Document 06odbpB6b0OKw6DJOL0E5LbKR
-/^ & Por
H FS^O VA^>aje.o rcjZ-'f^C?
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
2
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
4
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
5 V. 6 PHARMACIA CORPORATION, ET
) NO. 99-63-DRH )\
)
AL. , 7
) )
DEFENDANTS.
)
8 9 PHARMACIA CORPORATION AND
) \/
)
.
SOLUTIA, INC.,
)
10 )
COUNTERCLAIM
)
11
PLAINTIFFS,
)
V. )
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) )
'
13 ET AL.,
)
)
14
COUNTERCLAIM
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
15
16 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE
TAKEN BY RICHARD E. GREENBERG, ESQ.
17 ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ZINC COMPANY
JULY 22, 2003
18
19 20 REPORTED BY JULIE ANN WHITING
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
21
22 23 RANKIN REPORTING & LEGAL VIDEO, INC.
1015 LOCUST STREET, SUITE 911
24 ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101-1329 (314) 231-2202
25 (800) 285-2115
Page 1
WATER PCB-SD0000076117
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TOE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
2 3 UNriED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
4) PLAINTIFF, )
5 v.
) ) NO.99-63-DRH
6)
PHARMACIA CORPORATION, ET )
7 AL,,
)
) 8 DEFENDANTS. )
)
9)
PHARMACIA CORPORATION AND
10 SOLUTIA, INC,
)
)
11 12 v.
) COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
)
) 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
ET AL,
)
14 )
COUNTERCLAIM )
15 DEFENDANTS. )
16
17
18 DEPQSmON OF WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, produced,
sworn and examined on the 22nd day ofJuly, 2003, at the
19 offices ofHusch&Eppenberger, LLC, 190 Carondelet
Plaza, Suite 900, in the City ofSt. Louis, State of
20 Missouri, before Julie Ami Whiling, Certified Shorthand
Reporter in and for die State ofMissouri, in a certain
21 cause now pending hi The United States District Court,
For the Soutliem District ofIllinois, between UNITED
22 STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, and PHARMACIA CORPORATION,
ET AL, DEFENDANTS, AND PHARMACIA CORPORATION AND
23 SOLUTIA, INC, COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS, AND UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.
24
25
1 APPEARANCES 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF (teleplionicaily): 4 United States Department ofJustice
Environmental Enforcement Section 5 JeffieySpector, Esq.
P.O.Box 7611 6 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044 7 8 ON BEHALF OF PHARMACIA CORPORATION AND SOLUTIA INC: 9 Husch & Eppenberger, LLC
Joseph Nassif Esq. 10 190 Caiondelet Plaza, Suite 600
Clayton, Missouri 63105-3441 11 12 ON BEHALFOF ROGERS CARTAGE: 13 Schultz & Little, L.LP.
Vicki Little, Esq. 14 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
Cliesterfieki, Missouri 63005 15 16 ON BEHALFOF KERR-MCGEE CHEMICALLLC: 17 Stinson Monison Hecker LLP
Jon Santangelo, Esq. 18 100 South Fourth Sheet, Suite 700
St Louis, Missouri 63101 19 20 ON BEHALF OF THE VILLAGEOF SAUGEP 21 Law Office ofDaniel J. Hayes, Esq.
Daniel J. Hayes, Esq. 22 3540 Nath Belt West
Belleville, llliiwis 62223 23 24 25
Page 2
1 ON BEHALF OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION (telephonically):
2 McDermott, Will & Emery
Jeffrey A. Sepesi, Esq.
3 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4400
Chicago, Illinois 60606-5096
4 5 ON BEHALF OF SAUGET & COMPANY (telephonically):
6 Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
Daniel C. Mutiny, Esq.
7 55 East Monroe Sheet, Suite 4100 Chicago, Illinois 60603-5896
8 9 ON BEHALF OF CERRO COPPER (telephonically):
10 Lowenstein Sandler
Chris Hopkins, Esq.
11 Timothy Beritowski, Esq.
65 Livingston Avenue
12 Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1791
13 ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ZINC COMPANY:
14 Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C.
15 Richard Greenberg, Esq.
2000 Equitable Building
16 10 South Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1774
17 18 19 INDEX
20 Examination by Mr. Greenberg
Page 7
21 Examination by Ms. Little
Page 115
22 Examination by Mr. Spector
Page 121
23 Examination by Mr. Murray
Page 127
24 Examination by Mr. Santangelo Page 129 25 Further Examination by Ms. Little Page 140
Page 3
1 EXHIBITS
2 Papageorge Exhibit l
Page 8
(Curriculum Vitae)
3
Papageorge Exhibit 2
Page 15
4 (Report on Disposal ofSolid Toxic
Wastes, Residues, and Trash from
5 J.F. Queeny & W.G. Knimmrich Plant)
6 Papageorge Exhibit3
Page28
(Memo dated 1/15/88)
7 Papageorge Exhibit 4
Page39
8 (Process Description for tire
Manufacture ofAroclors)
9
Papageorge Exhibit 5
Page53
10 (Document dated 2/5/69 entitled
Highlight Report January 1969)
11
Papageorge Exhibit 6
Page55
12 (Letter dated 7/31/72 entitled
Polychlorinated Biphenyls and the
13 Environment)
14 Papageorge Exhibit 7
Page57
(Document dated 12/11/72 entitled
15 Polychlorinated Biphenyls In Hand
Status Report)
16
Papageorge Exhibit 8
Page64
17 (Document entitled 10 Yr. Production)
18 Papageorge Exhibit 9
Page68
(Progress Report dated 12/15/70)
19
Papageorge Exhibit 10
Page71
20 (Document dated 11/6/59 entitled
Aroclor Loss to Sewer)
21
Papageorge Exhibit 11
Page74
22 (Document dated 2/21/74 entitled Proposed
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Standard)
23
Papageorge Exhibit 12
Page79
24 (Document entitled Item 5)
25
Page 4 Page 5
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
WATER PCB-SD0000076118
1 EXHIBITS
2 Papageorge Exhibit 13
Page 86
(Document entitled PCB's Allowable
3 Discharge from Producing/Using Plants)
4 Papageorge Exhibit 14
Page 94
(PCB Bwironmenlal Problem December
5 Status Report dated 1/8/71)
6 Papageorge Exhibit 15
Page 99
(PCB - Loss Control Program Status dated
7 4/6/72)
8 Papageorge Exhibit 16
Page 101
(Memorandum dated 11/22/85)
9
Papageorge Exhibit 17
Page 107
10 (Progress Report dated 3/13/70)
11 Papageorge Exhibit 18
Page 120
(PCB Environmental Problem February
12 Status Report dated 3/9/71)
13 Papageorge Exhibit 19
Page 123
(October 1971 PCB Report)
14
Papageorge Exhibit 20
Page 134
15 (PCB Environmental Problem September
Status Report dated 10/6/70)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6
1 the Village of Sauget, and on the phone are counsel for 2 the United States, the Village of Sauget, and Ceiro 3 Copper. Do I have everybody? 4 MR HAYES: Paul Sauget was the other one. 5 MR. MURRAY: Yeah. Dan Murray for Paul 6 Sauget I'm not an attorney for the Village. 7 Q (By Mr. Greenberg) Mr. Papageorge, matted in 8 front ofyou is a document thats been marked as 9 Exhibit 1. Is that a copy ofyour Cutriculum Vitae? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q, Is it accurate? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. It identifies your current address as 14 321 Pebble Valley Drive. Is that your current address? 15 A. That is. 16 Q. Do you have any plans to leave the St. Louis 17 area on a permanent basis? 18 A. I do not. 19 Q. Can you give me your date ofbirth? 20 A. September 7th, 1922. 21 Q. And you received a degree from Washington 22 University in 1943 and then a Master's in 1947? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. And during 1943 to 1946, you were in the 25 military; is that right?
Page 8
Page 7
1 STIPULATION 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between 3 counsel for the parties that this deposition may be 4 taken in shorthand by Julie Ann Whiting, Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter, and afterwards transcribed into 6 printing, and signature by the witness is not waived. 7 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 8 of lawful age, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, 9 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, deposes and 10 says as follows: 11 EXAMINATION BY MR GREENBERG: 12 Q. Mr. Papageorge, my name is Richard Greenberg. 13 I'm an attorney for Blue Tee Coip, which has an 14 affiliation with the American Zinc Company. I'll be 15 asking you some questions today. If I ask you a 16 question you don't understand, please let me know and I 17 will rephrase the question so you understand it 18 A. I will do that. 19 Q. And please understand that if I ask you a 20 question and you do answer that question, the record 21 will reflect that you understood what it was that I was 22 asking you. Do you understand that, sir? 23 A. I do. 24 MR GREENBERG: For the record, present here 25 in this room are counsel for Rogers Cartage, Ken-McGee,
1 A. Yes. 2 Q. You started working for Monsanto in 1951 and 3 you retired in 1986? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You worked roughly 35 years for Monsanto? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. During that 35-year period, you resided or 8 were located here in the St. Louis area except for four 9 years; is that right? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Those four years when you were gone, you were 12 located in Anniston, Alabama? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. From 1951 to 1963, you held positions at the 15 Queeny plant ofMonsanto? 16 A. You mentioned 1963. Actually, I was there 17 until '64. 18 Q. So from 1951 to 1964, you worked at the 19 Queeny plant; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. And a variety of different positions 22 as you worked your way up the ladder; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And those positions are outlined in 25 Exhibit 1?
Page 9
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
WATER PCB-SD0000076119
Page 10
Page 12
1 A. That is correct.
I A. That, I don't know.
2
Q. In 1961, you became General Superintendent
2 Q. Let's start at the beginning. Were the still
3 for Warehouse Inventories and Utilities at the Queeny
3 bottoms drummed?
4 plant?
4 A. Yes.
5 A. Yes.
5 Q. And do you know where those drums were taken?
6 Q. Did that job position also include
6 A. I do not.
7 responsibility for waste disposal?
7 Q. Another product that you supervised the
8 A. Yes.
8 production ofwas nitrochlorobenzene when you were at
9
Q. Had you had responsibility for waste disposal
9 the Queeny plant; correct?
10 prior to becoming general superintendent at the Queeny 10
MR. NASSIF: Wasn't that the same product you
11 plant?
11 just asked him about?
12
A. Will you help me with the word responsible?
12
MR. GREENBERG: Oh. Yes, it is, actually.
13 Q. Some operational duties pertaining to waste 13 Let me withdraw that.
14 disposal.
14 MR. NASSIF: Asked and answered.
15 A. Well, when I, for example, was in charge of a 15
MR GREENBERG: There you go.
16 producing unit, the waste that it created as it made a
16
MR NASSIF: Somebody has got to be listening.
17 product came under my responsibility in terms of where 17
MR HAYES: We were all looking at each other
18 did I put it to be properly disposed - to be picked up
18 down here.
19 and disposed. So I did have that kind of
19 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) When you worked at the
20 responsibility.
20 Queeny plant, did you know a gentleman by the name of
21 Q. Okay. And then when you became general 21 C.N. Stutz?
22 superintendent, did your responsibility change as far
22 A. I'm sorry?
23 as waste disposal?
23 Q. Did you know a gentleman by the name ofC.N.
24 A. General superintendent of this category,
24 Stutz, S-T-U-T-Z?
25 warehouse inventories and utilities?
25 A. I don't -1 don't remember that name.
Page 11
Page 13
1 Q. Correct.
1 Q. Okay. Do you know -- do you recognize the
2 A. Yes. I had an involvement. Uh-huh.
2 name F.J. Holzapfel, H-O-L-Z-A-P-F-E-L?
3
Q. During the -- where did the wastes that were
3
A. No, I don't.
4 generated at the Queeny plant, the solid wastes, where 4
Q. Okay. How about F.E. Rosenberger? Do you
5 were they disposed of during the time that you were
5 recognize that name?
6 general superintendent?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 A. As best as I recall - well, since I wasn't
7 Q. In your capacity as General Superintendent
8 directly involved with the final disposal, I can only
8 for Warehouse Inventories and Utilities, did you
9 share with you my understanding that it went to several 9 receive information from time to time as to the
10 places.
10 quantities of wastes that were generated at the Queeny
11 Q. Okay.
11 plant?
12 A. But the details, I never did get involved
12 A. Never. No.
13 with.
13 Q. As you sit here today, do you have any
14 Q. When you were working at the Queeny plant, 14 information as to where wastes generated at the Queeny
15 one of the products that you supervised production for 15 plant were disposed during the time that you worked at
16 was nitrochlorobenzene; correct?
16 the Queeny plant?
17 A. Yes.
17 A. The only information I had was that it was
18 Q. And the production of nitrochlorobenzene
18 gathered and sent to several places for final disposal.
19 generates still bottoms?
19 Q. And what were those places that you --
20 A. Yes.
20 A. I don't remember. I don't know that I ever
21
Q. And those still bottoms were sort of a solid,
21 knew exactly all the places that were involved.
22 tarry material. Isn't that right?
22 Q. How about any of the places? Do you have any
23 A. When it cooled down, yes.
23 information as to any of the places where wastes
24 Q. And that still bottom was drammed and taken 24 generated at the Queeny plant were disposed of?
25 to Sauget for disposal?
25 A. I recall that the Krammrich plant was a
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
WATER PCB-SD0000076120
1 place. I don't remember the names ofthe other places 2 so much as -1 really don't remember because I was 3 never that close to it. 4 Q. Were wastes mobilized in rail cars as well 5 did you see wastes being gathered in rail cars as well 6 as drums when you worked at the Queeny plant? 7 A. I don't remember that at all. 8 Q. How about trucks? Did you ever see wastes 9 being deposited into bucks when you woiked at the 10 Queeny plant? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Were those Monsanto trucks or a contractor 13 track? 14 A. They were not Monsanto. 15 Q. Do you recall whose tracks they were? 16 A. No, I don't. 17 Q. Do you know the names ofany of the trackers 18 that hauled waste from the Queeny plant? 19 A. I'm having a difficult time remembering 20 names. I really don't recall any. 21 Q. You don't recall any names as you sit here 22 today ofhaulere that transported waste from the Queeny 23 plant? 24 A. I just --1 just don't remember. 25 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 2 was marked for
Page 14
Page 16
1 sir, did I accurately describe the title ofthis 2 report, Report On Disposal Of Solid Toxic Wastes, 3 Residues, and Trash from J.F. Queeny and W.G. Krammrich 4 Plant, Report Number 80. Do you see that? 5 A. Ido, 6 Q. That's the title ofthe document? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Have you ever seen this document before, 9 Mr. Papageorge? 10 A. I just don't recall ever seeing it, no. 11 Q. Do you recall being involved in the 1950s in 12 a review ofthe waste disposal practices for the Queeny 13 and Krammrich plants to review disposal options? 14 A. I was not involved. 15 Q. Were you aware at any time that such an 16 investigation was being conducted? 17 A. I was not. 18 Q. Okay. Would you turn, sir, to page 4 ofthis 19 document. 20 A. I have it. 21 Q. On page 4, there is a chart designated 22 Exhibit Number 1 with a heading Toxic Waste Disposal 23 Krammrich and Queeny Plants. And under that, it says 24 Queeny Plant-pounds per month. Do you see that? 25 A. Ido.
Page 15
1 identification.) 2 Q. (By Mr. Greenbeig) Let me go ahead and hand 3 you what's been matked as Exhibit 2 to your deposition. 4 MR. NASSIF: Richard, do you have an extra 5 copy? 6 MR. GREENBERG: I don't. 7 MR. NASSIF: That's no problem. Let me just 8 look at one part of this. 9 A. Am I supposed to -- 10 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Have you had a chance to 11 sort offlip through the document to see ifyou're 12 familial-with it? 13 A. I'll scan it here. 14 MR MURRAY: This is Dan Murray. For those on 15 the phone, ifthis document has some description or 16 title, can you read it to us? 17 MR GREENBERG: Sure. We've referred to it as 18 the Stutz report in the past. It's a Report on Disposal 19 of Solid Toxic Wastes, Residues, and Trash from J.F. 20 Queeny and W.G. Krammrich Plant, Report Number 80. Ifs 21 Foresman Exhibit 19. 22 MR. MURRAY: Does it have a date? 23 MR GREENBERG: I'll get there. 24 A. I have briefly scanned this report. 25 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Okay. To begin with,
1 Q. Looking at this description set forth on page 2 4, does this appear to be a description ofthe waste 3 generated by the Queeny plant in 1957? 4 A. Well, sir, it's a listing by department of 5 liquids and trash and an attempt to describe the types. 6 I see no reference as to what period oftime it covers. 7 Q. I'm sony. The reference to pounds/month up 8 there on the top ofthe heading, is that what you're 9 looking for? 10 A. Pounds per month, yes, but I don't know if 11 that's 1957, which I think is the date of this 12 report 13 Q. Ifwe turn to the second page, there's a date 14 on the bottom, November 8,1957. You're going to have 15 to flip backwards to it. 16 A. I'm sony. This is the date that the report 17 was issued 18 Q. Right. 19 A. - but it doesn't necessarily mean that this 20 data is related to that date. 21 Q. Do you have any reason to believe it's not 22 related to that date? 23 A. I have no24 Q. Let me go back to my first question, sir. 25 Looking at this listing on Exhibit Number 1, does it
Page 17
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
WATER PCB-SD0000076121
Page 18
Page 20
1 appear to be a description of waste volumes generated 1
Q. Do you recall any of the other references
2 by the Queeny plant at some time as demonstrated in
2 listed on Exhibit Number 1 of Exhibit 2 as references
3 this report?
3 to departments or activities at the Queeny plant other
4
MR. NASSIF: I object. Calls for speculation.
4 than the A-9 reference?
