to reflect changes
necessitated by Respondent's inability
to obtain such interest.
i.
lf Respondent
seeks to modify an approved Work Plan,
a written request shall be made to the
Department's project manager, with
copies to the pailies listed in
Subparagraph lV.A.1.
D.
The paragraph headings set forth

in this Order are included for
convenience of reference only and shall
be disregarded in the construction and
interpretation of any provisions of this
Order.
iii.
Requests for a
change to a time frame set forth in this
Order shall be made in writing to the
Department's project attorney and
project manager; such requests shall
not be unreasonably denied and a
written response to such requests shall
be sent to Respondent promptly.
E. 1.
The terms of this Order

shall constitute the complete and entire
agreement between the Department and
Respondent concerning the
implementation of the activities required
by this Order. No term, condition,
understanding, or agreement purporting
F. 1.
29
lf there are multiple parties
Paragraph Vll
signing this Order, the term

"Respondent" shall be read in the plural,
the obligations of each such pady under
this Order are joint and several, and the
insolvency of or failure by any
Respondent to implement any
-obligations under this Order shall not
affect the obligations of the remaining
Respondent(s) under this Order.
G.
Respondent shall be entitled to

receive contribution protection and/or to
seek contribution to the extent
authorized by ECL 27-1421(6) and 6
NYCRR 375-1.5(bX5).
H.
Any time limitations set forth in

Section 113(g)(1) of CERCLA, as
amended,42 U.S.C. S 9613(gX1),
Section 1012(h)(2) of the Oil Pollution
Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. S
2712(h)(2), the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, the New York Navigation
Law, the New York Environmental
Conservation Law, or any other federal
or state statute or regulation with
respect to potential claims for natural
resource damages against Respondent
or any other time limitations for the filing
of potential natural resource damages
claims against Respondent under any
other applicable state or federal law are
tolled in their entirety from the effective
date of this Order until termination of
this Order.
2. lf Respondent is a
partnership, the obligations of all
general partners (including limited
partners who act as general partners)
under this Order are joint and several
and the insolvency or failure of any
general partner to implement any
obligations under this Order shall not
affect the obligations of the remaining
partner(s) under this Order.
3.
Notwithstanding the
foregoing Subparagraphs XVl.F.1 and 2,
if multiple parties sign this Order as
Respondents but not all of the signing
parties elect to implement a Work Plan,
all Respondents are jointly and severally
liable for each and every obligation
under this Order through the completion
of activities in such Work Plan that all
such parties consented to; thereafter,
only those Respondents electing to
perform additional work shall be jointly
and severally liable under this Order for
the obligations and activities under such
additional Work Plan(s). The parties
electing not to implement the additional
Work Plan(s) shall have no obligations
under this Order relative to the activities
set forth in such Work Plan(s). Further,
only those Respondents electing to
implement such additional Work Plan(s)
shall be eligible to receive the release
and covenant not to sue referenced in
l.
Unless othenuise expressly

provided herein, terms used in this
Order which are defined in ECL Article
27 or in regulations promulgated
thereunder shall have the meaning
assigned to them under said statute or
regulations.
J.
Respondent's obligations under

this Order represent payment for or
reimbursement of response costs, and
shall not be deemed to constitute any
type of fine or penalty.
K.
Respondent and Respondent's

successors and assigns shall be bound
30
the convenience of the parties hereto,

individually or in combination, in one or
more counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed to have the status of an
executed original and all of which shall
together constitute one and the same.
by this Order. Any change in ownership

or corporate status of Respondent shall
in no way alter Respondent's
responsibilities under this Order.
L.
This Order may be executed for
31
EXHIBIT 6
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

STATE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
ECL 527-1301 ef seg.
ORDER ON CONSENT AND

ADM IN ISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT
lndex No. CO 4-20160415-79
ln the Matter a Remedial Program for
DEC Site Names/Registry Numbers
Oak Materials Fluorglas Division - John St Site (No.442049)

Oak Materials Site (alkla River Road 1 , 2 and 3) (No. 442008)
John StreeU3 Lyman Street and
River Road
Rensselaer County
Hereinafter referred to as "Sites"
by: Honeywell lnternational
1.
lnc.
Hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"
A.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

("Department") is responsible for inactive hazardous waste disposal Sites remedial
programs pursuant to Article 27 ,Title 13 of the Environmental Conservation Law
("ECL") and Part 375 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations ("6 NYCRR") and may issue orders consistent with the authority granted to
the Commissioner by such statute.
B.
The Department is responsible for carrying out the policy of the State of
New York to conserve, improve and protect its natural resources and environment and
controlwater, land, and air pollution consistent with the authority granted to the
Department and the Commissioner by Article 1, Title 3 of the ECL.
C.
This Order is issued pursuant to the Department's authority under, inter

alia, ECL Article 27,Tltle 13 and ECL 3-0301.
2.
A.
By letter dated January 27,2016, New York State Department of Health

Commissioner Howard A. Zucker requested that the Department list perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) as a hazardous substance under 6 NYCRR Part 597.
B.
On January 27,2016, the Department added PFOA to the 6 NYCRR

Sg7.3 list of hazardous substances by emergency regulation, thereby making PFOA a
hazardous waste as defined by ECL 27-1301.1 and 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(w) during the
period of such temporary emergency regulation and any re-adoption of same. The
bepartment intends to promulgate a final rule making PFOA a 6 NYCRR 597.3
hazardous substance.
C.
New York State Department of Health ('DOH") has commenced.sampling

private
water wells, and the Department has commenced installation of Point-of-Entry
of
Treatment ("POET") systems on private drinking water systems in and around the Town
of Hoosick for any resident who requests a system.
3.
A.
Respondent Honeywell lnternational lnc. (Respondent) is a Delaware

corporation whose predecessors, Allied-Signal lnc. and AlliedSignal Laminated
Syitems, owned and/or operated several industrial facilities in and around the Village of
Hosick Falls and Town of Hoosick that manufactured Teflon or Teflon-related products
which used PFOA in the manufacturing process.
B.
The Sites and surrounding facilities noted in paragraph C below are not
currently listed in the Registry of lnactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York
State. Site numb ers 442008 and 442049, are classified as "p-sites" by the Department,
meaning that preliminary information suggests that the site and surrounding areas are
contaminated, and that future site characterization is necessary.
C.
Preliminary information suggests that contamination is emanating or may

have emanated from the Sites noted above, and other areas formerly operated by
Respondent or its predecessors, and such contamination is or may be present in off-site
areas in and around Hoosick Falls. The Sites and surrounding areas are more fully
described in Section I below, and a map identifying the location of the Sites is attached
as Exhibit A.
4.
Respondent consents to the issuance of this Order without (i) an admission or

finding of liability, fault, wrongdoing, or violation of any law, regulation, permit, order,
requiment, or standard of care of any kind whatsoever; (ii) an acknowledgment that
there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous waste at or from the Sites;
and/or (iii) an acknowledgment that a release or threatened release of hazardous waste
at or from the Sites constitutes a significant threat to the public health or environment.
5.
Solely with regard to the matters set forth below, Respondent hereby waives any
right to a hering as may be provided by law, consents to the issuance and entry of this
Oider, and agrees to be bound by its terms. Respondent consents to and agrees not to
contest the authority or jurisdiction of the Department to issue or enforce this Order, and
agrees not to contest the validity of this Order or its terms or the validity of data
submitted to the Department by Respondent pursuant to this Order.
2
NOW, having considered this matter and being duly advised, lT lS ORDERED
THAT:
l.
Real Propertv
The properties subject to this Order are described as follows
Subject Property Descriptions
"4" is a ma
surrou
Oak Materials Fluorglas Division Site - John Street
Tax Map/Parcel No.: Section 27 .15 Block 13 Lot 1
John Street/3 Lyman Street
Site No.: 442049
Site Size: 0.6 acres
Oak Materials Site (alkla River Road 1, 2, and 3)
Tax Map/Parcel No.: Section 37 Block 2 Lots 4, 5, and 6
River Road
DEC Site No.: 442008
Site Size: 11.42 acres
ll.
lnitial Work Pla & Future Work
A.
Respondent shall submit to the Department an approvable Site

Characterization Work Plan, which will cover the Sites and off-site areas identified in
Section I above, within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Order.
B.
Respondent shall provide any ASTM Phase ll investigation reports in its

possession regarding the Former Oak Matsui Mechanic St. p-site, Site No. 442050.
iespondent will also perform one round of sampling from wells located on that site, and
will provide the results to the Department, within 45 days of obtaining access from the
property owner(s), which access should be sought within 5 days of the effective date of
this Order. Absent agreement of the parties, nothing in this Order requires Respondent
to perform further work at the Mechanic St. p-site.
C.
At such time as the Department determines that any of the Sites constitute
a significant threat to public health or the environment, Respondent shall submit a
Remedial lnvestigation/Feasibility Study for such Site.
3
D.
The Department shall have no authority under this Order to require

Respondents to perform any work other than as expressly set forth in this Order,
including Appendix A. However; upon agreement between the parties, Site
Charactrization or other work plans described in Appendix A can be submitted by
Respondent covering other areas or sites in the Village or Town of Hoosick Falls'
Absent agreement of the parties, nothing herein requires Respondents to submit work
plans for other sites or areas.
lll.
A.
Respondent shall pay future State Costs in accordance with Appendix A.

These costs include the cost of negotiating this Order, the costs associated
with overseeing, administering, or enforcing this Order, and the work and
deliverables required under this Order'
B. At this time, Respondent is not required to pay past State Costs under thls
Order.
C. The Department reserves all rights to seek recovery of any past or future
costs not paid pursuant to this Order. Respondent reserves all rights to
contest payment of any costs not set forth in paragraph lll.A above' The
Department and Respondent will endeavor to enter a separate agreement for
payment of such costs.
D. The Department will not seek recovery of costs paid under the Order on
Consent and Administrative Settlement, lndex No. CO 4-20160212-18
("McCaffrey/Liberty Order"), which is being entered into by Respondent and
Saint-Gobain with the Department for the McCaffrey and Liberty Street sites
in the Village of Hoosick.
E. lnvoices shall be sent to the Respondent at one of the following address(es) if

more than one address is listed:

With a copy to:
Dale A. Desnoyers, Esq.
Albany, New York 12207
4
lV.
Communications
A. All written communications required by this Consent Order shall be transmitted

by United States Postal Service, by private courier service, by hand delivery, or by
electronic mail.
1. Communication from Respondent shall be sent to

William Daigle, P.E. [and other recipients for electronic to be named]
(1 hard copy (unbound for work plans) & 1 electronic copy)
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233
Andrew Guglielmi, Esq. (correspondence only)
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Office of General Counsel - Bureau of Remediation
625 Broadway, 14th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-1500
Andrew.Guqliel mildec.nv.oov
Krista Anders (electronic copy only)
New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Environmental Exposure lnvestigation
Empire State Plaza
Corning Tower Room 1787
Albany, NY 12237
Krista.Anders@health. nv.qov
2.
Communication from the Department to Respondent shall be sent to

Dale Desnoyers, Esq.
Albany, NY 12207
daletOallend snovers.com

john. mcau liffe@honeywell. com
5
B. The Department and Respondent reserve the right to designate additional or
different addressees for communication on written notice to the other. Additionally, the
Department reserves the right to request that the Respondent provide more than one
paper copy of any work plan or report.
Each party shall notify the other within ninety (90) days after any change in the
addresses listed in this paragraph or in Paragraph l.
C.
V.
Miscellaneous
A. Appendix A - "Standard Clauses for All New York State, State Superfund
Orders" is attached to and hereby made an enforceable part of this Order as if set forth
fully herein.
ln the event of a conflict between the terms of this Order (including any and all
attachments thereto and amendments thereof) and the terms of Appendix A, the terms
of this Order shall control.
B.
C. The effective date of this Order is the day it is signed by the Commissioner or
the Commissioner's designee.
DATED:
ffifl
,2016
ff*e,5,
BASIL SEGGOS
ACTING COMMISSIONER
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVI RON MENTAL CONSERVATION
By:
Ro
Divis
, P.E., Director
of Environmental Remediation
CONSENT BY SETTLING RESPONDENT

Settling Respondent hereby consents to the issuing and entering of this Order on
Consent anddmnistrative Settlement, waives Respondent's right to a hearing herein
as provided by law, and agrees to be bound by this Order on Consent and
Ad ministrative Settlement.
Honeywell lnternational lnc
By (signature
Print N
Title:
.r'
C-
Date:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF
ss:
COUNTY
2016, before me, the
th
lly known to me or Proved
personallY
aPPea
undersigned,
whose name is (are)
ind
ividual(s)
to
the
ence
to me on the basis of satisfactory
he/she/they executed
me
that
to
subscribed to the within instrument nd acknowledged
on the
signature(s)
the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
instrument, the individual(sj, or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted,
the strument.
on the .nfI orv ot
Notary Public
Signature and Office of individual taking acknowledgment
CHR|ST'NA I//' BAKR
iloearypubtic, state i "vo*
ito.0tBA6g0tsOB
^.
-"ffiJt?ii;i;,rorr
I
EXHIBIT ''A''
Sites Location Map
Former Oak Materials John Street Site Location Ma
Former Oak Materials John

Street (Site No. 442049)
750
1,500
3,000 Feet
Oak Materials Site Location Map
Materials Site No. 442008
750
1,500
3,000 Feet
EXHIBIT "B''
RECORDS SEARCH REPORT
1.
Detail all environmental data and information within Respondent's or

Respondent's agents' or consultants' possession or control regarding environmental
conditions at or emanating from the Sites. ln accordance with the guidance provided in
Appendix 34, Records Search Requirement in DER 10.
Z.
To the extent known by Respondent, a comprehensive list of all existing relevant

reports with titles, authors, and subject matter, as well as a description of the results of
aliprevious investigations of the Sites and of areas immediately surrounding the Sites
which are or might be affected by contamination at the Sites, including all available
topographic and property surveys, engineering studies, and aerial photographs held by
Respondent or Respondent's agents' or consultants'.
3.
A concise summary of information held by Respondent and Respondent's

attorneys and consultants with respect to:
(i)
a history and description of the Sites, including the nature of
operations;
(ii)
the types, quantities, physical state, locations, methods, and dates

of disposal or release of hazardous waste at or emanating from the Sites;
(iii)a description of current Sites security (i.e. fencing, posting, etc.); and
(il)
the names and addresses of all persons responsible for disposal of

the dates of such disposal and any proof linking each such
including
hazardous waste,
person responsible with the hazardous wastes identified.
10
APPENDIX A
STANDARD GLAUSES FOR ALL NEW YORK STATE
SUPERFUND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
off-Sites conditions and shall be developed and
implemented in accordance with 6 NYCRR S
375-1.6(a), 375-3.6, and 375-6. Subject to
Subparagraph I I l. E. 3,. all Department-approved
Work Plans shall be incorporated into and
become enforceable parts of this Order. Upon
approval of a Work Plan by the Department,
Respondent shall implement such Work Plan in
accordance with the schedule contained therein.
Nothing in this Subparagraph shall mandate that
any particular Work Plan be submitted.
The parties to the State Superfund Order

(hereinafter "Order") agree to be bound by the
following clauses which are hereby made a part
of the Order. The word "Respondent" herein
refers to any party to the Order, other than the
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (herei naft er "Depaftment").
l.
Citizen ParticiPation Plan
Within twenty (20) days after the effective

date of this Order, Respondent shall submit for
review and approval a written citizen
participation plan prepared in accordance with
the requirements of ECLS27-1417 and 6
NYCRR sections 375-1 .10 and 375-3.10. Upon
approval, the Citizen Participation Plan shall be
deemed to be incorporated into and made a part
of this Order.
ll.
The Work Plans shall be captioned as
follows:
1.
Sites Characterization ("SC") Work

Plan: a Work Plan which provides for the
identification of the presence of any hazardous
waste disposal at the Sites;
2. Remedial lnvestigation/Feasibility
Study ("R|/FS") Work Plan: a Work Plan which
provides for the investigation of the nature and
extent of contamination within the boundaries of
the Sites and emanating from such Sites and a
study of remedial alternatives to address such
on-Sites and off-Sites contamination;
lnitial Submittal
Within thirty (30) days after the effective

date of this Order, Respondent shall submit to
the Department a Records Search Report
prepared in accordance with Exhibit "B" attached
to the Order. The Records Search Report can
be limited if the Department notifies Respondent
that prior submissions satisfy specific items
required for the Records Search Report.
3.
provides for the develoPment and

implementation of final plans and specifications
for implementing the remedial alternative set
forth in the ROD;
lll. Development, Performance, and Reportinq

of Work Plans
A.
Remedial Design/RemedialAction
("RD/RA')Work Plan: a Work Plan which
Work Plan Requirements
4. "lRM Work Plan" if the Work Plan

provides for an interim remedial measure;
All activities at the Sites that comprise any

element of an lnactive Hazardous Waste
Disposal Sites Remedial Program shall be
conducted pursuant to one or more Departmentapproved work plans ("Work Plan" or."Work
Plans") and this Order and all activities shall be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous
5. "Sites Management Plan" if the

Work Plan provides for the identification and
implementation of institutional and/or
engineering controls as well as any necessary
monitoring and/or operation and maintenance of
the remedy; or
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)'

40 C.F.R. Part 300, as required under CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. S 9600 ef seq. The Work Plan(s)
under this Order shall address both on-Sites and
11
5.
6. "supplemental" if additional work

plans other than those set forth in ll.A.1-5 are
required to be prepared and implemented.
B.
A Professional Engineer must stamp

and sign all Work Plans other than SC or RI/FS
Work Plans.
C. Submission of Final Reports and

Periodic Repofts
Submission/lmplementation of Work
Plans
1. ln accordance with the schedule

contained in a Work Plan, Respondent shall
submit a final report as provided at 6 NYCRR
375-1.6(b) and a final engineering report as
provided at 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(c).
Respondent may opt to propose

one or more additional or supplementalWork
Plans (including one or more IRM Work Plans)
at any time, which the Department shall review
for appropriateness and technical sufficiency.
1
2.
Any final report or final engineering

report that includes construction activities shall
include "as built" drawings showing any changes
made to the remedial design or the lRM.
2. Any proposed Work Plan shall be

submitted for the Department's review and
approval and shall include, at a minimum, a
chronological description of the anticipated
activities, a schedule for performance of those
activities, and sufficient detail to allow the
Department to evaluate that Work Plan.
3. ln the event that the final

engineering report for the Sites requires Sites
management, Respondent shall submit an initial
periodic report by in accordance with the
schedule in the Sites Management Plan and
thereafter in accordance with a schedule
determined by the Department. Such periodic
report shall be signed by a Professional
Engineer or by such other qualified
environmental professional as the Depadment
may find acceptable and shall contain a
certification as provided at 6 NYCRR 3751.8(hX3). Respondent may petition the
Depaftment for a determination that the
insiitutional and/or engineering controls may be
terminated. Such petition must be supported by
a statement by a Professional Engineer that
such controls are no longer necessary for the
protection of public health and the environment.
The Department shall not unreasonably withhold
its approval of such petition.
i. The Department shall notifY

Respondent in writing if the Department
determines that any element of a Departmentapproved Work Plan needs to be modified in
order to achieve the objectives of the Work Plan
as set forth in Subparagraph lll.A or to ensure
that the Remedial Program otherwise protects
human health and the environment. Upon
receipt of such notification, Respondent shall,
subject to dispute resolution pursuant to
Paragraph XV, modify the Work Plan.
ii.
The Department maY request,

subject to dispute resolution pursuant to
Paragraph XV, that Respondent submit
additional or supplemental Work Plans for the
Sites to complete the current remedial phase
within thirty (30) Days after the Department's
written request.
4. Within sixty (60) days of the

Department's approval of a Final Report,
Respondent shall submit such additionalWork
Plans as is required by the Department in its
approval letter of such Final Repod. Failure to
submit any additional Work Plans within such
period shall be a violation of this Order.
3. A Sites Management Plan, if

necessary, shall be submitted in accordance
with the schedule set forth in the IRM Work Plan
or RemedialWork Plan.
4.
During allfie{d activities conducted

under a Department-approved Work Plan,
Respondent shall have on-Sites a representative
who is qualified to supervise the activities
undeftaken in accordance with the provisions of
6 NYCRR 375-1.6(aX3).
D.
Review of Submittals
1. The Department shall make a good

faith effort to review and respond in writing to
each submittal Respondent makes pursuant to
12
reasons for such disapproval in writing and

Respondent shall be in violation of this Order
unless it invokes dispute resolution pursuant to
Paragraph XV and its position prevails. Failure
to make an election or failure to comply with the
election is a violation of this Order.
this Orderwithin sixty (60) Days. The

Department's response shall include, in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(d), an
approval, modification request, or disapproval of
the submittal, in whole or in Part.
i. Subject to Subparagraph lll.E.3

and upon the Department's written approval of a
Work Plan, such Department-approved Work
Plan shall be deemed to be incorporated into
and made a part of this Order and shall be
implemented in accordance with the schedule
contained therein.
2. Within thirtY (30) DaYs after the

