Document 10Vyn4N0VQaeoEgg5aQnKmQ7K

PY <y> 238 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR. THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF_TEXAS _ BEAUMONT DIVISION CECIL SCOTT, ET AL v. MONSANTO COMPANY ] ] ] No.B-84-1103-CA VOLUME 2 VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF -----R EMMET KhLLY M. D. April 30, 1987 1300 Post Oak Boulevard Houston, Texas Jerry Kelley, Court Reporter Nell McCallum & Associates Inc. 2900 Smith, Suite 104 Houston, Texas 77006 (713) 523-3767 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021332 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 4 For the Plaintiffs: 5 6 David M. Lacey 7 William Little 8 Attorneys at Law 9 Gilpin, Pohl & Bennett 10 Allied Bank Tower, 23rd Floor 11 1300 Post Oak Boulevard 12 Houston, Texas 77056 13 14 and 15 16 Thomas W. Henderson 17 Antonio Pyle 18 Attorneys at Law 19 Henderson & Goldberg 20 1030 Fifth Avenue 21 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 22 23 24 25 239 NELl MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21333 1 For the Defendant: 2 3 Walter J. Crawford Jr. 4 Mark A. Freeman 5 Attorneys at Law 6 Wells, Peyton, Beard, 7 Greenberg, Hunt & Crawford 8 624 Petroleum Building 9 Post Office Box 3708 10 Beaumont, Texas 77704 11 12 13 Video operator: 14 15 Johnna Coalson 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 240 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021334 241 1 Volume 2 of the Videotape Deposition of 2 Rv Emmet Kelly, M.D., taken on April 29, 1987, at 1300 3 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas, between the hours of 4 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. before Jerry Kelley, CSR No. 5 2004 and Notary Public in and for the State of Texas. 6 7 8 9 10 11 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're now back on the ~ 12 record. The time is 8:49 a.m. ~ 13 MR. HENDERSON: 14 Q Before beginning -- recommencing your 15 interrogation, Dr. Kelly, I just wanted to say that 16 we've been here since before 8:30, it's now ten to 9:00. 17 We had offered to start, and you agreed, at 7:30 this 18 morning and then at 8:00. And, frankly, we're going to 19 be awfully rushed in order to finish, and with your 20 -travel plans it may be necessary that -- that we have to 21 call you back another day. Would you be willing to do 22 that if we have to do that? 23 A Either that or do it in St. Louis. 24 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, we'll talk about that. 25 I thought we had agreed to be here at 8:30. And we were MPI I Mr r AI I.UM Ri ASSOCIATES INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21335 242 1 a little late, but that's -- 2 TT MR. HENDERSON: . . * . ... .. 3 Q Dr. Kelly, I don't know if it was asked of 4 you, but do you have a -- a formal piece that you call 5 your curriculum vitae? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Do you have it with you? 8 A Not with me, no. But -- the lawyers do. 9 I've sent it to them. 10 Q You've sent itto Monsanto? 11 A To -- - 12 Q Bistline? - 13 A Yes, Bist -- no questionBistline has it. 14 MR. HENDERSON: Well, perhaps we -- you could 15 check, either you, Walter, or you, Mark, could check 16 quickly and find out if -- assuming that neither one of 17 us has it, that you can get it to us quickly so we could 18 look at it before the end of the day. 19 MR. CRAWFORD: We can call Shoebotham -- we 20 -ean call Shoebotham's office at the break and see 21 what -- 22 MR. HENDERSON: 23 Q Specifically, other than those items that you 24 included on your report and that which you testified to 25 yesterday involving your educational background, do NEI.L. MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. HARTOLDMON0021336 243 1 you -- can you tell us if you've had any publications, 2 if you've done any scientific -- primary scientific work 3 resulting in any publications involving PCBs in 4 particular? 5 A Not PCBs. I've had other publications, but 6 no publications including PCBs. 7 Q Have there been any publications of yours 8 involving the -- any of the polychlorinated 9 hydrocarbons? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q I believe you've testified previously in the 12 past. Dr. Kelly, that -- that while you were at Monsanto 13 between 1936 and 1974, with the exception of the four 14 years you were in the service of our country, that you 15 had not ordered any epidemiological studies to be 16 conducted by Monsanto. Is that true? 17 A In the sense of saying epidemiological 18 studies, yes. We did have what was called a cancer 19 index, which we kept a record of all the cancers 20 .occurring in our employees. But it was not a true 21 epidemiological study. 22 Q The answer to the question, then, is that you 23 did not order or arrange for or otherwise recommend the 24 retention of any outside persons or indeed anybody 25 within Monsanto itself to conduct what -- what I believe NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021337 244 1 you are referring to as a formal epidemiological study. 2 A That is correct. 3 MR. CRAWFORD: What years are we talking 4 about? Was that limited -- 5 MR. HENDERSON: 1936 to 1974. 6 MR. CRAWFORD: Is that correct, Doctor? 7 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 8 MR. HENDERSON: 9 Q The cancer index, was this something that was 10 compiled at either the Krummrich plant or the Anniston 11 plant, or were various other plants of the -- of the - 12 entire Monsanto complex? " 13 A It was compiled at the general office from 14 the group insurance records, which at one time included 15 95 percent of our employees and retired employees. And 16 after sometime in those years it included a hundred 17 percent of them. 18 Q When did that -- when did you begin to 19 compile the numbers on the cancer index? 20 A I can't recollect whether that started in '38 21 or '40 or whether it started in '46 or '47. I don't 22 recall. 23 Q Sometime either before you went into the 24 service or shortly after you returned? 