UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q

(X)     QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003

OR

(   )     TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number 1-815

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19898
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(302) 774-1000
(Registrant's Telephone Number)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

996,776,918 shares (excludes 87,041,427 shares of treasury stock) of common stock, $0.30 par value, were outstanding at October 31, 2003.

1

Table of Contents

The terms "DuPont" or the "company" as used herein refer to E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and its consolidated subsidiaries (which are wholly owned or majority owned), or to E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, as the context may indicate.

2

See pages 6-30 for Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

See pages 6-30 for Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

See pages 6-30 for Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

5

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)

These statements are unaudited, but in the opinion of management, include all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) necessary to provide a fair statement of the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the dates and periods covered. Results for interim periods should not be considered indicative of results for a full year. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. Certain reclassifications of prior years' data have been made to conform to current year classifications.

The company has stock-based employee compensation plans which are described more fully in Note 25 to the company's consolidated financial statements included in the company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. Prior to January 1, 2003, the company accounted for these plans under the recognition and measurement provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees," and related Interpretations. Accordingly, no compensation expense had been recognized for fixed options granted to employees.

Effective January 1, 2003, the company adopted the fair value recognition provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," as amended, prospectively for all new awards granted to employees on or after January 1, 2003. Most awards under the company's plans vest over a three-year period. Therefore, the cost related to stock-based employee compensation included in the determination of net income (loss) for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, is less than that which would have been recognized if the fair value based method had been applied to all awards since the original effective date of SFAS No. 123. The following table illustrates the effect on net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share as if the fair value based method had been applied in each period.

6

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Interpretation (FIN) No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (VIEs), which is an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) No. 51, "Consolidated Financial Statements." FIN No. 46 addresses the application of ARB No. 51 to VIEs, and generally would require that assets, liabilities, and results of the activity of a VIE be consolidated into the financial statements of the enterprise that is considered the primary beneficiary. This interpretation applies immediately to VIEs created after January 31, 2003, and to VIEs in which a company obtains an interest after that date. The company has not created or obtained an interest in any VIEs in 2003. For VIEs in which a company holds a variable interest that it acquired before February 1, 2003, the FASB has postponed the date on which the interpretation will become applicable to December 31, 2003.

The company's commercial paper conduit finances its accounts receivable securitization and some of its synthetic lease programs. The company identified certain relationships within this structure as VIEs where DuPont was considered the primary beneficiary. As of September 30, 2003, the company has purchased assets under synthetic leases of $334 net of a $20 deferred gain associated with the initial sale and leaseback transaction. The company also purchased an interest in the revolving pool of trade accounts receivable under the securitization program for $445. See Note 16 for additional information related to these transactions.

The company has also identified two other non-consolidated entities as VIEs where DuPont is considered the primary beneficiary. One entity provides manufacturing services for the company and the other entity is a real estate rental operation. The company guarantees all debt obligations of these entities, which totaled $142 at September 30, 2003. These amounts are included within obligations for equity affiliates and others in Note 16. In accordance with the provisions of FIN No. 46, the company will consolidate these VIEs as of December 31, 2003. The company does not expect the consolidation of these VIEs to have a material effect on the consolidated results of operations or financial position.

7

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

Interest incurred year-to-date 2002 includes a charge of $21 for the early extinguishment of $242 of outstanding debentures; this charge principally represents premiums paid to investors.

During the third quarter and year-to-date 2003, there were no changes in estimates related to reserves established for restructuring initiatives in prior years. A complete discussion of these activities is included in Item 8 of the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, at Note 5, "Employee Separation Costs and Write-down of Assets."

During the third quarter of 2002, the company recorded a net benefit of $23 resulting from changes in estimates related to prior years' restructuring programs. This was principally attributable to net benefits associated with the 2001 restructuring program of $8 for lower dismantlement and removal costs and $7 for lower severance payments to terminated employees.