Department's approval of a final repoft,
Respondent shall submit such final repoft, as
well as all data gathered and drawings and
submittals made pursuant to such Work Plan, in
an electronic format acceptable to the
Deparlment. lf any document cannot be
converted into electronic format, Respondent
shall submit such document in an alternative
format acceptable to the Department.
i. lf the DePartment modifies or

requests modifications to a submittal, it shall
specify the reasons for such modification(s).
Within fifteen (15) Days after the date of the
Department's written notice that Respondent's
submittal has been disapproved, Respondent
shall notify the Department of its election in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(dX3). lf
Respondent elects to modify or accept the
Department's modifications to the submittal,
Respondent shall make a revised submittalthat
incorporates all of the Department's
modifications to the first submittal in accordance
with the time period set forth in 6 NYCRR 3751.6(dX3). ln the event that Respondent's
revised submittal is disapproved, the
Department shall set forth its reasons for such
disapproval in writing and Respondent shall be
in violation of this Order unless it invokes
dispute resolution pursuant to Paragraph XV
and its position prevails. Failure to make an
election or failure to comply with the election is a
violation of this Order
E.
Department's lssuance of a ROD
1. Respondent shall cooperate with the

Department and provide reasonable assistance,
consistent with the Citizen Participation Plan, in
soliciting public comment on the proposed
remedial action plan ('PRAP'), if any' After the
close of the public comment period, the
Department shall select a final remedial
alternative for the Sites in a ROD. Nothing in
this Order shall be construed to abridge any
rights of Respondent, as provided by law, to
judicially challenge the Department's ROD'
2. Respondent shall have 60 daYs
from the date of the Department's issuance of
the ROD to notify the Department in writing
whether it will implement the remedial activities
required by such ROD. lf the Respondent elects
not to implement the required remedial activities,
then this order shall terminate in accordance
with Paragraph XIV.A. Failure to make an
election or failure to comply with the election is a
violation of this Order.
iii. lf the Department disapproves a

submittal, it shall specify the reasons for its
disapproval. Within fifteen (15) Days after the
date of the Department's written notice that
Respondent's submittal has been disapproved,
Respondent shall notify the Department of its
election in accordance with 6 NYCRR 3751.6(dX4). lf Respondent elects to modify the
submittal, Respondent shall make a revised
submittal that addresses all of the Department's
stated reasons for disapproving the first
submittal in accordance with the time period set
forth in 6 NYCRR 375-1.6(dX4). ln the event
that Respondent's revised submittal is
disapproved, the Department shall set forth its
3.
Nothing in this Order, in anY

in any work plan(s) submitted
or
submittal,
pursuant to this Order shall modify, expand,
reduce, or othenivise change the remedial
activities (including Sites management) required
by a ROD issued by the DePartment.
F. lnstitutional/Eno ineerino Control

Certification
13
efforts were exercised to avoid and mitigate the

effects of the delay; and (iv) Respondent
complied with the requirements of Subparagraph
lV.B.2 regarding timely notification.
ln the event that the remedy for the Sites, if

any, or any Work Plan for the Sites, requires
institutional or engineering controls, Respondent
shall submit a written certifrcation in accordance
with 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(hX3) and 375-3.8(hX2)-
4.
lf the Department agrees that the

delay is attributable to a
anticipated
delay or
Force Majeure Event, the time for performance
of the obligations that are affected by the Force
Majeure Event shall be extended for a period of
time equivalent to the time lost because of the
Force majuere event, in accordance with 375-
lV. Penalties
A. 1.
Respondent's failure to comply with

Order constitutes a violation of
of
this
any term
this Order, the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 3752.11(d@). Nothing herein abridges
Respondent's right to contest any allegation that
it has failed to comply with this Order'
1.5(4).
5. lf the DePartment rejects

Respondent's assertion that an event provides a
defense to non-compliance with this Order
pursuant to Subparagraph lV.B, Respondent
shall be in violation of this Order unless it
invokes dispute resolution pursuant to
Paragraph XV and Respondent's position
2.
Payment of any penalties shall not

in any way alter Respondent's obligations under
this Order.
B. 1. Respondent shall not suffer any

penalty or be subject to any proceeding or action
in the event it cannot comply with any
requirement of this Order as a result of any
Force Majeure Event as provided at 6 NYCRR
375-1.5(bX4). Respondent must use best
efforts to anticipate the potential Force Majeure
Event, best efforts to address any such event as
it is occurring, and best efforts following the
Force Majeure Event to minimize delay to the
greatest extent possible. "Force Majeure'r does
not include Respondent's economic inability to
comply with any obligation, the failure of
Respondent to make complete and timely
application for any required approval or permit,
and non-attainment of the goals, standards, and
requirements of this Order.
prevails.
V.
Entry upon Sites
A. Respondent hereby consents, upon

reasonable notice under the circumstances
presented, to entry upon the Sites (or areas in
the vicinity of the Sites which may be under the
control of Respondent) by any duly designated
officer or employee of the Department or any
State agency having jurisdiction with respect to
matters addressed pursuant to this Order, and
by any agent, consultant, contractor, or other
person so authorized by the Commissioner, all
of whom shall abide by the health and safety
rules in effect for the Sites, for inspecting,
sampling, copying records related to the
contamination at the Sites, testing, and any
other activities necessary to ensure
Respondent's compliance with this Order. Upon
request, Respondent shall (i) provide the
Department with suitable work space at the
Sites, including access to a telephone, to the
extent available, and (ii) permit the Department
full access to all non-privileged records relating
to matters addressed by this Order. Raw data is
not considered privileged and that portion of any
privileged document containing raw data must
be provided to the Department. ln the event
Respondent is unable to obtain anY
authorization from third-party propedy owners
necessary to perform its obligations under this
2. ResPondent shall notifY the

Department in writing within five (5) Days of the
onset of any Force Majeure Event. Failure to
give such notice within such five (5) Day period
constitutes a waiver of any claim that a delay is
not subject to penalties. Respondent shall be
deemed to know of any circumstance which it,
any entity controlled by it, or its contractors knew
or should have known.
3.
Respondent shall have the burden

of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that (i) the delay or anticipated delay has been
or will be caused by a Force Majeure Event; (ii)
the duration of the delay or the extension sought
is warranted under the circumstances; (iii) best
14
NYCRR 375-1.5 (bX3Xv) and (vi)shallapplv.

Objections shall be sent to the Department as
provided under subparagraph Vl.C above.
Order, the Department may, consistent with its

legal authority, assist in obtaining such
authorizations.
F.
B.
The Department shall have the right to

samples and scientific
its
own
take
measurements and the Department and
Respondent shall each have the right to obtain
split samples, duplicate samples, or both, of all
substances and materials sampled. The
Depadment shall make the results of any such
sampling and scientific measurements available
to Respondent.
Vl.
In the event of non-payment
ofany
invoice within the 45 days provided herein, the

Department may seek enforcement of this
provision pursuant to Paragraph lV or the
Deparlment may commence an enforcement
action for non-compliance with ECL'27-1423
and ECL 71-4003.
Vll. Release and Covenant Not to Sue

Upon the Department's issuance of a
Certificate of Completion as provided at 6
NYCRR 375-1.9 and 375-2.9, Respondent shall
obtain the benefits conferred by such provisions,
subject to the terms and conditions described
A.
Within forty-five (45) days after receipt

of an itemized invoice from the Department,
Respondent shall pay to the Department a sum
of money which shall represent reimbursement
for State Costs as provided by 6 NYCRR 3751.5 (bX3X). Failure to timely pay any invoice
will be subject to late payment charge and
interest at a rate of 9% from the date the
payment is due untilthe date the payment is
therein.
Vlll. Reservation of Riqhts
A.
Except as provided at 6 NYCRR 375-1.9

and 375-2.9, nothing contained in this Order
shall be construed as barring, diminishing,
adjudicating, or in any way affecting any of the
Department's rights or authorities, including, but
not limited to, the right to require performance of
further investigations and/or response action(s),
to recover natural resource damages, and/or to
exercise any summary abatement powers with
respect to any person, including Respondent.
made.
B. Costs shall be documented as provided

by 6 NYCRR 375-1.5(bX3). The Department
shall not be required to provide any other
documentation of costs, provided however, that
the Deparlment's records shall be available
consistent with, and in accordance with, Article 6
of the Public Officers Law.
B.
Except as otherwise provided in this

Order, Respondent specifically reserves all
rights and defenses under applicable law
respecting any Departmental asserlion of
remedial liability and/or natural resource
damages against Respondent, and further
reserves all rights respecting the enforcement of
this Order, including the rights to notice, to be
heard, to appeal, and to any other due process.
The existence of this Order or Respondent's
compliance with it shall not be construed as an
admission of liability, fault, wrongdoing, or
breach of standard of care by Respondent, and
shall not give rise to any presumption of law or
finding of fact, or create any rights, or grant any
cause of action, which shall inure to the benefit
of any third party. Further, Respondent reserves
such rights as it may have to seek and obtain
contribution, indemnification, and/or any other
C. Each such paYment shall be made

payable to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and shall be sent
to:
Director, Bureau of Program Management

New York State DePartment of
Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
D. The Department shall provide written

notification to the Respondent of any change in
the foregoing addresses.
E. lf Respondent objects to any invoiced

costs under this Order, the provisions of 6
15
form of recovery from its insurers and from other

potentially responsible parties or their insurers
for past or future response and/or cleanup costs
or such other costs or damages arising from the
contamination at the Sites as may be provided
by law, including but not limited to rights of
contribution under section 1 13(fX3XB) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S e613((3XB).
as defined in 6 NYCRR 375-2.2(a), which is

proposed forthe Sites, in accordance with the
provisions of 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(d). ln the
event the Department determines that the
proposed change of use is prohibited, the
Department shall notify Applicant of such
determination within forty-five (45) days of
receipt of such notice.
lX.
Xl L Environmental Easement
lndemnification
A. lf a Record of Decision for the Sites

relies upon one or more institutional and/or
engineering controls, Respondent (or the owner
of the Sites) shall submit to the Department for
approval an Environmental Easement to run with
the land in favor of the State which complies
with the requirements of ECL Article 71, Title 36,
and 6 NYCRR 375-'1.8(hX2). Upon acceptance
of the Environmental Easement by the State,
Respondent shall comply with the requirements
of 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(hX2).
Respondent shall indemnify and hold the

Department, the State of New York, the Trustee
of the State's natural resources, and their
representatives and employees harmless as
provided by 6 NYCRR 375-2.5(a)(3)(i).
X. Public Notice
A. Within thirty (30) Days after the effective
date of this Order, Respondent shall provide
notice as required by 6 NYCRR 375-1.5(a).
Within sixty (60) Days of such filing, Respondent
shall provide the Department with a copy of such
instrument certified by the recording officer to be
a true and faithful copy.
B. lf the ROD provides for no action other

than implementation of one or more institutional
controls, Respondent shall cause an
environmental easement to be recorded under
the provisions of Subparagraph Xll.A.
B. lf Respondent proposes to transfer by

sale or lease the whole or any part of
Respondent's interest in the Sites, or becomes
aware of such transfer, Respondent shall, not
fewer than forty-five (45) Days before the date of
transfer, or within forty-five (45) Days after
becoming aware of such conveyance, notify the
Department in writing of the identity of the
transferee and of the nature and proposed or
actual date of the conveyance, and shall notify
the transferee in writing, with a copy to the
Department, of the applicability of this Order.
However, such obligation shall not extend to a
conveyance by means of a corporate
reorganization or merger or the granting of any
rights under any mortgage, deed, trust,
assignment, judgment, lien, pledge, security
agreement, lease, or any other right accruing to
a person not affiliated with Respondent to
secure the repayment of money or the
performance of a duty or obligation.
Xl.
C. If Respondent does not cause such

environmental easement to be recorded in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(hX2),
Respondent will not be entitled to the benefits
conferred by 6 NYCRR 375-1.9 and 375-2.9 and
the Department may file an Environmental
Notice on the Sites.
Xlll. Proqress Reports
Respondent shall submit a written progress
report of its actions under this Order to the
parties identified in Subparagraph lV.A.1 of the
Order by the 1Oth day of each month
commencing with the month subsequent to the
approval of the first Work Plan and ending with
the Termination date as set forth in Paragraph
XlV, unless a different frequency is set forth in a
Work Plan. Such reporls shall, at a minimum,
include: all actions relative to the Sites during
the previous reporting period and those
anticipated for the next reporting period; all
approved activity modifications (changes of work
scope and/or schedule); all results of sampling
Chanqe of Use
Applcant shall notify the Department at least

sixty (60) days in advance of any change of use,
16
NYCRR 375-2.11 (a)(a), subjecting Respondent

to penalties as provided under Paragraph lV so
long as such obligations accrued on or prior to
the Termination Date.
and tests and all other data received or

generated by or on behalf of Respondent in
connection with this Sites, whether under this
Order or othenruise, in the previous reporting
period, including quality assurance/quality
control information; information regarding
percentage of completion; unresolved delays
encountered or anticipated that may affect the
future schedule and efforts made to mitigate
C. lf the Order is terminated pursuant to

Subparagraph XIV.A.1, neither this Order nor its
termination shall affect any liability of
Respondent for remediation of the Sites and/or
for payment of State Costs, including
implementation of removal and remedial actions,
interest, enforcement, and any and allother
response costs as defined under CERCLA, nor
shall it affect any defenses to such liability that
may be asserted by Respondent. Respondent
shall also ensure that it does not leave the Sites
in a condition, from the perspective of human
health and environmental protection, worse than
that which existed before any activities under
this Order were commenced. Further, the
Department's efforts in obtaining and overseeing
compliance with this Order shall constitute
reasonable efforts under law to obtain a
voluntary commitment from Respondent for any
further activities to be undertaken as part of a
Remedial Program for the Sites.
such delays; and information regarding activities

undertaken in support of the Citizen Participation
Plan during the previous reporting period and
those anticipated for the next repofting period.
XlV. Termination of Order
A. This Order will terminate upon the

earlier of the foljowing events:
1. Respondent's election in
accordance with Paragraph lll.E.2 not to
implement the remedial activities required
pursuant to the ROD. ln the event of termination
in accordance with this Subparagraph, this
Order shall terminate effective the Sth Day after
the Department's receipt of the written
notification, provided, however, that if there are
one or more Work Plan(s) for which a final report
has not been approved at the time of
Respondent's notification of its election not to
implement the remedial activities in accordance
with the ROD, Respondent shall complete the
activities required by such previously approved
Work Plan(s) consistent with the schedules
contained therein. Thereafter, this Order shall
Department's approval of the final report for all
previously approved Work Plans; or
XV. Dispute Resolution
A. ln the event disputes arise under this

Order, Respondent may, within fifteen (15) Days
after Respondent knew or should have known of
the facts which are the basis of the dispute,
initiate dispute resolution in accordance with the
provisions of 6 NYCRR 375-1.5(bX2).
B. All cost incurred by the Department
associated with dispute resolution are State
costs subject to reimbursement pursuant to this
2. The Department's written

determination that Respondent has completed
all phases of the Remedial Program (including
Sites Management), in which event the
termination shall be effective on the Sth Day
after the date of the Department's letter stating
that all phases of the remedial program have
Order.
C. Nothing contained in this Order shall be

construed to authorize Respondent to invoke
dispute resolution with respect to the remedy
selected by the Department in the ROD or any
element of such remedy, nor to impair any right
of Respondent to seek judicial review of the
Department's selection of any remedy.
been completed.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the

provisions contained in Paragraphs Vl and lX
shall survive the termination of this Order and
any violation of such surviving Paragraphs shall
be a violation of this Order, the ECL, and 6
XVl. Miscellaneous
A.
Respondent agrees to comply with and

be bound by the provisions of 6 NYCRR
17
Subparts 375-1 and 375-2', the provisions of

such Subparts that are referenced herein are
referenced for clarity and convenience only and
the failure of this Order to specifically reference
any particular regulatory provision is not
intended to imply that such provision is not
applicable to activities performed under this
binding unless made in writing and subscribed

by the party to be bound. No informal advice,
guidance, suggestion, or comment by the
Department shall be construed as relieving
Respondent of Respondent's obligation to obtain
such formal approvals as may be required by
this Order. ln the event of a conflict between the
terms of this Order and any Work Plan
submitted pursuant to this Order, the terms of
this Order shall control over the terms of the
Work Plan(s). Respondent consents to and
agrees not to contest the authority and
jurisdiction of the Department to enter into or
enforce this Order.
Order.
B. The Depaftment may exempt

Respondent from the requirement to obtain any
state or local permit or other authorization for
any activity conducted pursuant to this Order in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1 .12(b), (c), and
(d)
2. i. Except as set forth herein, if

Respondent desires that any provision of this
Order be changed, Respondent shall make
timely written application to the Commissioner
with copies to the parties listed in Subparagraph
tv.A.1.
C. 1. Respondent shall use best efforts to

obtain all Sites access, permits, easements,
approvals, institutional controls, and/or
authorizations necessary to perform
Respondent's obligations under this Order,
including all Department-approved Work Plans
and the schedules contained therein. lf, despite
Respondent's best efforts, any access, permits,
easements, approvals, institutional controls, or
authorizations cannot be obtained, Respondent
shall promptly notify the Depaftment and include
a summary of the steps taken. The Department
may, as it deems appropriate and within its
authority, assist Respondent in obtaining same.
ii.
lf Respondent seeks to modifY

an approved Work Plan, a written request shall
be made to the Department's project manager,
with copies to the parties listed in Subparagraph
tv.A.1.
iii. Requests for a change to a time

frame set forth in this Order shall be made in
writing to the Deparlment's project attorney and
project manager; such requests shall not be
unreasonably denied and a written response to
such requests shall be sent to Respondent
2. lf an interest in property is needed

to implement an institutional control required by
a Work Plan and such interest cannot be
obtained, the Department may require
Respondent to modify the Work Plan pursuant to
6 NYCRR 375-1.6(dX3) to reflect changes
necessitated by Respondent's inability to obtain
promptly.
F. 1. lf there are multiple parties signing

this Order, the term "Respondent" shall be read
in the plural, the obligations of each such party
under this Order are joint and several, and the
insolvency of or failure by any Respondent to
implement any obligations under this Order shall
not affect the obligations of the remaining
Respondent(s) under this Order.
sueh interest.
D. The paragraph headings set forth in this

Order are included for convenience of reference
only and shall be disregarded in the construction
and interpretation of any provisions of this
Order.
2. lf Respondent is a partnership, the

obligations of all general partners (including
limited partners who act as general partners)
under this Order are joint and several and the
insolvency or failure of any general partner to
implement any obligations under this Order shall
not affect the obligations of the remaining
partne(s) under this Order.
E. 1.
The terms of this Order shall

constitute the complete and entire agreement
between the Department and Respondent
concerning the implementation of the activities
required by this Order. No term, condition,
understanding, or agreement purporting to
modify or vary any term of this Order shall be
18
other federal or state statute or regulation with

respect to potential claims for natural resource
damages against Respondent or any other time
limitations for the filing of potential natural
resource damages claims against Respondent
under any other applicable state or federal law
are tolled in their entirety from the effective date
of this Order until termination of this Order.
3. Notwithstanding the foregoing

Subparagraphs XVl.F.1 and 2, if multiple pafties
sign this Order as Respondents but not all of the
signing parties elect to implement a Work Plan,
all Respondents are jointly and severally liable
for each and every obligation under this Order
through the completion of activities in such Work
Plan that all such parties consented to;
thereafter, only those Respondents electing to
perform additional work shall be jointly and
severally liable under this Order for the
obligations and activities under such additional
Work Plan(s). The parties electing not to
implement the additional Work Plan(s) shall
have no obligations under this Order relative to
the activities set forth in such Work Plan(s).
Further, only those Respondents electing to
implement such additionalWork Plan(s) shall be
eligible to receive the release and covenant not
to sue referenced in Paragraph Vll.
Unless otherwise expressly provided

herein, terms used in this Order which are
defined in ECL Article 27 or in regulations
promulgated thereunder shall have the meaning
assigned to them under said statute or
regulations.
J. Respondent's obligations under this

Order represent payment for or reimbursement
of response costs, and shall not be deemed to
constitute any type of fine or penalty.
K. Respondent and ResPondent's
successors and assigns shall be bound by this
Order. Any change in ownership or corporate
status of Respondent shall in no way alter
Respondent's responsibilities under this Order
G. Respondent shall be entitled to receive

contribution protection and/or to seek
contribution to the extent authorized by CL271421(6) and 6 NYCRR 375-1 .5(bX5).
L. This Order may be executed for the

convenience of the parties hereto, individually or
in combination, in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to have the
status of an executed original and all of which
shall together constitute one and the same.
H. Any time limitations set forth in Section

113(gX1) of CERCLA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S
9613(g)(1), Section 1012(h)(2) of the Oil
Pollution Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. S
27 1 2(h) (2), the Fed era I Water Pol ution Control
Act, the New York Navigation Law, the New
York Environmental Conservation Law, or any
I
19
EXHIBIT 7
March 30, 2016

The Honorable David B. Borge
Municipal Building
24 Main Street
Dear Mayor Borge:
My staff in the Department of Health (Department) have been working closely with you
and your staff to ensure that the carbon filtration system on the Hoosick Falls municipal water
supply effectively removes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) from the Village drinking water.
Testing showed that samples from the newly installed filtration system as well as from
each of the six zones in the Village water distribution system had non-detectable levels of PFOA
(less than 2 parts per trillion, or ppt). A summary table of these results is enclosed. Accordingly,
residents of the Village of Hoosick Falls may use the water for any and all uses, including
drinking and cooking.
The quality of water in Hoosick Falls, and the health and safety of Village residents,
remains a priority for the Department. Please be assured that my staff will work closely with you
to ensure the Village system remains compliant with applicable guidelines, rules, and
regulations.
Sincerely,
Howard A. Zucker, M.D., J.D.