5 The witness already stated he doesn't have any
5 A. I do not.
6 information about volumes. Go ahead, Bill, if you can 6
Q. What do you recall the A-9 reference
7 answer.
7 referring to?
8 A. I don't know how to answer because I was
8 A. That's the facility that produced phthalic
9 never involved with this. I just have nothing to help
9 anhydride.
10 me reach an opinion.
10 Q. Is that a product that was sold or
11 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) All right. So you just
11 manufactured at the Queeny plant?
12 can't tell?
12 A. Yes.
13 A. I can't tell.
13 Q. Let's go over to the right-hand column where
14 Q. Okay. In your capacity as General
14 it refers to type. Do you recall tars and filter
15 Superintendent for Utilities, General - Utilities
15 aid -- strike that. Do you know what the reference to
16 Inventory - for Warehouse Inventories and Utilities,
16 filter aid -- strike that.
17 your experience in that position doesn't inform you in
17
Do you recognize the term filter aid?
18 terms of telling you whether or not Exhibit Number 1 18
A. I do.
19 describes waste generated at the Queeny plant?
19 Q. And what do you understand that term to be?
20 A. No, it doesn't.
20 A. I don't know what they meant.
21 Q. When I say Exhibit Number 1, that's page 4 of 21 Q. I'm asking you what you understood filter aid
22 Exhibit Number 2. In the left-hand column, there's a 22 to mean.
23 listing of departments. Do you see that, sir?
23 A. That's not a term I used often, but filter
24 A. Ido.
24 aid is used to describe a material that is used in a
25 Q. Does that appear to be names identifying
25 manufacturing process through which a liquid is passed
1 various departments at the Queeny plant in the 1950s? 2 A. It appears to, yes. 3 Q. Do you recognize those names as departments 4 in the Queeny plant for the 1950s? 5 A. Some ofthem, not all ofthem. 6 Q. Which ones do you recognize as departments in 7 the Queeny plant? 8 A. I recognize the A-9 group. I recall some of 9 the numbers and letters, but I cannot associate it with 10 the activities ofthat particular department. 11 Q. Right now all Ihr asking for is looking at 12 the left-hand column, will you tell me what references 13 you recognize as references for departments at the 14 Queeny plant. 15 A. I know and recognize the A-9 group. 16 Q. Any others? 17 A. I do not associate the other numbers with any 18 activity. 19 Q. How about - do you associate these 20 references with references ofdepartments at the Queeny 21 plant? For example, do you see die reference to A-10? 22 A. A-10, yes. 23 Q. Do you recall the department at the Queeny 24 plant being referred to as A-10? 25 A. I do not.
Page 19
Page 21
1 and any solid type impurities in that liquid are 2 trapped by this capturing material called filter aid. 3 Q. Okay. Do you recall filter aids being used 4 at the Queeny plant during the 1950s? 5 A. Not specifically, no. 6 Q. How about generally? 7 A. Huh? 8 Q. How about generally? 9 A. I don't know what you mean by generally. 10 Q. Well, you said not specifically, so I'm 11 trying to figure out what the alternative is there. 12 A. When chemicals are made, sir, filters are 13 used in laboratories and in plants to remove the 14 unwanted contents. So in a general way, that's my 15 understanding. 16 Q. Given that understanding, do you recall 17 filter aids being used in the production processes at 18 Queeny during the 1950s when you were there? 19 A. Not specifically, no. 20 Q. How about - I'm sorry. When you say not 21 specifically, you don't recall specific use of the 22 filter aid. Do you have a general understanding that 23 filter aids were used in the Queeny plant in the 1950s, 24 Mr. Papageorge? 25 A. No.
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
WATER PCB-SD0000076122
Page 22
Page 24
1 Q. Okay. How about tars? Do you recall tars
1 production processes in department A-9 that you recall?
2 being created as part of the production process at the
2
A. Not that I'm aware of.
3 Queeny plant?
3 Q. Further down the list, there's a reference to
4 A. Yes.
4 paper, rags, rubber, cinders, and concrete. Do you see
5 Q. Were there different types of tars that were
5 that?
6 created as part of the production process at the Queeny 6
A. Yes.
7 plant when you were there in the 1950s?
7 Q. Do you recall that being produced as part of
8 A. Sir, I never took samples and analyzed them 8 the production process at Queeny during the 1950s?
9 to determine differences, but I'm aware of at least the
9
A. Yes.
10 A-9 situation where a tar would be separated from the 10
Q. And was that material gathered together for
11 final product. I don't know if that helps the question
11 disposal as part of the production process?
12 any, but --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was that a tar -- that tar was unique to that 13 Q. And you don't know what happened to that
14 manufacturing process; is that right?
14 material; correct?
15 A. That particular tar? I would say yes.
15 A. That is true.
16
Q. That would be different than the still bottom
16
Q. Further down there's reference to solvents.
17 we talked about previously with respect to
17 Do you see that?
18 nitrochlorobenzene?
18 A. Yes.
19 A. Different chemically, yes.
19 Q. Do you recall solvents being generated as a
20 Q. And I think you told me before that the still 20 waste or by-product of the manufacturing processes at
21 bottom created in the nitrochlorobenzene production
21 Queeny?
22 process if allowed to cool will result in a tarry type
22 A. I do not.
23 material?
23 Q. The next reference is toxic liquid. Do you
24 A. Well, I have trouble, because, to me, a tar
24 see that?
25 is a tar whether it's a liquid, semi-liquid, or a
25 A. I do.
Page 23
Page 25
1 solid.
1 Q. Do you have an understanding of what the term
2 Q. Okay. Would you describe the material
2 toxic liquid refers to?
3 generated in the acetylene bottoms in the production of 3
A. I do not.
4 nitrochlorobenzene as a tar?
4 Q. Do you recall any liquids being generated as
5 A. Yes.
5 wastes at the Queeny plant?
6 Q. So we've now talked about two different types 6 A. Which liquids, sir?
7 of tar, the tar produced in Department A-9, as well as
7
Q. Any liquids being generated as a waste at the
8 the tar produced in the nitrochlorobenzene production
8 Queeny plant.
9 process; correct?
9 A. I do not.
10 A. They are different.
10 Q. The next reference refers to organic
11 Q. Any other tars you recall seeing created at
11 sweepings. Do you see that?
12 Queeny as part of the production processes?
12 A. Yes.
13 A. Not specifically, no.
13 Q. Do you have an understanding of that term?
14 Q. There is another reference in the right-hand 14 A. I do not.
15 column under type to organic residue. Do you see that 15
Q. The next reference is organic salts. Do you
16 about two-thirds of the way down?
16 have an understanding of that term?
17 A. Yes.
17 A. I do not.
18 Q. And that appears, if you cross over, to be a 18 Q. In 1970, you returned to the St. Louis area;
19 reference to A-9-0 department. Do you see that?
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you recall an organic residue being
21 Q. And from 1970 to 1976, you were Manager of
22 created in the A-9 department?
22 Environmental Affairs at the Krummrich plant?
23 A. Well, that's the material I was referring to
23 A. What were those dates again?
24 as tar.
24 Q. Let me do it off your resume. That would be
25 Q. Okay. Any other residue created by the
25 a better way to do it. Looking at your resume,
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
WATER PCB-SD0000076123
Page 26
1 Exhibit 1, would you tell me which positions you held
1 disposed ofaway ftom the plant manufacturing
2 where you had some responsibility for environmental or 2 facilities to several places, and I don't recall the
3 waste disposal activities at the Krummrich plant?
3 locations ofmost ofthose places at all.
4 A. I don't recall ever being perceived as having 4 Q. How about any ofthose locations? Do you
5 responsibilities after 1970 at the Krummrich plant
5 recall any ofthe locations?
6 directly. I had more of an oversight function.
6 A. I recall some ofthem were disposed ofat the
7 Q. Were you ever stationed, posted, or your
7 Krummrich plant, but the location ofthe site, I never
8 office maintained at the Krummiich plant?
8 did see.
9 A. Only the period of time that I worked there,
9 Q. Any other locations other than on the site of
10 '64, '65.
10 the Krummrich plant?
11 Q. All of the positions you held after 1970,
11 A. I don't remember them now, no.
12 your office was not located at the Krummrich plant?
12 Q. All tight.
13 A. That is correct.
13 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 3 was marked for
14 Q. Was it the corporate headquarters in
14 identification.)
15 Olivette, Creve Coeur?
15 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Let me hand you whafs
16 A. Creve Coeur, yes, sir.
16 been marked as Exhibit 3, which is a memorandum from
17 Q. During the period of 1970 to 1986, would your 17 Donald Weber to Kenneth Storms dated Januaiy 15th,
18 duties regularly take you to the Krummrich plant on a 18 1988, subject Monsanto MEHI information.
19 weekly or monthly basis?
19 A. I have scanned the exhibit.
20 A. Would you repeat that again?
20 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit 3 before?
21
Q. After 1970, would you from time to time go to 21
A. No.
22 the Krummrich plant as part of your duties and
22 Q. It appears to be a listing of departments, a
23 responsibilities?
23 description ofproducts manufactured by departments,
24 A. Yes.
24 and years ofoperation for the departments. Do you see
25 Q. Do you recall how often you would go to the 25 that?
Page 28
Page 27
Page 29
1 Krummiich plant? 2 A. Once every six months or so. Thafsabig 3 guess. I didn't keep any records. 4 Q. Duiing the time that you were at the 5 Krummiich plant, 1964 to 1965, your position was 6 General Superintendent ofManufacturing? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. As part ofyour responsibilities, did you 9 have supervisory duties with respect to waste disposal? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What did you understand your responsibilities 12 to be in 1964 and 1965 as to waste disposal? 13 A. I was to make certain that any wastes 14 generated by the units for which I was superintendent, 15 that the supeivision ofthose units would use the right 16 procedures for disposing ofwastes. That's it. 17 Q. And do you know how wastes were disposed of 18 in 1964 and 1965 that were generated at the Krummiich 19 plant? 20 A. The whole plant? No, I don't know about the 21 whole plant. 22 Q. How about any area ofthe plant or any waste 23 stream generated by the plant? Do you know how in 1964 24 and 1965 those wastes were disposed of? 25 A. Well, as I said previously, they were
1 A. Ido. 2 Q. Looking at Exhibit 3, does the information 3 set forth regarding the operational history of various 4 departments at the Krummrich plant, is that consistent 5 with your understanding of the operational history at 6 the Krummrich plant in terms of departments and 7 products that were produced and the years of 8 production? 9 A. When you say consistent with my 10 understanding, I recognize some of the information 11 that's there, but I personally have no specific 12 information to determine whether this information is 13 accurate. I have no way of knowing that. 14 Q. Beginning in 1970, did you become responsible 15 for supervising the production and disposal of waste 16 generated in the production of polychlorinated 17 biphenyls? 18 A. I was not responsible for the supervision of 19 the production of polychlorinated biphenyls. 20 Q. How about disposal? Was that one of your 21 responsibilities beginning in 1970 and continuing 22 during your time at Monsanto? 23 A. I was not responsible for disposing. 24 Q. Tell me, did you have any responsibility with 25 respect to PCBs beginning in 1970?
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
WATER PCB-SD0000076124
Page 30
1 A. Yes, I had responsibilities. Uh-huh. 2 Q. Can you tell me what they were? 3 A. I was responsible for communicating within 4 Monsanto and outside ofMonsanto to determine virtually 5 all facets ofPCBs, their use, their properties, 6 analytical procedures, how customers were handling it, 7 as an example. I don't know that I can describe the 8 job with one word. It was a matter ofsomeone, meaning 9 I was assigned the task ofbeing aware ofany 10 activities as they related to PCBs and communicating 11 the information as I saw fit. 12 Q. Turning to Exhibit 1, can you tell us when 13 you began to have the responsibility pertaining to 14 Monsanto's production or sales ofPCBs? 15 A. That's after 1970? Well, in 1970,1 was 16 appointed to be the - I'm going to use a word that 17 hasn't been used before, an overseer ofthe PCB issue, 18 and it was up to me to decide how to accumulate the 19 information that I was gathering and also to facilitate 20 the fiuther gathering of information and to assist 21 where a company, Monsanto, could help in financing or 22 manning or getting the right kind oftalents hired to 23 pursue the issue. 24 Q. And what was the issue in 1970 pertaining to 25 PCBs that resulted in your appointment?
1 Q. What occurred between 1973 and 1977 that 2 resulted in you no longer having that overseer 3 responsibility? 4 A. Well, Monsanto within itselfhad a 5 reorganization identifying specific units within the 6 corporation. I at that time had the title ofManager 7 ofProduct Acceptability, and that involved several 8 products of each ofthose units ofMonsanto. And it 9 changed in '77, and somewhere between '73 and '77, the 10 attention given to PCBs as a product was given to 11 another individual in Monsanto. 12 Q. And who was that individual? 13 A. Ifmy memory serves me right, it was John 14 Craddock. 15 Q. Did Mr. Craddock report to you after assuming 16 that responsibility with respect to PCBs? 17 A. No. 18 Q. As I look at your resume, after 1977, you 19 continued to be Director ofEnvironmental Operations 20 until approximately 1985. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. In that capacity, what were your 23 responsibilities as Director ofEnvironmental 24 Operations? 25 A. Well, it covered several areas ofinterest
Page 32
Page 31
Page 33
1 A. In nineteen2 Q. Strike that. What was the issue pertaining 3 to PCBs? 4 A. The issue in 1970 was the presence in 5 unexpected places ofPCBs. 6 Q. You're referring to the environmental impact 7 ofPCBs? 8 A. Well, initially it was the presence and later 9 on it involved what impact, if any, was observed. 10 Q. By PCBs in the environment? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. As overseer, for want of a better term, what 13 resources did you have at your disposal from handling 14 the PCB issue? 15 A. I don't know how to describe it. I could 16 always go to the top management and share with them my 17 observations, my recommendations. Other than a 18 part-time secretary, I had no other resources. 19 Q. As part ofyour role, how long did you have 20 a ~ you indicated in 1970, you began that role as 21 overseer. When did you stop in the role ofoverseer? 22 A. Ofwhat? 23 Q. The PCBs. 24 A. PCBs. I'm having a difficult time recalling 25 exactly, but sometime between '73 and '77.
1 within those subdivisions of Monsanto in those periods 2 of time. It covered such things as the type of product 3 made, what were its characteristics, where was it used. 4 That came under the product acceptability function, 5 which reported to me. And there was another function 6 that was industrial hygiene related. How do these 7 products or these chemicals impact on the workers, not 8 only Monsanto, but the customer and the public, if it 9 should happen -- if an incident should happen in 10 transit. Another area was the - I'm going to call it 11 the environmental impact within the operating unit, 12 what fumes are emitted, how is the neighborhood 13 impacted. Those are roughly the three categories. 14 Q. I'm going to turn you back to the time when 15 you were in that overseer capacity and ask you some 16 questions regarding PCBs. In that capacity, sir, did 17 you learn how PCBs were produced at the Krummrich 18 plant? 19 A. All I knew was that they were the second 20 plant to manufacture PCBs. The procedure used to 21 manufacture was similar to the one that I supervised in 22 Anniston, and other than that, I don't know that I 23 learned anything different. 24 Q. Did you ever inspect the process that was 25 being utilized to manufacture PCBs?
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
WATER PCB-SD0000076125
Page 34
1 A. No.
1 A. Oh, we're now talking about selling? I
2 Q. Did you ever see it occurring, visit the
2 thought you said utilized.
3 plant to watch the production process?
3 Q. Let's deal with utilized, then.
4 A. Well, I've been there, but it's just
4 A. Utilized? Well, the obvious one, PCBs were
5 equipment, pumps working, tanks sitting there,
5 in the transformers at the plant. PCBs were also
6 pipelines. That's it.
6 present in some ofthe hydraulic fluids that tun
7 Q. As overseer, did you attempt to leam what
7 compressors, for example. PCB products were in heat
8 types of wastes were generated as part of the PCB
8 transfer systems where the PCB acts as the carrier of
9 manufacturing process?
9 heat for a process. So those are the types ofuses
10 A. Well, I already had considerable knowledge in 10 that I call utilizing PCBs.
11 that area from my experience in Alabama. I was then in 11
Q. Were PCBs used as a raw material for products
12 a position where I relied on the supervision of the
12 manufactured at the Queeny plant during the time you
13 operation at the Krummrich plant, as well as the
13 were employed there?
14 environmental positions held by several individuals to
14 A. I don't know about the timing. I just was
15 keep me posted of any differences that might occur' as 15 never close to that at that time, so I never did know
16 time went on.
16 that.
17
Q. So I take it you have some understanding of
17 Q. Okay. What is the difference between PCBs
18 wastes that are generated as part of the PCB production 18 andAroclors?
19 process?
19 A. Well, the trademark Aroclor was used to
20 A. Yes. Uh-huh.
20 define chlorinated aromatics, which included biphenyl
21 Q. For how long did the Krummrich plant produce 21 and triphenyl. So there's two types ofAroclors.
22 PCBs?
22 Q. As you said, Aroclors is a trade name for a
23 A. I don't -- I don't recall when they started,
23 PCB product; is that right?
24 but they stopped making it in '76, as I remember.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is it true that PCB products were
25 Q. The Krummrich plant produced A'oclors as both
Page 36
Page 35
Page 37
1 manufactured at the Queeny plant when you were employed 2 at the Queeny plant? 3 A. PCB products manufactured at Queeny? They 4 were not. 5 Q. Were PCB products utilized at the Queeny 6 plant? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were PCB products sold from the Queeny plant 9 when you were employed at the Queeny plant? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q, So at least, to your knowledge, PCBs were 12 produced either at Queeny or at Krummrich beginning in 13 1951 and continuing until 1976; is that correct? 14 A. Well, I'm somewhat contused by the use ofthe 15 word PCB products were manufactured at Queeny. 16 Q. How about utilized to manufacture other 17 products? 18 A. Well, they were utilized, yes. 19 Q. When you were at Queeny during the 1950s, 20 were PCB products obtained from the Krummrich plant and 21 used in the manufacturing processes at Queeny? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And what products were - what products were 24 sold from the Queeny plant, then, that had or contained 25 PCB products?