8

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

In addition to the net benefit of $23 discussed above, year-to-date 2002 includes charges in the Textiles & Interiors and the Agriculture & Nutrition segments. A charge of $209 was recorded in Textiles & Interiors in connection with a restructuring program instituted in the second quarter of 2002 to better align the business with accelerating structural changes so as to become a more competitive integrated enterprise and to respond to continuing weakening economic conditions, particularly in the U.S. textile industry. At June 30, 2003, essentially all 2,000 affected employees had been terminated. The year-to-date 2002 results for Textiles & Interiors also include a net charge of $9 related to exiting joint ventures in China. Of the net charge, $39 was recorded to withdraw from a polyester joint venture due to depressed market conditions. This charge, which covers the write-off of the company's investment in this joint venture, was partly offset by a $30 benefit res ulting principally from a favorable litigation settlement associated with the company's exit from a nylon joint venture in 1999. In addition, a charge of $37 was recorded in the Agriculture & Nutrition segment in connection with the company reaching a definitive agreement to sell a European manufacturing facility that was no longer required under the strategic business plan. The transaction closed during the second quarter of 2003.

In other restructuring activities, a program was instituted in the fourth quarter of 2002 in the Coatings & Color Technologies segment to enhance its position as a leader in the highly competitive global coatings industry, to align its businesses with accelerating structural changes, and to become a more competitive integrated enterprise. At September 30, 2003, approximately 650 of the 775 employees had been terminated.

Account balances and activity for the 2002 and 2001 programs are as follows:

9

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

The company is involved in ongoing negotiations to sell substantially all of the assets related to the Textiles & Interiors segment. At September 30, 2003, all criteria for classification as assets held for sale as defined by SFAS No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets" had been met (see Note 12). In addition, at that time the estimated fair value of assets to be sold was less than their carrying value. In the third quarter of 2003, the company recorded the following charges for the write-down of assets and other separation costs: property, plant and equipment of $949, intangible assets (excluding goodwill, see Note 6) of $49, equity affiliates of $238 and a pension curtailment loss of $78. The write-downs are based on estimates of fair value determined as a result of these negotiations. The company expects to complete the sale of these assets during the first half of 2004 subject to required regulatory approvals. However, there can be no assuranc e that the negotiations will result in an agreement being reached or, if an agreement is reached, of the terms, conditions or timing of any potential transaction. If a final agreement is reached, additional charges and credits related to the separation of Textiles & Interiors may be recorded, some of which may be material to the consolidated financial statements. Such charges and credits relate to, for example, the final terms of the sales agreement, possible pension plan settlements and other post-retirement benefit curtailment gains.

Based on the preliminary purchase price allocation associated with the acquisition of the non-controlling interest in DuPont Canada, an estimated goodwill impairment charge of $291 was recorded in the third quarter 2003 in connection with the expected sale of substantially all of the assets of the Textiles & Interiors segment. This charge was based on estimates of the fair value of reporting units within the Textiles & Interiors segment as determined through negotiations to sell the related assets.

In April 2003, the company formed a majority-owned venture, The Solae Company, with Bunge Limited, comprised of the company's Protein Technologies business and Bunge's North American and European ingredients operations. As a result of this transaction, the company's ownership interest in the Protein Technologies business was reduced from 100 percent to 72 percent. The company recorded a non-operating pretax gain of $62 in second quarter 2003 as the fair market value of the businesses contributed by Bunge exceeded the net book value of the 28 percent ownership interest acquired by Bunge.

As a result of the separation charges described in Note 5, the company recorded a tax benefit of $566, including $256 to recognize the differences between the book basis and tax basis of certain subsidiaries and affiliates as part of the expected sale.

10

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

On January 1, 2003, the company adopted SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations," which requires the company to record an asset and related liability for the costs associated with the retirement of long-lived tangible assets when a legal liability to retire the asset exists. This includes obligations incurred as a result of acquisition, construction, or normal operation of a long-lived asset. The provisions of SFAS No. 143 require the asset retirement obligations to be recorded at fair value at the time the liability is incurred. Accretion expense is recognized as an operating expense using the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate in effect when the liability was recognized. The associated asset retirement obligations are capitalized as part of the carrying amount of the long-lived asset and depreciated over the estimated remaining useful life of the asset.