Commissioner
Summary Table of PFOA Results (parts per trillion, ppt) from NYSDOH's Water Sampling
SAMPLE LOCATION
GAC - Effluent*
Rogers Ave Tank
Rogers Avenue**
11 Water Works Road - DPW/Village Garage
Nixon Street**
Center Street**
Rensselaer Ave Tank
Snow Street**
24 Main Street - Village Hall
Johnson Hill Road**
Saratoga Street**
1 Mechanic Street - Oak Mitsui
Martin Street**
Cummings Street**
ZONE
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
SAMPLE DATE
3/24/16
3/26/16
3/26/16
3/24/16
3/24/16
3/24/16
3/23/16
3/24/16
3/26/16
3/24/16
3/24/16
3/24/16
3/24/16
3/24/16
CONCENTRATION
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
*PFOA levels in GAC effluent samples collected on March 1, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, and
23, 2016, also were non-detectable.
**Samples were collected from taps in homes on the streets indicated.
EXHIBIT 8
September 6, 2016
Municipal Building
24 Main Street
Dear Mayor Borge:
On August 11, 2016 NYSDOH collected samples from the Village Public Water supply to evaluate the on-going
effectiveness of the interim carbon filter to remove perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Samples from between and
after the two carbon filters, and samples from two locations within the distribution system were analyzed. The
results from our laboratory show that the PFOA levels in these samples were below the reporting limit of 2 parts
per trillion (ppt). A water sample from before the treatment system (untreated water) shows a PFOA level of
424 ppt.
The purpose of our sampling is to analyze for PFOA and/or PFOS. The standard battery of testing for PFOA and
PFOS, as per U.S. EPA Method 537, includes four additional Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs):
perfluorobutanesulfonic (PFBS), perfluorohexanesulfonic (PFHxS), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA),
perfluoronoanoic acid (PFNA). These other PFCs may have been detected at very low concentrationsEPA
has not established health advisories for these chemicals. All six PFCs are effectively removed from drinking
water by granular activated carbon filtration systems.
In summary, the results show that the GAC filters are effectively and consistently removing PFOA and
other PFCs from the water, and that the PFOA levels at locations in the Village distribution system are
non-detectable.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lloyd R Wilson, Ph.D.

Bureau of Water Supply Protection
Cc: R. Swider
R. Elder-Rensselaer County Health
M. Surdam Town of Hoosick
PFOA Results (parts per trillion) from NYSDOH's August 11, 2016 Water Sampling
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE DATE
PFOA CONCENTRATION
Pre GAC Filter (untreated water)
8/11/2016
424
GAC Between Filters
8/11/2016
<2
GAC Effluent (after both filters)
8/11/2016
<2
8/11/2016
<2
8/11/2016
<2
Trip Blank
8/11/2016
<2
September 6, 2016
Municipal Building
24 Main Street
Dear Mayor Borge:
On August 25, 2016 NYSDOH collected samples from the Village Public Water supply to evaluate the on-going
effectiveness of the interim carbon filter to remove perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Samples from between and
after the two carbon filters, and samples from two locations within the distribution system were analyzed. The
results from our laboratory show that the PFOA levels in these samples were below the reporting limit of 2 parts
per trillion (ppt). A water sample from before the treatment system (untreated water) shows a PFOA level of
445 ppt. Please note that a duplicate sample from the same location also was found to have 445 ppt.
The purpose of our sampling is to analyze for PFOA and/or PFOS. The standard battery of testing for PFOA and
PFOS, as per U.S. EPA Method 537, includes four additional Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs):
perfluorobutanesulfonic (PFBS), perfluorohexanesulfonic (PFHxS), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA),
perfluoronoanoic acid (PFNA). These other PFCs may have been detected at very low concentrationsEPA
has not established health advisories for these chemicals. All six PFCs are effectively removed from drinking
water by granular activated carbon filtration systems.
In summary, the results show that the GAC filters are effectively and consistently removing PFOA and
other PFCs from the water, and that the PFOA levels at locations in the Village distribution system are
non-detectable.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lloyd R Wilson, Ph.D.

Bureau of Water Supply Protection
Cc: R. Swider
R. Elder-Rensselaer County Health
M. Surdam Town of Hoosick
PFOA Results (parts per trillion) from NYSDOH's August 25, 2016 Water Sampling
SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE DATE
PFOA CONCENTRATION
Pre GAC Filter (untreated water)
8/25/2016
445
Pre GAC Filter (untreated water) duplicate
8/25/2016
445
GAC Between Filters
8/25/2016
<2
GAC Effluent (after both filters)
8/25/2016
<2
8/25/2016
<2
8/25/2016
<2
Trip Blank
8/25/2016
<2
EXHIBIT 9
Governor Cuomo Announces PFOA No Longer Detected at Hoosick Fal...
1 of 7
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-pfoa-no-...
9/16/2016 12:46 PM
2 of 7
9/16/2016 12:46 PM
3 of 7
9/16/2016 12:46 PM
4 of 7
9/16/2016 12:46 PM
5 of 7
9/16/2016 12:46 PM
6 of 7
9/16/2016 12:46 PM
7 of 7
9/16/2016 12:46 PM
EXHIBIT 10
DEC and DOH Meet with Local Officials on Actions to Address PFOA ...
1 of 3
http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/105254.html
For Release: Friday, February 26, 2016
DEC and DOH Meet with Local Officials on

Actions to Address PFOA Contamination at
Hoosick
Dozens of Water Filtration Systems Installed and Tests
Ongoing to Ensure Water is Acceptable for All Uses
Flushing to Start this Weekend and Progress Made on Alternate
Water Supply Investigation
The State Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Conservation today announced several
actions to address and remove PFOA from drinking water in Hoosick Falls. Additionally, the state has
identified the first potential water sources to be assessed and the state is working with the Village of Hoosick
Falls to flush the water system with clean, filtered water to remove residual PFOA.
"Governor Cuomo has taken decisive action to support the people of Hoosick Falls," said NYS Health
Commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker. "By planning for a possible alternate water supply, and providing free water
sampling tests, blood screening, and home water filtration systems for affected residents, the Governor has
shown he is committed to a long-term solution to the contamination."
"The state is making significant progress on multiple fronts to bring safe drinking water to the Hoosick Falls
area," DEC Acting Commissioner Basil Seggos said. "Working under the direction of Governor Cuomo, DEC is
moving as swiftly as possible to install filtration systems on private wells and to complete the testing to ensure
the water is safe to drink. In addition, DEC will begin testing aquifers and other potential sources as we move
forward with our study for an alternate water supply."
Water Sampling and Installation of Water Filtration Systems

DEC has begun installation of point of entry treatment (POET) filtration systems for homes with private wells
and 53 have been installed to date with 52 scheduled to be installed this weekend. DEC has received 281
requests for POETs and performed 161 pre-evaluations which are necessary prior to installing the systems.
After installation, DEC will sample the finished water to determine it is acceptable for all uses. Residents are
advised to continue drinking bottled water and refrain from drinking and cooking with water from the public
system and with POET systems at private homes until DEC or DOH advises that the water is acceptable for all
uses.
DOH announced results for 145 water tests to date. 103 results were less than the EPA Advisory level of 100
ppt and 42 results have levels of PFOA above the EPA Advisory level of 100 ppt. Of the 103 under the EPA
Advisory of 100 ppt, 41 have PFOA levels of less than 2 parts per trillion (ppt)(i.e. non detection of PFOA) and
62 have levels between 2 and 100 ppt.
Public and Private Well Sampling in Hoosick Falls
January 27 to February 25
9/16/2016 12:49 PM
2 of 3

Total Results Received
145
Total Results with levels of PFOA below 2 parts per trillion (ppt) (i.e. non-detection of PFOA) 41
Total Results with levels of PFOA between 2 and 100 ppt
62
Total Results with levels of PFOA Over 100 ppt
42
Public and Private Well Sampling in Hoosick Falls January 27 to February 25

Total Results Below EPA Local Guidance of 100 ppt
103
Total Results Above EPA Local Guidance of 100 ppt
42
DEC has established a staging area in the Town of Hoosick on Route 7 by the intersection with Route 22.
Progress on Alternate Water Source Study & Blood Monitoring

DEC has made significant progress in its efforts to identify alternate drinking water sources, including
groundwater, surface water and treatment techniques. As part of the comprehensive investigation of
alternative sources, DEC has identified the first phase of potential groundwater locations. DEC will work with
landowners to secure access and then drilling and testing will begin immediately.
As part of DOH's blood monitoring program, DOH has collected 436 samples to be analyzed for PFOA levels.
Results will be communicated with each individual as results are known.
Flushing of Village Water Distribution System to Begin in Phases

The flushing of the Village water system is more extensive than is routinely done as part of treatment plant
maintenance. With the successful installation of the temporary water filtration system, the Village's water
mains and distribution system will now be flushed with clean, filtered water, to remove residual PFOA. The
process is scheduled to begin this weekend. During the flushing process, residents may notice lower water
pressure, and tap water may be cloudier than usual. These are common to the flushing process and are not
cause for concern. Until the water distribution system has been flushed and retested, residents should
continue to use bottled water or in-home filtration.
To take extra precautions to ensure the water distribution system is not overwhelmed, the neighborhoods
served by the Village water system have been assigned zones, and the flushing process will be conducted on
a zone-by-zone basis, to ensure contaminants are removed and the water system is not overwhelmed. Once
the water mains in each zone have been flushed, residents in that zone will be provided with information on
flushing out the plumbing in their homes.
DEC evaluated the potential impact flushing could have on the Hoosic River and does not anticipate any
significant effects. The amount of flush water to be discharged will be greatly diluted by the flow of the river.
DEC expects any increase in the PFOA level in the Hoosic River to be negligible. DEC will monitor the PFOA
level in the river throughout the course of the flush discharge. The river is not used as a drinking water source.
Flushing Indoor Plumbing Systems

Flushing indoor plumbing systems can be done quickly and simply. However, it is important that residents wait
until the water mains and distribution systems in their neighborhood are flushed before they flush their indoor
plumbing.
Key points on flushing indoor plumbing systems:
Residents of the Village will be notified when the distribution system in their neighborhood will be flushed.
Residents will receive written guidance on how to flush their plumbing and when they should do so. It will
take about a half hour to flush your home.
9/16/2016 12:49 PM
3 of 3

While the flushing process is taking place, residents may notice discoloration of their water, and may also
have issues with water pressure in their homes. This is not a cause for concern, and is normal for any
flushing process.
Water samples will be routinely taken and monitored - before, during and after the flushing of the system
and at various points in the distribution system.
Bottled water will continue to be provided at no cost at Tops Friendly Market on Route 22.
In addition, it's important to note that there is no need for residents to flush outdoor spigots. If they choose to
do so, they should run the water for about one minute, either onto the ground or into a small pail which can
then be emptied into a sink in their home. Residents should not drain their swimming pools at this point. DOH
and DEC are developing a protocol to properly drain swimming pools, which will be complete in time for the
summer swimming season.
Keeping Residents Informed

NYSDOH continues to notify the Village and residents on private wells in the Town with the results of ongoing
water sampling. In addition, NYSDOH will continue to communicate with residents using the following material:
Door hangers: Door hangers with general information about the flushing program and specific instructions
on flushing their indoor plumbing will be distributed door-to-door to the homes of Hoosick Falls Village
residents on the public water supply on the day the flushing process begins and will be posted on the
NYSDOH website.
Fact Sheets: Fact sheets describing the process will also be distributed door-to-door to the homes of
Hoosick Falls residents, will be available at the informational sessions at the Armory and will also be posted
on the NYSDOH website.
Residents renting their home or property should consult with the landlord to discuss a flushing plan for the
whole building.
Town of Petersburgh Update

DEC is in negotiations with Taconic Plastics to get the company to agree to pay for the installation of point of
entry filtration systems for private wells in the Town of Petersburgh. DEC is conducting tests to determine the
extent of contamination in the Town and to develop the appropriate actions to take to address the
contamination.
To Learn More
Staff from both agencies have been holding informational sessions every Tuesday (2 p.m. to 8 p.m.), Thursday
(2 p.m. to 8 p.m.), and Saturday (10 a.m. to 2 p.m.), to help residents.
Additionally, the Department of Financial Services has set up a Mobile Command Center in Hoosick Falls to
assist and provide information to homeowners and residents who may have been impacted by recent
mortgage-related events following PFOA contamination in the local water supply. The Mobile Command
Center will be set up at HAYC3 Armory located at 80 Church Street in Hoosick Falls during the regularly
scheduled DOH and DEC information sessions on Tuesday, March 1 from 2-8 p.m., Thursday, March 3 from
2-8 p.m. and Saturday, March 5 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
More information is available by calling the Hoosick Falls water hotline at: 800-801-8092 FREE (Monday Friday: 9 a.m. - 8 p.m.; Saturday: 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.) and at the New York State Department of Health website
(link leaves DEC website.)
9/16/2016 12:49 PM
EXHIBIT 11
Perflurooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Drinking Water in the Village of Hoosi...
1 of 4
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/hoosick/
PFOA in Drinking Water in the Village of Hoosick

Falls and Town of Hoosick
Last Update: September 14, 2016
The following is information about perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA) in the Village of Hoosick Falls/Town of Hoosick water
supply from the New York State Department of Health including ongoing activities, related information, and contact
information.
Ongoing State Health Department Activities

Weekly Schedule of State Health Department Staff Availability at HAYC3 Armory
Representatives from the State Health Department will be at the HAYC3 Armory at 80 Church Street in
Hoosick Falls to answer questions and provide information about ongoing activities.
Week of September 12, 2016
Week of September 19, 2016
Tuesday, September 13: 2:00 pm - 8:00 pm Tuesday, September 20: 2:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Thursday, September 15: 2:00 pm - 8:00 pm Thursday, September 22: 2:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Saturday, September 17: 10:00am - 2:00 pm Saturday, September 24: 10:00am - 2:00 pm
Biomonitoring/Blood Testing
The State Health Department is collecting blood samples as part of a PFOA biomonitoring study for people
who live in or near Hoosick Falls. People who wish to participate will be asked to sign a consent form and
complete a questionnaire that tells us about their potential exposure to PFOA. This blood testing is a way to
learn more about people's actual exposure to PFOA. It will also tell us how the levels of PFOA in the blood of
people living in or near Hoosick Falls compare to people living elsewhere. If you requested blood testing and
have not been contacted by the State Health Department, please call us at 518-402-7950. Anyone who has not
yet signed up and wishes to participate in the blood testing program can fill out this Contact Information Form
or call us at 518-402-7950 to provide your contact information. We will use this information to schedule your
appointment.
Information About Blood Testing

PFOA Blood Sampling Questions and Answers (PDF)
PFOA Biomonitoring: Behind the Scenes at the Wadsworth Center (PDF)
Hoosick Falls and Town of Hoosick Questions and Answers about PFOA Blood Testing Program,
(PDF)
Preliminary Participant Results
Information Sheet Update August 2016, Biomonitoring Group-level Results (PDF)
Information Sheet June 2, 2016 PFOA Biomonitoring Group-level Results, (PDF)
9/16/2016 12:51 PM
2 of 4

**Additional blood testing events have not yet been scheduled. Please call 518-402-7950 for an
appointment.
Village of Hoosick Falls Public Water Supply

Repeated testing confirms that the temporary municipal filtration system effectively removes PFOA from the Village's public
drinking water. The water is now acceptable for all uses, including drinking and cooking. Read more.
The Village's temporary municipal filtration system consists of two granular activated carbon filters that are
effectively removing PFOA from public water. Water passes through both filters before entering the Village's
distribution system. Water is sampled after it runs through the first filter, and again after it passes through the
second filter. Samples taken after passing through just the first filter show non-detectable levels of PFOA.
Testing also shows that every zone on the Village distribution system has non-detectable levels of PFOA.
The State Health Department and the Village completed flushing and cleaning of the water treatment plant,
water mains, and storage tanks of the entire distribution system. Instructions were provided for people on the
public water supply to flush their indoor pipes and plumbing. Samples were collected throughout the Village
water distribution system including homes, fire hydrants, businesses, and water storage tanks. This tells us the
quality of the water served to every home in the village, without having to test every home.
The long-term treatment system is expected to be operational in October 2016.
Private Well Testing

Get latest private well testing information.
The State Health Department is continuing to sample private wells within the Town of Hoosick. Anyone in
the Town of Hoosick who wants their well sampled should fill out this form or contact the State Health
Department's Bureau of Environmental Exposure Investigation at beei@health.ny.gov, phone: 518-402-7860.
DEC continues to install and sample water filtration systems on private wells and expects to provide clearance
to homeowners to use the first systems for drinking and cooking soon.
Cancer Investigation
The State Health Department is conducting an investigation to see if there are unusual elevations of cancer
among Village residents. The investigation will include total cancers and specific types of cancer diagnosed
from 1995 through 2012. To accomplish this, the State Health Department will use data from the New York
State Department of Health Cancer Registry, which receives reports on all cases of cancer occurring in New
York State. The planned start date is 1995 because street address at the date of diagnosis is available in
computerized form for all cases starting with that year. The planned end date is 2012 because 2012 is
currently the most recent year for which data are available. The State Health Department will produce a report
on the findings of the investigation.
Additional Information and Research

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about Hoosick Falls Water Contamination
9/16/2016 12:51 PM
3 of 4

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Statement on Private Wells in The Town of Hoosick and Village
of Hoosick Falls, NY January 28, 2016
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Interim Guidance: An Overview of Perfluoroalkyl
and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Interim Guidance for Clinicians Responding to Patient Exposure
Concerns
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Your
Health
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry ToxFAQs for Perfluoroalkyls
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs)
World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer Related Monographs on the
evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans
C8 Science Panel: Probable Links Report
Danish Ministry for the Environment: PFOA, PFOS and PFOSA Evaluation of health hazards and
proposal of a health based quality criterion for drinking water, soil and groundwater
Health Canada: Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Drinking Water Document for Public Consultation
Breastfeeding and Chemicals in Drinking Water
Frequently Asked Questions About Pools and Hot Tubs in the Hoosick Falls Area (PDF)
PFOA Biomonitoring: Behind the Scenes at the Wadsworth Center (PDF)
In-home Water Filtration Options for Household Drinking Water (PDF) Please note the
recommendation for using bottled water is no longer in effect.
Town of Hoosick Village Water Information
Village of Hoosick Falls Municipal Water Information
Town of Petersburgh PFOA Water Information
Letters to Municipalities
May 10, 2016NYS DOH, DEC Pools and Hot Tubs FAQ
April 6, 2016NYSDOH approval of full-capacity GAC system plans for HFMWP
March 30, 2016Letter to the Village re: non-detect municipal water testing results
March 18, 2016 - Letter to Town of Petersburgh
February 26, 2016Door hangers with general information about the flushing program and flushing
instructions
February 26, 2016Letter to the Village re: municipal water testing results
February 26, 2016Testing and Flushing Information Press Release
February 24, 2016Water System Flushing Plan Approval
January 7, 2016Temporary GAC System Approval Letter
New York State News

New York State Announces Water From Village of Hoosick Falls Municipal Water System Is Safe to
Drink
Press Release: New York State Announces Additional Progress in Addressing PFOA Contamination
Press Release: Governor Cuomo Announces PFOA No Longer Detected at Hoosick Falls Municipal
Water Filtration System
Press Release: State Issues Update: Results for An Additional 153 Wells; 190 Water Filtration Systems
Installed; Flushing Process Continues, Completed in Five of Six Zones
Press Release: DEC and DOH: Dozens of Water Filtration Systems Installed; Flushing to Start this
9/16/2016 12:51 PM
4 of 4

Weekend; Progress on Alternate Supply Investigation
Press Release: Governor Cuomo Deploys DFS Mobile Command Center to Hoosick Falls to Help
Property Owners
Press Release: Governor Cuomo Announces Planning for an Alternate Water Supply in the Village of
Hoosick Falls
Press Release: Governor Cuomo Announces Immediate State Action Plan to Address Contamination in
Hoosick Falls
Press Release: New York State Announces Progress to Address Contamination at Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Site and in Village Water Supply
For More Information

Water Quality Hotline: 800-801-8092 (Monday - Friday: 9 am - 8 pm; Saturday: 9 am 3 pm)
For specific questions about biomonitoring
Email: beoe@health.ny.gov, phone: 518-402-7950 (Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm), or write:
State Health Department Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, Corning Tower,
Room 1203, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237
For specific questions about cancer follow-up
Email: beoe@health.ny.gov, phone: 518-402-7950 (Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm), or write:
State Health Department Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, Corning Tower,
Room 1203, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237
For specific questions about potential health effects:
Email: btsa@health.ny.gov, phone: 518-402-7800 (Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm), or write: State
Health Department, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Corning Tower, Room 1743, Empire State
Plaza, Albany, NY 12237
For specific questions about the public water supply:

Email: bpwsp@health.ny.gov, phone: 518-402-7650 (Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm), or write:
State Health Department Bureau of Water Supply Protection, Corning Tower, Room 1110, Empire State
Plaza, Albany, NY 12237
For specific questions about private wells:

Email: beei@health.ny.gov, phone: 518-402-7860 (Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm), or write:
State Health Department Bureau of Environmental Exposure Investigation, Corning Tower, Room
1717, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237
9/16/2016 12:51 PM
EXHIBIT 12
January 14, 2016
The Honorable Gina McCarthy

Administrator
USEPA Headquarters
William Jefferson Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Mail Code: 1101A
Dear Administrator McCarthy:
We write to you to request that EPA take vigorous action to address the presence of
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water and groundwater. Respectfully, we
ask that EPA:
lower its provisional health advisory of 400 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA
drinking water to take into account the most current scientific evidence;
act expeditiously to adopt a protective maximum contaminant level for PFOA;
expeditiously list PFOA as a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to
facilitate the cleanup of contaminated groundwater and other media; and
review the remaining uses of PFOA under the Toxic Substances Control Act
and curtail it whenever less toxic alternatives are available.
The New York State Department of Health has been working with the Village of
Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick for more than a year to address PFOA
contamination of drinking water. PFOA in the Village of Hoosick Falls public water
supply exceeds the provisional EPA health advisory of 400 ppt. Private wells in the
Town of Hoosick have also shown signs of contamination, but at lower levels than in
the municipal supply. The Department of Health, the Village, and Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics have collaborated to evaluate treatment options for the Village
water supply, implement a bottled water program, and design and order a temporary
treatment system to be installed in the coming weeks on the Village water supply. This
temporary treatment system will remain in place until a planned permanent treatment
system is operational later this year.
We write to you because this is not just a local issue. The presence of PFOA in
drinking water is an emerging nation-wide issue.
As reported in the New York Times Magazine on January 10, 2016, several studies
have asserted that the presence of PFOA in drinking water and groundwater may be
more pervasive than originally thought and may subject people across the country to
PFOA exposure since EPA first began working on this issue in 2001.
It is imperative that the federal government step forward and use the authority it
already holds under federal law to comprehensively address this national issue. The
State of New York stands ready to assist EPA in any way we can in this important
effort to protect public health and the environment from PFOA.
Sincerely,
Dr. Howard Zucker

Commissioner
DOH
Basil Seggos
Acting Commissioner
DEC
EXHIBIT 13
Corrected: EPA Proposes to Add Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Site ...
1 of 3
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/corrected-epa-proposes-add-saint-gob...
News Releases
News Releases from Region 02
Corrected: EPA Proposes to Add Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics Site in Hoosick Falls, N.Y. to the Federal Superfund List
Groundwater Contaminated with PFOA and Volatile Organic
Compounds Pub. Comments due by Nov 8 CORRECTED
VERSION: Corrected Comment Period Close Date (Nov. 8, not
Nov. 10) and Corrected Chemical Name (1,2-Dichloroethane, not
1,2-Dichloroethe)
09/07/2016
Contact Information:
John Martin (martin.johnj@epa.gov)
(212) 637-3662
David Kluesner (kluesner.dave@epa.gov )
(212) 637-3653
(New York, N.Y. September 9, 2016) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed adding
the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics site in the Village of Hoosick Falls, N.Y. to its Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) of the country's most hazardous waste sites. Groundwater at the Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics facility, located at 14 McCaffrey Street, is contaminated with Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(PFOA) and Trichloroethylene. Groundwater supplying the villages public water supply wells is
contaminated with PFOA, as well as Vinyl Chloride and 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA). The Vinyl
Chloride and 1,2-DCA are both below EPA drinking water standards. PFOA does not break down easily
and therefore is very persistent in the environment. Its toxicity and persistence in the environment can pose
adverse effects to human health and the environment. The Village of Hoosick Falls has added carbon
filtration to its public water supply, thereby providing clean water to local residents.
"The toxic contamination of groundwater in Hoosick Falls, New York has put the health of residents
potentially at risk and has required the village to filter its public drinking water supply," said Judith A.
Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. "By placing this site on the federal Superfund list, the EPA will
continue to work hard to address the contamination at the source, and hold the polluters accountable for the
full cost of cleanup.
9/16/2016 1:10 PM
2 of 3

The McCaffrey Street facility was built in 1961, and had been used to manufacture circuit board laminates,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-coated fiberglass and other PTFE products. In 1999, SaintGobain Performance Plastics purchased the facility and began operations there, using PFOA in its
manufacturing process. PFOA belongs to a group of chemicals used to make household and commercial
products that resist heat and chemical reactions and repel oil, stains, grease and water.
PFOA was widely used in non-stick pots and pans, stain-resistant carpets, and water-resistant outerwear. In
2006, the EPA reached a nationwide agreement with eight manufacturers to phase out the production and
use of PFOA. These manufacturers stopped using PFOA in 2015.
In January 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation added the SaintGobain site to the states Superfund list and nominated the site for inclusion in the federal Superfund
list.
In April 2016, the EPA installed groundwater monitoring wells near the Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics facility.
In early May 2016, the EPA conducted groundwater sampling at and around the Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics facility.
In mid-May, the EPA conducted drinking water sampling at drinking water wells used by the Village
of Hoosick Falls.
After testing in Hoosick Falls, the EPA determined that inclusion in the federal Superfund program
was an effective course of action to address the contamination.
In addition to the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics site, the EPA is proposing to add 7 other sites to
the National Priorities List today. The EPA typically nominates sites to the National Priorities List
twice each year, in the spring and in the fall.
With the proposal of this site to the National Priorities List, a 60-day comment period will begin. During
this time, the EPA will be accepting public comments, which must be received by November 8. After the
comment period closes, a final National Priorities List designation will make the site eligible for funds to
conduct long-term cleanup. The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters should pay for
the cleanup rather than passing the costs on to taxpayers. The EPA searches for parties legally responsible
for contaminating a site, and holds those parties fully accountable for cleanup costs.
For Federal Register notices and supporting documents for these final and proposed sites, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/current-npl-updates-new-proposed-npl-sites-and-new-npl-sites. With the
proposal of this site to the NPL, a 60-day comment period will begin during which the EPA solicits public
input regarding this action.
For instructions on how to submit comments, go to: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/public-commentprocess.
Comments can be submitted, identified by Docket number by one of the following methods:
Docket number for the site: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0434.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments at http://www.regulations.gov.
Email: superfund.docket@epa.gov
Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
9/16/2016 1:10 PM
3 of 3

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW;
Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,
Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays).
For more information on the NPL Site listing process, visit: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites
/npl/current.htm or contact Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 NPL Coordinator, at 212-637-4344,
acosta.ildefonso@epa.gov
Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter at http://twitter.com/eparegion2 and visit our Facebook page,
http://facebook.com/eparegion2.
16-078 Corrected
###
Last updated on September 9, 2016
9/16/2016 1:10 PM
EXHIBIT 14

73539!
Hgfgtc n! Tgi kuvgt> e~{=.G@;.]~=.@FD > U xs p ;.bt t| qt .H;.A? @E > _ ~ ~ ts .a {t .

CEVKQP<!_ ~
Sp tsI.P v .A;.A? @E=.

Ujc y p!O /!I c txkp-!
Tgi kqpc n!Cf o kpkuvtc vqt-!Tgi kqp!KKK/!
~ ts. {t=.
w xrw . xt . p p }.u w t .
x} t xv p x~}=.cw t t.u w t .
x} t xv p x~} . x{{.p {{~ .w t.T_P.~.
UWOOCT[<!cw t.R~| tw t} x t.
p t .w t.}p t.p }s .t t}.~u. q{xr.
T} x ~}| t}p {.at ~} t;.
jUa.S~r=.A? @EA@CDH.Ux{ts .HG@EJ.GICD.p | l.
w tp {w .p }s .t} x ~}| t}p {. x z .
R~| t} p x~};.p }s .[xp qx{x .Pr.
DKNNKPI! EQFG! 767161R!
6 RTaR[P.~ .w t.Pr7;.p .p | t}s ts ;. p ~rxp ts . xw .w t. xt.p }s .~.
s tt | x}t. w p .RTaR[P<ux}p }rts .
t x t .w p .wt.]p x~}p {.^x{.p }s .
GPXKTQPOGPVCN!RTQVGEVKQP!
t| ts xp {.p rx~}6 7;.xu.p } ;.| p .qt.
Wp p s ~ .b q p }rt ._~{{ x~}.
CIGPE[!
R~}x}v t}r ._{p }.6]R_7.x}r{ s t.p .{x . p ~ xp t=.cw x . {t| p z x}v . ~ ~ t .
~u.}p x~}p {. x~ xxt .p | ~}v .w t.z }~ }. ~.p s s .txv w . xt .~.w t.V t}t p {.
51!EHT!Rctv!411!
b t u }s . trx~}.~u.w t.]_[=.
t{tp t .~ .w tp t}ts. t{tp t .~u.
]GRCJSQNGO31271539-!1541-!1543-!
w p p s ~ . q p }rt ;. ~{{ p } .~ .
FCVGU<!R~| | t} . tv p s x}v .p } .~u.w t t.
1544-!1545-!1546-!1547!cpf!1548=!HTN;;63! r~}p | x}p } .w ~ v w ~ .w t.d }xts .
~ ~ ts .{x x}v .| .qt. q| xts .
16QNGO_!
bp t =.cw t.]p x~}p {._ x~ xxt .[x .
6 ~ | p z ts 7.~}.~ .qtu~ t.]~ t| qt .G;.
6 ]_[7.r~} x t .w x .{x =.cw t.]_[.x .
A? @E=.
Pcvkqpcn!Rtkqtkvkgu!Nkuv!
x}t}s ts . x| p x{ .~.v xs t.w t.
T} x ~}| t}p {._ ~trx~}.Pv t}r .
CFFTGUUGU<!X
s t}xu .w t.p ~ xp t.
CIGPE[<!T} x ~}| t}p {._ ~trx~}.
6 T_P.~ .w t.p v t}r 7.x}.s tt | x}x}v . s ~rz t.} | qt .u ~| .w t.p q{t.qt{~ =.
Pv t}r .6T_P7=.
gjkgtu!qp!FUM6XRVXP2RTQF!ykvj!RTQRQUCNU
FQEMGV KFGPVKHKECVKQP PWODGTU D[ UKVG!

Ukvg!pcog!
Ekv{0eqwpv{-!uvcvg!
Fqemgv!KF!pwodgt!
Rquv!cpf!Nwodgt!Rtgugtxkpi!Eq/!Kpe ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oketqhcd!Kpe!)Hqtogt* ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Qnf!JY[!386!cpf!P!399vj!Uvtggv ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Cpceqpfc!Eqrrgt!Okpg ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Uckpv.Iqdckp!Rgthqtocpeg!Rncuvkeu //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Vjg!Dcvvgt{!Tge{enkpi!Eqorcp{ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hqtogt!Ewuvqo!Engcpgtu //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Jkijyc{!29!Itqwpf!Ycvgt ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Swkpe{-!HN /////////////////////////////////////////
Cogudwt{-!OC ///////////////////////////////////
Xcnng{-!PG /////////////////////////////////////////
[gtkpivqp-!PX ////////////////////////////////////
Xknncig!qh!Jqqukem!Hcnnu-!P[ /////////////
Dq/!Ecodcncejg-!RT ////////////////////////
Ogorjku-!VP /////////////////////////////////////
Mgtokv-!VZ /////////////////////////////////////////
GRCJSQNGO31271539!
GRCJSQNGO31271541!
GRCJSQNGO31271543!
GRCJSQNGO31271544!
GRCJSQNGO31271545!
GRCJSQNGO31271546!
GRCJSQNGO31271547!
GRCJSQNGO31271548!
b q| x. ~ .r~| | t} ;.xs t}xuxts .q .

w t.p ~ xp t.s ~rz t.} | qt ;.p .
j vvr<0 0 y y y /tgi w nc vkqpu/i qx/!U~{{~ .w t.
~}{x}t.x} rx~} .u~ . q| xx}v .
r~| | t} =.^}rt. q| xts ;.r~| | t} .
rp }}~.qt.ts xts .~ . t| ~ ts .u ~| .
Tgi w nc vkqpu/i qx=.cw t.T_P.| p . q{x w .
p } .r~| | t}. trtx ts .~.x . q{xr.
s ~rz t=.S~.}~. q| x.t{tr ~}xrp {{ .p } .
x}u~ | p x~}. ~ .r~} xs t .~.qt.
R~}uxs t}xp {.Q x}t .X}u~ | p x~}.6RQX7.
~ .~w t .x}u~ | p x~}. w ~ t.s x r{~ t.x .
t xrts .q . p t=.\ {x| ts xp .
q| x x~} .6p s x~;. xs t~;.tr=7.| .qt.
p rr~| p }xts .q .p . xt}.r~| | t}=.
cw t. xt}.r~| | t}.x .r~} xs t ts .w t.
~uuxrxp {.r~| | t}.p }s . w ~ {s .x}r{ s t.
s x r x~}.~u.p {{. ~x} . ~ . x w .~.
| p z t=.cw t.T_P. x{{.v t}t p {{ .}~.
r~} xs t .r~| | t} .~ .r~| | t}.
r~}t} .{~rp ts .~ xs t.~u.w t. x| p .
q| x x~}.6k/g/!~}.w t. tq;.r{~ s ;.~ .
~w t .ux{t. w p x}v . t| 7=.U~ .
p s s xx~}p {. q| x x~}.| tw ~s ;.w t.u {{.
T_P. q{xr.r~| | t}. ~{xr ;.
x}u~ | p x~}.p q~ .RQX.~ .| {x| ts xp .
q| x x~} ;.p }s.v t}t p {.v xs p }rt.~}.
| p z x}v .tuutrx t.r~| | t} ;. {tp t. x x.
j vvru<0 0 y y y /grc /i qx0 f qem gvu0 !
eqo o gpvkpi .grc .f qem gvu/!c~. t}s.p .
r~| | t}. xp .w t.d }xts.bp t ._~ p {.
bt xrt;. t.wt.u~{{~ x}v .p s s t I.
d =b=.T} x ~}| t}p {._ ~trx~}.Pv t}r ;.
T_P.b t u }s .S~rz t.Rt}t ;.\ p x{.
R~s t.AGAA@c;.@A? ? ._t}} { p }xp .
P t} t.]f =;.f p wx}v ~};.SR.A? CE? =.
XgtFcvg!Ugr>22@3125!
26<38!Ugr!19-!3127
Lmv!349112
R=.f wp .x .wt.]p x~}p {._ x~ xxt .[x .

d t.wt.S~rz t.Rt}t .p s s t .qt{~ .
6 ]_[7N.
xu. ~ .p t. x}v .t t .| p x{;.
S=.W~ .p t. xt .{x ts .~}.w t.]_[N.
r~| | t rxp {.s t{x t ;.w p }s.s t{x t .~ .
T=.f w p .wp t} .~. xt .~}.w t.]_[N.
r~ xt =.St{x t . t xuxrp x~}. xv }p t .
U=.S~t .w t.]_[.s tux}t.w t.q~ }s p xt .~u.
x{{.qt.p p x{p q{t.~}{ .s x}v . tv {p .
xt N.
q x}t .w ~ I.
V =.W~ .p t. xt . t| ~ ts .u ~| .w t.]_[N.
W=.\ p .w t.T_P.s t{tt. ~ x~} .~u. xt .
T_P.b t u }s .S~rz t.Rt}t ;.f YR.
u~| .w t.]_[.p .w t .p t.r{tp }ts. N.
f t .Q x{s x}v ;.a~~| .BBBC;.@B? @.
X=.f w p .x .w t.R~} rx~}.R~| {tx~}.[x .
R~} x x~}.P t} t.]f =;.
6 RR[7N.
f p w x}v ~};.SR.A? ? ? C=.
Y=.f w p .x .w t.bxt xs t.atp s .u~ .
U~ .p s s xx~}p {.s ~rz t.p s s t t .p }s .
P}xrx p ts .d t.| tp tN.
Z =.f w p .x . p t> xqp {.r~ t ~}s t}rt.
u w t .s tp x{ .~}.w tx .r~}t} ;. tt.
r~}rt }x}v .]_[.{x x}v N.
trx~}.XX;._ q{xr.at xt > _ q{xr.
XX=._ q{xr.at xt > _ q{xr.R~| | t}.
R~| | t};.~u.wt.UWRRNGOGPVCT[!
P=.\ p .X. t xt .wt.s ~r | t} . t{t p }.~.
KPHQTOCVKQP ~ x~}.~u.w x . tp | q{t=.
wx . ~ ~ ts . {tN.
HQT HWTVJGT KPHQTOCVKQP EQPVCEV<!
Q=.W~ .s ~.X.p rrt .wt.s ~r | t} N.
R=.f wp .s ~r | t} .p t.p p x{p q{t.u~ . q{xr.
ct .Yt}v ;. w ~}tI.6F? B7.E? BGGDA;.
t xt .p .w t.T_P.Wtp s p t .s ~rz tN.
t| p x{I.lgpi /vgtt{B grc /i qx-!bxt.
S=.f w p .s ~r | t} .p t.p p x{p q{t.u~ . q{xr.
P t | t}.p }s .at| ts .Strx x~} .
t xt .p .w t.T_P. tv x~}p {.s ~rz t N.
Q p }rw ;.P t | t}.p }s .at| ts xp x~}.
T=.W~ .s ~.X. q| x.| .r~| | t} N.
Sx x x~};.ûuxrt.~u.b t u }s .
U=.f w p .wp t} .~.| .r~| | t} N.
at| ts xp x~}.p }s .ctrw }~{~v .
V =.f w p . w~ {s .X.r~} xs t . w t}. t p x}v .
X}}~ p x~}.6\ p x{r~s t.DA? C_7;.d =b=.
| .r~| | t} N.
T} x ~}| t}p {._ ~trx~}.Pv t}r ;.@A? ? .
W=.\ p .X. q| x.r~| | t} .p ut .w t. q{xr.
_t}} { p }xp .P t} t.]f =;.f p wx}v ~};.
r~| | t}. t x~s .x .~ t N.
X=.\ p .X. xt . q{xr.r~| | t} . q| xts .
SR.A? CE? J.~ .w t.b t u }s .W~{x}t;.
q .~w t N.
w ~}t.6G? ? 7.CACHBCE.~ .6F? B7.C@A.
Y=.\ p .X. q| x.r~| | t} . tv p s x}v . xt .
HG@? .x}.wt.f p w x}v ~};.SR;.
}~.r t}{ . ~ ~ ts .~.w t.]_[N.
| t ~ ~{xp }.p tp =.
XXX=.R~}t} .~u.cw x ._ ~ ~ ts.a {t.
UWRRNGOGPVCT[ KPHQTOCVKQP<!
P=._ ~ ~ ts .Ps sxx~} .~.wt.]_[.
Vc dng!qh!Eqpvgpvu!
X=.Qp rz v ~ }s .
P=.f w p .p t.RTaR[P.p }s .bPaPN.
Q=.f wp .x .wt.]R_N.
RQ!11111
Hto!11121
Hov!5813
Uhov!5813
Xe=.bp ~ .p }s .T tr x t.^ s t .at xt .