1 a liquid and as a solid material? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And in 1976, one ofthe reasons the 4 manufacturing ofPCBs was discontinued was because of 5 the environmental concerns that were raised regarding 6 the impact on the environment? 7 A. In 1976, the production was terminated 8 because the customers ofthe PCBs who were the 9 electrical equipment manufacturers indicated they had 10 found alternatives. In terms ofterminating because of 11 impact on the environment, the only impact of 12 continuing concern is the presence. And there were 13 still many questions raised about what harm, if any, 14 are they causing. 15 Q. Other than longevity ofPCBs, you are unaware 16 ofany harm to the environment from disposal ofPCBs? 17 A. I'm not aware of any situation that was 18 proven to be in effect due to PCBs. 19 Q. An adverse effect; right? 20 A. Adverse, yes. 21 Q. It's true what you said, that PCBs are not 22 typically biodegradable? 23 A. Some ofthe PCBs are biodegradable and some 24 are not. 25 Q. Those PCBs that are not biodegradable will
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
WATER PCB-SD0000076126
Page 38
Page 40
1 last for generations; is that right?
1 found about hallway through Exhibit 4; is that right?
2 A. It will last a long time, yeah.
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. It's true that PCBs become more soluble when 3 Q. Okay. If you turn -- this might help use if
4 they are mixed with solvents?
4 we use the Bates number - to 020104.
5 A. I hesitate because I don't know. Soluble in
5 A. 0201 -
6 what, for what?
6 Q. 04. There is a heading Synopsis of Process.
7 Q. In water.
7 Do you see that?
8 A. In water? I'm not aware of any information 8 A. I do.
9 that confirms that, no.
9 Q. It appears to me that the process is broken
10 Q. Okay. When you were at Anniston or
10 down in this synopsis into a number of steps. Do you
11 Krummrich, did you look at standard manufacturing
11 see that?
12 processes that were prepared by the plants for
12 A. I do see it, yes.
13 particular manufacturing products?
13 Q. The first process that they refer to is
14 A. I missed that one word.
14 chlorination, the second process step is aeration and
15 Q. Standard manufacturing processes.
15 distillation, and the third process step, blending,
16 A. Standard manufacturing processes. Well, that 16 filtration, and storage. Do you see that reference?
17 was the term used to describe the recipe, if you will,
17
A. That is correct.
18 of how to make it.
18 Q. Is that consistent with your understanding of
19 Q. And was it not a practice at Monsanto to
19 the PCB production process?
20 prepare recipes, SMPs, for particular products that
20 A. Yes.
21 were being manufactured?
21 Q. The chlorination -1 want to go through the
22 A. Yes.
22 steps one by one. The first step, they refer to
23 Q. Did you ever see an SMP or recipe or
23 chlorination of biphenyl. Where did the Krummrich
24 manufacture of PCBs or Aroclors?
24 plant receive its biphenyls?
25 A. Certainly, years ago.
25 A. From the Anniston, Alabama plant.
Page 39
Page 41
1 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 4 was matked for 2 identification.) 3 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Let me hand you what's 4 been marked as Exhibit 4. Why don't you scan that and 5 see ifyou're familiar with it. 6 MR. GREENBERG: For the record, the title of 7 the document is Process Description for the Manufacture 8 ofAroclors in Department 246. 9 MR MURRAY: Do you have a Bates number 10 associated with this document? 11 MR. NASSIF: Yeah. The Bates number is Cerro, 12 CER 020061. 13 A. Well, IVe quickly scanned all this. 14 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Does Exhibit 4 appear to 15 be the SMP for the manufacture ofAroclors at the 16 Krummrich plant? 17 A. It appears to be, yes. 18 Q. I want to use it somewhat as a guide to help 19 me understand the production process, in particular the 20 waste streams that are generated in the production of 21 PCB's. There is a synopsis of the process - strike 22 that. 23 First of all, the SMP is organized with a 24 number ofamendments in the front part of the SMP, 25 followed by a description ofthe original PCB process
1 Q. And where did Anniston receive its biphenyl? 2 A. It was manufactured there. 3 Q. And what was the raw material for the 4 manufacture of biphenyl? 5 A. Benzene. 6 Q. For the chlorination process at Krummrich, 7 tanks were utilized; is that right? 8 A. I'm sorry? 9 Q. Tanks were utilized for the chlorination 10 process at the Krummrich plant? 11 A. I still didn't get that one word. Something 12 was utilized. 13 Q. Tanks. 14 A. Tanks. Oh. Yes. 15 Q. And if you turn to CER 02111. It's a little 16 further down. 17 A. Yes, I have it. 18 Q. The second - the first line of the second to 19 last paragraph, it indicates that chlorination is 20 carried out in five chlorinators. 21 A. Can you guide me again as to where? Oh, 22 there. Okay. I see that. 23 Q. The reference to five chlorinators refers to 24 five tanks where the chlorine gas is being added to the 25 biphenyls; correct?
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
WATER PCB-SD0000076127
Page 42
1 A. That's correct.
1 and then sewering the hydrogen chloride gas?
2 Q. Were tank bottoms created as part of the
2 A. I'm not aware ofthe sewering that you
3 chlorination process in the tank?
3 mentioned, because the hydrogen chloride was recovered
4 A. Tank bottoms were created.
4 and sold.
5
Q. And what would happen to the tank bottoms 5
Q. Take a look at page 8 ofthe SMP, Use the
6 that were created in the chlorinators?
6 page numbers at the top if it would be easier for you.
7 A. In the final distillation of the finished
7 Ifyou look at the bottom ofthe page, it refers to
8 product, whatever was - whatever met product
8 by-product hydrogen chloride.
9 specifications was distilled off and eventually ended 9 A, I see it.
10 up as finished product. In the distillation tank
10 Q. Later on in the paragraph, it indicates if
11 itself, there was a residue which would be called -
11 Department F-218 is unable to handle the off-gas, it
12 well, it was called tank bottoms, it was called
12 may be sewered at Department 246 by passing through a
13 residue, it was called tars. It's the unsaleable, as
13 Haveg S-K drowningjet Do you see that reference?
14 far as Aroclors is concerned, part of the process.
14 A. Ido.
15
Q. I'm going to get to that, but I want to make
15 Q. Arc you aware ofthe times when department
16 sure we're on the same page. I was starting, sir, with 16 F-218 was unable to utilize the off-gas?
17 the chlorinating tanks.
17 A. No.
18 A. Yes.
18 Q. So as far as you know, at all times the
19 Q. Okay. And I was asking you about the tank 19 off-gas was not quenched and sewered as reported as an
20 bottoms as part of the chlorination process, and that 20 option here in the SMP?
21 was prior to the distillation.
21 A. I don't remember any ofthat.
22 A. I'm not aware of any tank bottoms at that 22 Q. Would the hydrogen chloride gas contain PCBs?
23 step.
23 A. I don't remember.
24 Q. Okay. I'm going to come back to
24 Q. Okay. The next step in the process was
25 distillation. But we talked about step one being the
25 aeration and distillation; correct?
Page 44
Page 43
Page 45
1 chlorination in the five tanks.
1 A. Aeration and distillation of the - are we
2 A. Uh-huh.
2 still on the hydrogen chloride?
3
Q. And is it your understanding that those tanks
3
Q. No. We're going back to the PCB production.
4 would not collect tank bottoms or still bottoms?
4 A. Oh, the PCBs. Yes.
5 A. That's my understanding.
5 Q. And you earlier mentioned that there would be
6 Q. Now, as part of the chlorination process,
6 still bottoms generated in distillation tanks?
7 chlorine gas is added to the chlorine tanks; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 A. Correct.
8 Q. And that still bottoms may be known as a
9
Q. And the material in the tank would be heated,
9 residue and sometimes - was it occasionally referred
10 creating a mist or steam?
10 to as Montar?
11 A. Yes.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that mist or steam at some point was
12 Q. You understand Montar to be a reference to a
13 collected through the Brink mist eliminator?
13 PCB residue?
14 A. Yes.
14 A. Some of the Montars were PCB residues.
15 Q. And when - do you know when the Brink mist 15 Q. And if the Montar did not contain PCBs, was
16 eliminator was added as part of the process?
16 it called by a different name or was there a different
17 A. I do not.
17 reference?
18
Q. Do you recall there being a time when there
18
A. They were all Montars followed by a letter or
19 were not mist eliminators on the chlorinated tanks, on 19 a number - I forget - to distinguish between the
20 the chlorine tanks?
20 sources.
21 A. I do not.
21 Q. Were any other wastes generated as part of
22 Q. Even with the mist eliminators, this would
22 the distillation process other than the residue in the
23 produce hydrogen chloride gas; is that right?
23 distillation tanks?
24 A. That is correct.
24 A. Not that I know of.
25
Q. And part of the process involved quenching
25
Q. The third step that is described in the SMP
;
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
WATER PCB-SD0000076128
Page 46
Page 48
1 refers to blending, filtration, and storage. Part of
1 A. I don't know.
2 the process involved using a clay to purify the
2 Q. In the 1970s, you were responsible for a PCB
3 product?
3 control program that attempted to eliminate PCBs being
4 A. This is after distillation?
4 discharged from the Krummrich plant; correct?
5 Q. Correct.
5 A. Yes.
6 A. I don't remember that.
6 Q. As part ofthat program, you attempted to
7
Q. Do you remember any use of -- I'm sure I'm
7 control the HCI fumes that were generated as part of
8 going to mispronounce the name - Attapulgus clay as a 8 the production process; coreect?
9 part of the production process for PCBs?
9 A. I don't recall any particular attention
10 A. I do not.
10 addressed to the HCI fumes regarding the PCBs to the
11
Q. Do you know how the filtration process was
11 environment.
12 conducted for PCBs?
12 Q. Okay. Let's go down to the discharge to
13 A. No.
13 sewers. It estimates as part ofthe SMP process that
14 Q. Was a filter press used as part of the
14 6.5 pounds ofwaste would be generated for each
15 filtration process?
15 100 pounds of Aroclor that would be produced that would
16 A. I just don't remember any of that.
16 be discharged to the sewers; correct?
17 Q. Do you recall if -- I'm sorry. You said you
17 A. I'm having difficulty finding the numbers you
18 didn't recall - I may be mispronouncing - Attapulgus 18 quoted there.
19 clay being used in the production process of PCBs?
19 Q. I was subtotalling the 2.5, the 2, and the 2,
20 A. That is correct.
20 adding it up to 6.5 pounds.
21
Q. Let me ask you to turn to page 36 of the SMP. 21
A. Oh.
22 Why don't you take a moment to look at that page. I'm 22
Q. Do you see that, sir?
23 going to ask you some questions regarding the
23 A. I see that.
24 information on this page.
24 Q. So according to the SMP, it was estimated
25 A. I have reviewed that page.
25 that 6.5 pounds ofwaste would be generated per hundred
1 Q. Page 36 describes certain types ofwaste that 2 would be generated as part ofthe production process 3 for PCBs; coirect? 4 A. It does. 5 Q. And its broken down into discharge to the 6 atmosphere, discharge to the sewers, and discharge to 7 waste disposal. Do you see that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And it looks at the amounts generated from 10 two different perspectives. The first column refers to 11 what is generated from 100 pounds ofAroclor produced 12 and the second column refeis to pounds produced 13 assuming a production rate of28.6 million pounds per 14 year; is that right? 15 A. That is coirect. 16 Q. And the first four columns refers to 17 discharges to the atmosphere; correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And it indicates that as far as HCI fumes 20 from blow tanks and HCI fumes from other tanks, it is 21 estimated that 2,000 pounds per year would be generated 22 and discharged to the atmosphere, assuming a production 23 rate of28.6 million pounds; is that right? 24 A. That's what it says. 25 Q. Would the HCI fumes contain PCBs?
Page 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 49
pounds of Aroclor produced and discharged to the sewers; is that right, sir?
A. I have no way of knowing the accuracy in terms of is it right. The author of this document is the one that's the source of that estimate.
Q. Right. Assuming that the SMP is right, I'm accurately reading this information; is that right?
A. Yeah. You're accurately reading, yes. Q. And then flipping over to the right-hand column, there is an assumed discharge to the sewers of 560,000 pounds per year assuming a production rate of 28.6 million pounds. Is that also correct? A. You are correct in quoting those numbers, yes. Q. As far as the discharge to sewers, the first reference is to HCI. Do you understand what HCI -- what chemical that refers to? A. Yes, sir. Q. What chemical is that? A. Hydrogen chloride, which is a gas. Q. If it was quenched, would it be reduced to liquid form? A. Well, the water is the liquid and the acid is dissolved in it. Q. Okay. And in the chlorinators, would there
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
WATER PCB-SD0000076129
Page 50
Page 52
1 be water containing HC1 as part of the production
1 Q. Would you turn to page 10 of the SMP. Right
2 process?
2 under subhead B, it refers to capacity. Do you see
3 A. As I indicated, I don't remember that
3 that?
4 particular step in the process.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The next reference is C12. Do you see that? 5 Q. And it indicates that the monthly production
6 A. I'm sorry. The next --
6 capacity of Department 246 is 2,400,000 pounds of
7 Q. The next line, is it C12 or CI2?
7 Aroclor on a seven day per week basis.
8 A. Oh, oh. It's still under discharge to
8 A. It does.
9 sewers?
9 Q. Department 246 was the department that
10 Q. Correct.
10 manufactured Aroclors at Krummrich, wasn't it?
11 A. Yes. It refers to C12, yes.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And do you understand the chemical reference 12 Q. And did it operate on a seven day per week
13 for C12?
13 basis?
14 A. That's chlorine.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you understand how chlorine from the 15 Q. Do you have any reason to disagree that the
16 chlorinators would be released to the sewers as part of 16 capacity of Department 246 was the 2,400,000 pounds
17 the production process?
17 reported in the SMP?
18 A. No, I don't.
18 A. I have no way of --
19 Q. The next line refers to condensables in
19 Q. Knowing one way or the other?
20 chlorinator off-gas. Do you see that?
20 A. -- knowing one way or the another.
21 A. Ido.
21 Q. That's fine. Do you know if Department 246
22 Q. Do you understand how there would be
22 ever operated at capacity?
23 condensables in the chlorinator off-gas as part of the
23
A. I do not.
24 production process released to the sewers?
24 Q. As overseer of the PCB production process at
25 A. I do not.
25 Krummrich, did you learn what volume of PCBs were
1 Q. Finally, down at the bottom, it refers to 2 discharge to waste disposal and it lists Montar and 3 Aroclor. Do you see that? 4 A. Ido. 5 Q. And ifwe go over to the last line, it 6 indicates that 5,000 pounds ofMontar would be 7 dischaiged for waste disposal, assuming a production 8 rate of28.6 million pounds; is that right? 9 A. I see that, yes. 10 Q. Is that your understanding ofwhat would be 11 manufactured from the result ofthe manufacturing 12 process? 13 A. I do not have a personal understanding of 14 that. 15 Q. You understand that Montar or residue would 16 be created, you don't know how much would be created 17 given a production rate; is that right? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And it also indicates that 95,000 pounds of 20 Aroclor would be generated as a waste for disposal 21 assuming the production rate of28.6 million pounds? 22 A. It does say that. 23 Q. And do you know what the production rate was 24 at Krummrich for Aroclors? 25 A. I do not.
Page 51
Page 53
1 produced by the plant of any kind? 2 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Misstates the 3 witness' testimony. 4 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) I'll rephrase it. Do you 5 know what volume ofPCBs were produced at Kmmmrich in 6 any year in round figures? 7 A. I do not. 8 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 5 was maiked for 9 identification.) 10 A. I have read the exhibit. 11 MR. GREENBERG: Sony. I don't have a copy of 12 it For the record, Exhibit 5 is a memorandum dated 13 Febmaiy 5,1969 from an R.M. McCutchan, 14 M-C-C-U-T-C-H-A-N, Bates number Ceno 010142. It 15 appears to be addressed to Mr. Molloy. 16 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Did I accurately describe 17 that Exhibit 5? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you remember ever seeing Exhibit 5 before? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you recognize the mimes on Exhibit 5, 22 Mr. Molloy and Mr. McCutchan? 23 A. I recognize Mr. Molloy. I'm not too sure 24 about Mr. McCutchan. 25 Q. You don't recall at this time who he was?