The company has recorded asset retirement obligations primarily associated with closure, reclamation, and removal costs for mining operations related to the production of titanium dioxide. The adoption of SFAS No. 143 resulted in a charge of $46 ($29 after-tax) which has been reported as a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle. Such amount represents the difference between assets and liabilities recognized prior to the application of this statement and the net amounts recognized pursuant to this statement.

The estimated asset retirement obligation would have been $56 on January 1, 2002 and $60 on December 31, 2002 had this statement been applied as of January 1, 2002. Set forth below is a reconciliation of the company's estimated asset retirement obligations from January 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003.

Had the provisions of SFAS No. 143 been applied as of January 1, 2002, the pro forma effects for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 on Income (Loss) Before Cumulative Effect of Changes in Accounting Principles and Net Income (Loss) for the periods would have been immaterial.

On January 1, 2002, the company adopted SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," which resulted in a cumulative effect charge to income of $2,944. This charge was attributable to goodwill impairments of $2,866 in the Agriculture & Nutrition segment and $78 in the Textiles & Interiors segment.

11

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

Set forth below is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator for basic and diluted earnings per share calculations for the periods indicated:

The following average stock options are antidilutive, and therefore, are not included in the diluted earnings per share calculation:

12

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

The following represents the major classes of assets and liabilities held for sale. See Note 5 for additional information.

13

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

Changes in goodwill for the period ended September 30, 2003 are summarized in the table below.

14

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

The gross carrying amounts and accumulated amortization in total and by major class of other intangible assets are as follows:

15

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

The weighted average interest rate on short-term borrowings outstanding at September 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002 was 1.6 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively.

In 2001, the company received proceeds of $2,037 from entering into two minority interest structures. A complete discussion of these structures is included in Item 8 of the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 at Note 22, "Minority Interests." In the second quarter of 2003, the company redeemed these structures for $2,037.

On January 1, 2003, the company adopted FIN No. 45, "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others," which modifies existing disclosure requirements for most guarantees and requires that at the time a company issues a guarantee, the company must recognize an initial liability for the fair value of the obligation it assumes under that guarantee. The fair value of guarantees is determined by consideration of data in observable markets, comparable transactions and the utilization of probability-weighted discounted net cash flow models. The fair value of guarantees issued or modified from January 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003 was not material.

16

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

Information related to the company's guarantees is summarized in the following table:

The company warrants to the original purchaser of its products that it will, at its option, repair or replace, without charge, such products if they fail due to a manufacturing defect. The term of these warranties varies (30 days to 10 years) by product. The company's estimated product warranty liability as of September 30, 2003 is $18. The company has recourse provisions for certain products that would enable recovery from third parties for amounts paid under the warranties. The company accrues for product warranties when, based on available information, it is probable that customers will make claims under warranties relating to products that have been sold, and a reasonable estimate of the costs (based on historical claims experience relative to sales) can be made.

Set forth below is a reconciliation of the company's estimated product warranty liability from December 31, 2002 through September 30, 2003:

In connection with acquisitions and divestitures, the company has indemnified respective parties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with these transactions and business activities prior to the completion of the transaction. In addition, the company indemnifies its duly elected or appointed directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law against liabilities incurred as a result of their activities for the company, such as adverse judgments relating to litigation matters. The term of these indemnifications, which typically pertain to environmental, tax and product liabilities, is generally

17

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

indefinite. If the indemnified party were to incur a liability or have a liability increase as a result of a successful claim, pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, the company would be required to reimburse the indemnified party. The maximum amount of future payments is generally unlimited. The carrying amount recorded for all indemnifications as of September 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002 is $25 and $31, respectively. Although it is reasonably possible that future payments may exceed amounts accrued, due to the nature of indemnified items, it is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential loss or range of loss. No assets are held as collateral and no specific recourse provisions exist.