25 A That's correct. NELI MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. HARTOLDMON0021338 245 1 Q Was there anything that triggered or, said 2 another way, was there any particular reason why you 3 b_egan to compile the what you refer to as the cancer 4 index? 5 A There seemed to be a considerable amount of 6 talk about the occurrence of -- possible occurrence of 7 malignancies in various population groups. 8 Q And those population groups would include 9 persons exposed to chemicals generally and in particular 10 to those exposed to polychlorinated hydrocarbons? 11 A No, sir, there were none -- - 12 Q I'm asking you -- I didn't ask you if there~ 13 were any, I'm asking you: Were those the kinds of 14 occupations that you wanted to survey to -- to either 15 confirm or deny the relationship between the discussion 16 regarding' the possible malignancies resulting from 17 chemical exposures? 18 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't understand the 19 question. 20 A No, neither do I. Because I thought I 21 answered it satisfactorily the first time. Would you 22 repeat it? 23 MR. HENDERSON: 24 Q The question -- the question is: What was 25 the reason -- strike that. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021339 246 1 What were the exposures that you were 2 concerned about that gave rise to the keeping of the 3 cancer index? 4 MR. CRAWFORD: If you were concerned about 5 exposures. 6 . I don't think he has testified -- 7 A There were no -- 8 MR. HENDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Crawford. I 9 think that question is -- is -- is patently clear. And 10 it seems to me that with a little bit of what you did 11 yesterday and starting out this morning in terms of - 12 suggesting to the witness, if he doesn't understand a ~ 13 question, I think he can ask me. But he was ready to 14 answer a question. And it just doesn't seem to me to be 15 appropriate for you to be aiding the witness in any of 16 this. 17 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, if I don't understand a 18 question, and if I think you've loaded the question up 19 with something he hasn't said, I have a right to say 20 -something about it. 21 MR. HENDERSON: Thank you. 22 THE WITNESS: I would like the question 23 repeated. 24 COURT REPORTER: 25 "Q The question -- the question is: What was NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. HARTOLDMON0021340 247 1 the reason -- strike that. 2 -r "What were the exposures that you were 3 concerned about that gave rise to the keeping of the 4 cancer index?" 5 A I was not concerned about any particular 6 exposures. I kept the cancer index on all hourly and 7 all salaried employees by Monsanto. 8 MR. HENDERSON: 9 Q Why did you do that? 10 A I wanted to find out if there was any 11 clustering of malignancies anyplace in the organization-. 12 Q As a result of what? ~ 13 A As a result of inquisitiveness. I had no -- 14 no preconceived idea that there would be cancers 15 anyplace, but I wanted to be sure. 16 Q Well, in 1942 were you -- or shortly 17 thereafter were you aware of the publication of a book 18 by Dr. Wilhelm Hueper on the -- on occupational and 19 allied tumors? 20 -- A Yes. 21 Q Okay. And in that book Dr. Hueper, did he 22 not indicate a cause-and-effect relationship between 23 various chemical substances and certain cancers? 24 A I recall he -- he was particularly interested 25 or I recall his amino compounds. He was -- he dwelt NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21341 248 1 quite a bit on that particular group of chemicals. 2 -r Q Beta naphthylamine and bladder cancer in 3 particular? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q Was that one of the reasons why you had 6 commenced doing your cancer index in and about sometime 7 between 1942 and 1947? 8 A First of all, from 1942 to 1946 I was not 9 there. So -- and I told you before I either started it 10 from 1938 to '42 or from '46 on. I do not know if it 11 was continued during the war. So I can't answer that -- 12 question. - 13 Q Would Dr. Hueper's work or the beginning 14 discussions regarding Dr. Hueper's investigations have 15 been one of the kinds of reasons which would have 16 triggered your beginning to keep the -- what you refer 17 to as the cancer index in Monsanto? 18 A Well, it might very well have been. It also 19 might have been the association of malignancies and 20 .asbestos. It could be an awful lot of things. 21 Q But it just wasn't a chance type thing as 22 you've suggested a moment ago. It had to do -- and I 23 don't mean to argue with you. It had to do with 24 something that had some scientific possibility. Isn't 25 that true? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021342 249 1 A Well, it certainly was a chance. There was 2 certainly a reason I did it. . And the reason I did it 3 was to find out if we had any excesses of cancer in any 4 of our particular plants. 5 Q Okay. 6 A Yes. 7 Q Monsanto is a chemical company, is it not? 8 A Among other things, yes, sir. 9 Q Now, whoreviewed thiscancer index -- strike 10 that. 11 Did you monitor and review this cancer index 12 as it was being compiled from and after when it - 13 commenced in -- before the war or shortly after the war, 14 when you returned? 15 A Yes, I reviewed it practically every quarter. 16 Q And did you review it with anybody else? 17 A I can't recall whether I did or not. 18 Q Did you discuss it with Dr. Hueper? 19 A No, I did not. 20 Q Were you aware that at some point in the 21 1950s and the 1960s that he was the head of the National 22 Cancer Institute investigating primary tumors resulting 23 from, among other things, chemical exposures? 24 A Yes, I knew Hueper. I've talked to Hueper 25 off and on. In fact, we had bladder cancers from amino NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21343 250 1 compounds. 2 -r Q Did you -- did you consult with anybody 3 outside Monsanto regarding the statistics that you were 4 compiling for nearly 40 years or perhaps more of this 5 cancer index? 