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
WATER PCB-SD0000076130
1 A. No, I don't. 2 Q. Okay. But you understand Mr. Molloy was an 3 employee ofMonsanto. Isn't that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And he had some responsibility for operations 6 at the Krummrich plant; is that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In fact, he was the general manager ofthe 9 Krummrich plant at some point in time? General 10 superintendent, perhaps. 11 A. I think he was the plant manager. I'm not 12 certain. 13 Q. And at the top of the heading, it refers to 14 W.G. Krummrich plant. Do you see that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Does this appear to be a document that was 17 generated at the Kiummrich plant regarding activities 18 reported in 1969? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. At the top ofthe - at the beginning -21 well, in the naraative portion ofthe document, it 22 refers to PCB production. Do you see that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. It reports the January production of 25 3,846,000 pounds established a new monthly record. Do
Page 54
Page 56
1 A. I don't recall this specific document. 2 Q. Do you recall receiving documents of this 3 type? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you have any reason to believe you did not 6 get that document as a cc of -- or as reported on it? 7 A. I do not. 8 Q. This was a document that was generated at 9 Monsanto; correct? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. And if I turn to the third page of Exhibit 6, 12 there is a report on production figures. Do you see 13 that? It's a chart, actually. 14 A. I do see it. 15 Q. And the chart refers to the production at the 16 Krummrich plant of PCBs; correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And it reports that in 1969, approximately 19 42 million pounds of Aroclors were produced; correct? 20 A. The reason I'm hesitating, I find one of the 21 charts or graphs depicted on this page refers to the 22 cumulative total production and it seems to coincide 23 with one marked 1262. I personally don't know just 24 which of those descriptions apply to that particular 25 chart. But in '69, it does point to a 42 million --
1 you see that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that that 4 was not the monthly production record as reported in 5 Exhibit5? 6 A. I have no reason to suspect that it is or 7 isn't. 8 Q. You have no reason to believe thafsnot 9 accurate; is that right? 10 A. That's correct. 11 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 6 was matked for 12 identification.) 13 A. I have scanned the exhibit. 14 MR. GREENBERG: For the record, Exhibit 6 is a 15 memorandum dated July 31,1972 titled Polychlorinated 16 Biphenyls and the Environment from an E.E. Stewait to 17 Mit Paul Heisler previously matked as Foresman Exhibit 18 17, Bates stamped Ceno 010968. 19 Q. (By Mr. Greenbetg) Did I accurately identify 20 the document? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You're shown as a recipient ofthis 23 memorandum; is that right, Mr. Papageorge? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you recall ever receiving this document?
Page 55
1 42,000--Tm sony. Yeah. 42,000 pounds - its 2 forty - it's tendered to something as pounds, is the 3 designation. 42 something. 4 Q. You're having trouble reading the Exponent 5 referring to 10 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. - on this chart? So you're unable to tell 8 whether we're talking about thousands or millions of 9 pounds ofPCBs; is that right? 10 A. That's true, yes. Also this number, I think, 11 is the number you quoted 12 Q. Correct. 13 A. - and I'm having trouble understanding this 14 particular graph. 15 Q. Let me give you a different graph, then. 16 Maybe that will help. Do you understand - strike 17 that. 18 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 7 was marked for 19 identification.) 20 MR.NASSIF: Let me see that, Bill. 21 A. I have scanned the exhibit. 22 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) For the record, Exhibit 7 23 is a memorandum dated December 11th, 1972 from E.E. 24 Stewart to a number ofgentlemen, including yourself, 25 bearing Bates stamp CER 013898. Have I accurately
Page 57
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
WATER PCB-SD0000076131
Page 58
1 described the document?
1 A. Conect.
2 A. You have.
2 Q. In 1972, the amount is reduced, as reported,
3 Q. Do you recall receiving this document, sir?
3 as about 40 million pounds; is that right?
4 A. Not this specific document.
4 A. IPs the amount projected for '72, not
5 Q. Do you have any reason to believe you did not 5 produced yet.
6 get that document on or about the date indicated?
6 Q. I stand conected. But at least the totals
7 A. I do not.
7 for 1969,70, and 71 appears to be volume ofPCBs
8 Q, Are the recipients identified as recipients
8 produced during those years; conect?
9 of that document all employees of Monsanto?
9 A. Conect,
10 A. At that time, yes.
10 Q. Okay. I want to turn back to Exhibit 4 to
11 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that this
11 your deposition, which was the SMP for the production
12 was a -- strike that.
12 ofAroclors. And we previously looked at page 36,
13 This was a record that was apparently
13 which estimated volumes ofwaste, depending upon a
14 generated by Monsanto at or about the time indicated? 14 volume ofPCB production. Do you recall that, sir?
15 A. Yes.
15 A. Ido.
16 Q. This appears to be a status report regarding 16 Q. And the column on the left-hand side of
17 activities pertaining to PCBs at the Krummrich plant;
17 page 36 in the SMP refers to a production rate of
18 is that correct?
18 28.6 million pounds per year. Do you see that?
19 A. The activities it describes are defined as
19 A. Ido.
20 polychlorinated biphenyls and the environment, okay, so 20
Q. Looking now at Exhibit 7, that production
21 it doesn't describe everything about PCBs.
21 rate of28.6 million pounds was exceeded in 1969,1970,
22 Q. But it does describe various activities taken
22 and 1971; correct?
23 at the Krummrich plant pertaining to PCBs, correct, not 23
A. Correct.
24 intending to be an all inclusive list?
24 Q. The production rate in 1969 of
25 A. Yes. That is right.
25 42 million pounds is roughly one and a halftimes the
Page 60
Page 59
Page 61
1 Q. On pages 2 and 3 ofexhibit ~ I'm sony. 2 Let me start over. 3 On pages 2 and 3 ofExhibit 7, there is a 4 description ofthe volume ofPCBs manufactured and a 5 chart is presented on page 3. Do you see that? 6 A. Ido. 7 Q. Now, on page--let's turn to page 3. I'd 8 like ifyou'd help me understand that chart, sir. 9 First ofall, on the left-hand column, there's a 10 reference to M with a line above it and pounds. Do you 11 see that? 12 A. Ido. 13 Q. Do you understand that the reference M with a 14 line above it pounds refers to millions ofpounds; 15 coirect? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And in 1969, page 3 ofExhibit 7 reports that 18 approximately 42 million pounds ofPCBs were produced; 19 correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Okay. And in 1970, it is approximately 22 50 million pounds ofPCBs being produced; conect? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. In 1971, the amount reduces to again roughly 25 42 million pounds ofPCBs produced?
1 production rate of28.6 million pounds? 2 A. Roughly, yes. 3 Q. So if 100,000 pounds ofMontar and Aroclor 4 were to be produced with a production rate of 5 28.6 million pounds, the actual amount produced for 6 1969 would be higher because the production rate was . 7 higher; is that right? 8 A. Well, the discharge that is shown on page 9 3610 (A recess was taken.) 11 Q (By Mr. Greenberg) Are you ready, 12 Mr. Papageorge? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 MR. GREENBERG: Could you repeat back the last 15 question? 16 (Record read.) 17 MR. NASSIF: Object to the form ofthe 18 question. 19 A. I don't feel that I have enough information 20 to lead me to a reasonable answer, in that the amount 21 ofmaterial for disposal depends on which ofthe 22 Aroclors is manufactured. And you must remember that 23 during this period oftime, the plant supervision and 24 all were working on procedures for minimizing tire 25 creation offurther unusable materials, so just basing
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
WATER PCB-SD0000076132
Page 62
1 it on total pounds produced, in my opinion, is not a 2 good basis. 3 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Do you know ifthe SMP 4 was ever revised to show a lower amount ofwaste 5 discharge based upon the production ofPCBs other than 6 what's set forth at page 36? 7 A. I do not. 8 Q. In terms ofefforts to minimize PCB waste 9 discharges that you were responsible for, those efforts 10 began in 1970 when you returned to the Krummrich plant; 11 coirect? 12 A. When you say I returned to the Krummrich 13 plant, that's not correct. 14 Q. Okay. Let's try it again, then. Before 15 1970, were you responsible for any actions at the 16 Kiummrich plant to minimize waste discharge in the 17 production ofPCBs? 18 A. I was not. 19 Q. Do you know ofany actions taken by the 20 Krummrich plant before 1970 to minimize the production 21 ofPCB wastes as part ofthe production process? 22 A. I do not know. 23 Q. At that time, the incinerator for PCB waste 24 had not been built; conect? 25 A. That is conect.
1 MR. NASSIF: Objection. It calls for 2 speculation. 3 A. I don't know, because I don't know how the 4 person who made the estimate arrived at that number. 5 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) But you understand that 6 the SMP that you're looking at, Exhibit 4, is a 7 document that was created by Monsanto as a recipe for 8 the production ofAroclors and PCBs; correct? 9 A. Correct, 10 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 8 was marked for 11 identification.) 12 A. I have scanned the exhibit. 13 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Thank you. Exhibit 8, 14 Mr. Papageoige, is a document with a handwritten cover 15 page with some numbers on it followed by some charts. 16 It bears a deposition exhibit number ofMolloy 20, as 17 well as Cerio Bates number 009600. Have I identified 18 the document correctly? 19 A. You have. 20 Q. On the cover page is a reference date 21 9/7/71 by Ron Williams' group. Do you see that? 22 A. I see it. 23 Q. Do you recognize the name Ron Williams? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Have you ever seen this Exhibit 8 before?
Page 64
Page 63
Page 65
1 Q. And the efforts that you later did in the 2 '70s to minimize discharges to the sewer had not been 3 implemented; correct? 4 A. They were some early steps taken and the 5 whole process evolved as more knowledge was gained, so 6 I can't -1 can't say there was no attempt, no success 7 in reducing. 8 Q. As you sit here today, you can't tell me what 9 actions were taken prior to 1970 to reduce PCB 10 discharges to the seweis; conect? 11 A, That is conect. 12 Q. Prior to 1970, do you know what happened to 13 solid wastes created by the PCB production process? 14 A. No. 15 Q. You know they were not incinerated on site; 16 correct? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. Do you know of any other way those solid 19 wastes were disposed of? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Would you agree, sir, that ifthe 22 numbers reported on page 36 ofthe SMP were conect for 23 the production rate of28.6 million pounds, greater 24 amounts ofwaste would be generated ifthe production 25 amount was greater than 28.6 million pounds?
1 A. I don't remember it. 2 Q. Okay. As you looked at the exhibit, did it 3 appear to be a quantification of PCB sales from 4 Anniston and the Krummrich plant for the years 1960 to 5 1970? 6 A. It appears to be, not knowing who put them 7 together and where the information came from. That's 8 the extent of my knowledge. 9 Q. On the cover page for 1969, there is a 10 reference what appears to be 42 million for the 11 Krummrich plant. Do you see that? 12 A. Ido. 13 Q. And that number, 42 million, is consistent 14 with the number that we saw from Exhibit 7 for the 15 production at the Krummrich plant in 1969? 16 A. Yes. It is the same order of magnitude, yes. 17 Q. Okay. It's hard to read, but there appear to 18 be some numbers as far as production of PCBs for the 19 Anniston plant during the years that you were located 20 at the plant. Do you see that? 21 A. Ido. 22 Q. Do these numbers appear to be accurate as to 23 the volume of PCB sales from the Anniston plant on 24 Exhibit 8? 25 A. I don't remember them at all.
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
WATER PCB-SD0000076133
1 Q. And as far as the numbers ofvolumes for PCB 2 sales from the Krummrich plant, did the numbers set 3 forth from 1960 to 1969 appear to be accurate based 4 upon your knowledge ofwhat was sold from that plant? 5 A. I, again, have no knowledge at all. 6 Q. So other than the 1969 number which tied out 7 with Exhibit 7, you don't know or have any other 8 information as to what was sold as far as PCBs from the 9 Krummrich plant? 10 A. Thatslight. And that number we just 11 mentionedjust confirms a previous number that someone 12 else had put together, so I don't know the validity of 13 any ofthose numbers. 14 Q. Let me turn to page Bates number Ceno 009615 15 and ask you to look at the names that are on the top of 16 the left-hand column. Do you recognize any ofthe 17 names that arc written at the top ofthat page? 18 A. I believe I recognize two ofthem, but one of 19 them is misspelled. 20 Q. Okay. Tell me what names you recognize. 21 A. H.S. Burgen. It should be B-I-R ifit is 22 Mr. Birgen, and then D.A. Olson. 23 Q. How do you recognize their names? 24 A. How do I recognize 25 Q. Who are these gentlemen?
Page 66
Page 68
1 assignment I had was one ofmonitoring, advising, 2 assisting, communicating, as distinguished from 3 specifically saying do this. 4 Q. How about--let me restate it by saying 5 beginning in 1970, you participated in a program at the 6 Krummrich plant to minimize PCB discharges; correct? 7 A. I did participate, yes. 8 Q. How long did you participate in that program? 9 A. I don't recall the exact timing, but it's 10 between 1973 and '77. 11 Q. Did it begin in 1970? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So it would be sometime between 1970 and 14 1976; is that correct? 15 A. Sometime in there, yes. 16 Q. Do you recall what the level ofPCB 17 discharges from Department 246 were when the program to 18 minimize discharges was initiated? 19 A. I do not. 20 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 9 was maiked for 21 identification.) 22 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Let me hand you whafs 23 been marked as Exhibit 9, Mr. Papageorge. And ifs my 24 yellow highlighting on the document. 25 A. I have scanned the exhibit.
Page 67
Page 69
1 A. I'm sorry? 2 Q. Did these gentlemen work for Monsanto? 3 A. Yes, they did. 4 Q. In what plant? 5 A. Mr. Birgen was the - I forget the specific 6 title, but he was the top individual of the group that 7 supervised and sold products like PCBs and they were 8 called functional fluids. 9 Q. Was he posted at Anniston or at 10 A. He was in St. Louis general offices. 11 Q. Okay, 12 A. And Mr-. Olson was the individual in charge of 13 the marketing activity reporting to Mr. Birgen. 14 Q. Were they employees, to your knowledge, in 15 the early 1970s? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You talked earlier about a PCB control 18 program for which you were supervising beginning in 19 1970 to minimize PCB discharges? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And that is true, you were responsible or 22 supervising a program to minimize PCB discharges 23 beginning in 1970? 24 A. I hesitate because the word supervise to me 25 implies that I directed every effort made, whereas the
1 Q. For the record, Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 9 to 2 your deposition today is a document dated 3 December 15th, 1970 from W.A. Krull, Technical Services 4 Department, Cetro 014730, with many people identified 5 as recipients; correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. One ofthe recipients that is identified is 8 you; is that right? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. Do you remember ever seeing Exhibit 9 before? 11 A. I don't remember that specific memorandum. 12 Q. Okay. Does it appear to be a document that 13 was generated by Monsanto on or about the date 14 indicated? 15 A. It does. 16 Q. And are the recipients identified on the 17 first page ofExhibit 9 all employees ofeither - of 18 Monsanto? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. At the top, there's a reference to summary 21 and it states as a continuation to the Aroclor 22 pollution reduction program, the losses from 23 Department 246 were measured at the beginning of 1970 24 to be in excess of300 pounds per day with intermittent 25 large spills oftwo to four- thousand pounds. Do you
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
WATER PCB-SD0000076134
Page 70
Page 72
1 see that? 2 A. Ido. 3 Q. Were the losses measured to the sewer from 4 Department 246 in excess of300 pounds per day prior to 5 the initiation ofthe loss prevention measures that 6 were implemented in the 1970s? 7 A. I can only go, sir, by the wording. I have 8 no way ofknowing the accuracy. But the reference here 9 is to the beginning of 1970 and this report is dated 10 December, so that would imply that those losses 11 occuired early enough in the year that they were not 12 yet reflecting what had happened during the year. 13 Q. And those losses were in excess of300 pounds 14 per day; correct? 15 A. Well, that's the author's estimate. 16 Q. Do you recall in your capacity as overseer 17 for the PCB program that there were losses to the sewer 18 in excess of 300 pounds per day prior to the PCB 19 pollution reduction program being implemented? 20 A. I do not. 21 Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with 22 what's reported in this memorandum that the losses were 23 over 300 pounds per day? 24 A. One can--you say do I-25 Q. Do you have a basis for disagreeing that the
1 Q (By Mr. Greenberg) For the record, Exhibit 10 2 is a memorandum dated November 6th, 1969, Subject, 3 Aroclor loss to sewer from a V. Brawley with Cerro Bates 4 number 010883. Did I accurately describe Exhibit 10? 5 A. You did. 6 Q. There ate a number of individuals identified 7 on this document. Do you recognize any ofthe names? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who do you recognize? 10 A. The addressee, Clarence Buckley, Mr. Bratsch, 11 B-R-A-T-S-C-H, and Mr. Molloy. 12 Q. Okay. And tire individuals youjust 13 identified were all employees ofMonsanto, to your 14 knowledge, in 1969? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Does (his appear to be a document generated 17 by Monsanto on or about the time indicated? 18 A. It appears to be. 19 Q. And it reports regarding a loss to the sewer 20 of50,000 pounds. Do you see that? 21 A, Ido. 22 Q. Do you have any knowledge ofa loss of 23 50,000 pounds to the sewer from some accident occurring 24 in 1969? 25 A. I do not.
Page 71
1 losses prior to the -- let me get the question out. 2 Do you have a basis for disagreeing with 3 what's set forth in that document, that the losses to 4 tire sewer in early 1970 were in excess of300 pounds per 5 day? 6 A. I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. 7 Q. So you have no basis to disagree with the 8 assertion in Exhibit 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. -Number 9? It talks also about large 11 spills ofbetween two and four thousand pounds. Do you 12 see that reference in Exhibit 9? 13 A. Ido. 14 Q. Are you familiar with any spills of PCB 15 material to the sewers in amounts between two and four 16 thousand pounds? 17 A. I am not. 18 Q. You don't recall that happening? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you recall there being spills ofmore than 21 4,000 pounds occurring? 22 A. No. 23 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 10 was marked for 24 identification.) 25 A. I have read the exhibit.