The company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to equity affiliates, customers and other unaffiliated companies. At September 30, 2003, the company had directly guaranteed $971 of such obligations, plus $227 relating to guarantees of certain obligations and liabilities of Conoco, Inc. as discussed below. This represents the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments that the company could be required to make under the guarantees.

Of the $971 directly guaranteed obligations, $72 is for short-term (less than one year) bank loans related to customers, $44 is for long-term (1-5 years) bank loans related to customers, $316 is for short-term (less than one year) bank borrowings related to equity affiliates, $394 is for long-term (1-6 years) bank borrowings related to equity affiliates, $103 is for historical obligations of a previously divested subsidiary (term 7 years), $29 is for revenue bonds (1-12 years), and $13 is for leases on equipment and facilities for external customers and equity affiliates. Existing guarantees for customers arose as part of contractual sales agreements. Existing guarantees for equity affiliates arose for liquidity needs in normal operations. The company would be required to perform on these guarantees in the event of default. In certain cases, the company has recourse to assets held as collateral as well as personal guarantees from customers. Assuming liquidation, these assets are estimated to cov er approximately 25 percent of the $121 of guaranteed obligations of customers. No material loss is anticipated by reason of such agreements and guarantees. At September 30, 2003, the company had no liabilities recorded for these obligations.

In addition, the company has historically guaranteed certain obligations and liabilities of Conoco, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates, which totaled $227 as of September 30, 2003. Conoco has indemnified the company for any liabilities the company may incur pursuant to these guarantees. The Restructuring, Transfer and Separation Agreement between DuPont and Conoco requires Conoco to use its best efforts to have Conoco, or any of its subsidiaries, substitute for DuPont. No material loss is anticipated by reason of such agreements and guarantees. At September 30, 2003, the company had no liabilities recorded for these obligations.

During the second and third quarters of 2003, the company exercised its purchase options in the synthetic lease programs related to corporate aircraft, rail cars, and manufacturing and warehousing facilities, thereby terminating these programs. As a result of these transactions, the company recorded assets of $334 net of a $20 deferred gain associated with the initial sale and leaseback transaction.

18

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

As of September 30, 2003 the company had one remaining synthetic lease program relating to short-lived equipment. In connection with this synthetic lease program, the company had residual value guarantees in the amount of $94 at September 30, 2003. The guarantee amounts are tied to the unamortized lease values of the assets under synthetic lease and are due should the company decide neither to renew these leases nor to exercise its purchase option. At September 30, 2003, the company had no liabilities recorded for these obligations. Any residual value guarantee amounts paid to the lessor may be recovered by the company from the sale of the assets to a third party.

As described in Note 23 to the company's consolidated financial statements included in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, the company had an accounts receivable securitization program to sell an interest in a revolving pool of trade accounts receivable. In July 2003, the company terminated this program and purchased the interest in the revolving pool of trade accounts receivable for $445. These trade accounts receivable were collected during the third quarter of 2003.

In June 1997, the company entered into contracts with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and Accenture LLP which are described in more detail in Note 23 to the company's consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. In April 2003, the contract with CSC was revised, resulting in the elimination of the future minimum payments due under the original contract.

In 1991, DuPont began receiving claims by growers that use of BenlateÒ 50 DF fungicide had caused crop damage. DuPont has since been served with several hundred lawsuits, most of which have been disposed of through trial, dismissal or settlement. The status of BenlateÒ cases is indicated in the table below:

19

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

Twenty-one of the ninety-five cases pending against the company at September 30, 2003, were filed by growers who allege plant damage from using BenlateÒ 50 DF and, in some cases, BenlateÒ WP. Forty-two of the pending cases seek to reopen settlements with the company by alleging that the company committed fraud and misconduct, as well as violations of federal and state racketeering laws. Four of the pending cases include claims for alleged personal injuries arising from exposure to BenlateÒ 50 DF and/or BenlateÒ WP. Twenty-eight of the pending cases include claims for alleged damage to shrimping operations from BenlateÒ OD.