6 A I talked to some of the people at Du Pont who 7 had epidemiologists, I talked to the medical director at 8 Du Pont. 9 Q Did you go to any outside agency such as the 10 Saranac Laboratory or -- or -- or the National Cancer 11 Institute or any -- or any organization, the Industrial- 12 Health Foundation or any organization that -- that was- 13 equipped to look at statistics relating to possible 14 links between exposures and cancers regarding this 15 cancer index? 16 A ' No. With the exception that I told you I 17 talked to the epidemiologists at Du Pont and the medical 18 director of Du Pont. 19 Q Okay. Thank you. Did you share those cancer 20 -statistics with anybody within Monsanto? 21 A I'm sure I shared them with people in my 22 department. But we didn't find any clustering, so I 23 don't believe I shared negative information with other 24 people. 25 Q Are you a trained epidemiologist? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021344 251 1 A No, sir. 2 -r Q Well, up until -- when did Dr. Johnson come 3 qji_ board? 4 A Approximately 1956, if I remember. 5 Q Was Dr. Johnson a trained epidemiologist? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q What was the first date when Monsanto had on 8 its medical staff a trained epidemiologist? 9 A You'll have to ask someone else. We did not 10 have one up till December the 1st, 1974. 11 Q Did you ever make thatrecommendation? -- 12 A No, sir, I did not. - 13 Q So that we're clear, did you ever make a 14 recommendation to hire an epidemiologist prior to 15 December 1974? 16 A No, sir, I did not. 17 Q So you would have consulted within your 18 medical department, which at that time would have 19 included Dr. Johnson, Elmer -- Mr. Elmer Wheeler and 20 -perhaps one or two other toxicologists whom you 21 mentioned yesterday? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Did you ever -- who did you report to up the 24 ladder at Monsanto? 25 A It varied. Sometimes I reported to the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021345 252 1 administrative assistant -- I mean the administrative 2 vice -- or vice president for administration, sometimes 3 L.-reported directly to the executive committee. 4 Q Did you ever tell members of the executive 5 committee of the existence of the cancer index? 6 A I don't remember if I did or not. 7 Q Did you ever tell the vice president in 8 charge of industrial relations of the -- of the 9 existence of .the cancer index? 10 A I might very well have. 11 Q Do you recall having done that? -- 12 A I can't recall whether I did or not. But as 13 I said, I might very well have. After all, we had 14 negative information. 15 Q You're saying that -- you're saying that as 16 a -- as a person who is not trained in epidemiology? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Okay. Where is -- did you have that cancer 19 index in December 1974? Did you take it when you left 20 -Monsanto? 21 A No, I did not. 22 Q Did you leave it with your records? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Do you -- have you had an opportunity to 25 review that since December 1974? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021346 253 1 A I have not. 2 -- Q Have you mentioned that to Mr. Bistline or 3 any of the -- the lawyers representing Monsanto in this 4 action? 5 A No, sir. 6 Q Did anybody ask you about the -- the -- the 7 keeping of and the significance of the cancer index 8 involved in this litigation? 9 A Repeat that. 10 Q Did anybody such as Mr. Bistline, Mr. 11 Crawford, Mr. Hall, Mr. Shoebotham, Mr. Freeman or -- 12 anybody else representing Monsanto in connection with - 13 this litigation ask you about the existence and the 14 significance of this cancer index? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q Has any other lawyer or any other person 17 since December 1974 discussed the cancer index with you? 18 A Not that I canrecollect. 19 Q Is this the first time that you have ever 20 ' .brought it forward in any deposition? 21 A No, sir, it is not. 22 Q Do you know if that material has ever been 23 produced to any other lawyer? 24 A I do not know. 25 MR. HENDERSON: We'll be making a -- we'll NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021347 254 1 ask you now, Mr. Crawford, to check into that and -- and 2 indicate to us whether that cancer index exists, and 3 we_! 11 be making a motion on the record at this point, 4 followed by some formal motion, to -- to secure the 5 production of it. 6 MR. CRAWFORD: We'll take it under 7 consideration. 8 MR. HENDERSON: 9 Q Would you provide us with the particulars on 10 the case that you told us about yesterday where you were 11 retained by the plaintiff on behalf of the railroader -- 12 who had contracted a -- a -- a lung problem as a result 13 of the diesel fumes? ` 14 A Well, the particulars were -- 15 Q When I say particulars, I don't mean to 16 confuse you. What was the name of the plaintiff? 17 A I don't remember. 18 Q In which court was it filed? 19 A It was a compensation court in St. Louis 20 .someplace. 21 .Q Do you have a copy of that deposition? 22 A No, I do not. 23 Q Do you have a copy of the transcript? 24 A No, sir. This -- I don't even remember how 25 many years ago it was. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21348 255 1 Q Approximately how many years ago was it? 2 -r A I don't remember. _ 3 __ Q Was it since you were -- 4 A It was -- 5 Q Was it since December 1974? 6 A To the best of my recollection, yes, it was. 7 Q Do you recall if you had provided the opinion 8 to the plaintiff's lawyer regarding the plaintiff that 9 the -- the pulmonary or lung condition from which the 10 individual was suffering was related to his exposure to 11 diesel fumes? -- 12 A Yes, I did. ~ 13 Q And how -- I was going to ask you how you 14 went about that, but I think I can be more precise. 