1 Q. Looking at Exhibit 10, do you have any reason 2 to believe that there was not a loss of50,000 pounds 3 to the sewer as reported in Exhibit 10? 4 A. I have no reason to believe there was or was 5 not. Either way. 6 Q. Well, given that ifs a Monsanto document 7 generated on or about the time indicated by individuals 8 you recognize as employees ofMonsanto, does that lead 9 you to believe that what is reported is true as opposed 10 to fantasy? 11 MR. NASSIF: Object to the form. 12 A. Well, first ofall, sir, the reference to an 13 Aroclor 11421 find interesting in that I'm not aware 14 ofany Aroclor by that number designation, so - and 15 then when they say approximately 50,000 pounds, again, 16 that's an estimate, so I find it hard to accept the 17 number as shown here. 18 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) You have no firsthand 19 basis to question whether this occurred; coirect? 20 A. No. 21 Q. And as far as the Aroclors 1142 - you're 22 familiar with Aroclor 1242, aren't you? 23 A. That is coirect. 24 Q. Do you think that maybe there was a 25 typographical error between Aroclor 1142 and Aroclor
Page 73
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
WATER PCB-SD0000076135
Page 74
Page 76
1 1242? 2 MR, NASSIF: Object to the form. 3 A. I have no way ofknowing what they meant by 4 1142. Could that have been a crude 1242 before it was 5 refined? I don't know that. This is just a thought 6 that entered my thinking. So I don't know that this is 7 really telling me an awful lot. 8 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) But in any event, in your 9 experience, you're not aware ofa discharge of50,000 10 pounds ofPCBs in an evening from the Kiummrich plant? 11 A. I am not. 12 (Papageoige Exhibit Number 11 was marked for 13 identification.) 14 A. I have scanned the exhibit. 15 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) For the record, Exhibit 16 11, Mr. Papageorge, is a memorandum dated February 21, 17 1974 from E.E. Stewart to Mr. P.E. Heisler bearing 18 Ceno 013748. Did I accurately describe the cover page 19 ofExhibit 11? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And it shows, does it not, that you were a 22 recipient ofthis memorandum? 23 A. It does. 24 Q. Do you recall ever seeing this memorandum 25 before?
1 Q. Yes. Well, I'm going to lead you through it. 2 Looking at Exhibit 11, does it appear to report the 3 same volume of production in 1969 as the volume 4 produced in 1969 on Exhibit 7? 5 A. It does appear so. 6 Q. And does Exhibit 11 also indicate a volume of 7 production in 1970 of roughly 50 million pounds as 8 reported on Exhibit 7? 9 A. It does. 10 Q. In 1971, does Exhibit 11 show a production 11 volume of approximately 40 million pounds, as does 12 Exhibit 7? 13 A. It does. 14 Q. In 1972, on Exhibit 7, there's a projected 15 volume of roughly 40 million pounds. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. On Exhibit 11, does that show an actual 18 production volume of 40 million pounds? 19 A. It does. 20 Q. And then in 1973, is there a production 21 volume shown of approximately 42 million pounds? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Now, under Roman numeral IV, there is a 24 discussion of measures taken to control and monitor 25 PCBs; correct?
1 A. Not that specific one, no. 2 Q. Do you recall generally receiving a 3 memorandum similar in nature to what's shown on 4 Exhibit 11? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 7 Exhibit 11 was not received by you at some point in 8 time? 9 A. I have no reason. 10 Q. And this Exhibit 11 is also a document 11 generated by Monsanto on or about the time indicated; 12 correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And it contains a number ofpieces of 15 information regarding the PCB waste reduction program; 16 correct? 17 A. It does. 18 Q. At page 6 ofExhibit 11 is a chart regrading 19 Aroclor production that's identical to the chart we 20 previously looked at in one ofthe earlier exhibits; 21 conect? Actually, let me withdraw that. 22 I'd like to compare the chart on page 6 of 23 Exhibit 11 to the chart on page 3 ofExhibit 7 that you 24 previously discussed. 25 A. You want me to compare them, sir?
Page 75
Page 77
1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And is there then a reporting by year from 3 1969 on as to various measures that were taken to 4 control PCB releases to the environment? Conect? 5 A. It appears to be, yes, sir. 6 Q. At the top of the report, there is a 7 statement that efforts to contain, control, and monitor 8 PCBs started in 1969 and continue at present via a 9 dynamic action control program. Do you see that? 10 A. I do. 11 Q. That appears to indicate that there were no 12 measures taken to control PCB discharges to the 13 environment prior to 1969, does it not? 14 A. One could read it that way, sir, but it's the 15 monitoring that is the new activity at that point in 16 time. 17 Q. So you think that this statement, to the 18 extent it's read, that there were no PCB -- efforts to 19 control discharges prior to 1969? That is inaccurate? 20 A. That is true. 21 Q. But you don't recall what actions were taken 22 prior to 1969 to control PCB discharges; correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Who would I ask to testify as to the measures 25 that were taken prior to 1969 to control PCB
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
WATER PCB-SD0000076136
Page 78
1 discharges?
1 Q. Do you know, how often was that -- first of
2 A. I'm sorry?
2 all, do you know the reference to 510,000 pounds have
3
Q. Who would you suggest I talk to if I wanted
3 been landfilled - do you see that?
4 to find out what actions were taken prior to 1969 to
4 A. Ido.
5 control PCB discharges?
5 Q. Do you know where those 510,000 pounds were
6 A. I don't know of any particular individual
6 landfilled?
7 that one could discuss the subject with at the moment. 7
A. No, I do not.
8 Q. If we flip over to page 8, there's a
8 Q. Do you know, once the incinerator was up and
9 reference in 1971 to the installation of the
9 running, how often was it operating?
10 incinerator. Do you see that?
10 A. 24 hours a day.
11 A. Ido.
11 Q. Seven days a week?
12 Q. And that was a development in 1971 to control 12 A. Seven days a week.
13 or minimize PCB discharges, the building and use of an 13
Q. Do you know the volume ofwaste that the
14 incinerator; correct?
14 incinerator could handle?
15 A. Correct.
15 A. I don't remember it.
16 Q. Did that incinerator incinerate liquids or
16 Q. Do you have any figures that you can share
17 solids?
17 with us as far as how many drums or trailers ofwhat
18 A. Both.
18 was incinerated?
19 Q. Were there PCB solid wastes discharges other 19 A. No. I just do not remember.
20 than by incineration -- strike that.
20 Q. But you do know that the incinerator was
21
When the incinerator began to be operating,
21 operated seven days a week on a 24-hour basis?
22 there still continued to be PCB solid waste that was
22 A. Yes, unless repairs were necessary.
23 generated but not incinerated; correct?
23 Q. The material that was incinerated beginning
24 A. I don't know.
24 in 1971, where was that material disposed ofprior to
25 Q. Do you know - let me ask it a different way, 25 the incinerator beginning operation?
Page 80
Page 79
1 then. 2 Is it your understanding that all liquid 3 all solid debris containing PCBs was incinerated once 4 the incinerator was up and running? 5 A. Thafs my understanding. 6 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 12 was maiked for 7 identification.) 8 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Let me hand you what's 9 been marked Exhibit 12 to your deposition. 10 A. I have read the exhibit. 11 Q. For the record, Exhibit 12 is a one-page 12 document bearing Monsanto 049347. Have you ever seen 13 this document before? 14 A. I don't remember it. 15 Q. Under Item 5, there is a statement for the 16 years 1971 through October 1975 at the W.G. Kmmmrich 17 plant, Sauget, Illinois. 15,237,000 pounds ofPCBs 18 have been burned. 510,000 pounds have been landfilled. 19 Do you see that? 20 A. Ido. 21 Q. Do you know if those numbers are accurate? 22 A. I do not. 23 Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with the 24 numbers that are being reported there? 25 A. I have no reasons, no.
1 A. I don't know, because much ofthat came fiom 2 customers and was sent to the Kntmmrich plant, 3 stockpiled until the incinerator was functioning. 4 Q. That was the customer return program that was 5 instituted by Monsanto? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. When was the customer return program started, 8 do you know? Again, round figures would be fine. 9 A. Middle of 1970 is my best recollection. 10 Q. Were the materials returned by the customers 11 all incinerated? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. None ofthat material was landfilled, to your 14 knowledge? 15 A. To my knowledge, that is correct. 16 Q. In any event, prior to the customer return 17 strike that. 18 Do you know ifthe customer return program 19 produced more PCB waste than the PCB production 20 processes at Monsanto? That was a bad question. 21 Was the volume ofmaterial returned by 22 customers in the '70s greater than the amount ofPCBs 23 produced by Monsanto during that period of time? 24 A. I have no numbers to compare. 25 Q. You have no idea?
Page 81
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
WATER PCB-SD0000076137
Page 82
Page 84
1 A. I have no idea. 2 Q. Okay. Take at look at what I've marked in 3 1972 with the highlighter. 4 A. I have read that sentence. 5 Q. Earlier in the deposition, I asked you about 6 the HC1 off-gas. Do you remember that? 7 A. Ido. 8 Q. And in your testimony, you were unaware of 9 whether the HC1 off-gas contained Aroclors or PCBs. 10 Looking at that, does that refresh your recollection 11 that in fact the HC1 off-gas did contain PCBs? 12 A. It does not, because I have an understanding 13 the process was designed to produce HC1 that was 14 eventually either sold or used at the plant without any 15 contaminants in it. That's the impression I am left 16 with. 17 Q. What I'm asking you now looking at that 18 document, Exhibit 11, it describes a PCB pollution 19 control measure addressed to the HC1 off-gas and 20 reports that it contained PCBs. Do you see that? 21 A. Are you referring to this basin, collecting 22 basin? 23 Q. Actually, no, sir. I was actually looking at 24 the statement regarding the production operation 25 control measure described here and the remedial action
1 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) It's really the issue 2 being repotted in - described in 1972. 3 A. That's what it implies, yes. 4 Q. Let me go ahead and finish this up by asking 5 you to look at page 14. You'll see that there's a 6 description ofcurrent known and unknown losses, 7 ctment meaning 1974 when this memorandum was issued; 8 correct? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. Okay. Ifwe go down to number 3, it reports 11 that the HC1 off-gas from the Aroclor operations can 12 contain from 15 to 30 pounds per day ofPCBs. Do you 13 see that? 14 A. Ido. 15 Q. Does that suggest to you that in fact the HC1 16 off-gas did contain PCBs as reported in this document 17 in this location? 18 A. Well, that's what that report implies. 19 Q. Well, not implies. It actually says it, 20 doesn't it? 21 A. It says it, yes. 22 Q. And further down, it reports that 23 intermittent discharges ofHC1 off-gas to the sewer at 24 the Aroclor department or inadvertently at 25 Department 236 can result in losses to the sewer. Do
1 being an HC1 off-gas scrubber design was completed to 2 permit a major reduction in PCBs in the scrub gas. Do 3 you see that? 4 A. Ido. 5 Q. Okay. Now looking at that, does it appear in 6 1972, according to that memorandum, Monsanto believed 7 that the HC1 off-gas contained PCBs and that a scrubber 8 was to be installed to minimize the loss ofPCBs? 9 A. That's what the report implies, yes. 10 Q. And do you have any reason to disagree with 11 vvhafs reported in Exhibit 11 ? 12 A. Only that its in conflict with my 13 understanding ofthe process. 14 Q. Do you know ifthat scrubber was installed as 15 repotted in Exhibit 11? 16 A. I don't know. I don't remember. 17 Q. Ifwe flip over to 1973, it reports that the 18 gas scrubber installation was in progress. Do you see 19 that? 20 A. Ido. 21 Q. Does that suggest to you that in fact an 22 off-gas scrubber was installed subsequent to the 23 problem being reported in 1972? 24 MR. NASSIF: Object to the form ofthe 25 question.
Page 83
Page 85
1 you see that? 2 A. Ido. 3 Q. Did that occur- at Department 246, that there 4 were losses to the sewer from the HC1 off-gas? 5 A. I personally don't know. 6 Q. But you have no reason to disagree with 7 what's reported here? 8 A. Correct. 9 MR. GREENBERG: Why don't we take a two-minute 10 break. I need to find something. 11 MR. NASSIF: Okay. 12 (Offthe record at 11:53 a.m.) 13 (On the record at 11:59 a.m.) 14 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) As part of the PCB 15 control program, did Monsanto monitor the amount of 16 PCBs in its wastewater going to the treatment plant and 17 compare those levels with what was reported at the 18 treatment plant? 19 A. I am assuming you're referring to Sauget 20 Village treatment plant? 21 Q. Correct. 22 A. I'm not aware ofthat. I don't know. 23 Q. Do you remember there being an investigation 24 conducted in terms ofwhy the PCB levels at the 25 sewer - at the P-Chem plant or the waste treatment
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
WATER PCB-SD0000076138
Page 86
1 plant were higher than what Monsanto was reporting in 2 its wastewater leaving the plant at Krummrich? 3 A. I am not. 4 Q. Do you recall ifMonsanto sampled waste 5 steams in 1970 or 1971 from other industries in the 6 Sauget area to determine PCB levels in their 7 wastewater? 8 A. I don't remember that at all. 9 Q. Okay. Do you, sir, remember a meeting with 10 the Environmental Production Agency in Washington that 11 occunedin 1972? 12 A. I had so many meetings in Washington with the 13 EPA, I -- 14 Q. It could have happened, but it doesn't stand 15 out? 16 A. Nothing stands out, no. 17 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 13 was mariced for 18 identification.) 19 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Let me hand you whafs 20 been marked as Exhibit 13 and have you take a look at 21 that. 22 A. I have scanned the exhibit. 23 Q. Okay. Exhibit 13 purports to be minutes ofa 24 meeting ofApril 13,1972 in EPA offices in Washington, 25 D.C. dated 4/28/1972 bearing Cerro 014694. Did I
1 existed at that time. 2 Q. And do you recall what level was being 3 advocated by the EPA at that meeting, or being 4 discussed as far as PCB discharges? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. What was that level? 7 A. ,01 parts per billion. 8 Q. And that was a level that you understood at 9 the time would be difficult for Monsanto to achieve; 10 correct? 11 A. It would be difficult for anyone to analyze 12 with the known instruments and knowledge that existed. 13 Q. Stated another way, at that time, Monsanto 14 was aware that its discharges to the sewer exceeded the 15 .01 parts per billion standard? 16 A. I don't remember that, but - Monsanto's 17 position wondering ifthat .01 level was realistic was 18 based on its knowledge ofthe world wide situation, 19 producers, customers, presence, and so on. 20 MR.NASSIF: Stop for a minute. 21 (A recess was taken.) 22 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Before the break, 23 Mr. Papageorge, I was asking you about a meeting with 24 the Environmental Protection Agency thats described in 25 Exhibit 13. Do you recall that?
Page 88
Page 87
Page 89
1 accurately identify the document?
1 A. Ido.
2 A. You did.
2 Q. At the end of Exhibit 13, there is a four- or
3 Q. And it shows, sir, that you were present for 3 five-page statement titled Talk Given to Federal EPA,
4 Monsanto at the EPA offices when this meeting in April 4 4/13/72. Do you see that?
5 occurred.
5 A. Ido.
6 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you remember Mr. Engman reading that
7 Q. Do you recall a meeting with these people
7 statement that's attached to Exhibit 13 to the
8 present with the EPA in April of 1972?
8 Environmental Protection Agency?
9 A. I recall the meeting. I don't remember the
9 A. I do not remember that.
10 exact date.
10 Q. Okay. Do you recall Mr. Engman being present
11 Q. Do you recall what the purpose of the meeting 11 at that meeting?
12 was?
12 A. Yes.
13 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you recall being deposed in 1994 in a
14 Q. And what was the purpose of that meeting? 14 lawsuit titled Cerro versus Monsanto?
15 A. EPA was trying to establish an acceptable
15 A. Shell, you say?
16 concentration of PCBs in water samples and they asked 16
Q. Cerro Copper Products versus Monsanto
17 Monsanto to participate in discussions, and therefore
17 Company?
18 we responded to their invitation to meet with them.
18 A. Okay. You're talking about Cerro?
19 Q. Do you recall there being a discussion of a
19 Q. Correct.
20 no tolerance level for discharges of PCB or some other 20
A. Oh, yes. Okay.
21 level that was being advocated at the time?
21 Q. Do you recall being deposed for two days by a
22 A. I recall their basing their concentration
22 Mr. Ritchie for that case?
23 level on the ability of fish to accumulate PCB in their
23
A. Yes.
24 tissues, and they were arriving at a concentration that 24
Q. And in that deposition, you were asked about
25 was not being met by the analytical procedures that
25 this document. Do you recall that?
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
WATER PCB-SD0000076139
Page 90
1 A. No, I don't. 2 Q. On page 320 of that deposition transcript, 3 you were asked: 4 QUESTION: Attached to the minutes is a text 5 of a talk that Mr. Engman gave at the meeting. 6 ANSWER: Yes, it is. 7 QUESTION: Do you recall Mr. Engman giving 8 this talk? 9 ANSWER: Yes. 10 Did he basically just read what was on -11 ANSWER: Yes. 12 QUESTION: - this sheet? 13 Do you want to see that portion of your 14 deposition? 15 A. Can you help me find the starting point here? 16 Q. Sure. 17 A. I was reading from page 320. 18 MR. NASSIF: Before you answer, Bill, let me 19 see it after you get through it. 20 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Mr. Papageorge, did I 21 accurately read the portion of the transcript of your 22 deposition from the earlier case? 23 A. Help me. You mentioned 320, and I'm looking 24 at 322. 25 Q. I'm sorry. 322 is the correct page
1 plant is showing higher levels ofPCBs than the 2 Krummrich plant is showing in its effluent; is that 3 conect? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And then he posits the question why the 6 difference. Do you see that? 7 A. Ido. 8 Q. And in his answer, he speaks to the age of 9 the Krummrich plant and leaky sewers at the Krummrich 10 plant. Do you see that? 11 A. I do see it. 12 Q. That's the substance ofwhat he reports as 13 the reason for the difference between the levels 14 reported at the treatment plant and the levels found at 15 the Krummrich plant; correct? 16 A. That is conect. 17 Q. Okay. At no time did Mr. Engman advise the 18 EPA that the differences in the levels found at the 19 treatment plant versus the Krummrich plant weie due to 20 other industries in Sauget; conect? 21 MR NASSIF: In this one - hang on. You said 22 at no time. 23 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) In that statement to the 24 EPA25 MR. NASSIF: In that statement, okay.
