Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :88-cv-00263-SLR Document 325 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
Confidential ’ l
H e © a u wz e @
.· . ROBINS
if U ¤ gr U-S-DlSTR1cTJU%gE ¤
\‘·+ 4: *_\ GTEBI Ltikes Environmental
1903.2003 b`_Imf__ if an Mn ecular Science Center
February 14, 2006
The Honorable ]udge Sue L Robinson
United State District Court for the District of Delaware
j. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Dear Iudge Robinson:
Let re—introduce myself. I last appeared before you in the matter of NRDC vs. Motiva
(Texaco) in early 2000. If you recall, I was originally appointed by judge Longobardi as an
expert to serve the court as an impartial scientific reference. I prepared the written document
and offered testimony in court before ]udge Longobardi upon which in part he based his order
of 3/ 5/ 1996. Subsequently, in 1999, I was asked to review the preliminary research conducted
by Motiva and its sub—contractors as well as the planned three year environmental impact study
proposed by Motiva. I testified before you in 2000 regarding the inadequacies of the proposed
plan and subsequently you ordered that a settlement agreement reached between Motiva with
its contractors and the NRDC be carried out. The settlement agreement study plan agreed to
was largely based upon the science that I recommended in my report to judge Longobardi and
the critique that I presented before you.
I have recently learned that a study was carried out by Motiva and that a review of the
data and report was carried out by Dr. Livingston the NRDC chief science advisor on this
matter. I was contacted by the N RDC in the Spring of 2005 and asked for the names of others
who could serve as a neutral scientific reference and I provided one or two names. I also
learned that Motiva strongly opposed my participation in any review of the data and reports.
Recently, I learned that the N RDC has filed for a hearing on the matter of whether the
studies conducted by Motiva were in compliance with the settlement agreement, whether the
data gathered were interpreted properly and whether the report conclusions therefore are
supported by the data. At this time, I am requesting a decision from you as to whether you
wish for me to serve as the scientific expert to the court in this case. I am willing and able to do
so at this time. Please advise me as to how best to serve the court in this instance.
Sincerely,
M%y{/[0,44;%.y
]ay C. ans
Gwen Frostic Professor of Toxicology
and Environmental Chemistry,
Department of Chemistry
Associate Director, Environmental Research Center
l

Case 1 :88-cv-00263-SLR Document 325 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
. · @@9
ID .4 r.
2 >£
N 5 O
O C
9 2 z
3 FD
5 2
A? w
. I w O
A ‘+,O CL
a;· °° Q
*’*` *=h, B
#.4- _ 5
‘·.‘\ .5 '·
· Qi*?’f=”
mv-·¤(;-{ »—-1 2
w (`}»@-E. EQ -
w §E%E$m *
W :s :s crm @0
lj CNOQ "* U} C3 2
·-· 8 mgm EY 9* ’
+ 5* ¤"¤¤ F6 ¤= ·
EJ 0:% Et E
. U FD J
|_¤1 [-rj gj £Q.___`
E ..· ¤. za. §_ g
§ 94 '·?·¤¤ J
cz E. mm ;
»-· O U'} 1
:··· CU C 5: .
Z -1 'V . F
Z: ·-· "" [-• 2 :
1* "*¤ ;
r Og 3 § z
T- "‘ 0** . . 3
E—— {g; ]_ +»·' ' ¤
2
?- ea" ua \`;
5: 9, W`] 2
E- { { ! I -
a * l x
; \ x ¤ 0
5; 1 j } 2
E` i 0
~ f I s 1
' clk? ¤ 1.*;
E ··?$.`§W
5 IN9 I i
i . , M
> htffm