1 times Defendants, and each of them, knew that there is no basis in fact for making such a representation.
2 c) That the levels of chemical exposure in a "clean room" environment were maintained within OSHA exposure limits and that therefore workers face no significant health risks from exposure to the clean room environment, when Defendants, and each of them, knew that: OSHA permissible exposure limits ("PELS") are not based on the potential for adverse chronic effects in exposed workers, including cancer, and that therefore no factual basis exists for such a representation;
3 d) That each and every one of Defendants' chemical compounds used in clean rooms or elsewhere had been tested for its carcinogenicity, co-carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and immunotoxicity potential--both as a separate compound and under conditions replicating a multi-chemical clean room environment--and had been demonstrated to be free of all such risk when Defendants, and each of them, knew that these chemicals and chemical compounds had not been so tested and studied and that no proof existed that exposed workers were free of these risks;
4 e) That no constituents in any chemicals used in clean rooms or elsewhere posed any significant risk of cancer or chronic disease to working people when Defendants, and each of them, knew that: there is no basis in fact for such representation:
5 f) That there was no evidence of any significant risk of human harm from exposure to chemicals used in clean rooms, when Defendants, and each of them, knew that they had no basis in fact for making such a representation;
6 g) That there were no human data indicating that exposure to chemicals used in clean rooms posed any risk to human health of chronic disease or reproductive harm when Defendants, and each of them, knew that there was no factual basis for such an assertion;
7 h) That there were no human data to indicate that exposure to chemicals used in clean rooms posed any risk to human health of chronic disease or reproductive harm, when Defendants, and each of them, knew there was a significant risk of injury.
8 46. At all relevant times IBM employees, including plaintiffs and plaintiffs' decedent, relied on Page 11

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH

MM 006962