Page 92
Page 91
Page 93
1 reference.
1 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) - does Mr. Engman
2 A. All right. You asked if you read that
2 explain the discrepancy or the difference in levels
3 correctly?
3 between what's found at the treatment plant versus
4 Q. Yes.
4 what's found at the Krummrich plant in terms of
5 A. You did. Uh-huh,
5 discharges from other industries in Sauget; correct?
6
Q. That was your testimony at that time in 1994;
6
A. He does not.
7 correct?
7 Q. Do you recall -- I think I asked you this,
8 A. Obviously.
8 but let me ask it again. Do you recall that at some
9 Q. Looking at that testimony, does that refresh
9 point Monsanto investigated wastewater from different
10 your recollection as to whether Mr. Engman essentially 10 industries to by to determine if they were a source of
11 read the statement attached to Deposition Exhibit 13 to 11 PCB levels reaching the treatment plant?
12 the Environmental Protection Agency?
12 A. I don't recall that extensive of a program
13 A. It does.
13 being discussed with me.
14 Q. And did he do that?
14 Q. How about any program?
15 A. Yes.
15 A. I remember the one that had to do with
16 Q. At the end of the statement read by
16 washing tank tracks and the introduction of PCBs into
17 Mr. Engman, there is a question and answer that is
17 some environmental problem.
18 presented regarding what are present levels of losses. 18
Q. And I may come back to that, but I'm speaking
19 Do you see that?
19 really of sampling discharges from Midwest Rubber,
20 A. I do.
20 American Zinc, Cerro Copper, Mobil Oil, or the Village
21 Q. He then identifies some information regarding 21 to determine if that was a source of PCBs in the
22 losses at the plant versus losses at the treatment
22 wastewater that was reaching the treatment plant. Do
23 center -- treatment plant. Do you see that?
23 you recall that?
24 A. Ido.
24 A. I do not.
25 Q. And he then - he notes that the treatment
25
(Papageorge Exhibit Number 14 was marked for
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
WATER PCB-SD0000076140
Page 94
Page 96
1 identification.) 2 Q. (By Mr. Greenbeig) Let me hand you what's 3 been marked as Exhibit Number 17. And why don't - I'm 4 sony ~ Exhibit 14. I'm primarily going to direct 5 your attention to page 8. 6 A. I have scanned the exhibit. 7 Q. Okay. So let's identify it for the record. 8 Exhibit 14, Mr. Papageorge, is a memorandum dated 9 January 8,1971 titled PCB Environmental Problem 10 December Status Report bearing Cciro Bates number 11 011584; is that couect? 12 A. That is conect. 13 Q. Were you the author ofExhibit 14? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And this was one ofthe status reports that 16 you issued from time to time as part ofthe PCB control 17 program; correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. The folks that are identified as recipients 20 ofyour memorandum are all employees ofMonsanto? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you shipped this as far as Brussels and 23 Tokyo; is that right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. You created this document at a time when you
1 A. Of course I recognize the entities described 2 and I recognize what the report is saying, but I still 3 don't remember a formal program being put together to 4 do just this item. 5 Q. How about remembering any testing of, for 6 example, the American Zinc wastewater to determine if 7 it was contributing PCBs? Do you remember that? 8 A. I really don't. 9 Q. Fine. But judging from this report that you 10 authored, it appears that that in fact was done; is 11 that right? 12 A. Yeah. Somebody reported that to me and I 13 repeated it. 14 Q. And as I understand ~ I take it you do not 15 know who took the samples or where the samples were 16 taken that are described on page 8? 17 A. That's true. 18 Q. However, this information was provided to you 19 and you made a judgment, quote, the only significant 20 quantities is PCBs from the Village sewer. Do you see 21 that statement under paragraph 3? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Now, you did not identify American 24 Zinc as having a significant quantity of PCBs to the 25 Village sewer; correct?
Page 95
Page 97
1 were an employee ofMonsanto; is that right? 2 A. That is right. 3 Q. The purpose ofthis document was to record 4 and memorialize actions that were taken on or about 5 1971 pertaining to the environmental program? 6 A. To record and memorialize? I perceive this 7 as my way ofcommunicating with individuals who were in 8 some way involved with the PCB activities. 9 Q. Okay. And this report describes actions that 10 were taken on or about Januaiy 1971 pertaining to the 11 PCB control program? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. Lefs go ahead and go forward to 14 page 8. 15 A. I'm sony. Page 3? 16 Q. Page 817 A. 8. 18 Q. --ofExhibit 14. Have you had a chance to 19 look at page 8? 20 A. Yes, I have. 21 Q. Looking at that, does that refresh your 22 recollection that testing was conducted ofvarious 23 industries' wastewaters to try to determine whether 24 they were contributing to the PCB levels found at the 25 treatment plant?
1 A. I did not. 2 Q. Is that because the level of 6 parts per 3 billion is essentially a trace finding of parts per 4 billion of PCBs? 5 A. It is. 6 Q. And I take it that if you calculated that a 7 level of 2,110 parts per billion is equivalent of 2 to 8 3 pounds per day - do you see that there -9 A. I do. 10 Q. - then what is the amount in ounces or 11 pounds that a level of 6 parts per billion would 12 reflect? 13 MR. NASSIF: If you can figure it out. 14 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) If you can. 15 A. I really can't, because I don't have enough 16 information. I don't have the total volume. All I 17 have is results found in a little sample. 18 Q. These samples, though, were being reported in 19 your 1971 report. Do you see that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you know if the American Zinc facility was 22 in operation at the time that sample was purportedly 23 drawn from American Zinc? 24 A. I do not. 25 Q. Do you know if American Zinc authorized
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
WATER PCB-SD0000076141
Page 98
Page 100
1 obtaining that sample from its facility?
1 A. Yes.
2 A. I do not.
2 Q. Do you remember who Edward Stewart was?
3
Q. You don't know what the detection level was 3
A. Yeah.
4 for analyzing that sample, do you?
4 Q. What was his job in 1972?
5
A. The detection level? Do you mean the ability 5
A. I don't remember the formal title, but he was
6 to --
6 involved with PCB and environmental issues and reported
7 Q. Correct.
7 to a Mr. Leisy who was a superintendent ofone ofthe
8 A. Well, at this point in time, Monsanto
8 parts ofthe Krummrich plant.
9 individuals very active in analysis and evaluating the
9 Q. You're shown as a cc for Exhibit 15; correct?
10 answers believed that anything less than 10 parts per 10 A. Yes.
11 billion would pose some problems because they were 11
Q. Do you remember receiving this document?
12 never repeatable. It was difficult to do. And the
12 A. I don't remember it specifically, no.
13 Monsanto position was that 10 parts per billion is a
13 Q. But did you receive documents ofthis type as
14 more reliable level. You could duplicate it.
14 part ofthe PCB loss control program?
15 Q. Essentially, that was a reliable cutoff level 15 A. That is correct.
16 for purposes of analyzing samples; correct?
16 Q. Do you have any reason to believe you did not
17 A. Correct.
17 get this document at some point in time?
18 Q. And then 6 parts per billion, obviously, as
18 A. I do not.
19 shown here would not have been -- satisfied that
19 Q. I want to turn to page 3 ofthe document -
20 standard that you just identified?
20 page 3 noted on the document, which is Cerro 014765.
21 A. That's true.
21 Do you see that, sir?
22 Q. By the way, it's correct, is it not, that the
22 A. Ido.
23 meeting with the EPC that's described in Exhibit 13, 23
Q. Again, there is a discussion ofthe PCB
24 particularly the narrative by Mr. Engman, occurred
24 levels being reported at the treatment plant and
25 after this report, Exhibit 14, was generated; correct? 25 comparing the influent and effluent from the treatment
1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So at the time Mr. Engman made his statements 3 regarding the differences in levels between the 4 treatment plant and the Krummrich plant as far as PCBs, 5 the information as far as the levels tested for various 6 industries was already in the possession ofMonsanto? 7 A. Yes. 8 MR. MURRAY: For the record, Dan Murray for 9 Paul Sauget has rejoined the deposition. Thank you. 10 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 15 was marked for 11 identification.) 12 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Let me hand you whafs 13 been marked as Exhibit 26. Why don't you go ahead and 14 take a look at it, but I'm only going to be asking you 15 regarding page 3 ofthe exhibit 16 MR. NASSIF: Ifs 15? 17 MR. GREENBERG: 15. 18 A. I have scanned the exhibit. 19 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Okay. Let me have it 20 back for a second. Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 15 for your 21 deposition is a memorandum dated April 6,1972 bearing 22 Ceiro 014761. Did I accurately identify the document? 23 A. You did. 24 Q. Is it your understanding that the author of 25 the document is Edward Stewart?
Page 99
Page 101
1 plant. Do you see that? 2 A. I do. 3 Q. And there is a statement after the numbers 4 are analyzed, it says it is believed the waste 5 treatment influent represents losses from the plant. 6 Do you understand that refers to the Krummrich 7 plant? 8 A. I believe it does. 9 Q. And the second sentence sort ofgives you a 10 better clue where it says, in turn, it is believed that 11 the major source ofplant losses is the Aroclor 12 department. Do you see that? 13 A. Ido. 14 Q. Again, there's no reference to any other 15 industries in Sauget being the source ofPCBs that were 16 reaching the treatment plant in that report; correct? 17 A. That's correct. 18 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 16 was marked for 19 identification.) 20 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Let me hand you whafs 21 been marked as Exhibit 16. 22 A. I have read the exhibit. 23 Q. And Exhibit 16 is a memorandum from Mr. Smull 24 to J.H. Craddock and ifs dated November 28 - I'm 25 sorry-November 22,1985 bearing Cerro 053223. DidI
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
WATER PCB-SD0000076142
Page 102
Page 104
1 identify the document correctly?
1 Q. Do you know if as part of the loss control
2 A. You did.
2 program Monsanto attempted to monitor the discharges
3 Q. And you're shown as a cc on the document? 3 from the incinerator?
4 A. Yes.
4 A. I do not know.
5 Q. The document refers to that in 1985, there
5 Q. Earlier you mentioned a little bit about
6 has been a phase-out of PCB equipment. Do you see
6 hauling of PCBs and the possibility of PCB discharges
7 that?
7 due to hauling. Did Monsanto use its own trailers to
8 A. Ido.
8 haul PCB product from Krummrich?
9 Q. At that time, the Krummrich plant was no
9 A. No. I'm not aware of that, no.
10 longer producing PCBs for sale; is that right?
10 Q. Do you know what haulers were utilized by
11 A. That is true.
11 Monsanto to haul PCB product?
12 Q. There is a reference here to, quote, the only 12 A. I don't remember them today, no.
13 PCBs on site are those generated incidental to the
13 Q. Okay. Do you recall there being an issue as
14 production of chlorobenzenes. Do you see that?
14 to washing out trailers by one or more of haulers
15 A. I do.
15 resulting in Monsanto requiring that trailers be washed
16 Q. Do you understand that PCBs were produced 16 at its premises as opposed to a third party's premises?
17 incidental to the production of chlorobenzenes?
17 A. I recall one incident.
18 A. I have difficulty understanding that
18 Q. Can you tell me what you recall?
19 conclusion.
19 A. There was a trucking fimi that was used to
20 Q. Did you participate in any discussions
20 haul PCBs to customers and on occasion this trucking
21 regarding this memorandum in the 1980s?
21 firm had to wash out the tank trailer because a
22 A. I wasn't involved in any.
22 different product was going to be used or was going to
23 Q. As you sit here today, do you know one way or 23 be introduced into that tank to be delivered to another
24 the other whether PCBs were produced as part of the 24 customer. And one of the sampling programs found an
25 chlorobenzene production process?
25 unusually high PCB concentration in one of the streams
Page 103
Page 105
1 A. I do not know.
1 they analyzed which eventually was traced back to this
2 Q. Do you know who would?
2 trucking company's facilities and the decision was
3 A. No, I don't.
3 then ~ not decision, but the idea was then proposed
4 Q. We talked a little bit about the incinerator
4 that Monsanto take on the washing operation at its
5 that was up and running in the 1970s to incinerate PCB 5 sites in the plant which were really designed for
6 waste. Was a residue produced by the incinerator?
6 railroad tank car washing. And I remember that because
7 A. Was there a -- I'm sorry?
7 I was one that supported that and convinced the
8 Q. A residue produced by the incinerator?
8 management in Monsanto that it was worth the effort and
9 A. No.
9 to authorize spending some money for a catch basin. I'm
10 Q. The incinerator was able to incinerate
10 going to call it, that would catch anything that
11 100 percent of the materials that it was provided?
11 spilled over and not allow it to flow freely.
12 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did this service ofwashing out -1 take it
13 Q. How about air emissions? Were there any air 13 Horn your answer, then, that Monsanto began to wash out
14 emissions from the incinerator?
14 third party trailers on its premises as a means of
15 A. When you say air emissions, any burning
15 controlling PCB discharges?
16 process will create gasses, so there had to be the
16 A. Yes.
17 typical carbon dioxides.
17 Q. Was that done for one hauler, or was that
18 Q. Do you know if PCBs were released from the 18 done for any hauler who was hauling PCBs?
19 incinerator as part of the process for destroying the
19 A. I'm only aware ofone.
20 PCB waste that was burned in the incinerator?
20 Q. Was that - was the washing done at the rift
21
A. I have no information that demonstrates that,
21 track? Is that what it was referred to?
22 no.
22 A. Yes. That's what the terminology was.
23
Q. Do you know if the air emissions were ever
23 Q. And were there releases to the sewers
24 tested coming from the incinerator?
24 resulting from the washing ofthe trailers at the rift
25 A. I do not know.
25 track?
27 (Pages 102 to 105)
WATER PCB-SD0000076143
Page 106
Page 108
1 A. Not after the catch basin was put in.
1 Mr. Papageorge, that Exhibit 17 to your deposition is a
2 Q. But before the catch basin was installed,
2 document dated March 13,1970 titled W.G. Krummrich
3 there was washing of trailers with releases to the
3 Plant Waste Audit and it appeal's to have been prepared
4 sewers; is that right?
4 by M. Pierle, P-I-E-R-L-E, with a Ceiro Bates number
5 A. Not at that site.
5 011416?
6 Q. What site was it?
6 A. That's coirect.
7 A. It was at the trucking firm site.
7 Q. Do you recognize the names of any people who
8 Q. In other words, to your knowledge, the catch 8 are identified on the first page of this document?
9 basin was installed prior to Monsanto beginning to wash 9
A. I recognize several ofthem.
10 trailers at the rift track?
10 Q. And the names you recognize, those are all
11 A. That's my understanding, yes.
11 employees ofMonsanto; correct?
12 Q. Do you recall as part of the PCB control
12 A. Yes.
13 program that there continued to be some concern of
13 Q. And Mr. Pierle-am I pronouncing his name
14 releases of PCB product from washing of trailers
14 right, Pierle?
15 reaching the sewers, notwithstanding the catch basin? 15 A. Pierle.
16 A. I don't recall any specific discussion on
16 Q. Mr. Pierle. Was he an employee ofMonsanto
17 that subject.
17 in 1971?
18 Q. If there was, it would be in the memorandums 18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 that we've looked at regarding the status of the
19 Q. Does this appear to be a document generated
20 program?
20 by Monsanto on or about March 1970?
21 A. Yes. We would see a reference to it.
21 A. Yes.
22
Q. Were you participating -- did you participate
22 Q. It appears to be a record pertaining to sewer
23 in the discussion to open a landfill at the Mississippi
23 discharges; is that right?
24 River to handle wastes generated by either the Queeny 24 A. I don't see any reference specifically to
25 or the Krummrich plant?
25 sewage, but the reference to water pollution implies
Page 107
Page 109
1 A. I was not.
1 that these materials are associated with water.
2 Q. Do you know if such a landfill was even
2 Q. Do you see in the table there's a reference
3 opened by the Mississippi River?
3 to COD losses? Do you see that?
4 A. I do not.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I take it if you didn't participate in that
5 Q. Are you familiar with the term COD losses?
6 discussion, you were not involved in the calculation of 6
A. Yes.
7 the volume of wastes that were being generated in the 7 Q. What do you understand the tern COD losses to
8 1970s at either Queeny or the Krummrich plant?
8 mean?
9 A. Very likely. I don't know what -- what would 9 A. Chemical oxygen demand.
10 have been discussed.
10 Q. Is that a term thafs normally associated
11 Q, The volume of wastes that were being
11 with water and wastewater?
12 generated --
,
12 A. Yes.
13 A. The volume and type and frequency and -
13 Q. Does that help inform you that this table
14 Q. Right. Did you participate in any
14 refers to quantities or amounts ofcontaminants
15 discussions regarding that?
15 discharged to the wastewater at the Krummrich plant?
16 A. No.
16 A. Yes.
17
Q. Do you have any information as you sit here
17 Q. And does this appear- to be correct, that this
18 today regarding the volumes, frequency, and types of 18 memorandum attempts to categorize and quantity the
19 waste that were disposed of at the landfill that was
19 discharges at the time to the sewer from the Krummrich
20 opened by the Mississippi River?
20 plant?
21 A. I don't have any.
21 A. Yes.
22
(Papageorge Exhibit Number 17 was marked for 22
Q. During the time that you were employed by
23 identification.)
23 Monsanto, did you have any contact with the American
24 A. I have scanned the exhibit.
24 Zinc Company representatives or its plant site?
25 Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) Okay. Is it correct,
25 A. No.
28 (Pages 106 to 109)
WATER PCB-SD0000076144
Page 110
Page 112
1 Q. Do you have any information as to how
1 Queeny through the production process for
2 American Zinc disposed of its wastes during the time 2 nitrochlorobenzene?
3 that you were an employee at Monsanto?