15 What -- what parameters did you consider in -- in 16 ascribing the cause-and-effect relationship between 17 the -- the exposure to the diesel fumes and the 18 resulting lung condition? 19 A First of all, you have to have a scientific 20 -methodology. You have to have: 21 A. A product or a compound that will cause 22 pulmonary irritation and, conceivably, pulmonary 23 allergic response. 24 2. It must be in sufficient -- there must be 25 sufficient exposure. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021349 256 1 3. There must be an immediate response to 2 tiie offendingagent. 3 __ 4. There must be no confounding variables 4 present in this. 5 5. It -- it must occur and be documented in 6 the literature in -- by independent observers. 7 6. There must be physical evidence of action 8 on the target organ, in which case this was the lung. 9 Q Okay. I'm sorry. What was the -- I had 10 sufficient exposure, immediate response, no confounding 11 variables, documented by other observers, and the target 12 organ. What was No. 1? " 13 A History. Adequate history. Adequate 14 documented history. 15 Q In that case how did you conclude that there 16 was an adequate documented history? 17 A Because I spoke to the employee, I spoke to 18 fellow employees, I spoke to individuals who did the -- 19 in the management groups who carried out the same -- 20 -under whose supervision his type of work was carried 21 out. 22 Q So I understand this, you talked to -- you 23 talked to the employee -- 24 A Yes. 25 Q -- and you talked to some number of NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. HARTOLDMON0021350 257 1 co-employees? 2 -r A A management group in railroads. 3 __ Q You talked to the management? 4 A Well, the superintendent of the roundhouse. 5 Q Do you remember who the lawyer was in that 6 case? 7 A I don't remember who the lawyer was in that 8 case. 9 Q How did you determine that there was 10 sufficient exposure? 11 A Because I talked not only to this employee,-I 12 talked to employees of other railroads who worked in - 13 roundhouses, and they said that when you were backing up 14 a diesel machine in a roundhouse you would get sprays 15 from this diesel that would cover your windshield and 16 would come into the -- the cab of the train. 17 Q What was the -- what was the immediate 18 response to the -- the irritant agent? 19 A Wheezing. 20 Q Was this a long time or a short-term 21 exposure? 22 A It was a repeated exposure. I cannot tell 23 you how long an exposure the man had. 24 Q Okay. And the wheezing started immediately 25 after the first exposure? Is that your understanding? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021351 258 1 A No, it is not my understanding. The wheezing 2 started sometime during his -- during his exposure. I 3 don't know when. I don't know if it was the first time 4 or the tenth time. I can't answer that. 5 Q And he was -- he was a person in his fifties 6 or sixties who had worked for 20 years? 7 A I don't remember how long he worked. I 8 believe he was something in his fifties. 9 Q Now, how did you document -- how did you 10 conclude that -- that this -- this condition or the 11 conditions were documented by other observers? - 12 A Would you repeat that? How did I document " 13 that this condition -- 14 Q Yeah. Yousaid one of -- 15 A -- was -- 16 Q You said one of your criteria was that -- 17 that -- that it -- the condition resulting from the 18 exposure be documented by other observers. And I took 19 that to mean medical or scientific literature supporting 20 -what your -- . 21 A Yes. 22 Q -- what conclusions you're reaching. 23 A Thereis medical literature that says that 24 exposure to some types of petroleum fuels gives 25 pulmonary irritation which is accompanied by wheezing. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021352 259 1 Q Those would be in the -- in the category of 2 ease reports? 3 __ A Yes. ' 4 Q Okay. What's a case report. Dr. Kelly? 5 A A case report is a report of a medical case 6 that has occurred in the individual's observation. 7 Q Okay. It's also called clinical 8 epidemiology. Have you ever heard that describing a 9 case report? 10 A I don't believe clinical epidemiology reports 11 refers to individual case reports. I am not an - 12 epidemiologist, but I think a case report is far from - 13 clinical epidemiology. 14 Q So you don't consider yourself an expert in 15 epidemiology? 16 A No, I am not an epidemiologist. 17 Q Now, the -- the effects of the chloracne or 18 the -- or the skin condition was reported even earlier 19 than you were first -- from the -- from PCBs even 20 .earlier than when you were first employed by Monsanto. 21 Is that true? 22 A They had occurred from PCBs. Whether they 23 were reported before 1936 I'm not certain. They had 24 occurred before 1936. 25 Q . Well, they had occurred in the -- in the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021353 260 1 Swann company that Monsanto had -- 2 -t A Yes. 3 Q -- purchased in 1932 -- ' 4 A Yes. 5 Q -- or 1931. Is that true? 6 A That is correct. But whether they were 7 reported in the medical literature or not I don't know. 8 I understood that's what you meant by reporting. 9 Q Thank you. You're right, and I did, and I 10 stand corrected. 11 You attended a -- a meeting of -- that was - 12 convened by Dr. Cecil Drinker in 1937, shortly after you 13 were employed by Monsanto, to discuss the findings in 14 his paper, did you not? 15 A I attended a symposium called by Dr. Drinker 16 to -- at which the findings of his laboratory and 17 experimental work were discussed. I do not believe it 18 was just a question of discussing his paper. I do not 19 know if his paper was written at the time of the 20 ^symposium. 21 Q Did you ever see the -- the article after it 22 was published? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did you -- did you note that there was a -- 25 there were several pages of discussion included after NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021354 261 1 the -- the conclusion of his report and the references? 