In August 2001, a Florida jury found DuPont liable under Florida's racketeering statute and for product defect involving alleged crop damage. In March 2002, pursuant to DuPont's motion, the judge withdrew the jury's finding of liability under the racketeering statute and entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $29. The judgment was later reduced to $26. DuPont has appealed. The company has concluded that it is not probable that the adverse judgment in this case will ultimately be upheld; therefore, DuPont has not established a reserve for this matter. The remaining crop cases are in various stages of development, principally in trial and appellate courts in Florida.

In forty-two cases, plaintiffs who previously settled with the company seek to reopen their settlements through cases alleging fraud and other misconduct relating to the litigation and settlement of their BenlateÒ 50 DF claims. The Florida federal court has dismissed the lead case of the twenty-eight reopener cases pending before it. The dismissal has been affirmed by the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The fourteen remaining reopener cases are in various stages of development in trial and appellate courts in Florida and Hawaii.

There are currently four cases pending involving allegations that BenlateÒ caused birth defects to children exposed in utero. Of these four cases, the federal court in West Virginia has dismissed one case on the grounds of insufficient scientific support for causation. It has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The remaining three cases are pending in Delaware. Two of these cases were dismissed for not being timely filed and were appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. In April of 2003, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the dismissals and remanded these two cases, involving six plaintiffs, to the trial court for further proceedings. In the third case pending in Delaware and scheduled for trial in November of 2003, DuPont argued its motion to dismiss the case due to insufficient scientific support for causation. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. A fifth case was tried in Florida resulting in a $4 verdict against DuPont. The verdict was reversed at the intermediate appellate level because the plaintiffs' scientific support for causation was insu fficient. The case was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and the verdict for the plaintiffs was reinstated with interest. Further appellate review was denied and the judgment of approximately $6.8 has been paid and the case closed. DuPont does not expect the Florida Supreme Court's decision to have precedential value in the four pending cases because Florida uses a different standard to determine admissibility than the federal courts and the majority of state courts.

The twenty-eight cases involving damage to shrimp are pending against the company in state court in Broward County, Florida. These cases were brought by Ecuadorian shrimp farmers who allege that BenlateÒ OD applied to banana plantations in Ecuador ran-off and was deposited in plaintiffs' shrimp farms, causing massive numbers of shrimp to die. Two cases were tried in the fall of 2000 and in early 2001, which resulted in adverse judgments of approximately $14 in each case. DuPont contends that the injuries alleged are attributable to a virus, Taura Syndrome Virus, and in no way involve BenlateÒ OD.

20

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

The company appealed both cases. On September 17, 2003, the intermediate appellate court reversed the adverse verdict against DuPont in the first case. Plaintiffs are expected to seek a further appeal of this ruling. DuPont has not established an accrual for either case because the company has concluded that it is not probable that the adverse judgments at the trial level ultimately will be upheld. The 26 untried cases are on hold pending the resolution of the appeal of the case tried in the fall of 2000. Oral arguments on the second case that DuPont appealed were heard by the intermediate appellate court on July 2, 2003, but no decision has been rendered.

A securities fraud class action was filed in September 1995 by a shareholder in federal district court in Florida against the company and the then-Chairman. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that DuPont made false and misleading statements and omissions about BenlateÒ 50 DF, with the alleged effect of inflating the price of DuPont's stock between June 19, 1993, and January 27,1995. The district court certified the case as a class action. In March 2003, DuPont entered into an agreement to settle this case for $77.5. On March 14, 2003, the court gave preliminary approval to the settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement on May 30, 2003. The settlement amount has been paid and the case has been closed.