3 A. I don't know that it refreshes it any, it's
4 A. I do not.
4 just that 10 years ago, it was probably still on my
5 Q. Earlier in your deposition, I asked you
5 mind and today it's not there.
6 during the time that you were at Queeny if you were 6
Q. I understand. So you think this is probably
7 familiar with the production process of
7 accurate, your testimony in 1994 --
8 nitrochlorobenzenes, and I think you said yes.
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 A. Yes. That's true.
9 Q. - as to what happened to the
10 Q. And I asked you regarding still bottoms
10 nitrochlorobenzene still bottoms; right?
11 generated by the nitrobenzene process. Do you recall 11
A. Yes. Yes.
12 that?
12 Q. Further on you're asked whereabouts in
13 A. I do.
13 Illinois?
14 Q. And I think you indicated to me that you
14
ANSWER: Near the Sauget Kmmmrich plant.
15 were - you were aware that still bottoms were
15
Do you see that?
16 generated, but you had no idea where the still bottoms 16
A. Let me see this.
17 that were drummed at Queeny were disposed of?
17 Q. Sure.
18 A. Correct.
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. And that's your testimony here today?
19 Q. Did I accurately read your testimony?
20 A. Yes.
20 A. Yes, you did.
21 Q. Do you recall being asked about that in your 21 Q. As you sit here today, you believe that that
22 deposition that was taken in 1994 in the Ceixo versus 22 testimony as to where the still bottoms were disposed
23 Monsanto case?
23 of was accurate at the time you testified in 1994?
24 A. No, I don't.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Let's read -- I'm representing to you, sir,
25 Q. So as far as you know sitting here today, the
Page 111
Page 113
1 that this is page 32 from your deposition. And I would 2 like to go over some ofthat transcript with you to see 3 ifthat either is accurate or refreshes your 4 recollection. 5 At the bottom ofpage 31, the question was 6 asked, were there any waste products or by-product in 7 the manufacture ofnitrobenzene that were discharged to 8 the sewers? 9 ANSWER: Not directly. 10 Indirectly? 11 ANSWER: Indirectly through washing the floors 12 down and so on. 13 And we can skip over a little bit and there's 14 then a question regarding still bottoms. 15 QUESTION: How were the still bottoms disposed 16 of? 17 ANSWER: They were drained into steel drums 18 and hauled over to Monsanto's landfill in Illinois. 19 Do you see that testimony, sir-? 20 A. I do. 21 Q. Did you provide that answer previously in 22 this deposition - strike that -- in 1994? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to 25 what happened to the wastes that were generated at
1 still bottoms were disposed ofin Sauget near the 2 Krummrich plant? 3 A. No, I would suggest that what I really meant 4 to say there, instead ofsaying Anniston, I said Sauget 5 and then, wait, Krummrich plant was a better 6 description. It did not refer to the Village or to any 7 system. My answer could be misleading the way I worded 8 it. 9 Q. Well, I mean, I guess maybe you can help me 10 then. The reference to near the Sauget Kiumrraich 11 plant, were you testifying that the wastes were 12 disposed ofnear the Krummrich plant in 1994 that were 13 generated at the Queeny plant for the 14 nitrochlorobenzene process? 15 A. I was testifying that it was sent to the 16 Krummrich plant for disposal. I was not aware ofthe 17 specifics ofthat disposal. 18 MR. GREENBERG: I have no further questions. 19 MR. NASSF: One ofyou guys want to go next? 20 Do you want to go, Rogers? 21 MS. LITTLE: I'll go. 22 MR. NASSF: Is there anyone on the phone that 23 has a significant amount of questions? JeffSpector, do 24 you have any questions? 25 MR SPECTOR: I'm only going to have like 15
29 (Pages 110 to 113)
WATER PCB-SD0000076145
Page 114
Page 116
1 minutes ofquestions, but I do have to leave at 4 p.m. 2 your time, so ifI could fit in sometime before then, 3 then that would be great. 4 MS. LITTLE: I'm not going to take long. 5 MR.NASSIF: Okay. I think you'll go next, 6 then. Why don't we do that, Jeff. And then Dan, do you 7 have any questions? 8 MR. MURRAY: I have some veiy rudimentary 9 questions I could probably ask you, Joe, but since the 10 deponent is here, I'll ask Mr. Papageoige. 11 MR. NASSIF: Okay. JefFSepesi, are you on 12 the line? 13 MRSEPESI: Yes, I am. 14 MR. NASSIF: Do you have any questions? 15 MR. SEPESI: I don't think so. 16 MR. NASSIF: And there's somebody on the line, 17 I know, sitting in for Chris for Ceiro. Do you have any 18 questions? 19 MR. HOPKINS: This is Chris. I'm back now. 20 MR.NASSIF: Okay. Do you have any questions, 21 Chris? 22 MR. HOPKINS: I don't have any questions. 23 MR. NASSIF: What we'll do is we'll do you and 24 then we'll go to the government and then Jon, over to 25 you.
1 Q. Okay. Do you know who took the samples? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did you ever talk to that person? 4 A. No. I just got their written reports or 5 telephone calls. 6 Q. They gave you the information they gathered? 7 A. Yes, what they found in those samples, but 8 not how they took the sample and where and so on. 9 Q. You don't know the sampling points where the 10 samples were taken from? 11 A. That is true. 12 Q. Okay. I want to direct your attention to the 13 very last sentence under paragraph 3 that we've been 14 looking at where it says probable sources, Aroclor 15 trailers washes at the Rogers terminal. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. I do. 18 Q. Can you tell me the basis of that sentence? 19 A. Well, the basis really, it's information that 20 came from the Krummrich plant. Which individual at 21 this point in time, I don't remember. And I don't 22 remember whether it's a telephone call or at some eye 23 to eye contact meeting or a report. But I was made 24 aware of that. 25 Q. It was information provided to you by another
Page 115
Page 117
1 MR. SANTANGELO: I have very little.
1 Monsanto employee; is that correct?
2
MR. NASSIF: Okay. All right. Go ahead.
2 A. Correct.
3 EXAMINATION BY MS. LITTLE:
3 Q. Okay. Did you have firsthand knowledge
4 Q. Mr. Papageorge, my name is Vicki little. I
4 regarding any of the information that had been
5 represent Rogers Cartage Company. I've got just a few 5 gathered?
6 questions for you today, mostly follow-up on what
6 A. I don't know what you mean by firsthand.
7 Mr. Greenberg has already asked you.
7 Q. Did you personally observe any of the
8 Let's look again at what's been marked as
8 information gathering or do any investigation on your
9 Exhibit 14 for your deposition. And turn back to page 9 own?
10 8, if you don't mind.
10 A. No.
11 A. I have it.
11 Q. Okay. I believe that you testified earlier
12 Q. Okay. And look specifically at paragraph 3 12 that when some sampling had been done, it was been,
13 on that page where you're talking about the sewer
13 quote, traced back to one of the tracking companies.
14 samples.
14 A. Yes.
15 A. I see it.
15 Q. Okay. Is that what you're referring to, the
16 Q. Okay. I understood from your previous
16 Rogers Cartage information?
17 testimony that you didn't actually participate in
17 A. Yes. This fits that description I made.
18 taking those samples; is that correct?
18 Q. All right. When you said traced back, what
19 A. That is correct.
19 exactly did you mean?
20 Q. Okay. Did you direct the taking of the
20 A. Well, the individual that reported finding
21 samples?
21 this high PCB level - and I'm trying to think how it
22 A. No.
22 was reported to me. But he indicated that the Rogers
23 Q. Okay. Who did that?
23 Cartage people operated in this area. And to them --
24 A. The plant management, but I don't know which 24 to the person, it was obvious that that was the source
25 specific individual.
25 of the PCBs, where it was located and the amount
30 (Pages 114 to 117)
WATER PCB-SD0000076146
1 discovered. 2 Q. Okay. Was it a Mr. Savage who reported to 3 you? Do you remember Mr. Savage? 4 A. I remember Mr. Savage, but I just -- today, I 5 just don't recall the individual. That's 20,30 years 6 ago. 7 Q. I understand that. Do you know what measures 8 that individual took to determine where they believed 9 the source ofthose PCBs was? 10 A. I do not. 11 Q. Did you ever talk to any Rogers Cartage 12 employees? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did you ever visit the Rogers Cartage 15 terminal in Sauget? 16 A. No. 17 Q. At any time? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you ever observe any ofthe trailer 20 cleaning processes at Rogers Cartage? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you ever talk to anybody at Rogers 23 Callage about how they cleaned their trailers? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Okay. Did you ever personally observe
Page 118
Page 120
1 A. No. 2 Q. Do you have any knowledge or information of 3 any other disposal ofany materials by Rogers Cartage 4 into Dead Creek? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you have any knowledge or information 7 regarding any disposal ofany materials whatsoever by 8 Rogers Cartage in the Sauget, Illinois area? 9 A. No. 10 MS. LITTLE: I don't have any other questions. 11 MR.NASSIF: Okay, Vicki. Jeff? 12 (Discussion offthe record.) 13 MR. SPECTOR: Ifyou could take out the 14 document with the March 8,1971 date and the one with 15 the November 5,1971 date and mark those as exhibits. 16 MR.NASSIF: Youjust tell me what you want me 17 to go through, Jeff. I'll hand them to her. 18 MR. SPECTOR: Okay. 19 MR. NASSIF: And I'll hand them to the 20 witness. Which one do you want to do first, the March 21 9th document? 22 MR. SPECTOR: Yes. 23 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 18 was marked for 24 identification.) 25 MR. NASSIF: Okay. Thafs Exhibit 18 and it's
Page 119
Page 121
1 anybody from Rogers Cartage disposing ofany materials 2 into the sewer? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Do you know anyone who did visit the Rogers 5 Catage terminal? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Okay. Do you know anyone who talked to any 8 Rogers Catage employees about that? 9 A. I can't recall any specific individual, no. 10 Q. Can you generally remember? 11 A. Ifs an employee at the Krummrich plant who 12 was giving me this kind of information, was 13 communicating with somebody at Rogers. 14 Q. Do you know who that person was communicating 15 with? 16 A. No, I don't. 17 Q. Okay. Do you know when that would have been? 18 A. '70s. 1970s, early. 19 Q. '70 or'71? 20 A. Yeah, ealy'70s. 21 Q. Was there any written communication between 22 that person and any ofthe Rogers employees? 23 A. I don't recall seeing any. 24 Q. Okay. Did you ever communicate in writing 25 with anybody from Rogers Cartage?
1 Ceiro number 011681. Ifs a memo from Mr. Papageorge to 2 a group ofindividuals at Monsanto and ifs titled PCB 3 Environmental Problem February Status Report. 4 EXAMINATION BY MR SPECTOR: 5 Q. Mr. Papageorge, my name is Jeff Spector, and 6 I represent the United States in this matter. I just 7 have a few very briefadditional questions for you. If 8 you'd look at the documents thafs just been marked as 9 Exhibit Number 18 to your deposition. 10 A. I have it. 11 Q. Do you see your' name at the top there, sir? 12 A. Ido. 13 Q. And is this a document that you authored? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And is it a document that you authored in the 16 regular course ofyour business activities? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. Ifyou could turn to page 11, please. 19 A. I have it. 20 Q. Okay. Ifyou'll read tire information under 21 letter B or review the information. 22 A. The top B or the bottom B? 23 Q. Thank you. The top B, please. 24 A. All right. I'll read it. I have finished 25 reading it.
31 (Pages 118 to 121)
WATER PCB-SD0000076147
Page 122
Page 124
1 Q. Okay. Does this appear to be another
1 A. Mr. Savage represented a team of Monsanto
2 reference to disposals by Rogers Cartage of PCBs?
2 employees that followed the manufacturing activities of
3 A. Yes.
3 the group of plants that reported at that time to the
4 Q. Okay. Is this the item you were referencing 4 Organic Chemicals Division of Monsanto.
5 in your testimony earlier when there was an incident of 5
Q. And what was your business relationship with
6 particular high leaks?
6 Mr. Savage?
.
7 A. Yes.
7 A. I'm sorry?
8 Q. And based on your earlier testimony, you
8 Q. Did he provide you with reports on a regular
9 received this information from another Monsanto
9 basis?
10 employee?
10 A. Yes. He stalled on a monthly basis, that's
11 A. That is correct.
11 correct.
12 Q. Sitting here today, you don't recall the name 12 Q. And he would discuss PCB issues at the
13 of that employee?
13 Krummrich plant with you?
14 A. I do not.
14 A. Yes.
15
Q. At the time when you were generating these
15
Q. I'd like to -- do you see your name on this
16 reports, did you have any concerns about the veracity 16 document?
17 of the information provided to you by your employees? 17
A. I'm sorry?
18 A. No.
18 Q. Do you see your name on this document -
19 Q. So you thought it was trustworthy?
19 A. I do.
20 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- at the top?
21 Q. And sitting here today, do you have any
21 A. I am the recipient.
22 doubts about the truth of this information as item B on 22
Q. Okay. And do you recall receiving this
23 page 11?
23 document?
24 A. I have no doubts.
24 A. I don't recall this specific document.
25 Q. I'd like you now to look at a document which 25 Q. But you recall receiving monthly reports from
Page 123
Page 125
1 will be marked as Exhibit Number 19. 2 MR. SPECTOR: Joe, ifyou could mark that and 3 give it to the witness. 4 MR. NASSIF: Okay. I'm doing it now, 5 MR. SPECTOR: Thank you. 6 (Papageoige Exhibit Number 19 was marked for 7 identification.) 8 MR NASSIF: Exhibit Number 19 is a 9 November 5th, 1971 document written by J.K. Savage to 10 W.B. Papageorge having Cetro number 011843. He has it 11 now. 12 Q. (By Mr. Spector) Okay. Mr. Papageorge, if 13 you couldjust, I guess, briefly skim through the 14 document and I'll ask youjust a few questions about 15 it. 16 A. I'll do that. I have finished scanning the 17 document. 18 Q. Okay. I believe you testified a moment ago 19 that you know who J.R. Savage is; is that conect? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And did he work for you on the PCB project in 22 the early 1970s? 23 A. No. 24 Q. What was his role on the PCB project during 25 that time, ifhe had one?
1 Mr. Savage? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Ifyou'll look on the first page, I guess 4 it's A-l-A, Aroclor department. 5 A. I see it. 6 Q. Okay. The second paragraph states it was 7 discovered that the underground sewer system and sewer 8 boxes in the area are leaking very badly. Cross flow 9 between the sewer system and the underground water is 10 possible. 11 Do you see that, sir? 12 A. Ido. 13 Q. Do you recall investigating whether or not 14 the sewer system was leaking in the early 1970s? 15 A. I don't recall the specifics of 16 investigation. I do recall efforts made to repair 17 those sewers that were found to be faulty. 18 Q. Do you recall whether contents ofthe sewers 19 were escaping into the ground water during the 1970s? 20 A. No. I don't recall that. 21 Q. Could you look at the next sentence? It says 22 this may contribute to erratic results when trying to 23 find the source ofPCBs into the sewer system. 24 A, I haven't found that sentence. 25 MR NASSIF: Right down there, somewhere in
32 (Pages 122 to 125)
WATER PCB-SD0000076148
Page 126
Page 128
1 there.
1 it's pronounced with a hard C-H, Krummrich; is that
2
Q. (By Mr. Spector) It's in that same paragraph
2 correct.
3 I was directing you to before.
3 A. That's the way I pronounce it and that's the
4 A. Oh. I see that sentence, yes.
4 way I've always heard is pronounced.
5 Q. Okay. Sitting here today, can you explain to 5 Q. All right. Let me ask you a couple of other
6 me what that means?
6 questions. I know there's a road called Monsanto
7 A. You mean the erratic results?
7 Avenue and there's a - or at the time you were there,
8 Q, Yes, How the leaking sewers would have
8 there was a Monsanto facility north of that road and a
9 resulted in erratic results.
9 Monsanto facility south of that road; is that right?
10 A. Well, what that meant is that leaks into the
10 A. Yes.
11 sewers were not controlled by any known activity at the 11
Q. Am I right that the Krummrich facility was
12 plant. They were a function primarily of weather
12 south of Monsanto Avenue?
13 conditions, rainfall and the like, and they would vary.
13
A. Yes.
14 And depending on the amount of water and the pressure 14
Q. And was that sometimes called the main plant?
15 it was under would determine the amount that would
15
A. Yeah. The term main plant was used to
16 enter a sewer or the sewer itself would flow in the
16 describe the older unit.
17 opposite direction at times. It was a very unstable
17 Q. South of Monsanto Avenue?
18 condition.
18 A. Geographically, I am disoriented. I don't
19
Q. What do you mean by the statement that the
19 know if it was south or --
20 sewer would flow in the opposite direction?
20 Q. All right. Was there a facility called the
21 A. Water - ground water could seep into the
21 north plant?
22 sewer instead of the sewer leaking into the ground.
22 A. The reference to parts of the plant was north
23 Q. So the water could go in either direction
23 plant, yes.
24 based on various climate conditions?
24 Q. That facility known as the north plant was so
25 A. True. That's one condition, yes.
25 described because it was north of Monsanto Avenue?
Page 127
>
Page 129
1 Q. You mentioned earlier that you recall there
1 A. I never asked that question, so I never did
2 being some sewer repairs.
2 leam. It was just a common expression.
3 A. Yes.
3 Q. In the questioning today, I think the
4 Q. Do you recall whether or not there was any
4 descriptions for the facilities were Krummrich and
5 contaminated soil discovered during those repairs?
5 Queeny.
6 A. I do not know that.
6 A. Yes.
7
Q. During what period do you recall there being
7 Q. I'm a little behind the curve, and I don't
8 sewer repairs? Was that a continuous process?