2 -t A Yes. 3 __ Q And you'll recall that you were noted as 4 being in attendance at that meeting. 5 A Yes. 6 Q And that was a -- that work by Dr. Drinker 7 and others was a work that had -- that had come about as 8 a result of some reported deaths due to PCBs from liver ' 9 conditions. Is that true? 10 A If by PCBs you mean chlorinated naphthalene. 11 Q No, I mean -- I mean chlorinated naphthalene 12 and -- and chlorodiphenyls. - 13 A That is not correct. 14 Q Are -- are chlorodiphenyls the same as 15 polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs? 16 A Yes. But all chlorinated -- all PCBs are not 17 chlorinated diphenyl. 18 Q Isn't the -- the PC -- what are chlorodi -- 19 what are chlorodiphenyls? 20 -- A There are two phenyl rings attached to each 21 other with chlorine. 22 Chlorinated naphthalene is also two phenyl 23 rings attached to carbon atoms, chlorinated. So 24 chlorinated naphthalene is a PCB. 25 Chlorinated diphenyl benzene is also a PCB. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021355 262 1 So the work that Dr. Drinker did was 2 primarily with chlorinated naphthalene. 3 __ Q Which are -- which are PCBs? 4 A Which fall under the generic term, yes, PC -- 5 no, it's not PCBs, because it's chlorinated naphthalene. 6 Biphenyl is different than naphthalene. This is a 7 chlorinated naphthalene. I can draw it for you if you 8 want. 9 Q No, it's not important. Because I -- I 10 wouldn't understand it anyway. And it really is not the 11 thrust of my question. - 12 What is -- what are the -- what are the - 13 possible effects from having a damaged liver. Dr. Kelly? 14 A It depends on the extent of the damage. 15 Q If the extent of the damage is great enough, 16 it can cause death, can it not? 17 A Yes. 18 Q What's the -- what does the -- the organ 19 known as the liver do in terms of the human body? 20 A It's the primary organ in almost all 21 metabolism of foodstuffs. It has a great deal to do 22 with enzyme production. 23 Q Well, you'll have to -- you'll have to 24 explain that for -- for me and for the members of this 25 jury. That is, enzyme production and metabolism and the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021356 263 1 like in terms of what it actually does to the body or 2 for the body. Can you do that? 3 __ A Well, it is the organ that changes the food 4 we take in into chemicals that sustain all the cells of 5 the body. It's a primary metabolic organ of the body. 6 Q Explain, then, what metabolism is, or the 7 metabolic function. 8 A The metabolic function is the physiological 9 process in which chemicals or foods which are taken in 10 are changed into various chemicals that are taken by the 11 blood to various organs -- other organs of the body. - 12 Q Could I translate that and say that if -- if 13 the liver isn't functioning properly that the -- the 14 breakdown of the food products isn't -- isn't done 15 properly and the chemicals that are produced by the -- 16 by the metabolism that the liver provides then causes 17 other organs not to be nourished properly? 18 MR. CRAWFORD: Why don't you ask him a 19 question? 20 MR. HENDERSON: 21 Q Did you understand that? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q What is the -- could I translate what you've 24 said to say that the other chemical functions or the 25 chemical functions that are -- that are performed by the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021357 264 1 liver, if the liver is damaged, aren't -- aren't done 2 properly and other tissues aren't getting the proper 3 nourishment? Is -- is that possible? Is that a proper 4 translation? 5 A No, I don't believe it's proper, because you 6 haven't defined the extent of the damage to the liver. 7 Conceivably -- well, you just haven't. 8 Q Conceivably that's possible if the liver 9 is -- is sufficiently damaged? 10 A If the liver is sufficiently damaged. You'll 11 have to tell me how much is sufficient. -- 12 Q Well, I don't want to get into a debate 13 quibbling about words. But all I was trying to 14 establish was that if -- if the liver is damaged enough 15 then the -- the normal -- the other body functions 16 aren't working properly and someone can become very 17 sick, somebody can become very tired, somebody can't 18 perform in a normal fashion. And if the -- and if the 19 liver becomes even more damaged then a person can die. 20 -Are all those true? - 21 A I can't answer to a long question like that 22 with one yes or no. Certainly if the liver is damaged 23 enough a person can die. 24 Q Okay. If the liver is -- 25 A If we start with that. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021358 265 1 Q All right. 2 '7 A That's the one end of the spectrum. If the 3 liver is damaged -- if you" take three drinks of alcohol, 4 you get some liver damage. You have no clinical 5 response to that. So even though there is some liver 6 damage, there is no problem with the body or the other 7 organs. Now, along that spectrum from the damage of 8 three drinks of alcohol to death from acute liver 9 atrophy, there could be a whole host of things depending 10 on the amount of damage. 11 Q Okay. Now, include for me that whole host -of 12 things that can result from somebody who has a liver * 13 which is damaged, but damaged -- not damaged enough to 14 cause death. 15 MR. CRAWFORD: That's a pretty broad 16 question. 17 MR. HENDERSON: I think the doctor just said 18 that there are a whole host of things that can result. 19 Q And I'm asking for you to list some of 20 -those -- that whole host of things. If indeed you can 21 list all of them, please do. 22 A I can't list all of them. You could get 23 jaundice, you could get cirrhosis of the liver, you 24 could get swelling of the abdomen, you could get 25 enlarged liver. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMONOQ21359 266 1 Q Now, those are the physical reactions. What 2 does a person feel as a result of having a -- a damaged 3 Li-ver with a -- with an enlarged abdomen or a -- or a 4 cirrhotic liver? What does a person feel? 5 A He might have no symptoms at all, and he 6 might have -- he might have other symptoms, certainly. 