P=.T tr x t.^ st .@AGEEI.atv {p ~ .
_{p }}x}v .p }s.at xt .p }s .T tr x t.
^ s t .@BDEBI.X| ~ x}v .atv {p x~}.p }s.
atv {p ~ .at xt .
G<^HT^HO^1;UGR2/UIO
1;UGR2

Q=._p t ~ z .ats rx~}.Pr.6_aP7.
R=.atv {p ~ .U{t xqx{x .Pr.6aUP7.
S=.d }u }s ts .\ p }s p t .atu~ | .Pr.
6 d\ aP7.
T=.T tr x t.^s t.@B@BAI.Uts t p {x | .
U=.T tr x t.^s t.@B@FDI.R~} {p x~}.
p }s .R~~ s x}p x~}.f xw.X}sxp }.cxqp {.
V ~ t }| t} .
V =.T tr x t.^ s t .@B? CDI._ ~trx~}.~u.
Rw x{s t}.U ~| .T} x ~}| t}p {.Wtp {w .
p }s .bp ut .ax z .
W=.T tr x t.^ st .@BA@@I.Prx~} .cw p .
bxv }xuxrp }{ .Puutr.T}t v .b { ;.
Sx xq x~};.~.d t.
X=.]p x~}p {.ctrw }~{~v .c p } ut .p }s.
Ps p }rt| t}.Pr.6]ccPP7.
Y=.T tr x t.^ s t .@AGHGI.Utst p {.Prx~} .
c~.Ps s t .T} x ~}| t}p {.Y xrt.x}.
\ x}~ x ._~ {p x~} .p }s .[~ <X}r~| t.
_~ {p x~} .
K/!Dc em i tqw pf !
C/!Y j c v!c tg!EGTENC!c pf !UCTCA!
X}.@HG? ;.R~}v t .t}p rts .w t.
R~| tw t} x t.T} x ~}| t}p {.
at ~} t;.R~| t} p x~};.p }s .[xp qx{x .
Pr;.CA.d =b=R=.HE? @HEFD.6RTaR[P.~ .
w t.Pr7;.x}. t ~} t.~.w t.s p }v t .~u.
}r~} ~{{ts . t{tp t .~ .w tp t}ts .
t{tp t .~u.w p p s ~ . q p }rt ;.p }s .
t{tp t .~ . q p }xp {.w tp .~u. t{tp t .
x}~.w t.t} x ~}| t}.~u.p } . ~{{ p }.~ .
r~}p | x}p }.w p .| p . t t}.p }.
x| | x}t}.~ . q p }xp {.s p }v t .~.w t.
q{xr.w tp {w .~ . t{up t=.RTaR[P. p .
p | t}s ts .~}.^r~qt .@F;.@HGE;.q .w t.
b t u }s .P| t}s | t} .p }s .
atp w ~ x p x~}.Pr.6bPaP7;._ q{xr.
[p .HHCHH;.@? ? .bp =.@E@B.gv!ugs/!
D/!Y j c v!ku!vj g!PERA!

c~.x| {t| t}.RTaR[P;.w t.T_P.
~| {v p ts .w t. t x ts .]p x~}p {.^x{.
p }s .Wp p s ~ .b q p }rt ._~{{ x~}.
R~}x}v t}r ._{p }.6]R_7;.C? .RUa. p .
B? ? ;.~}.Y { .@E;.@HGA.6CF.Ua.B@@G? 7;.
p }.~.RTaR[P. trx~}.@? D.p }s .
T tr x t.^ s t .@AB@E.6CE.Ua.CAABF;.
P v .A? ;.@HG@7=.cw t.]R_. t .
v xs t{x}t .p }s . ~rts t .u~ .
t ~}s x}v .~. t{tp t .p }s .w tp t}ts .
t{tp t .~u.w p p s ~ . q p }rt .~ .
t{tp t .~ . q p }xp {.w tp .~u. t{tp t .
x}~.w t.t} x ~}| t}.~u.p } . ~{{ p }.~ .
r~}p | x}p }.w p .| p . t t}.p }.
x| | x}t}.~ . q p }xp {.s p }v t .~.w t.
q{xr.w tp {w .~ . t{up t=.cw t.T_P.w p .
t x ts .w t.]R_.~}. t t p {.~rrp x~} =.
cw t.| ~ . trt}.r~| tw t} x t. t x x~}.
p .~}.\ p rw .G;.@HH? .6DD.Ua.GEEE7=.
P . t x ts . }s t . trx~}.
@? D6 p 76 G76 P7.~u.RTaR[P;.wt.]R_.p { ~.
x}r{ s t .r xt xp .u~ .s tt | x}x}v .
x~ xxt .p | ~}v . t{tp t .~ .w tp t}ts .
t{tp t .w ~ v w ~ .w t.d }xts .bp t .
u~ .w t. ~ t.~u.p z x}v . t| ts xp {.
p rx~}.p }s ;.~.w t.t t}. p rxrp q{t.
p z x}v .x}~.p rr~ }.w t. ~t}xp {.
v t}r .~u. rw .p rx~};.u~ .w t. ~ t.
~u.p z x}v . t| ~ p {.p rx~}=.at| ~ p {.
26<38!Ugr!19-!3127
Lmv!349112
p rx~} .p t.s tux}ts.q ~p s { .p }s .x}r{ s t.

p . xs t. p }v t.~u.p rx~} .p z t}.~. s ;.
r{tp }. ;. t t}.~ .~w t x t.p s s t .
t{tp t .p }s.w tp t}ts . t{tp t .~u.
w p p s ~ . q p }rt ;. ~{{ p } .~ .
r~}p | x}p } .6CA.d =b=R=.HE? @6 AB77=.
E/!Y j c v!ku!vjg!Pc vkqpc n!Rtkqtkvkgu!Nkuv!
)PRN*A!
cw t.]_[.x .p .{x .~u.}p x~}p {. x~ xxt .
p | ~}v .w t.z }~ }.~ .w tp t}ts . t{tp t .
~u.w p p s ~ . q p }rt ;. ~{{ p } .~ .
r~}p | x}p } .w ~ v w ~ .w t.d }xts .
bp t =.cw t.{x ;. w xrw .x .p t}s x .Q.~u.
w t.]R_.6C? .RUa. p .B? ? 7;. p . t x ts .
}s t . trx~}.@? D6 p 76 G76 Q7.~u.RTaR[P;.
p .p | t}s ts =.btrx~}.@? D6 p 76 G76 Q7.
s tux}t .w t.]_[.p .p .{x .~u. t{tp t .
p }s .wt.wxv w t . x~ x .up rx{xxt .p }s .
t x t .wp .w t.]_[.qt. t x ts .p .{tp .
p }} p {{ =.cw t.]_[.x .x}t}s ts .
x| p x{ .~.v xs t.w t.T_P.x}.
s tt | x}x}v . w xrw . xt . p p }.u w t .
x} t xv p x~}.~.p t .w t.}p t.p }s.
t t}.~u. q{xr.wtp {w .p }s .
t} x ~}| t}p {. x z .p ~rxp ts . xw .p .
t{tp t.~u.w p p s ~ . q p }rt ;.
~{{ p } .~ .r~}p | x}p } =.cw t.]_[.x .
~}{ .~u.{x| xts . xv }xuxrp }rt;.w ~ t t ;.p .
x.s ~t .}~.p xv }.{xp qx{x .~.p } . p .
~ .~.wt.~ }t .~u.p } . trxuxr. ~ t =.
P{ ~;. {p rx}v .p . xt.~}.wt.]_[.s ~t .}~.
| tp }.w p .p } . t| ts xp {.~ . t| ~ p {.
p rx~}.}trt p x{ .}tts.qt.p z t}=.
U~ . ~ t .~u.{x x}v ;.w t.]_[.
x}r{ s t . ~. trx~} ;.~}t.~u. xt .wp .
p t.v t}t p {{ .t p { p ts .p }s .r{tp }ts . .
q .w t.T_P.6w t.V t}t p {.b t u }s .
trx~}7;.p }s .~}t.~u. xt .w p .p t.
~ }ts .~ .~ t p ts .q .~w t .uts t p {.
p v t}rxt .6w t.Uts t p {.Up rx{xxt .
trx~}7=.f xw . t tr.~. xt .x}.w t.
Uts t p {.Up rx{xxt . trx~};.w t t. xt .p t.
v t}t p {{ .qtx}v .p s s t ts .q .~w t .
uts t p {.p v t}rxt =.d }s t .T tr x t.^ s t .
@ADG? .6DA.Ua.AHAB;.Yp } p .AH;.@HGF7.
p }s .RTaR[P. trx~}.@A? ;.tp rw .uts t p {.
p v t}r .x . t ~} xq{t.u~ .rp x}v .~ .
| ~ . t ~} t.p rx~} .p .up rx{xxt . }s t .
x .~ }.y x s xrx~};.r ~s .~ .r~} ~{;.
p {w ~ v w .wt.T_P.x . t ~} xq{t.u~ .
t p x}v .p .Wp p s .ap }z x}v .b t| .
6 Wab7. r~ t.p }s .s tt | x}x}v . w tw t .
w t.up rx{x .x . {p rts .~}.w t.]_[=.
7353; !
t} x ~}| t}=.^}.Strt| qt .@C;.@HH? .6DD.

Ua.D@DBA7;.w t.T_P. ~| {v p ts .
t x x~} .~.w t.Wab. p { .x}. t ~} t.
~.RTaR[P. trx~}.@? D6 r7;.p ss ts .q .
bPaP=.cw t. t x ts .Wab.t p { p t .u~ .
p w p I.V ~ }s . p t ;. up rt. p t ;.
~x{.t ~ t.p }s .p x =.P .p .| p t .~u.
p v t}r . ~{xr ;.w ~ t. xt .w p . r~ t.
AG=D? .~ .v tp t .~}.w t.Wab.p t.t{xv xq{t.
u~ .w t.]_[=.
6 A7._ p }.~.CA.d =b=R=.
HE? D6 p 76 G76 Q7;.tp rw . p t.| p .s t xv }p t.
p . x}v {t. xt.p .x .~ . x~ x .~.qt.
{x ts .~}.w t.]_[;. xw ~ .p } .Wab.
r~ t=.cw x . ~ x x~}.~u.RTaR[P.
t x t .w p ;.~.wt.t t}. p rxrp q{t;.
w t.]_[.x}r{ s t.~}t.up rx{x .s t xv }p ts .
q .tp rw . p t.p .w t.v tp t .sp }v t .~.
q{xr.w tp {w ;. t{up t.~ .w t.
t} x ~}| t}.p | ~}v .z }~ }.up rx{xxt .x}.
w t. p t=.cwx .| trw p }x | .u~ .{x x}v .x .
t.~ .x}.w t.]R_.p .C? .RUa.
B? ? =CAD6 r76 A7=.
6 B7.cw t.w x s .| trw p }x | .u~ .{x x}v ;.
x}r{ s ts .x}.w t.]R_.p .C? .RUa.
B? ? =CAD6 r76 B7;.p {{~ .rt p x}. xt .~.qt.
{x ts . xw~ .p } .Wab. r~ t;.xu.p {{.~u.
w t.u~{{~ x}v .r~}sxx~} .p t.| tI.
cw t.Pv t}r .u~ .c~ xr.b q p }rt .
p }s .Sx tp t.atv x .6PcbSa7.~u.w t.
d =b=._ q{xr.Wtp {w .bt xrt.w p .x ts .p .
w tp {w .p s x ~ .wp . tr~| | t}s .
s x ~rxp x~}.~u.x}s x xs p { .u ~| .w t.
t{tp t=.
cw t.T_P.stt | x}t .w p .w t. t{tp t.
~ t .p . xv }xuxrp }.w tp .~. q{xr.
w tp {w =.
cw t.T_P.p }xrx p t .w p .x. x{{.qt.
| ~ t.r~ <tuutrx t.~. t.x . t| ts xp {.
p w ~ x .w p }.~. t.x . t| ~ p {.
p w ~ x .~. t ~}s .~.w t. t{tp t=.
cw t.T_P. ~| {v p ts .p }.~ xv x}p {.]_[.
~u.C? E. xt .~}.bt t| qt .G;.@HGB.6CG.Ua.
C? EDG7.p }s .v t}t p {{ .w p . s p ts .x.p .
{tp .p }} p {{ =.
G/!Y j c v!j c rrgpu!vq!ukvgu!qp!vj g!PRNA!

P. xt.| p . }s t v ~. t| ts xp {.p rx~}.
ux}p }rts .q .w t.c .U }s .t p q{x w ts .
}s t .RTaR[P.6r~| | ~}{ . tut ts.~.
p .w t.b t u }s7.~}{ .p ut .x.x .
{p rts .~}.w t.]_[;.p . ~ xs ts .x}.wt.
]R_.p .C? .RUa.B? ? =CAD6 q76 @7=.
6 at| ts xp {.p rx~} .p t.w ~ t.
r~} x t}. xw. t | p }t}. t| ts ;.
F/!Jqy !c tg!ukvgu!nkuvgf !qp!vjg!PRNA!
p z t}.x} tp s .~u.~ .x}.p s s xx~}.~.
cw t t.p t.w tt.| trw p }x | .u~ .
t| ~ p {.p rx~} =.8 8 8 .CA.d =b=R=.
{p rx}v . xt .~}.w t.]_[.u~ . ~ xq{t.
HE? @6 AC7=7.W~ t t ;. }s t .C? .RUa.
t| ts xp {.p rx~}.6 tt.C? .RUa.B? ? =CAD6 r7. B? ? =CAD6 q76 A7. {p rx}v .p . xt.~}.w t.]_[.
~u.w t.]R_7I.
s ~t .}~.x| { .w p .| ~}xt . x{{.qt.
6 @7.P. xt.| p .qt.x}r{ s ts .~}.w t.]_[. t t}s ts =.cw t.T_P.| p . t.~w t .
xu.x. r~ t . uuxrxt}{ .w xv w .~}.wt.Wab;. p ~ xp t.p w ~ xxt .~. t ~}s .~.w t.
w xrw .w t.T_P. ~| {v p ts .p .
t{tp t ;.x}r{ s x}v .t}u~ rt| t}.p rx~}.
p t}s x .P.~u.wt.]R_.6C? .RUa. p .
}s t .RTaR[P.p }s.~wt .{p =.
B? ? 7=.cw t.Wab. t t .p .p . r tt}x}v .~~{.
H/!Fqgu!vj g!PRN!f ghkpg!vj g!dqw pf c tkgu!
~.t p { p t.w t. t{p x t. ~t}xp {.~u.
qh!ukvguA!
}r~} ~{{ts .w p p s ~ . q p }rt ;.
~{{ p } .~ .r~}p | x}p } .~. ~ t.p .
cw t.]_[.s ~t .}~.s t r xqt. t{tp t .x}.
trx t.v t~v p w xrp {.t | J.x. ~ {s .qt.
w tp .~.w | p }.w tp {w .~ .w t.
RQ!11111
Hto!11122
Hov!5813
Uhov!5813
G<^HT^HO^1;UGR2/UIO
1;UGR2
73541 !
}txw t .utp xq{t.}~ .r~} x t}. xw .wt.

{x| xts . ~ t.~u.w t.]_[.6~.xs t}xu .
t{tp t .w p .p t. x~ xxt .u~ .u w t .
t p { p x~}7;.u~ .x.~.s ~. ~=.X}s tts ;.w t.
trx t.}p t.p }s .t t}.~u.w t. xt.p t.
xrp {{ .}~.z }~ }.p .w t.x| t.~u.
{x x}v =.
P{w ~ v w .p .RTaR[P.up rx{x .x .
q ~p s { .s tux}ts .~.x}r{ s t.p } .p tp .
w t t.p .w p p s~ . q p }rt.w p .r~| t.
~.qt.{~rp ts .6RTaR[P. trx~}.@? @6 H77;.
w t.{x x}v . ~rt .x t{u.x .}~.x}t}s ts .
~.s tux}t.~ . tu{tr.w t.q~ }s p xt .~u.
rw .up rx{xxt .~ . t{tp t =.û.r~ t;.
Wab.s p p .6xu.w t.Wab.x . ts .~.{x .p .
xt7. ~}. w xrw .w t.]_[. {p rt| t}.
p .qp ts . x{{;.~. ~| t.t t};.st r xqt.
w t. t{tp t6 7.p .x t=.cw p .x ;.w t.]_[.
xt. ~ {s .x}r{ s t.p {{. t{tp t .t p { p ts .
p . p .~u.w p .Wab.p }p { x =.
f w t}.p . xt.x .{x ts ;.wt.p ~p rw.
v t}t p {{ . ts .~.s t r xqt.w t. t{t p }.
t{tp t6 7.x .~.s t{x}tp t.p .v t~v p w xrp {.
p tp .6 p {{ .w t.p tp . xw x}.p }.
x} p {{p x~}.~ . {p }.q~ }s p xt 7.p }s .
xs t}xu .w t. xt.q . tut t}rt.~.wp .
p tp =.W~ t t ;.w t.]_[. xt.x .}~.
}trt p x{ .r~t t} x t. xw .w t.
q~ }s p xt .~u.w t.x} p {{p x~}.~ . {p };.
p }s .wt.q~ }sp xt .~u.w t.x} p {{p x~}.~ .
{p }.p t.}~.}trt p x{ .w t.
q~ }s p xt .~u.w t. xt=.ap w t ;.w t. xt.
r~} x .~u.p {{.r~}p | x}p ts .p tp .
xw x}.wt.p tp . ts .~.xs t}xu .w t. xt;.
p . t{{.p .p } .~w t .{~rp x~}. w t t.w p .
r~}p | x}p x~}.w p .r~| t.~.qt.{~rp ts ;.
~ .u ~| . w t t.w p .r~}p | x}p x~}.rp | t=.
X}.~w t . ~ s ;. w x{t.v t~v p w xr.
t | .p t.~ut}. ts .~.s t xv }p t.w t. xt.
6 g/i /-!w t.Y~}t .R~=._{p }. xt7.x}.t | .
~u.w t. ~ t .~ }ts .q .p . p xr {p .
p ;.w t. xt;. ~ t { . }s t ~~s ;.x .
}~.{x| xts .~.wp . ~ t .6g/i /-!x.| p .
t t}s .qt ~}s .wt. ~ t .s t.~.
r~}p | x}p }.| xv p x~}7;.p }s .r~} t t{ .
| p .}~.~rr .w t.u {{.t t}.~u.w t.
~ t .6g/i /-! w t t.w t t.p t.
}r~}p | x}p ts . p .~u.w t.xs t}xuxts .
~ t ;.w t .| p .}~.qt;. xr{ .
tp z x}v ;. p .~u.wt. xt7=.cw t. xt.
x .w .}txwt .t p {.~;.}~ .r~}ux}ts .q ;.
w t.q~ }s p xt .~u.p } . trxuxr. ~ t .
w p .| p .v x t.w t. xt.x .}p | t;.p }s .w t.
}p | t.x t{u. w~ {s .}~.qt. tp s .~.x| { .
w p .w x . xt.x .r~t t} x t. xw.w t.
t}x t.p tp . xw x}.w t. ~ t .
q~ }s p .~u.w t.x} p {{p x~}.~ . {p }=.X}.
p s s xx~};.w t. xt.}p | t.x .| t t{ . ts.
~.w t{ .xs t}xu .w t.v t~v p w xr.{~rp x~}.
~u.w t.r~}p | x}p x~};.p }s .x .}~.| tp }.
~.r~} x t.p } .s tt | x}p x~}.~u.
{xp qx{x .p .p . xt=.U~ .t p | {t;.wt.}p | t.
Y~}t .R~=._{p }. xt;.s ~t .}~.x| { .
w p .w t.Y~}t .R~| p } .x . t ~} xq{t.
u~ .w t.r~}p | x}p x~}.{~rp ts .~}.w t.
{p }. xt=.
cw t.T_P. tv {p x~} . ~ xst.w p .w t.
t| ts xp {.x} t xv p x~}.6aX7.x .p .
~rt . }s t p z t}.= = =.~.s tt | x}t.
26<38!Ugr!19-!3127
Lmv!349112
w t.}p t.p }s .t t}.~u.w t. ~q{t| .

t t}ts .q .w t. t{tp t.p .| ~ t.
x}u~ | p x~}.x .st t{~ ts .~}. xt.
r~}p | x}p x~};.p }s. w xrw .x .v t}t p {{ .
t u~ | ts .x}.p }.x}t p rx t.up w x~}. xw .
w t.utp xqx{x .b s .6Ub7.6C? .RUa.
B? ? =D7=.S x}v .w t.aX>Ub. ~rt ;.w t.
t{tp t.| p .qt.u~ }s .~.qt.{p v t .~ .
| p {{t .wp }. p .~ xv x}p {{ .w ~ v w ;.p .
| ~ t.x .{tp }ts .p q~ .w t. ~ rt6 7.p }s .
w t.| xv p x~}.~u.w t.r~}p | x}p x~}=.
W~ t t ;.w t.Wab.x} x .u~r t .~}.p }.
t p { p x~}.~u.w t.w tp . ~ ts .p }s .
w t tu~ t.w t.q~ }s p xt .~u.w t. t{tp t.
}tts .}~.qt.t p r{ .s tux}ts =.\ ~ t~ t ;.
x.v t}t p {{ .x .x| ~ xq{t.~.s x r~ t .w t.
u {{.t t}.~u. w t t.w t.r~}p | x}p x~}.
w p .r~| t.~.qt.{~rp ts .qtu~ t.p {{.
}trt p . s xt .p }s . t| ts xp {. ~ z .p t.
r~| {tts .p .p . xt=.X}s tts ;.w t.z }~ }.
q~ }s p xt .~u.w t.r~}p | x}p x~}.rp }.qt.
t trts .~.rwp }v t.~ t .x| t=.cw ;.x}.
| ~ .rp t ;.x.| p .qt.x| ~ xq{t.~.
s t r xqt.w t.q~ }s p xt .~u.p . t{tp t.
xw .p q ~{ t.rt p x} =.
U w t ;.p .}~ts . t x~ { ;.]_[.
{x x}v .s ~t .}~.p xv }.{xp qx{x .~.p } .
p .~ .~.w t.~ }t .~u.p } . trxuxr.
~ t =.cw ;.xu.p . p .s ~t .}~.
qt{xt t.x.x .{xp q{t.u~ . t{tp t .~}.
s x r tt. p rt{ .~u. ~ t ;.x.rp }.
q| x. ~ x}v .x}u~ | p x~}.~.w t.
p v t}r .p .p } .x| t.p ut .x. trtx t .
}~xrt.x.x .p . ~t}xp {{ . t ~} xq{t.
p =.
U~ .w t t. tp ~} ;.wt.]_[.}tts .}~.
qt.p | t}s ts .p .u w t . t tp rw . t tp { .
| ~ t.x}u~ | p x~}.p q~ .wt.{~rp x~}.~u.
w t.r~}p | x}p x~}.~ . t{tp t=.
r{tp } .| p .p z t.| p } . tp ;. w x{t.