8 know what the Queeny facility is. Can you tell me
9 A. I don't know that I'd call it a continuous
9 where that is geographically in relation to the
10 process, but it was a - I call it lengthy because we
10 Krummrich facility?
11 were so anxious to get it done and it seemed to take
11 A. The Queeny plant is located on the St. Louis
12 longer than we expected. In the '70, '71, '72 period.
12 side ofthe river.
13
MR. SPECTOR; That's all the questions I have 13
Q. All right. So that's over in Missouri?
14 for you, today, Mr. Papageorge. Thank you.
14 A. Yes.
15 THE WITNESS; Thank you.
15 Q. Did I also hear a reference to something
16 MR, NASSIF: Anybody else on the phone have 16 called the new Queeny plant?
17 any questions?
17 A. Well, I've never heard that expression.
18 MR. MURRAY: Joe, I have a couple of
18 Q. Okay. All right. So the Queeny facility is
19 questions. This is Dan Murray. A couple of basic
19 in Missouri, Krummrich is south ofMonsanto Avenue in
20 questions.
20 Sauget, so far as you know?
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MURRAY:
21 A. As far as I know, yes.
22 Q. Mr. Papageorge, my name is Daniel Murray. I 22
MR. MURRAY: Nothing further. Thank you.
23 represent Paul Sauget. And I heard you refer to the
23
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 plant as the Krummrich plan instead of the Krummrich 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. SANTANGELO:
25 plant, so I know you're a reliable witness. I'm told
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Papageorge. My name is
33 (Pages 126 to 129)
WATER PCB-SD0000076149
Page 130
Page 132
1 Jon Santangelo, and I represent Keit-McGee Chemical. I 2 just have a few questions to clarify some things. 3 Earlier on you were testifying to a tar being 4 produced in the A-9 department at the Queeny plant. Do 5 you recall that testimony? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And I think that plant produced a substance 8 called phthalic anhydride; is that right? 9 A. That is right. 10 Q. Okay. Did you at some point have some sort 11 ofsupervisory role over that department in your time 12 at Queeny? 13 A. Supervisory? 14 Q. Or some sort ofposition that would allow you 15 some information on the operations ofthat department. 16 A. Well, I hesitate because I was one ofseveral 17 engineers that helped design that unit. 18 Q. Okay. So in that capacity, then, you were 19 veiy familiar with the production process for the 20 manufacture ofphthalic anhydride? 21 A. The distillation part. 22 Q. Now, you mentioned that there was a tar that 23 came offofthe - would that have been through the 24 distillation column? 25 A. That is right.
1 A. No, no. 2 Q. I recall from your prior testimony in the 3 Cerro case that you were on some sort of a retainer 4 with the law firm. Do you recall that at that time? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Are you still on that retainer with the law 7 firm? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What are you currently being compensated by 10 that law firm as a retainer? 11 A. $1,000 a month. 12 Q. And is that law firm engaged by Monsanto to 13 defend it in various cases? 14 A. I believe so. I don't know the details of 15 the arrangement. 16 Q. And so you understand, when I say Monsanto, 17 I'm referring to Monsanto and Solutia and Pharmacia, 18 the company that broke up into those parts. 19 A. Yeah, I understand that. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. Your answer was that they 21 do do work for Monsanto; is that correct? 22 A. They do. 23 Q. That law firm? 24 A. They do work for - they're involved with 25 Monsanto and the associated companies.
Page 131
_
Page 133
1 Q. What would be contained in that tar? 2 A. Oh, God. Nobody ever analyzed it. It was 3 just unsaleable nuisance. 4 Q. Do you recall what chemical constituents 5 would be found in that tar? 6 A. No. It never was analyzed. 7 Q. Would there have been an SMP for the phthalic 8 anhydride manufacturing process? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Would that SMP show what would be coming off 11 ofthat distillation column? 12 A. It would, and it would refer to it not 13 chemically, but as a descriptive tar or pitch or some 14 such terminology. 15 Q. Could you tell me what phthalic anhydride is 16 chemically? What does it consist of? 17 A. I don't know how to describe it chemically. 18 It's a benzene ring with an attachment. It's two 19 carbons attached to a benzene ring. 20 Q. What are the raw materials that go into the 21 production ofphthalic anhydride? 22 A. I don't remember anymore, since I was never 23 involved with the initial step ofthe process. 24 Q. That's fine, sir. Are you being compensated 25 in any way by Monsanto currently?
1 Q. Have you testified to any of the cases that 2 are ongoing with respect to the Anniston facility? 3 A. I've had depositions taken. 4 Q. All right. How many times? 5 A. Two or three times. 6 Q. When was the last time you were deposed in 7 that case -- in those cases? 8 A. A couple of years ago. 9 Q. And was the law firm that has you on retainer 10 defending Monsanto in that case? 11 A. No. I don't know the legal business as well, 12 but there's a law firm that sort of orchestrates the 13 activities and then they hire - in the Monsanto cases, 14 a law firm out of the state of Alabama which in this 15 case is out of Birmingham. 16 Q. When you last testified, who was the law firm 17 defending Monsanto? 18 A. This law firm in Alabama. 19 Q. What is their name, do you recall? 20 A. Charles Lightfoot and something. 21 Q. Did that case involve property damage claims 22 down in Anniston? 23 A. Property damage? Those words weren't really 24 used. They were describing the effect on the value of 25 their property due to the presence of PCBs in their
34 (Pages 130 to 133)
WATER PCB-SD0000076150
Page 134
Page 136
1 aiea. 2 Q. Thank you, sir. When you were asked by 3 Mr. Greenberg about the PCB control program and that 4 you began in that program in 1970, was this a new job 5 function to Monsanto Company? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. There was no one in that role prior to your 8 undertaking that role; is that correct? 9 A. That is correct. 10 MR. SANTANGELO: Let's marie this. 11 (Papageorge Exhibit Number 20 was marited for 12 identification.) 13 MR. NASSIF: Do you have an extra copy for me? 14 Q. (By Mr. Santangelo) Sir, I'll hand you what 15 we've marked as Exhibit 20. To get through this 16 quickly, I'll ask you some questions as we go along. 17 Is that all right? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. This is a memo that was prepared by you dated 20 October 6th, 1970; is that conect? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. And at the bottom, it has a Bates number of 23 CER011596. Do you see that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. And the document is titled PCB Environmental
1 uses these fluids to operate or a heat exchange system 2 that might leak on you. Those kinds ofthings were 3 kept under observation. 4 Q. And to your understanding, the Krummrich 5 plant used PCBs for heat transfer; is that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And for electrical transformers? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And in compressor operation as well? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And ifyou would, turn to page number 10, 12 please. I would direct your attention to the middle of 13 die page to where it says Program to Eliminate Sewer 14 PCBs from Using Departments. Do you see that heading? 15 A. Yes. I found it. 16 Q. So at that time, then, you were looking at 17 the issue ofleaks ofPCBs from other than the Aroclor 18 and PCB production departments; is that right? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. And can you tell me where you obtained the 21 information that went into the information on page 10 22 and 11 and the top ofpage 12? 23 A. What did you ask, where I got it? 24 Q. Where did you gather that information from? 25 A. At this point in time, I don't remember the
1 Problem September Status Report. Is that accurate? 2 A. That's accurate. 3 Q. This would have been a document that you 4 would have prepared in conjunction with your position 5 at Monsanto. Is that accurate? 6 A. That is true. 7 Q. Now, with respect to your position, were you 8 also - you discussed how you were attempting to 9 control PCBs in the sewers, is that accurate, during 10 that time period of 1970? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. All right. In conjunction with your duties, 13 were you also attempting to control PCB losses from 14 other portions ofthe facility other than the Aroclor 15 and PCB production processes? 16 A. I hesitate, because I wonder, are you talking 17 about PCB from other processes 18 Q. Correct. 19 A. --or any kind ofwaste? 20 Q. Well, in particular, PCB waste from other 21 processes. 22 A. PCB waste. In those instances where PCBs 23 were used in a facility like a transformer, you would 24 observe how drat transformer is performing and whether 25 it's leaking and so on or it could be a compressor that
Page 135
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 137
specifics, but it's either from a monthly report authored by a representative out of the Krummrich plant or it's a telephone call or it's something I may have picked up at a meeting which I attended and somebody made a presentation.
Q. And there's no reason for you to question the accuracy of the information that you put in your report, is there?
A. No. There's no reason that I should question it.
Q. If you would, just turn to page 11. I had a question about Department 270, if you see that heading.
A. I see it. Q. All right. The second sentence there well, the first sentence says a 55-gallon dram has been placed under the vent.
Do you know what that would be referring to? A. My memory fails me here. I don't remember the details at all. Q. Is it your understanding, though, that they were experiencing some leaks of fluid containing PCBs in these other departments? A. That's what the statement tells me. Q. Then it also says chat soaked with Aroclor around the furnace must still be replaced. Do you see
35 (Pages 134 to 137)
WATER PCB-SD0000076151
Page 138
Page 140
1 that?
1 Q. And that would then mean, then, to your
2 A. Yes.
2 understanding that's an accurate number reflected in
3 Q. What is chat?
3 that document?
4 A. I don't know what it is physically, but it's
4 A. It's as accurate as a human being can make
5 a bit like tossing sawdust into an oil spill and
5 it, depending on the ability to get an accurate sample
6 apparently somebody had yet to scoop it up and dispose 6 and ability to accurately measure.
7 of it properly. It was still in the area of the spill.
7 Q. You have no reason to believe that that
8 Q, Was it your understanding, then, that some of 8 number of .9 pounds per day is inaccurate in any way,
9 this chat would be placed around furnaces and then
9 do you?
10 occasionally scooped up and disposed of?
10 A. No.
11 A. Maybe put around a furnace that leaked.
11 MR. SANTANGELO: Thafs all I have. Thank
12
Q. Right. And occasionally, then, that would be
12 you, sir.
13 removed and replaced with new chat?
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 A. Only if another leak occurred.
14 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS. LITTLE:
15 Q. Sure. If you would, turn to page 12 also,
15 Q. I have a couple follow-up.
16 please.
16 MR.NASSIF: Okay. Vicki has a couple of
17 A. I have it.
17 follow-up, so don't hang up yet unless you don't want to
18 Q. Okay. There's a heading referring to PCB
18 hear Vicki.
19 Levels In Atmosphere. Do you see that?
19 Q. (By Ms. Little) All right, Mr. Papageorge,
20 A. I see that.
20 I'm going to refer you back to Exhibit 18. Ifyou
21 Q. Okay. And underneath that, then, are
21 could look at page 11, please.
22 identified four streams, it looks like, from four
22 First of all, let me backtrackjust a little
23 losses of PCBs to the atmosphere. Is that accurate?
23 bit. You know the sewer samples that we discussed
24 A. Yes.
24 earlier.
25 Q. All right. Now, when it says losses to the
25 A. Yes.
Page 139
Page 141
1 atmosphere, would those be then vented outside the 2 plant? 3 A. Not necessarily. It could be when you open a 4 manhole and the fumes come out while the employee is 5 taking a sample, that kind ofescape from the system. 6 Q. Okay. But there would be some sort ofescape 7 into the general atmosphere as identified in these four 8 areas? 9 A. Eventually, yes. 10 Q. The first one talks about a scrabber stack. 11 Do you see that? 12 A. I do. 13 Q. And then it says .9 pounds per day. Do you 14 see that also? 15 A. I do. 16 Q. It also says in the paragraph this is a 17 measured quantity. Do you see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What does that mean, a measured quantity? 20 A. I can tell you what it means to me. It means 21 that they took a sample, determined how much PCB was in 22 it, and then had a measure ofthe flow ofgas, so many 23 cubic feet a minute and so on, and made a calculation. 24 So this is a calculated nine-tenths ofa pound, it's 25 not a weight.
1 Q. Do you know how many samples were taken at 2 each sample point? 3 A. No, I don't. 4 Q. Do you know whether there's documentation 5 that reflects the results of that sampling? 6 A. I haven't seen any personally. 7 Q. You didn't see any as of the time that you 8 wrote the memo, the memo that's Exhibit 17? 9 A. I don't see the documents that list where the 10 sample was taken, when it was taken, how much was 11 taken, and who took it. I don't see that. 12 Q. You have never seen those? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. Okay. Do you know whether the person taking 15 the samples documented the results? 16 A. No, I don't know for sure. 17 Q. Would that be in the ordinary course of 18 things? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you know where documents of that type 21 would have been kept? 22 A. No, I don't. 23 Q. All right. Let's look at page 11 of Exhibit 24 18, paragraph B, the first one 25 A. I see it.
36 (Pages 138 to 141)
WATER PCB-SD0000076152
Page 142
Page 144
1 Q. - where it says apparently Rogers had dumped 1 questions.
2 a wash the day the sample was taken, 1/26/71.
2 MR. NASSIF: We're done. I'm just going to
3
Do you know what the basis of that statement
3 say that we're trying to schedule Art Leisy's
4 is?
4 deposition. Some of these documents have Mr. Leisy's
5 A. No, I don't, really.
5 name on them. Richard Greenberg has asked to depose
6 Q. When you say really, do you remember
6 him. We're trying to decide whether we're going to do
7 generally what the basis of that statement is?
7 that here or do it in Florida. And as soon as Richard
8 A. No. I only infer by reading an emphasis on
8 and I do make a decision, which should be probably by
9 the word apparently.
9 tomorrow morning, we will broadcast it to the group.
10 Q. You personally never talked to anybody at
10 Okay?
11 Rogers about that?
11 (Deposition concluded at 2:23 p.m.)
12 A. I did not.
12
13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether the person who 13
14 took the samples talked to anybody at Rogers?
14
15 A. I do not.
15
16 Q. I'm sorry. You're going to have to wait
16
17 until I finish so that the court reporter can take down 17
18 what I say.
18
19 A. All right.
19
20 Q. You don't know whether that person talked to 20
21 anyone at Rogers; is that correct?
21
22 A. That is correct.
22
23 Q. And then the last sentence is this probably
23
24 explains the difference between the plant loss and the 24
25 treatment plant influent.
25
1 And I want you to tell me if -- my 2 understanding ofthis is that that relates to the sample 3 referred to immediately above; is that collect? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. So your - the determination expressed 6 in this sentence that the difference is explained by 7 that occurrence - strike that. Let me start all over. 8 Your statement, then, is based on that single 9 sample taken on that single day; is that correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And then one more. The last sentence 12 underneath subparagraph B, sediment samples from four 13 ofthe plant sewers were high. 14 When it says plant sewers there, I assume it 15 means the Krummrich plant; is that correct? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Okay. This is a document you authored; 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. You don't know what you were retelling 21 to when you said plant source? 22 A. Not today. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. I may have known it 20 years ago. 25 MS. LITTLE: Okay. I don't have any other
Page 143
Page 145
1 CERTIFICATION 2 3 I, Julie Ann Whiting, Certified Shorthand Reporter 4 within and for the State ofMissouri, DO HEREBY CERTIFY 5 that pursuant to notice/agreement between the parties, 6 the aforementioned witness came before me at the time 7 and place hereinbefore mentioned, and having been duly 8 sworn to tell the whole truth ofhis knowledge touching 9 upon the matter in controversy aforesaid; that he was 10 examined on the day, and his examination was taken in 11 shorthand and later reduced to printing; that signature 12 by the witness is not waived and said deposition is 13 herewith forwarded to the taking attorney for filing 14 with the Court. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name 16 this 6th day of August, 2003. 17 18 19 20
Julie Ann Whiting 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 23 24 25
37 (Pages 142 to 145)
WATER PCB-SD0000076153
Page 146
1 STATE OF
)
2 CITY OF
)
)
3
4 I, WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, do hereby state that the
foregoing statements are true and correct, to the best
5 of my knowledge and belief.
6
7
9 10 11 12 13 Subscribed and sworn to before me this
, 2003. 14
15 16
17 18
19
20 ______________
Notaiy Public 21 22 23 My Commission expires: 24 (JAW) 25
day of
1 2 August^ 2003 3 Husch & Eppenbetger, LLC
Mr. Joseph Nassifi Esq. 4 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St Louis Missouri 63105 5
RE: USA w. PHARMACIA, ETAL 6
DearMr.Nassifi 7
Enclosed please find your copy ofthe transcript ofthe 8 deposition testimony ofWilliam B.Papageorge taken on
July 22,2003, in the above-eaptioixxl matter. I 9 understandyou will obtain signature Horn
Mr. Papageorge. 10
After he lias reviewed the transcript and made any 11 necessary collections on the deposition conection sheet
incoiporated at the end ofthe transcript, please have 12 Mr. Papageorge sign the original signature page in the
presence ofa notaiy public and return the signature 13 page, along with the conection dieets, directly to
Mr. Greenbeig. 14
Ifyou have any questions regarding this matter, please 15 do not hesitate to contact me at (314) 231-2202. 16 Sincerely, 17 18 Julie An Whiting CSR,CRR 19 Enclosures 20 cc: All counsel ofrecord
21 22
23 24 25
Page 148
1 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE 2 DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET 3 4 In Re: USA vs. PHARMACIA ET AL 5 Reported By: JAW 6 Upon reading the deposition and before subscribing
thereto, the deponent indicated the following changes 7 should be made: 8 Page Line Should Read:
Reason assigned for Change: 9 10 Page Line Should Read:
Reason assigned for Change: 11 12 Page Line Should Read:
Reason assigned forChange: 13 14 Page Line Should Read:
Reason assigned forChange: 15 16 Page Line Should Read:
Reason assigned for Change: 17 18 Page Line Should Read:
Reason assigned forChange: 19 20 Page Line ShouldRead:
Reason assigned for Change: 21 22 23 ________________________________
SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT 24 25
Page 147
38 (Pages 146 to 148)
WATER PCB-SD0000076154