7 Q What other symptoms might he have? 8 A He might have loss of weight. That's a sign, 9 that's not a symptom. Again it depends -- tell me -- 10 Q Can a person -- can a person experience 11 fatigability as a result of a damaged liver? -- 12 A Yes. ' 13 Q Can a person be weak as a result of a damaged 14 liver? 15 A Depends on the amount of damage, yes. 16 Q Can a person feel nauseous as a result of a 17 damaged liver? 18 A It's questionable. 19 Q Can a person feel bad, the medical term I 20 . -think may be malaise, as a result of a damaged liver? 21 A Again, depending on how damaged it is. 22 Q That can happen? 23 A If a person has sufficient damage to the 24 liver, they can develop that symptom. 25 MR. HENDERSON: Would you pass those to the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021360 267 1 court reporter, please. 2 COURT REPORTER: You want to mark them, I 3 guess. Mr. Henderson, do-you wish -- 4 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, please. 5 [Exhibit 2 marked] 6 [Exhibit 3 marked] 7 [Exhibit 4 marked] 8 [Exhibit 5 marked] 9 [Exhibit 6 marked] 10 COURT REPORTER: Exhibits 2 through 6. 11 MR. HENDERSON: 12 Q Dr. Kelly, the -- the first article that you 13 have before you that the court reporter has marked, I 14 believe, as Exhibit 2 is an article. Do you -- have you 15 seen it yet, before you handed it to your lawyer? 16 A Well, I'm getting it back. 17 Q Okay. 18 A I saw the title. 19 Q Because I can't ask your lawyer any 20 -questions, I have to ask you questions. 21 A No, I understand that. 22 Q This is an article entitled "Dermatitis from 23 Synthetic Resins and Waxes" by Louis Schwartz. It was 24 in June 1936, apparently senior surgeon of the United 25 States Public Health Service. Do you see that? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21361 268 1 A Yes, sir. 2 --7.... Q . Are you familiar with Dr. Schwartz? 3 __ A Yes, sir. - 4 Q Are you familiar with this article? Have you 5 ever seen it before? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Was that one of the articles that you had 8 reviewed back in 1937 when you were first employed by 9 Monsanto? 10 A I can't tell you when the first time I've 11 seen this article. But I have seen it. Often. - 12 Q You've seen it before this litigation began; 13 A Yes. 14 Q Right? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Now would you turn to Page 591? Do you 17 know -- excuse me. Before I ask you that, do you know 18 Dr. Schwartz to be a careful investigator? 19 A Well, first of all, he is dead. He is not 20 -iiving. Dr. Schwartz was the senior surgeon for the 21 United States Public Health Service. I was not in a 22 position to comment on his adequacy or inadequacy as 23 a -- as an investigator. He did write books on the 24 subject. 25 Q Okay. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021362 269 1 Turning to Page 591, near the bottom of the 2 frirst column it says: "The workers engaged in 3 chlorinating the diphenyl? especially that part of the 4 operation where the crude Aroclor is being redistilled 5 to remove impurities, are affected with an acne-like 6 condition of the skin. This also occurs in workers 7 exposed to the fumes of the chloronaphthalenes, or 8 Halowax." Do you see where I read? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Did I read that accurately? 11 A Yes, sir. -- 12 Q Did the -- the Aroclor that they're talking* 13 about is a Monsanto product, is it not? 14 A This was a Swann product. 15 Q Swann was bought by Monsanto? 16 A Yes. But when this occurred it was not 17 Monsanto. It has not occurred in the Monsanto plants 18 since Monsanto bought Swann. 19 Q I understand your advocacy on behalf of 20 -Monsanto, Dr. Kelly, but that really wasn't my question 21 A No. 22 Q My question -- please, please. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Okay. My question was: Is that the same 25 air -- did you change the -- the chemical constituents NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21363 270 1 or were the means by which the aroclors were made from 2 and after Monsanto took over Swann or were they 3 essentially the same? - 4 A They were not essentially the same, Mr. 5 Henderson, because the particular batch of aroclors that 6 is referred to in this particular document was -- showed 7 up with a different color of -- of Aroclor, it was a 8 different dielectric, it was bad Aroclor, it was sent 9 back, and that particular batch is the one that he is 10 referring to. 11 Q Now, when he says in chlorinating .the -- 12 diphenyl, do you not agree that when something is - 13 referred to as chlorinated diphenyls that that would 14 include aroclors? 15 A Aroclor is a chlorinated diephenyl, yes, sir. 16 Q ' Thank you. I thought your answer a little 17 earlier was somewhat different. But if I heard it 18 wrong, I apologize. Thank you. 19 Now, going to the top of Page 591. 20 MR. FREEMAN: Do you have an extra copy? 21 MR. HENDERSON: No. I just have one for the 22 doctor and one for me. 23 Q In addition -- it says: "In addition to 24 these skin lesions, symptoms of systemic poisoning have 25 occurred among workers inhaling these fumes. Those NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21364 271 1 working with the chlorodiphenyls have complained of 2 digestive disturbances, burning of the eyes, impotence 3 and hematuria." Do you see where I read? 4 A Yes, I do. 5 Q Did I read that accurately? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q What's -- did I pronounce that right, 8 hematuria? 9 A Hematuria. 10 Q What's hematuria? 11 A Blood in the urine. -- 12 Q Digestive disturbances. I guess you -- you' 13 can't define that any more than what the -- what the 14 words say here, can you? What -- what would those be? 15 Would you have any idea? 16 A I do not know what he would refer to. 17 Q Okay. 18 A But, sir, you also stopped, you know, when 19 you were talking about hematuria. Because you -- it 20 -says: "The latter-symptoms developed among a number of 21 men making aminodiphenyl which is used in the 22 manufacture of a rubber antioxidant." 