~ x~} .~u.w t. xt.| p .w p t.qtt}.
r{tp }ts . .p }s .| p s t.p p x{p q{t.u~ .
~s rx t. t=.
K/!Y j c v!ku!vjg!Eqpuvtw evkqp!Eqo rngvkqp!
Nkuv!)EEN*A!
cw t.T_P.p { ~.w p .s t t{~ ts .p }.]_[.
r~} rx~}.r~| {tx~}.{x .6RR[7.~.
x| {xu .x . t| .~u.rp tv ~ x x}v . xt .
p }s .~.qtt .r~| | }xrp t.w t.
rrt u {.r~| {tx~}.~u.r{tp } .
p rx xxt .6DG.Ua.@A@CA;.\ p rw .A;.@HHB7=.
X}r{ x~}.~u.p . xt.~}.w t.RR[.w p .}~.
{tv p {. xv }xuxrp }rt=.
bxt . p {xu .u~ .w t.RR[. w t}I.6@7.
P} .}trt p . w xrp {.r~} rx~}.x .
r~| {tt;. w tw t .~ .}~.ux}p {.r{tp } .
{t t{ .~ .~wt . t x t| t} .w p t.qtt}.
p rw xt ts J.6A7.w t.T_P.w p .s tt | x}ts .
w p .w t. t ~} t.p rx~}. w ~ {s .qt.
{x| xts .~.| tp t .w p .s ~.}~.x} ~{ t.
r~} rx~}.6g/i /-!x} x x~}p {.
r~} ~{ 7J.~ .6B7.w t. xt. p {xuxt .u~ .
s t{tx~}.u ~| .w t.]_[=.U~ .| ~ t.
x}u~ | p x~}.~}.w t.RR[;. tt.w t.T_P .
X}t }t. xt.p .jvvru<0 0 y y y /grc /i qx0 !
uw rgthw pf 0 uw rgthw pf .tgo gf kc n.!
rgthqto c peg.o gc uw tgu$eeac pej qt/!
L/!Y j c v!ku!vjg!Ukvgy kf g!Tgc f {!hqt!

Cpvkekrc vgf !W ug!o gc uw tgA!
cw t.bxt xst.atp s .u~ .P}xrx p ts .
d t.| tp t.6u~ | t { .rp {{ts.bxt xs t.
atp s <u~ <at t7. t t t} .x| ~ p }.
b t u }s .p rr~| {x w | t} .p }s .w t.
| tp t. tu{tr .w t.w xv w . x~ x .w t.
T_P. {p rt .~}.r~} xs t x}v .p }xrx p ts .
u t.{p }s . t.p . p .~u.w t. t| ts .
t{trx~}. ~rt =.btt.V xs p }rt.u~ .
I /!Jqy !c tg!ukvgu!tgo qxgf !htqo !vj g!PRNA! X| {t| t}x}v .w t.bxt xs t.atp s <u~ <.
at t.\ tp t;.\ p .AC;.A? ? E;.^bf Ta.
cw t.T_P.| p .s t{tt. xt .u ~| .w t.
HBED=? BE=.cw x .| tp t.p {xt .~.ux}p {.
]_[. w t t.}~.u wt . t ~} t.x .
p }s .s t{tts . xt . w t t.r~} rx~}.x .
p ~ xp t. }s t .b t u }s ;.p .
r~| {tt;.p {{.r{tp } .v ~p { .w p t.qtt}.
t {p x}ts .x}.w t.]R_.p .C? .RUa.
p rw xt ts ;.p }s .p {{.x} x x~}p {.~ .~w t .
B? ? =CAD6 t7=.cw x . trx~}.p { ~. ~ xs t .
w p .w t.T_P. w p {{.r~} {. xw . p t .~}. r~} ~{ .p t.x}. {p rt=.cw t.T_P.w p .qtt}.
rrt u {.~}.| p } .~rrp x~} .x}.
~ ~ ts .s t{tx~} .p }s . w p {{.r~} xs t .
rp x}v .~ . t| ts xp {.p rx~} .w p .
w tw t .p } .~u.wt.u~{{~ x}v .r xt xp .
t} t. ~trx t}t .~u.w | p }.w tp {w .
w p t.qtt}.| tI.
p }s .w t.t} x ~}| t}.u~ .r t}.p }s .
6 x7.at ~} xq{t. p xt .~ .~w t .
u t.{p }s . t ;.x}.p .| p }}t .w p .
t ~} .w p t.x| {t| t}ts.p {{.
p ~ xp t. t ~} t.p rx~} . t x ts J. p {{~ .r~}p | x}p ts . ~ t xt .~.qt.
t ~ ts .~.t} x ~}| t}p {.p }s .tr~}~| xr.
6 xx7.P{{.p ~ xp t.b t u }s <.
xp {x =.U~ .u w t .x}u~ | p x~};. {tp t.
ux}p }rts . t ~} t.w p .qtt}.
v ~.~.j vvru<0 0 y y y /grc /i qx0 uw rgthw pf 0 !
x| {t| t}ts .p }s .}~.u w t . t ~} t.
c dqw v.uw rgthw pf .engc pw r.rtqeguu$vc d.; =.
p rx~}.x . t x tsJ.~ .
6 xxx7.cw t. t| ts xp {.x} t xv p x~}.w p .
M /!Y j c v!ku!uvc vg0 vtkdc n!eqttgurqpf gpeg!
w ~ }.wt. t{tp t. ~ t .}~. xv }xuxrp }.
eqpegtpkpi !PRN!nkuvkpi A!
w tp .~. q{xr.w tp {w .~ .w t.
X}.~ s t .~.| p x}p x}.r{~ t.
t} x ~}| t};.p }s .p z x}v .~u. t| ts xp {.
r~~ s x}p x~}. xw. p t .p }s . xqt .x}.
| tp t .x .}~.p ~ xp t=.
w t.]_[.{x x}v .s trx x~}. ~rt ;.w t.
J/!O c {!vjg!GRC!f gngvg!rqtvkqpu!qh!ukvgu!
T_P . ~{xr .x .~.s tt | x}t.w t.
htqo !vj g!PRN!c u!vj g{!c tg!engc pgf !w rA!
~ xx~}.~u.w t. p t .p }s . xqt .
X}.]~ t| qt .@HHD;.w t.T_P.x}xxp ts . tv p s x}v . xt .w p .w t.T_P.x .
p . ~{xr .~.s t{tt. ~ x~} .~u.]_[. xt . r~} xs t x}v .u~ .{x x}v =.cw x .
w t t.r{tp } .x .r~| {tt.6E? .Ua.
r~} {p x~}. ~rt .x .~ {x}ts .x}. ~.
| t| ~ p }s p .w p .rp }.qt.u~ }s .p .w t.
DDCED;.]~ t| qt .@;.@HHD7=.c~p {. xt.
RQ!11111
Hto!11123
Hov!5813
Uhov!5813
G<^HT^HO^1;UGR2/UIO
1;UGR2

u~{{~ x}v .f tq. xtI.j vvru<0 0
y y y /grc /i qx0 uw rgthw pf 0 uvc vgvtkdc n.!
eqttgurqpf gpeg.eqpegtpkpi .prn.ukvg.!
nkuvkpi /!
cw t.T_P.x .x| ~ x}v .w t.
p } p t}r .~u.w t. ~rt .q . w xrw .
p t.p }s . xqp {.x} .x . ~{xrxts =.cw t.
T_P.x . x}v .w t.f tq.p }s . w t t.
p ~ xp t.| ~ t. r ts . p t.p }s .
xqp {.r~ t ~}s t}rt.w p .6@7.t {p x} .
w t.r~}rt } .p .wt. xt.p }s .w t.T_P .
p x~}p {t.u~ . ~rtts x}v J.6A7. t t .p }.
t {p }p x~}.~u.w ~ .wt. p t.x}t}s .~.
p s s t .w t. xt.xu. {p rt| t}.~}.w t.]_[.
x .}~.up ~ ts J.p }s .6B7.t| w p x t .w t.
p } p t}.}p t.~u.w t. ~rt .q .
x}u~ | x}v . p t .w p .x}u~ | p x~}.~}.
w tx . t ~} t . x{{.qt. q{xr{ .
p p x{p q{t=.
P.| ~s t{.{tt .p }s .r~ t ~}s t}rt.
u ~| .w x . ~x}.u~ p s .qt tt}.w t.
T_P.p }s . p t .p }s. xqt . wt t.
p {xrp q{t;.x .p p x{p q{t.~}.w t.T_P .
f tq. xt.p .j vvru<0 0 y y y /grc /i qx0 !
uw rgthw pf 0 uvc vgvtkdc n.eqttgurqpf gpeg.!
eqpegtpkpi .prn.ukvg.nkuvkpi /!
KK/!Rw dnke!Tgxkgy 0Rw dnke!Eqo o gpv!
C/!O c {!K!tgxkgy !vj g!f qew o gpvu!tgngxc pv!
vq!vj ku!rtqrqugf !tw ngA!
ht ;.s ~r | t} .w p .u~ | .w t.qp x .u~ .
w t.T_P .t p { p x~}.p }s . r~ x}v .~u.w t.
xt .x}.w x . ~ ~ ts . {t.p t.r~}p x}ts .
x}. q{xr.s~rz t .{~rp ts .q~w .p .w t.
T_P.Wtp s p t .x}.f p w x}v ~};.SR;.
p }s .x}.w t. tv x~}p {.~uuxrt =.cw t t.
s ~r | t} .p t.p { ~.p p x{p q{t.q .
t{tr ~}xr.p rrt .p .j vvr<0 0
y y y /tgi w nc vkqpu/i qx!6 tt.x} rx~} .x}.
w t.CFFTGUUGU trx~}.p q~ t7=.
D/!Jqy !f q!K!c eeguu!vj g!f qew o gpvuA!

h~ .| p . xt .w t.s ~r | t} ;.q .
p ~x}| t}.~}{ ;.x}.w t.Wtp s p t .
~ .w t. tv x~}p {.s ~rz t .p ut .w t.
q{xrp x~}.~u.w x . ~ ~ ts . {t=.cw t.
w ~ .~u.~ t p x~}.u~ .w t.Wtp s p t .
s ~rz t.p t.u ~| .GIB? .p =| =.~.CIB? . =| =;.
\ ~}s p .w ~ v w .U xs p .t r{ s x}v .
uts t p {.w ~{xs p =._{tp t.r~}p r.w t.
tv x~}p {.s ~rz t .u~ .w ~ =.
cw t.u~{{~ x}v .x .w t.r~}p r.
x}u~ | p x~}.u~ .w t.T_P.Wtp s p t .
S~rz tI.S~rz t.R~~ sx}p ~ ;.
Wtp s p t ;.d =b=.T} x ~}| t}p {.
_ ~trx~}.Pv t}r ;.RTaR[P.S~rz t.
ûuxrt;.@B? @.R~} x x~}.P t} t.]f =;.
f x{{xp | .Ytuut ~}.R{x}~}.Q x{s x}v .
f t ;.a~~| .BBBC;.f p w x}v ~};.SR.
A? ? ? CJ.A? A> DEE? AFE=.6_{tp t.}~t.w x .
x .p . x xx}v .p s s t .~}{ =.\ p x{.
r~| | t} .~.w t.T_P.Wtp s p t .p .
s tp x{ts .p .wt.qtv x}}x}v .~u.w x .
tp | q{t=7.
cw t.r~}p r.x}u~ | p x~}.u~ .w t.
tv x~}p {.s ~rz t .x .p .u~{{~ I.
W~{{ .X}v {x ;.atv x~}.@.6Rc;.\ T;.\ P;.
]W;.aX;.ec7;.d =b=.T_P;.b t u }s .
26<38!Ugr!19-!3127
Lmv!349112
atr~ s .p }s .X}u~ | p x~}.Rt}t ;.D._~ .

ûuxrt.b p t;.b xt.@? ? ;.Q~ ~};.\ P.
? A@? HBH@AJ.E@F> H@G@C@B=.
X{s tu~} ~.Pr~ p ;.atv x~}.A.6]Y;.]h;.
_a;.eX7;.d =b=.T_P;.AH? .Q ~p s p ;.]t .
h~ z ;.]h.@? ? ? F@GEEJ.A@A> EBFCBCC=.
[~ xt.Qp z t .6PbaR7;.atv x~}.B.6ST;.
SR;.\ S;._P;.eP;.f e7;.d =b=.T_P;.
[xq p ;.@ED? .P rw .b tt;.\ p x{r~s t.
BWb@A;._w x{p s t{ w xp ;._P.@H@? BJ.A@D> .
G@CBBDD=.
Rp w .P| ~ ~ ~;.atv x~}.C.6P[;.U[;.
V P;.Z h;.\ b;.]R;.bR;.c]7;.d =b=.T_P;.E@.
U~ w .b tt;.bf =;.\ p x{r~s t.HcAD;.
P{p }p ;.V P.B? B? BJ.C? C> DEAGEBF=.
c~s s .` t p sp ;.atv x~}.D.6X[;.X];.\ X;.
\ ];.^W;.f X7;.d =b=.T_P.b t u }s .
Sx x x~}.[xq p xp }> bUS.atr~ s .
\ p }p v t .baRFY;.\ trp {ut.Utst p {.
Q x{s x}v ;.FF.f t .Yp rz ~}.Q~ {t p s ;.
Rw xrp v ~;.X[.E? E? CJ.B@A> GGECCED=.
Q t}s p .R~~z ;.atv x~}.E.6Pa;.[P;.
]\ ;.^Z ;.cg7;.d =b=.T_P;.@CCD.a~ .
P t} t;.b xt.@A? ? ;.\ p x{r~s t.EbUcb;.
Sp {{p ;.cg.FDA? AAFBBJ.A@C> EEDFCBE=.
Q xp }.\ xrwt{{;.atv x~}.F.6XP;.Z b;.
\ ^;.]T7;.d =b=.T_P;.@@A? @.at}}t .Q{ s =;.
\ p x{r~s t.bd _aTa]Q;.[t}t p ;.Z b.
EEA@HJ.H@B> DD@FEBB=.
exr~ .Z tt{{p t ;.atv x~}.G.6R^;.
\ c;.]S;.bS;.d c;.f h7;.d =b=.T_P;.@DHD.
f }z ~~ .b tt;.\ p x{r~s t.GT_aQ;.
St} t ;.R^.G? A? A@@AHJ.B? B> B@AEDFG=.
bw p ~}.\ p ;.atv x~}.H.6Pi;.RP;.
WX;.]e;.Pb;.V d ;.\ _7;.d =b=.T_P;.FD.
Wp w ~ }t.b tt;.\ p x{r~st.bUS.E@;.
bp }.U p }rx r~;.RP.HC@? DJ.C@D> HCF.
CAD? =.
Z t}.\ p r ;.atv x~}.@? .6PZ ;.XS;.â;.
f P7;.d =b=.T_P;.@A? ? .Ew.P t} t;.
\ p x{r~s t.TR[@@A;.btp {t;.f P.HG@? @J.
A? E> CEB@BCH=.
h~ .| p .p { ~. t t .r~ xt .u ~| .w t.
T_P.Wtp s p t .~ .w t. tv x~}p {.
s ~rz t =.P}.x}u~ | p {. t t ;. p w t .
w p }.p .u~ | p {. xt}. t t . }s t .w t.
U tts ~| .~u.X}u~ | p x~}.Pr;. w ~ {s .qt.
w t.~ s x}p . ~rts t.u~ .~qp x}x}v .
r~ xt .~u.p } .~u.w t t.s ~r | t} =._{tp t.
}~t.w p .s t.~.w t.s xuuxr { .~u.
t ~s rx}v .~ t x ts .| p ;.~ t x ts .
| p .| p .qt. xt ts .~}{ .x}< t ~}J.
x}rt.wt.T_P.s ~rz t .p t.}~.t x ts .
~.q~w .r~ .p }s.| p x{.~ . rw .| p .~ .
rp }.wt| .p }s. t}s .w t| .~ .
t{tr ~}xrp {{ =.
h~ .| p . t.w t.s ~rz t.p .j vvr<0 0
y y y /tgi w nc vkqpu/i qx!~.p rrt .
s ~r | t} .x}.w t.Wtp s p t .s ~rz t.
6 tt.x} rx~} .x}r{ s ts .x}.w t.
CFFTGUUGU trx~}7=._{tp t.}~t.wp .
w t t.p t.s xuut t}rt .qt tt}.w t.
Wtp s p t .s ~rz t.p }s .w t. tv x~}p {.
s ~rz t .p }s .w~ t.s xuut t}rt .p t.
~ {x}ts .x}.w x . tp | q{t;.btrx~} .XX=R.
p }s .S=.
RQ!11111
Hto!11124
Hov!5813
Uhov!5813
73542!
E/!Y j c v!f qew o gpvu!c tg!c xc knc dng!hqt!

rw dnke!tgxkgy !c v!vj g!GRC!Jgc f sw c tvgtu!
f qem gvA!
cw t.Wtp s p t .s ~rz t.u~ .w x .
~ ~ ts . {t.r~}p x} .w t.u~{{~ x}v .u~ .
w t. xt . ~ ~ ts .x}.w x . {tI.Wab.
r~ t. w tt J.s ~r | t}p x~}. tr~ s .
s t r xqx}v .w t.x}u~ | p x~}. ts .~.
r~| t.w t. r~ tJ.x}u~ | p x~}.u~ .p } .
xt .p uutrts.q . p xr {p . p ~ .
t x t| t} .~ .w t.T_P.{x x}v . ~{xrxt J.
p }s .p .{x .~u.s ~r | t} . tut t}rts .x}.
w t.s ~r | t}p x~}. tr~ s =.
F/!Y j c v!f qew o gpvu!c tg!c xc knc dng!hqt!
rw dnke!tgxkgy !c v!vj g!GRC!tgi kqpc n!
f qem gvuA!
cw t. tv x~}p {.s~rz t .u~ .w x . ~ ~ ts .
{t.r~}p x}.p {{.~u.w t.x}u~ | p x~}.x}.w t.
Wtp s p t .s ~rz t. { .w t.p r p {.
tut t}rt.s ~r | t} .r~}p x}x}v .w t.s p p .
x}rx p {{ . t{xts . ~}.p }s .rxts .q .w t.
T_P.x}.rp {r {p x}v .~ .t p { p x}v .w t.
Wab. r~ t.u~ .w t. xt =.cw t t. tut t}rt.
s ~r | t} .p t.p p x{p q{t.~}{ .x}.w t.
tv x~}p {.s ~rz t =.
G/!Jqy !f q!K!uw do kv!o {!eqo o gpvuA!
R~| | t} .| .qt. q| xts .~.w t.
T_P.Wtp s p t .p .s tp x{ts .p .w t.
qtv x}}x}v .~u.w x . tp | q{t.x}.w t.
CFFTGUUGU trx~}=._{tp t.}~t.wp .w t.
| p x{x}v .p s s t t .sxuut .p rr~ s x}v .~.
| tw ~s .~u.s t{x t =.cw t t.p t. ~.
s xuut t}.p s s t t .w p .s t t}s .~}.
w tw t .r~| | t} .p t. t}.q .t t .
| p x{.~ .q . ~ p {.| p x{=.
H/!Y jc v!jc rrgpu!vq!o {!eqo o gpvuA!
cw t.T_P.r~} xst .p {{.r~| | t} .
trtx ts .s x}v .w t.r~| | t}. t x~s =.
bxv }xuxrp }.r~| | t} .p t. xrp {{ .
p s s t ts .x}.p . ~ .s ~r | t}.w p .
w t.T_P. x{{. q{x w .r~}r t}{ . xw .
w t.Hgf gtc n!Tgi kuvgt!s ~r | t}.xu;.p }s .
w t};.w t. xt.x .{x ts .~}.w t.]_[=.
I /!Y j c v!ujqw nf!K!eqpukf gt!y j gp!
rtgrc tkpi !o {!eqo o gpvuA!
R~| | t} .w p .x}r{ s t.r~| {t .~ .
~{ | x}~ . t ~ ;.~ .| p t xp { .
t p ts .u~ . ~ t .~w t .w p }.Wab.
r~ x}v ;. w~ {s . ~x}.~ .w t. trxuxr.
x}u~ | p x~}.w p .wt.T_P. w ~ {s .
r~} xs t .p }s.w ~ .x.p uutr .x}s x xs p {.
Wab.up r~ . p { t .~ .~w t .{x x}v .
r xt xp .6Pqtvj ukf g!Uc pkvc t{!Nc pfhknn! =.
Vj qo c u-!GCH.U=As.@D@E.6S=R=.Rx =.
@HGG77=.cw t.T_P. x{{.}~.p s s t .
~{ | x}~ .r~| | t} .wp .p t.}~.
tut t}rts .~.w t.Wab.~ .~w t .{x x}v .
r xt xp =.cw t.T_P. x{{.}~.p s s t .
r~| | t} . }{t .w t .x}s xrp t. w xrw .
r~| ~}t}.~u.w t.Wab.s ~r | t}p x~}.
tr~ s .~ . w p . p xr {p . ~x}.x}.w t.
T_P . p ts .t{xv xqx{x .r xt xp .x .p .
x t=.
G<^HT^HO^1;UGR2/UIO
1;UGR2

73543!
s ~rz t .p ~ x| p t{ .~}t. ttz .p ut .