DuPont does not believe that BenlateÒ caused the damages alleged in each of these cases and denies the allegations of fraud and misconduct. DuPont continues to defend itself in ongoing matters. As of September 30, 2003, DuPont has incurred costs and expenses of approximately $1,900 associated with these matters. The company has recovered approximately $250 of its costs and expenses through insurance, including $25 received in August 2003 from insurance covering the securities fraud class action mentioned above. While management recognizes that it is reasonably possible that additional losses may be incurred, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

In the second half of 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a priority review of perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts (collectively referred to herein as PFOA), which to date have not been regulated by the EPA. As part of this review, on November 4, 2002, the EPA issued a revised draft hazard assessment of PFOA and on April 14, 2003, it issued a preliminary risk assessment on PFOA. The EPA's preliminary risk assessment indicates potential exposure of the U.S. general population to PFOA at very low levels and states that there could be a potential risk of developmental and other effects associated with PFOA exposure. The EPA states that considerable scientific uncertainty remains regarding potential risks associated with PFOA. However, the EPA has said it does not believe there is any reason for consumers to stop using any consumer or industrial-related products because of questions about PFOA. The EPA also started a public process to identify and generate additio nal information to develop a more accurate risk assessment and to identify what voluntary or regulatory mitigation or other actions, if any, might be appropriate. The EPA also invited interested parties to participate in publicly negotiated agreements, known as enforceable consent agreements or ECAs, with the EPA to develop information that enhances the understanding of the sources of PFOA in the environment and the pathways by which human exposure to PFOA is occurring.

21

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)

DuPont uses PFOA as a processing aid to manufacture fluoropolymer resins and dispersions at various sites around the world. DuPont purchased PFOA from a third party until it began manufacturing PFOA in North Carolina in the fall of 2002. Some of the waste stream from the manufacture of PFOA is treated at DuPont's Chambers Works site in New Jersey. DuPont also manufactures fluorinated telomers that are used in soil, stain and grease repellants for the paper, apparel, upholstery and carpet industries. DuPont does not use PFOA as a processing aid in the manufacture of these telomers, but studies have indicated that trace amounts of PFOA may be present.

Based on over fifty years of industry experience and extensive scientific study, DuPont does not believe there is any evidence that PFOA causes any adverse human health affects or harms the environment. However, DuPont respects the EPA's position raising questions about exposure routes and the potential toxicity of PFOA. Therefore, before April 14, 2003, DuPont and other interested companies filed Letters of Intent with the EPA specifying on-going voluntary programs concerning PFOA and fluorinated telomers. In addition, the companies have outlined plans for continued research, emission reduction activities, and product stewardship activities to help address the EPA's questions. The result of the process that the EPA has put in place will be a refined risk assessment, including comments and recommendations by the agency's Science Advisory Board, and a determination as to what, if any, regulations are appropriate regarding PFOA. DuPont estimates that this process will continue into 2004.

DuPont's Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia, is one of the sites at which the company uses PFOA as a processing aid to manufacture fluoropolymer resins and dispersions. Currently, DuPont recovers or destroys 75 percent of the PFOA that potentially could be emitted or discharged during the manufacturing process at the Washington Works plant. By the end of 2004, the company expects that more than 90 percent will be recovered or destroyed. In November of 2001, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and DuPont signed a Multimedia Consent Order (the Order) that requires environmental sampling and analyses and the development of screening levels for PFOA that is used or managed by the Washington Works plant. As a result of this process, WVDEP issued its Final Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate Assessment of Toxicity Team Report in August 2002. In the report, the WVDEP established a screening level of 140 micrograms PFOA per liter screening level for drinking water and a soil screening level of 240 parts per million. None of the local sources for drinking water has tested at or above the screening level. The report established a screening level of 1 microgram per cubic meter for air. In the fall of 2003, the WVDEP determined that compliance with the air screening level is to be demonstrated by air dispersion modeling with initial compliance to be demonstrated by air dispersion modeling for the time period starting in September 2002 and ending in August 2003. DuPont recently submitted to the WVDEP its initial modeling results; they show that the air screening level was not exceeded during the time period. Unless DuPont violates its terms, the Order does not call for sanctions. DuPont has completed all major activities currently required by the Order and has spent approximately $3.3 million through September 30, 2003, in connection with these activities. DuPont expects to continue to monitor public drinking water supplies in and around the Washington Works pl ant on a quarterly and/or annual basis. The scope and extent of this monitoring has yet to be determined. In addition, the company may perform other environmental monitoring as suggested by results received from studies performed under the Order.

22

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in millions, except per share)
(continued)