w t.u~ | p {.r~| | t}. t x~s .r{~ t =.
P{{. q{xr.r~| | t} ;. w tw t .
V t}t p {{ ;.wt.T_P. x{{.}~. t ~}s . q| xts .t{tr ~}xrp {{ .~ .x}. p t .
~.{p t.r~| | t} =.cw t.T_P.rp }.
u~ | ;. x{{.qt.| p s t.p p x{p q{t.u~ . q{xr.
v p p }tt.~}{ .wp .x. x{{.r~} xs t .
xt x}v .x}.w t.t{tr ~}xr. q{xr.s ~rz t.
w ~ t.r~| | t} . ~ | p z ts .q .w t.
p .j vvr<0 0 y y y /tgi w nc vkqpu/i qx!p .w t.
r{~ t.~u.wt.u~ | p {.r~| | t}. t x~s =.cw t. T_P. trtx t .w t| .p }s . xw ~ .rw p }v t;.
}{t .w t.r~| | t}.r~}p x} .
T_P.w p .p . ~{xr .~u.v t}t p {{ .}~.
s t{p x}v .p .ux}p {.{x x}v .s trx x~}. ~{t{ .~. r~ xv w ts .| p t xp {;.r~}uxst}xp {.
q x}t .x}u~ | p x~}.6RQX7.~ .~w t .
p rr~| | ~s p t.r~} xs t p x~}.~u.{p t.
x}u~ | p x~}. w ~ t.s x r{~ t.x .
r~| | t} =.
t xrts .q . p t=.^}rt.x}.w t. q{xr.
K/!O c {!K!xkgy !rw dnke!eqo o gpvu!
s ~rz t . t| ;. t{tr. tp rw ;.w t}.
uw do kvvgf !d{!qvj gtuA!
z t .x}.w t.p ~ xp t.s ~rz t.XS.
} | qt =.
S x}v .w t.r~| | t}. t x~s ;.
L/!O c {!K!uw do kv!eqo o gpvu!tgi c tf kpi !
r~| | t} .p t. {p rts.x}.w t.
Wtp s p t .s ~rz t.p }s .p t.p p x{p q{t.~. ukvgu!pqv!ew ttgpvn{!rtqrqugf !vq!vj g!PRNA!
w t. q{xr.~}.p }.p . trtx ts .qp x =.P.
X}.rt p x}.x} p }rt ;.x}t t ts . p xt .
r~| {tt. t.~u.r~| | t} . x{{.qt.
w p t. xt}.~.w t.T_P.r~}rt }x}v . xt .
p p x{p q{t.u~ . xt x}v .x}.w t. tv x~}p {.
w p . t t.}~.p .w p .x| t. ~ ~ ts .~.
J/!O c {!K!uw do kv!eqo o gpvu!c hvgt!vj g!
rw dnke!eqo o gpv!rgtkqf !ku!qxgtA!
w t.]_[=.Xu.w ~ t. xt .p t.{p t . ~ ~ ts .
~.w t.]_[;. p xt . w ~ {s . t xt .w tx .
tp {xt .r~}rt } .p }s;.xu. x{{.p ~ xp t;.
t q| x.w~ t.r~}rt } .u~ .
r~} xs t p x~}.s x}v .w t.u~ | p {.
r~| | t}. t x~s =.bxt< trxuxr.
r~ t ~}s t}rt. trtx ts . x~ .~.w t.
t x~s .~u.u~ | p {. ~ ~ p {.p }s .r~| | t}.
x{{.}~.v t}t p {{ .qt.x}r{ s ts .x}.w t.
s ~rz t=.
KKK/!Eqpvgpvu!qh!Vj ku!Rtqrqugf !Tw ng!
C/!Rtqrqugf !Cff kvkqpu!vq!vj g!PRN!
X}.w x . ~ ~ ts . {t;.w t.T_P.x .
~ ~ x}v .~.p s s .txv w . xt .~.w t.]_[;.
p {{.~.w t.V t}t p {.b t u }s . trx~}=.P{{.
~u.w t. xt .x}.w x . ~ ~ ts . {t| p z x}v .
p t.qtx}v . ~ ~ ts .qp ts .~}.Wab. r~ t .
~u.AG=D? .~ .p q~ t=.
cw t. xt .p t. t t}ts .x}.w t.p q{t.
qt{~ =.
IGPGTCN UWRGTHWPF UGEVKQP!

Uvcvg!
Ukvg!pcog!
HN //////////////////////
OC /////////////////////
PG /////////////////////
PX /////////////////////
P[ /////////////////////
RT /////////////////////
VP /////////////////////
VZ //////////////////////
Rquv!cpf!Nwodgt!Rtgugtxkpi!Eq/!Kpe ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Oketqhcd!Kpe!)Hqtogt* ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Qnf!JY[!386!cpf!P!399vj!Uvtggv ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Cpceqpfc!Eqrrgt!Okpg ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Uckpv.Iqdckp!Rgthqtocpeg!Rncuvkeu //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Vjg!Dcvvgt{!Tge{enkpi!Eqorcp{ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hqtogt!Ewuvqo!Engcpgtu /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Jkijyc{!29!Itqwpf!Ycvgt ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
KX/!Uvc vw vqt{!c pf !Gzgew vkxg!Qtf gt!

Tgxkgy u!
Ps s xx~}p {.x}u~ | p x~}.p q~ .w t t.
p t .p }s .T tr x t.^ s t .rp }.qt.
u~ }s .p .jvvru<0 0 y y y /grc /i qx0 nc y u.!
tgi w nc vkqpu0 nc y u.c pf .gzgew vkxg.qtf gtu/!
C/!Gzgew vkxg!Qtf gt!23977<!Tgi w nc vqt{!
Rnc ppkpi !c pf !Tgxkgy !c pf !Gzgew vkxg!
Qtf gt!24674<!Ko rtqxkpi !Tgi w nc vkqp!c pf !
Tgi w nc vqt{!Tgxkgy !
cw x .p rx~}.x .}~.p . xv }xuxrp }.
tv {p ~ .p rx~}.p }s . p .w t tu~ t.}~.
q| xts .~.w t.ûuxrt.~u.\ p }p v t| t}.
p }s .Q s v t.6^\ Q7.u~ . t xt =.
D/!Rc rgty qtm !Tgfw evkqp!Cev!)RTC*!

cw x .p rx~}.s~t .}~.x| ~ t.p }.
x}u~ | p x~}.r~{{trx~}.q st}. }s t .w t.
_aP=.cw x . {t.s ~t .}~.r~}p x}.p } .
x}u~ | p x~}.r~{{trx~}. t x t| t} .w p .
t x t.p ~ p {.~u.w t.^\ Q=.
E/!Tgi w nc vqt{!Hngzkdknkv{!Cev!)THC*!
X.rt xu .w p .wx .p rx~}. x{{.}~.w p t.
p . xv }xuxrp }.tr~}~| xr.x| p r.~}.p .
q p }xp {.} | qt .~u. | p {{.t}xxt .
}s t .wt.aUP=.cw x .p rx~}. x{{.}~.
x| ~ t.p } . t x t| t} .~}. | p {{.
t}xxt =.cw x . {t.{x x}v . xt .~}.w t.
]_[.s ~t .}~.x| ~ t.p } .~q{xv p x~} .~}.
p } .v ~ ;.x}r{ s x}v . | p {{.t}xxt =.cw x .
{t.p { ~.s ~t .}~.t p q{x w . p }s p s .~ .
28<25!Ugr!19-!3127
Lmv!349112
Ekv{0eqwpv{!
t x t| t} .wp .p } . | p {{.t}x .| .
| tt;.p }s .x| ~ t .}~.s x tr.r~ .~}.
p } . | p {{.t}x =.f w tw t .p }.t}x ;.
| p {{.~ .~w t x t;.x .{xp q{t.u~ . t ~} t.
r~ .u~ .p . t{tp t.~u.w p p s ~ .
q p }rt .s t t}s .~}. w tw t .w p .
t}x .x .{xp q{t. }s t .RTaR[P.@? F6 p 7=.
P} . rw .{xp qx{x .t x . tv p s {t .~u.
w tw t .w t. xt.x .{x ts .~}.w t.]_[.
w ~ v w .w x . {t| p z x}v =.
F/!W phw pf gf!O c pf c vgu!Tghqto !Cev!
)W O TC*!
cw x .p rx~}.s~t .}~.r~}p x}.p } .
}u }s ts .| p }s p t.p .s t r xqts .x}.
d \ aP;.A.d =b=R=.@DB@@DBG;.p }s .s ~t .
}~. xv }xuxrp }{ .~ . }x t{ .p uutr. | p {{.
v ~ t }| t} =.cw x .p rx~}.x| ~ t .}~.
t}u~ rtp q{t.s .~}.p } . p t;.{~rp {.~ .
xqp {.v ~ t }| t} .~ .w t. x p t. tr~ =.
[x x}v .p . xt.~}.w t.]_[.s~t .}~.x t{u.
x| ~ t.p } .r~ =.[x x}v .s ~t .}~.| tp }.
w p .w t.T_P.}trt p x{ . x{{. }s t p z t.
t| ts xp {.p rx~}=.]~ .s ~t .{x x}v . t x t.
p } .p rx~}.q .p . x p t. p ;. p t;.{~rp {.
~ . xqp {.v ~ t }| t} .~ .s tt | x}t.
{xp qx{x .u~ . t ~} t.r~ =.R~ .w p .
p x t.~ .~u. xt. t ~} t . t {.u ~| .
u t. xt< trxuxr.strx x~} . tv p s x}v .
w p .p rx~} .~.p z t;.}~.s x tr{ .u ~| .
w t.p r.~u. {p rx}v .p . xt.~}.w t.]_[=.
RQ!11111
Hto!11125
Hov!5813
Uhov!5813
Swkpe{/!
Cogudwt{/!
Xcnng{/!
[gtkpivqp/!
Xknncig!qh!Jqqukem!Hcnnu/!
Dq/!Ecodcncejg/!
Ogorjku/!
Mgtokv/!
G/!Gzgew vkxg!Qtfgt!24243<!Hgfgtc nkuo !

cw x .p rx~}.s ~t .}~.w p t.uts t p {x | .
x| {xrp x~} =.X. x{{.}~.w p t. q p }xp {.
s x tr.tuutr .~}.w t. p t ;.~}.wt.
t{p x~} w x .qt tt}.w t.}p x~}p {.
v ~ t }| t}.p }s .wt. p t ;.~ .~}.w t.
s x xq x~}.~u. ~ t .p }s.
t ~} xqx{xxt .p | ~}v .w t. p x~ .
{t t{ .~u.v ~ t }| t}=.
H/!Gzgew vkxg!Qtf gt!24286<!Eqpuw nvc vkqp!
c pf !Eqqtf kpc vkqp!Y kvj!Kpfkc p!Vtkdc n!
I qxgtpo gpvu!
cw x .p rx~}.s ~t .}~.w p t. xqp {.
x| {xrp x~} .p . trxuxts.x}.T tr x t.
^ s t .@B@FD=.[x x}v .p . xt.~}.wt.]_[.
s ~t .}~.x| ~ t.p } .r~ .~}.p . xqt.~ .
t x t.p . xqt.~.p z t. t| ts xp {.p rx~}=.
cw ;.T tr x t.^ s t .@B@FD.s ~t .}~.
p { .~.wx .p rx~}=.
I /!Gzgew vkxg!Qtf gt!241 56<!Rtqvgevkqp!qh!
Ej knf tgp!Htqo !Gpxktqpo gpvc n!Jgc nvj !
c pf !Uc hgv{!Tkum u!
cw t.T_P.x}t t .T tr x t.^ s t .
@B? CD.p .p { x}v .~}{ .~.w ~ t.
tv {p ~ .p rx~} .w p .r~}rt }.
t} x ~}| t}p {.w tp {w .~ . p ut . x z .w p .
w t.T_P.w p . tp ~}.~.qt{xt t.| p .
s x ~ ~ x~}p t{ .p uutr.rwx{s t};. t .
w t.s tux}xx~}.~u.r~ t ts . tv {p ~ .
p rx~}.x}. trx~}.AA? A.~u.w t.
G<^HT^HO^1;UGR2/UIO
1;UGR2

T tr x t.^ s t =.cw x .p rx~}.x .}~.
qytr.~.T tr x t.^ s t .@B? CD.
qtrp t.w x .p rx~}.x t{u.x . ~rts p {.
x}.}p t.6p s s . xt .~.p .{x 7.p }s .s ~t .
}~;.x}.p }s.~u.x t{u;. ~ xs t. ~trx~}.
u ~| .t} x ~}| t}p {.w tp {w .p }s . p ut .
x z =.bt p p t.u t. tv {p ~ .p rx~} .
p t. t x ts .u~ .| xxv p x~}.~u.
t} x ~}| t}p {.wtp {w .p }s . p ut . x z =.
J/!Gzgew vkxg!Qtf gt!24322<!Cevkqpu!Vj c v!
Uki pkhkec pvn{!Chhgev!Gpgti {!Uw rrn{-!
Fkuvtkdw vkqp-!qt!W ug!
cw x .p rx~}.x .}~. qytr.~.T tr x t.
^ s t .@BA@@;.qtrp t.x.x .}~.p .
xv }xuxrp }. tv {p ~ .p rx~}. }s t .
T tr x t.^ s t .@AGEE=.
K/!Pc vkqpc n!Vgej pqnqi {!Vtc puhgt!c pf !
Cf xc pego gpv!Cev!)PVVCC*!
cw x . {t| p z x}v .s ~t .}~.x} ~{ t.
trw }xrp {. p }s p s =.
L/!Gzgew vkxg!Qtf gt!239; 9<!Hgfgtc n!
Cevkqpu!Vq!Cff tguu!Gpxktqpo gpvc n!
Lw uvkeg!kp!O kpqtkv{!Rqrw nc vkqpu!c pf !
Nqy .Kpeqo g!Rqrw nc vkqpu!
cw t.T_P.qt{xt t .w t.w | p }.w tp {w .~ .
t} x ~}| t}p {. x z .p s s t ts .q .w x .
p rx~}. x{{.}~.w p t. ~t}xp {.
s x ~ ~ x~}p t{ .w xv w .p }s .p s t t.
w | p }.w tp {w .~ .t} x ~}| t}p {.tuutr .
~}.| x}~ x ;.{~ <x}r~| t.~ .x}s xv t}~ .
~ {p x~} .qtrp t.x.s ~t .}~.p uutr.
w t.{t t{.~u. ~trx~}. ~ xs ts .~.
w | p }.w tp {w .~ .wt.t} x ~}| t}=.P .
s x r ts .x}.btrx~}.X=R=.~u.w t.
tp | q{t.~.wx .p rx~};.w t.]_[.x .p .{x .
~u.}p x~}p {. x~ xxt =.cw t.]_[.x .
x}t}s ts . x| p x{ .~.v xs t.w t.T_P.x}.
s tt | x}x}v . w xrw . xt . p p }.u w t .
x} t xv p x~}.~.p t .w t.}p t.p }s.
t t}.~u. q{xr.wtp {w .p }s .
t} x ~}| t}p {. x z .p ~rxp ts . xw .p .
t{tp t.~u.w p p s~ . q p }rt ;.
~{{ p } .~ .r~}p | x}p } =.cw t.]_[.x .
~u.~}{ .{x| xts . xv }xuxrp }rt.p .x.s ~t .
}~.p xv }.{xp qx{x .~.p } . p =.P{ ~;.
{p rx}v .p . xt.~}.w t.]_[.s ~t .}~.| tp }.
w p .p } . t| ts xp {.~ . t| ~ p {.p rx~}.
}trt p x{ .}tts.qt.p z t}=.
Nkuv!qh!Uw dlgevu!kp!51 !EHT!Rc tv!41 1 !

T} x ~}| t}p {. ~trx~};.Px .
~{{ x~}.r~} ~{;.Rwt| xrp { ;.Wp p s ~ .
q p }rt ;.Wp p s ~ . p t;.
X}t v ~ t }| t}p {. t{p x~} ;.]p p {.
t ~ rt ;.^x{. ~{{ x~};._t}p {xt ;.
at ~ x}v .p }s . tr~ s z tt x}v .
t x t| t} ;.b t u }s ;.f p t .
~{{ x~}.r~} ~{;.f p t . { =.
Cw vj qtkv{<!BB.d =b=R=.@BA@6 s 7J.CA.d=b=R=.
HE? @HEDFJ.T=^=.@BEAE;.FF.Ua.DEFCH;.B.RUa;.
A? @B.R~| =;. =.B? EJ.T=^=.@AFFF;.DE.Ua.DCFDF;.
B.RUa;.@HH@.R~| =;. =BD@J.T=^=.@ADG? ;.DA.Ua.
AHAB;.B.RUa;.@HGF.R~| =;. =@HB=.
26<38!Ugr!19-!3127
Lmv!349112
Sp tsI.bt t| qt .@;.A? @E=.

O c vj {!Uvc pkunc w u-!
Cuukuvc pv!Cf o kpkuvtc vqt-!Qhhkeg!qh!Nc pf !c pf!
Go gti gpe{!O c pc i go gpv/!
73544!
f p w x}v ~};.SR.A? DDC=.cw t.u {{.t .x .

p { ~.p p x{p q{t.~}{x}t.p .j vvr<0 0
c rru/hee/i qx0 gehu0 /!cw x .s ~r | t}.s~t .
}~.r~}p x}. ~ ~ ts .x}u~ | p x~}.
jUa.S~r=.A? @EA@EAE.Ux{ts .HG@EJ.GICD.p | l.
r~{{trx~}. t x t| t} . qytr.~.w t.
DKNNKPI! EQFG! 767161R!
_p t ~ z .ats rx~}.Pr.~u.@HHD;.
_ q{xr.[p .@? C@B=.X}.p s s xx~};.
w t tu~ t;.x.s ~t .}~.r~}p x}.p } .
HGFGTCN!EQOOWPKECVKQPU!
~ ~ ts .x}u~ | p x~}.r~{{trx~}.q s t}.
EQOOKUUKQP!
u~ . | p {{.q x}t .r~}rt } . xw .ut t .
w p }.AD.t| {~ tt ;. p }.~.w t.
58!EHT!Rctv!84!
b| p {{.Q x}t ._p t ~ z .at{xtu.Pr.~u.
A? ? A;._ q{xr.[p .@? F@HG;.ugg!CC.d =b=R=.
]FC!27;86=!OD!Fqemgv!Pq/!27381=!TO!
22883_!
BD? E6 r76 C7=.
_ ~ x x~} .~u.w t.atv {p ~ .
Tcfkq!Dtqcfecuvkpi!Ugtxkegu=!Rkoc-!
U{
t
xqx{x .Pr.~u.@HG? .s ~.}~.p { .~.
Ctk|qpc!
w x . ~rtts x}v =.
CIGPE[<!Utst p {.R~| | }xrp x~} .
\ t| qt .~u.w t. q{xr. w ~ {s .}~t.
R~| | x x~}=.
w p .u ~| .w t.x| t.p .]~xrt.~u._ ~ ~ ts .
CEVKQP<!_ ~ ~ ts. {t=.
a {t.\ p z x}v .x .x ts . }x{.w t.| p t .
x .}~.{~}v t . qytr.~.R~| | x x~}.
UWOOCT[<!cw x .s ~r | t}. ~ ~ t .~.
p | t}s .w t.U\ .cp q{t.~u.P{{~| t} ;.q . r~} xs t p x~}.~ .r~ . t xt ;.p {{.gz!
q x x}v .}~}r~| | t rxp {.ts rp x~}p {. rc tvg!r~}p r .p t. ~w xqxts .x}.
R~| | x x~}. ~rtts x}v ;. rw .p .w x .
Rw p }}t{.8 AFGP.u~ .Rw p }}t{.8 AHEP.p .
_x| p ;.P x ~}p .~.p rr~| | ~s p t.w t.
~}t;. w xrw .x} ~{ t.rw p }}t{.p {{~| t} =.
w q xs .p {xrp x~};. t t x}v .
btt.CF.RUa.@=@A? C6 q7.u~ . {t .
| ~s xuxrp x~}.~u.w t.{xrt} t.u~ .bp x~}.
v ~ t }x}v . t | x xq{t.gz!rc tvg!r~}p r =.
Z XZ ^6 U\ 7.~. trxu .~ t p x~}.~}.
U~ .x}u~ | p x~}. tv p s x}v . ~ t .
Rw p }}t{.ACBRA. p w t .w p }.Rw p }}t{.
ux{x}v . ~rts t .u~ .r~| | t} ;. tt.CF.
ACFRA.p .R{p ~~{;.P x ~}p =.P. p uu.
RUa.@=C@D.p }s .@=CA? =.
t}v x}tt x}v .p }p { x .x}s xrp t .w p .
Rw p }}t{.8 AFGP.rp }.qt.p {{~ts .~._x| p . Nkuv!qh!Uw dlgevu!kp!58!EHT!Rc tv!84!
r~} x t}. xw .w t.| x}x| | .s x p }rt.
ap s x~;.ap s x~.q ~p s rp x}v =.
t p p x~}. t x t| t} .~u.w t.
R~| | x x~} . {t . xw.p . xt.
Uts t p {.R~| | }xrp x~} .R~| | x x~}=.
t xrx~}.@? .z x{~| tt .6E=A.| x{t 7.
Pc |khc !Uc y g|-!
~ w tp .~u.wt.r~| | }x =.cw t.
tut t}rt.r~~ s x}p t .p t.BACHCE.][. Cuukuvc pv!Ejkgh-!Cw fkq!Fkxkukqp-!O gf kc !
Dw tgc w /!
p }s .@? HCD@E.f [=.
FCVGU<!R~| | t} .| .qt.ux{ts .~}.~ .
U~ .w t. tp ~} .s x r ts .x}.w t.
qtu~ t.^r~qt .@F;.A? @E;.p }s . t { .
tp | q{t;.w t.Uts t p {.R~| | }xrp x~} .
r~| | t} .~}.~ .qtu~ t.]~ t| qt .@;.
R~| | x x~}. ~ ~ t .~.p | t}s .CF.RUa.
A? @E=.
p .FB.p .u~{{~ I.
CFFTGUUGU<!Uts t p {.R~| | }xrp x~} .
RCTV!84TCFKQ!DTQCFECUV!
R~| | x x~};.CCD.@Aw.b tt.bf =;.
UGTXKEGU!
f p w x}v ~};.SR.A? DDC=.X}.p s s xx~}.~.
ux{x}v .r~| | t} . xw .w t.URR;.
x}t t ts . p xt . w ~ {s . t t.w t. {t. ! @=.cw t.p w ~ x .rxp x~}.u~ . p .FB.
| p z x}v . txx~}t .p }s .w t.r~ }t .
r~}x} t .~. tp s .p .u~{{~ I.
~ ~}t}.p .u~{{~ I.Y~w }.U=.V p xv {xp ;.
Cw vj qtkv{<!CF.d =b=R=.@DC;.B? B;.BBC;.BBE.p }s.
T =;.f ~| q{t.Rp { {t.bp }s xsv t.4.axrt;. BBH=.
[[_;.@A? ? .@Hw.b tt.]f =;.b xt.D? ? ;.
f p w x}v ~};.SR.A? ? BE=.
84/313 ]Cogpfgf_!
HQT HWTVJGT KPHQTOCVKQP EQPVCEV<!
! A=.
btrx~}.FB=A? A6 q7;.w t.cp q{t.~u.U\ .
]p xup .bp t ;.\ ts xp .Q tp ;.6A? A7.C@G.
P{{~| t} . }s t .P x ~}p ;.x .p | t}s ts .
AF? ? =.
q . t| ~ x}v .Rwp }}t{.8 AHEP.p ._x| p J.
UWRRNGOGPVCT[ KPHQTOCVKQP<!cw x .x .p .
p }s .q .p s s x}v .Rwp }}t{.8 AFGP.p ._x| p =.
}~ x .~u.wt.R~| | x x~} .Pqvkeg!qh!
Rtqrqugf !Tw ng!O c m kpi -!\ Q.S~rz t.]~=. jUa.S~r=.A? @EA@FEC.Ux{ts .HG@EJ.GICD.p | l.
@EAF? ;.p s ~ ts .P v .AD;.A? @E;.p }s . DKNNKPI! EQFG! 782312R!
t{tp ts .P v .AE;.A? @E=.cw t.u {{.t .
~u.w x .R~| | x x~}.s trx x~}.x .p p x{p q{t.
u~ .x} trx~}.p }s.r~ x}v .s x}v .
}~ | p {.q x}t .w~ .x}.w t.URR .
atut t}rt.X}u~ | p x~}.Rt}t .p ._~ p { .
XX;.RhPADF;.CCD.@Aw .b tt.bf =;.
RQ!11111
Hto!11126
Hov!5813
Uhov!;;;1
G<^HT^HO^1;UGR2/UIO
1;UGR2
EXHIBIT 15
Hoosick Falls Update:

EPA Results Show Ballfields & Athletic Field
OK to Use
Community Update No. 3
Spring 2016
The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has been investigating the
Hoosick Falls perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) contamination in conjunction
with the Village of Hoosick Falls, the
county health department and the New
York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH) and Department of
Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC).
WHAT IS PFOA?
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) belongs to a group of
chemicals used to make household and commercial
products that resist heat and chemical reactions and
repel oil, stains, grease and water. PFOA was widely
found in non-stick pots and pans, carpets and firefighting foam.
In February 2016, EPA sampled soil at

the ballfields and park areas along
Waterworks Road as well as throughout
the Athletic Field to determine if past
releases from local manufacturing
facilities had contaminated the fields.
Samples of soil were collected in the
upper three inches and at a depth from
three to twelve inches below the ground
surface at 55 locations. Several samples
were also collected from depths between
1.5 and 20 feet below the ground
surface. Samples were analyzed for a
wide range of contaminants, including
PFOA and related compounds, volatile
and semi-volatile organic compounds,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
metals.
WHY IS PFOA A PROBLEM?

PFOA does not break down easily and therefore is very
persistent in the environment. Its toxicity and persistence
in the environment pose potential adverse effects to
human health and the environment.
WHAT DID THE RESULTS SHOW?

Levels of PFOA and related compounds
ranged from non-detect to 0.021 parts
per million (ppm), as compared with the
EPAs action level for PFOA in soil, which is currently 15.6 ppm. These levels will not
necessitate any need for cleanup work in any of the areas sampled. The highest
concentrations of PFOA and related compounds were generally found deeper than three
inches under the surface.
http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/hoosick-falls-water-contamination
(over)
The EPA also tested for an entire suite of other contaminants, including volatile and semivolatile compounds, PCBs and metals. Many of the compounds were not detected, and others
were found at levels well below EPA action levels.
IS ADDITIONAL ACTION NECESSARY?
Based on the data, the EPA does not plan any further actions at either the ballfields along
Waterworks Road or at the Athletic Field located on Barton Avenue. The EPA does not see a
need for any closure or restriction of any of the fields, which were thoroughly sampled.
Therefore, additional investigation is not needed in any of the areas sampled. EPA considers
the soil at the fields to be acceptable for recreational use.
WHERE ARE THE RESULTS AVAILABLE?
The analytical results are available on EPAs webpage for Hoosick Falls:
http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/hoosick-falls-water-contamination. The EPA may participate
in a public session in the future to explain the results and answer questions.
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION
The EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH will be planning and conducting soil and groundwater
sampling in other areas of Hoosick Falls, and will continue to provide updates on the status
of the investigation. Currently, the EPA is planning to undertake additional soil, groundwater
and sediment sampling near the McCaffrey Street facility in spring 2016, which will be
discussed in a separate fact sheet. All fact sheets are available on EPAs website, and copies
are being provided to the Tops Market and Cheney Library in Hoosick Falls.
As the overall investigation progresses, an Information Repository will be established at a
local library where the public can review and copy records related to EPAs work in Hoosick
Falls.
If you would like information about the sampling please contact:

Larisa Romanowski
U.S. EPA
Community Involvement Coordinator
(518) 407-0400
romanowski.larisa@epa.gov
Visit the EPAs website at:
http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/hoosick-falls-water-contamination
EXHIBIT 16

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
April 6, 2016
Honorable David B. Borge

Mayor, Village of Hoosick Falls
Municipal Building
24 Main Street
Dear Mayor Borge:
Thank you for your letter of February 5, 2016. We appreciate the Village's cooperation as we
continue to gather information about the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination in the
groundwater in Hoosick Falls and the possible sources of that contamination. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is working closely with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Department of Health (DOH) regarding the PFOA
contamination problem in the Village and Town and is committed to ensuring the protection of public
health and the environment in the community.
You asked a number of questions in your letter, some focused specifically on the authorities or
processes ofDEC or DOH. It is my understanding that the state agencies are speaking with you directly
regarding those questions. Attached are EPA's answers to your questions pertaining to our role and
authorities.
Regarding your recommendation that the agencies initiate a public education program to inform
residents about the efficacy of granular activated carbon treatment and DOH's confirmatory testing, my
understanding is that DOH has been providing such information to the community and will continue to
do so. Finally, in response to your request that another meeting be scheduled in Hoosick Falls,
involving EPA, DEC and DOH, we would be pleased to participate in such a meeting.
If you have any additional questions regarding EPA's work, please feel free to contact me at
212-637-5000 or contact Angela Carpenter ofEPA at ~arpcnler.anQela/(iepa.go\ or 212-637-4435.
/1
//
(jt/Cll
(I
Sincerely yours.
-:VI
V .k _
'-f1-1->,v'
C,""..----
Judith A. Enck
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Basil Seggos, NYSDEC
Howard Zucker, NYSDOH
Internet Address (URL) httpllwww.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable
.Printed
with Vegetable
Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer,
Process Chlorine
Free Recycled
Paper
Answers to Questions in February 5, 2016 Letter from Mayor of Hoosick Falls, NY

1. Will there be coordinated review between the EPA and DEe during this investigation? What
undertakings will each Agency be responsible for? Will one of the two Agencies be taking a lead in
this effort?
Answer: EPA, DEC and DOH are coordinating with each other during the investigation and will
continue to do so. DOH has the lead role with respect to confirming the effectiveness of the
temporary and permanent treatment systems for the Village's public water supply, and DEC and
DOH also have the lead role with respect to the evaluation of possible alternative water supplies for
the Village. The State will also continue to have the lead with regard to the private well sampling
and installation of point- of-entry treatment systems in the Town of Hoosick. Finally, the State and
EPA have agreed that DEC will have the lead in investigating possible sources of PFOA
contamination in the area, including locations on the west side of the Hoosick River.
As you know, EPA sampled ballfields and park areas along Waterworks Road from February 15 to
19, 2016, and during the week of February 22 -26, we collected soil samples in the Hoosick Falls
Athletic Field near the ice rink and community pool. The results of these sampling efforts are
described in EPA's Community Update No.3 on our Hoosick Falls web page,
http:'/\\ \\w.epa.~O\' aboutClM:htH isick-Ialls-water-contamination.
Over the course of the next month or so, EPA will conduct groundwater sampling at and adjacent to
Saint-Gobain's McCaffrey Street facility, and collect other water and soil samples at the facility. The
purpose of this sampling is to gather information that will aid EPA in evaluating the site for possible
inclusion on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). In addition, EPA, or a potentially
responsible party under EPA's oversight, will conduct soil sampling on properties near the
McCaffrey Street facility. This information will help us determine whether a cleanup action is
needed in these areas in the short term. These sampling efforts are described in EPA's Community
Update No.4 on our Hoosick Falls web page.
EPA and the State also expect that one or more of the potentially responsible parties will undertake a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) at Saint-Gobain's McCaffrey Street facility,
and other locations, under an administrative order on consent (AOC) issued by DEC. This study will
be designed to determine the nature and extent of the contamination and any risks that it poses, and
identify and evaluate remedial alternatives to address the contamination. EPA will have a
consultative role with DEe as this study is developed and carried out, and EPA and DEC will work
closely together during the remedy selection process.
2. How will each Agency go about determining" other sites" in which an investigation is deemed
necessary?
Answer: The determination of which locations need to be investigated will be based on a variety of
sources of information, including sampling data, hydrogeological information, and information
about past disposal activities or spills.

3. Will this investigation go beyond the Town and Village political boundaries?
Answer: While we do not presently expect that the site investigations will extend beyond the Town
and Village political boundaries, the geographic scope of the studies may change as new data is
obtained.
4. Are there specific levels of detection for PFOA that are deemed unacceptable for water, soil and
airborne sampling? What are they?
Answer: We assume that this question is seeking information about what levels ofPFOA in water,
soil and air would be deemed to present unacceptable risks to human health or the environment - not
the detection limits that can be achieved by analytical laboratories. Nationally, EPA is currently
evaluating the available peer-reviewed science to develop a lifetime health advisory level for PFOA
in drinking water, which the Agency expects to release in the spring of2016. Health advisories
identify the concentration in drinking water at which adverse health effects are not anticipated to
occur over a lifetime or shorter periods of exposure. They provide federal, state, local and tribal
governments with non-regulatory guidance to make decisions in cases involving an unregulated
contaminant. When issued, the lifetime health advisory for PFOA will supersede the provisional
health advisory of 0.4 parts per billion for PFOA issued in 2009.
Using currently available toxicity information, EPA calculated a site-specific action level for PFOA
in soil of 15.6 milligrams per kilogram (parts per million). This value was developed to be protective
of residents who might come in contact with contaminated soils in their yards. Soil action levels are
chemical-specific concentrations for individual contaminants in soil that may warrant further
investigation or site cleanup. EP A may revise the soil action value based on the Agency's final
toxicity assessment for PFOA, when it is available. Additionally, EPA may choose to develop a soil
action level that has been adjusted based on the use of a given property. For example, a soil action
level for a recreational use (such as playing baseball) might be higher than for a residential use, since
the exposure to contaminated soil in the former instance would be shorter in duration and the risk
would be more limited. Soil values could also be adjusted based on site-specific information on soil
type and other factors that would influence the migration of contaminants to groundwater.
EPA does not currently have a screening value for PFOA in air. However, because PFOA is not
considered a volatile chemical, during the RIIFS, EPA expects that the focus will be on the most
significant routes of exposure - ingestion of drinking water and exposure to soil contaminated with
PFOA.
5. Is it NYSDEC 's policy or EPA 's to obtain information from prior owners of the Saint-Gobain
McCaffrey Street property? What happens if these prior owners cannot be located, or are unwilling
to participate in the investigation? What steps does NYSDEC or EPA take to obtain information
from prior owners of the property?
Answer: EPA has the authority under federal law to require parties who may have information that
would aid in the investigation of an environmental problem to answer questions and provide
documents to the Agency. In this matter, EPA has sent such requests for information to both SaintGobain and Honeywell and has received information from both companies. DEe has sent requests
for information as well. The agencies can take additional measures to obtain information, such as
reviewing records and interviewing individuals who may have information.
3
6. Now that the Saint-Gobain McCaffrey Street property is a State Superfund Site, is EPA still
considering nominating the property for inclusion on the federal National Priorities List, as
recommended by NYSDEC in its letter to EPA dated January 14, 2016? If EPA continues to
consider the property for inclusion on the list, what steps will EPA take to involve local residents in
its decision-making process?
Answer: As discussed in the response to Question 1, above, EPA continues to gather data and other
information so that the Agency will be able to evaluate the Saint-Gobain McCaffrey Street facility,
and potential releases from the facility, for possible inclusion on the NPL. The public will have the
opportunity to comment on any NPL proposal, which will include the results ofEPA's sampling
activities.
7. As EPA and NYSDEC continue their investigations, how can the community be protectedfrom
receiving contradictory information from the Agencies?
Answer: EPA is in regular communications with DEC and DOH regarding this matter. We will
coordinate closely with the State to ensure that we provide the community with accurate
information.
8. Will either DEC or EPA attempt to place Saint-Gobain under a Consent Order? Is so, can the
County Health Department, NYS Health Department and the Village have input into that process
and possibly be signatories?
Answer: Please see the response to Question 1, above. Consistent with EP A policy and practice, it
will not be possible for the County or State Health Departments or Village to be co-signatories of a
consent order that EPA enters into with one or more of the potentially responsible parties. However,
we will continue to have regular communication with the State and the Village regarding the site.
EXHIBIT 17
New York State Announces Additional Progress in Addressing PFOA Co...
1 of 2
For Release: Tuesday, March 22, 2016
New York State Announces Additional Progress in

Addressing PFOA Contamination
Repeated Testing of Municipal Water Treatment System
Shows PFOA at Non-Detectable Levels
7 of 10 Samples Across Village Distribution System Show Non-Detectable Levels of PFOA (less than 2
ppt); Other 3 Samples All Under 5 ppt Expands PFOA Testing to Include Farms, Gardens and Various
other Sites Results Received for Additional 188 Residential Wells; 441 Water Filtration Systems
Installed
The New York State Department of Health and Department of Environmental Conservation today
announced their weekly progress in testing water samples, installing point-of-entry water filtration
systems, and providing residents with safe drinking water at their tap.
Municipal Filtration System

As Governor Cuomo announced during his visit to Hoosick Falls, the municipal water treatment system is
functioning properly and sampling shows it is removing PFOA to non-detectable levels. The municipal filtration
system consists of two granular activated carbon filters, and water runs through both filters before entering the
village distribution system. Water is sampled after it runs through the first filter, and again after the second
filter. Samples taken after the first filter show non-detectable levels of PFOA, even before the water is treated
a second time. DOH has conducted seven tests on 3/9, 3/11, 3/14, 3/15, 3/18, 3/19, and 3/20 -- and they all
resulted in non-detect levels of PFOA, showing that the system is fully operational.
Over the last week, numerous rounds of flushing have been completed throughout the distribution system.
This week, ten samples were taken from different areas throughout the village distribution system. Seven of
those samples showed non-detectable levels of PFOA (less than 2 ppt) while three samples showed levels of
4.10 ppt, 3.77 ppt, and 2.12 ppt. Below are the results.
Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 Location 6 Location 7 Location 8 Location 9
non-detect 2.12 ppt
non-detect non-detect non-detect 4.10 ppt
3.77 ppt
non-detect non-detect
State Expands Soil Sampling

As part of its Superfund investigation, DEC began sampling soil upon starting the aggressive Superfund
investigation to determine the extent of contamination and as part of DEC's investigation into illegal dumping
in the Hoosick Falls area. DEC will expand soil sampling in the Hoosick Falls area, in conjunction with DOH
and the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, to evaluate the potential for exposure from soils that
may have been impacted by contaminated water. As part of the State's Superfund investigation, additional
sampling will include certain agricultural lands, gardens and other sites.
Residential Filtration Systems

Additionally, DEC continues the installation of point-of-entry treatment (POET) filtration systems for homes
with private wells, with a total of 441 installed to date. DEC has received 768 requests for POETs, with 112
9/16/2016 1:18 PM
New York State Announces Additional Progress in Addressing PFOA Co...
2 of 2

requests over the past week, and performed 681 pre-evaluations, which are necessary prior to system
installation. Of those, 112 pre-evaluations were completed over the past week.
This Week's Sampling Results

Of the 188 water test results received by DOH since March 11, nearly all -- 179 --were less than the EPA
Advisory level of 100 part per trillion (ppt) and nine had levels of PFOA at or above the EPA Advisory level of
100 ppt. Of the 179 under the EPA Advisory of 100 ppt, 102 have non-detectable PFOA levels (less than 2
ppt) and 77 have levels between 2 and 100 ppt.
March 11 to
March 20, 2016
188
59
Total Results with levels of PFOA at or above 100 ppt
18

Total Results Below EPA Local Guidance of 100 ppt
March 11 to March 20, 2016

179
Total Results at or Above EPA Local Guidance of 100 ppt 9

Total Results Since

January 27, 2016
652
223
60
68
DEC Acting Commissioner Basil Seggos said, "Through Governor Cuomo's ongoing leadership, DEC
continues to make significant progress in our operation to provide drinking water to residents in the Hoosick
Falls area. Our dedicated staff from all across the state are working tirelessly to install water filtration systems
on private homes, advance a study on an alternate water supply, and continue our investigation into the
contamination in the area."
DOH Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said, "DOH staff continue to provide ongoing assistance to residents
in Hoosick and Hoosick Falls. More than 900 water samples have been taken throughout the area, our hotline
has fielded nearly 900 calls from people seeking information about PFOA. Governor Cuomo has provide both
DEC and DOH with the support and resources we need to address and resolve this problem."
To Learn More
Staff from both DOH and DEC have been holding informational sessions every Tuesday (2 p.m. to 8 p.m.),
Thursday (2 p.m. to 8 p.m.), and Saturday (10 a.m. to 2 p.m.), to help residents. More information is available
by calling the Hoosick Falls water hotline at: 800-801-8092 (Monday - Friday: 9 a.m. - 8 p.m.; Saturday: 9 a.m.
- 3 p.m.).
9/16/2016 1:18 PM

2016-09-26 Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016-09-26 Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civ. No. 1:16-CV-917 (LEK/DJS)

Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn

Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart

NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY THE MASTER

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2

Dated: September 26, 2016

/s/ Michael Koenig

/s/ Dale Desnoyers

Sheila L. Birnbaum (505978)

Attorneys for Defendant

Attorneys for Defendant Saint-Gobain

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civ. No. 1:16-CV-917 (LEK/DJS)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 50

PFOA Detection in Hoosick Falls and Response by Saint-Gobain and

Recent Test Results and Lifting of Water Use Restrictions ....................................7

New York Regulatory Efforts to Address PFOA in Hoosick Falls .........................8

Federal Regulatory Efforts.......................................................................................9

Plaintiffs Consolidated Class Action Complaint ..................................................10

Claims for Injunctive Relief.......................................................................11

Damages Claims ........................................................................................11

LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................................12

Subject Matter Jurisdiction ....................................................................................12

Primary Jurisdiction ...............................................................................................13

Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)..............................................................................13

PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE

This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction To Hear Plaintiffs Claims

EPAs Efforts to Date Are Removal Actions that Trigger

Plaintiffs Request for Injunctive Relief Amounts to a Challenge

Plaintiffs Claims Involve Technical and Policy Considerations

EPA, DEC, and NYDOH Have Discretion and Authority to

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 50

Plaintiffs Claims Present a Substantial Risk of Inconsistent

At a Minimum, A Temporary Stay of At Least 90 Days Is

THE DAMAGES CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED .................................................30

Plaintiffs Property Damage Claims Fail as a Matter of Law................................31

Alleged Groundwater Contamination Is Not Injury to Real

Property Damage Claims Fail Without Physical Injury to Property..........32

Plaintiffs Nuisance Claims Fail as a Matter of Law.............................................35

Plaintiffs Request for Medical Monitoring Fails as a Matter of Law...................36

Plaintiffs Do Not Allege a Physical Injury ................................................38

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 50

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 50

City of New York v. Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc.,

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 50

Integrated Waste Servs., Inc. v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc.,

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 50

Niagara Falls Redevelopment, LLC v. Cerrone,

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 50

S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. EPA,

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 9 of 50

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 10 of 50

Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (Saint-Gobain) and

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 11 of 50

Dismissal of Claims for Injunctive Relief

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 12 of 50

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 13 of 50

Case 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS Document 13-1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 14 of 50

PFOA Detection in Hoosick Falls and Response by Saint-Gobain and