23 Q Thank you. 24 A So this is not chlorinated diphenyl. 25 Aminodiphenyl is not chlorinated diphenyl. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021365 272 1 Q I thought it says: "Those working with the 2 chlorodiphenyls have complained of digestive 3 disturbances, burning of the eyes, impotence and" -- 4 A Hematuria. 5 Q -- "hematuria." 6 A But then you have to say -- the next sentence 7 says: The latter symptom," i.e., hematuria, "developed 8 among a number of men making aminodiphenyl." 9 Q Thank you. 10 Going to Exhibit 3, this is the article 11 entitled The Journal of Industrial Hygiene and -- 12 Toxicology. Do you see that? - 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And this was published in September1937 and 15 it's entitled "The Problem of Possible Systemic Effects 16 From Certain Chlorinated Hydrocarbons." Do you see 17 that? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, that was the article that wespoke about 20 -ar few moments ago that was -- the problems that were 21 investigated by Dr. Cecil Drinker and others that -- 22 that resulted in the -- in the publication of this 23 paper, which includes the discussion starting at Page 24 300 and -- and continuing through Page 311. Is that 25 true? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21366 273 1 A Yes, sir. 2 -T Q And that's the discussion that -- the 3 aymposium that you attended whenever that was in 1937 or 4 1936. Is that true? 5 A Whenever it was I attended. I do not know 6 the date of it. 7 Q Now, do you recall with -- without digging 8 into this -- this article that this investigation began 9 as a result of some deaths due to liver damage caused by 10 certain chlorinated hydrocarbons? 11 MR. CRAWFORD: Why don't you ask -- - 12 MR. HENDERSON: - 13 Q Is that true? 14 MR. CRAWFORD: Ask him a question rather than 15 making a statement. 16 MR. HENDERSON: 17 Q Do you recall that this paper was -- this 18 investigation resulting in this paper was -- was 19 triggered by the deaths of three individuals from liver 20 -damage who had been exposed to certain chlorinated 21 hydrocarbons? 22 A Yes, sir. It says that here. 23 Q Okay. And that -- this paper, if you'll look 24 through it, among other things, talks about the various 25 patients who -- who died as a result of the liver NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21367 274 1 damage. That starts on Page 283, the first page, and 2 continues for several pages thereafter. Do you see 3 that? ' 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now, the way that -- that Dr. Drinker 6 investigated this is that he not only gave the 7 appropriate detail for those three workers that died 8 but he also conducted various animal experimentations, 9 did he not? 10 MR. CRAWFORD: I'm going to object to the 11 form of the question. Can you ask him a question rather 12 than this soliloquy we have going on, these -- these " 13 comments? Just ask him if that's his recollection or if 14 he knows rather than just making statements. I think 15 it's -- 16 MR. HENDERSON: 17 Q Did you understand my question, Doctor? 18 MR. CRAWFORD: -- improper. 19 A I've forgotten it. 20 -- - MR. HENDERSON: Okay. 21 Would you read it, please? 22 COURT REPORTER: "Now, the way that Dr. 23 Drinker investigated this is that he not only gave the 24 appropriate detail for those three workers that died 25 but he also conducted various animal experimentations, NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21368 275 1 did he not?" 2 A Yes, sir. 3 MR. HENDERSON:- Okay. 4 Q And those animal experimentations included 5 both feeding and exposing the animals to the vapors of 6 the -- of the various chlorinated hydrocarbons? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And among those chlorinated hydrocarbons were 9 included chlorodiphenyls. Is that true? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Look at Page 297. 12 A Yes, sir. ' 13 Q Do you see where at the bottom or there near 14 the -- near the bottom of the second column it says 15 chlorinated diphenyl? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And they fed the rats chlorinated diphenyls, 18 did they not, according to this article? 19 A According to this article, Mr. Henderson, 20 Jthey fed what they thought was chlorinated diphenyl. In 21 a subsequent article by Dr. Drinker^he stated that he -- 22 on further investigation, he did not feed chlorinated 23 diphenyl, he fed chlorinated diphenyl benzene. I will 24 be happy to furnish you with his latter article, which I 25 believe you already have. So that where Drinker has NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021369 276 1 been referring to chlorinated -- to chlorinated 2 d-iphenyl, he was using something that was received from 3 the Halowax Corporation that was not chlorinated 4 diphenyl, it was chlorinated diphenyl benzene, an 5 entirely different compound. And that he stated in an 6 article in the same journal within one or two years 7 afterwards, and he stated that I was surprised -- I 8 meaning Drinker -- was surprised at the lack of toxicity 9 in chlorinated diphenyl because we had considerable 10 toxicity in the other specimen, and on further 11 investigation it was not chlorinated diphenyl, it was - 12 chlorinated diphenyl benzene. - 13 Q Is chlorinated diphenyl benzene a chlorinated 14 hydrocarbon? 15 A Yes, sir? 16 Q Is chlorinated diphenyl benzene a 17 polychlorinated biphenyl? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Thank you. 20 Is a polychlorinated biphenyl a PCB? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Thank you. 23 Dr. Kelly, would you go to Page 300, please? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q There was a person by the name of Dr. -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021370 277 1 you'll have to help me with the pronunciation. Dr. von 2 Gettingen? 3 .. A Von Oettingen/. 4 Q Did you know him? 5 A Yes. 6 Q That Haskell Laboratory of Industrial 7 Toxicology, is that that -- is that that Du Pont 8 facility that you talked to people that you referred to 9 earlier in some of your questioning? 10 A It is a Du Pont facility. I did not say that 11 I talked to people at Haskell Laboratory. I said I - 12 talked to the medical director as well as their - 13 epidemiologist. 14 Q Did you ever talk to Dr. von Oettingen about 15 PCBs? 16 A I don't recall. I talked to Dr. von 17 Oettingen off and on in those early days, but I do not 18 know if I talked to him about PCBs. 19 Q In the second paragraph -- do you know Dr. 20 .von Oettingen to be a reputable toxicologist? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q In the second paragraph in his discussion. 23 the third -- the last sentence, starting with "Since," 24 it says: "Since there is no animal which corresponds in 25 all its physiological characteristics to the human being NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021371 278 1 it is important that such compounds be studied with 2 different species of animals so that one can get a cross 3 section of the potential dangers." Did I read that 4 accurately? 5 A Yes, you did. 6 Q Do you understand and agree with what he, 7 Dr . von Oettingen, says here? 8 A I understand what he said, yes. 9 Q Do you agree with that? 10 A Well, I think it all depends on a variety of 11 factors about how many species of animals you use, what 12 the exposures are liable to be. So I -- I think this ' 13 has to be interpreted in light of several factors. 14 Q What he is saying is that if -- if -- if the 15 rat when -- when challenged with a particular substance 16 this demonstrates a damaged liver, that if you do the 17 same with a guinea pig it may demonstrate a damaged 18 kidney? 19 A Or it may demonstrate no damage at all. 20 -Q True. And if you do it with a mouse it may 21 be his lungs may be damaged. What he's -- so I'm trying 22 to interpret it. And what I'm -- what I'm asking you 23 is: Can -- if he did mice and rat -- mice and rats and 24 guinea pigs, then he may see -- he may see nothing or he 25 may see a whole different spectrum of problems, NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021372 279 1 depending on the species. 2 - -A There is -- he may. There is some species 3 differentiation. - 4 Q Okay. That's all. Thank you. 5 A There may be some species differentiation. I 6 want to correct that. Yes, there may be. 7 Q Going to Page 304, and this is in reference 8 to Dr. Schwartz again, he's the same Dr. Schwartz even 9 though he's now -- no, I'm -- I take that back. He's 10 the Medical Director of the Dermatoses Investigations in 11 the United States Public Health Service, according to - 12 the -- his identification on Page 304. Do you see that? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now, he has something that I want to talk to 15 you, ask you a few questions about regarding prevention. 16 And it's in the second full paragraph. It states: 17 "As far as prevention goes, I felt even before this 18 investigation was undertaken that this substance, like 19 any other poisonous substance, can be handled and used 20 -in industry provided proper safety precautions are 21 taken, and I so advocated at the meeting in Pennsylvania 22 when this was discussed." 23 I take it from -- that you -- you agree with 24 that, do you not? 25 A Let me read this and then I will tell you. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21373 280 1 I agree with his statement when he says "this 2 substance," and he refers to Halowax here, "can be used 3 in industry provided proper safety precautions are 4 taken," yes, I agree with that. 5 Q That's essentially what you said yesterday. 6 Is that true? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q Going to Page 310 of the same article, 9 there's a reference to Dr. B. L. Vosburgh. Did you know 10 Dr. Vosburgh? 11 A Yes. - 12 Q Dr. Vosburgh, in 1936 or '37, was the medical 13 director of the General Electric Company, was he not? 14 A Yes, he was. 15 Q How long did he -- how long was he with the 16 General Electric Company in the capacity of medical 17 director, if you know? 18 A I don't know. 19 Q Did you have some -- did you have discussions 20 ' .with Dr. Vosburgh- at any time while you were medical 21 director with -- with the Monsanto Company? 22 A Discussions about what? Anything? 23 Q Discussions about chemical substances and 24 their possible -- and their potential hazardous effects. 25 A I may have. I don't recall any details. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021374 281 1 Q Well, he was -- General Electric was one of 2 Monsanto's customers, was it not? 3 ._ A Yes. 4 Q You sold them some PCBs under -- what was the 5 trade name of the PCBs that you sold to the General 6 Electric Company? 7 A Pyranol. It was General Electric's patent. 8 They discovered or invented the compound and we 9 manufactured it for them. 10 Q What year did they -- what year did they 11 discover that? Do you know? 12 A I don't know. - 13 Q Did they discover Pyranol or Pydraul before 14 Westinghouse patented Inerteen? 15 A First of all, Pydraul is not a transformer 16 fluid. You mentioned Pyranol or Pydraul. Pydraul is 17 not. 18 Q I -- I -- I beg your pardon. Is it 19 Pyranol that GE patented? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q And -- and it's used in -- in -- for what -- 22 for what function? 23 A A dielectric in transformers. 24 Q When did the -- when was that patented by 25 General Electric, if you know? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21375 282 1 A I don't know. 2 -Q Was it prior to 1937? 3 -_ A I still don't know. But I believe it was. 4 Q Okay. 5 Now, in his -- in his statement he says, 6 "We have heard about the possibility of preventing liver 7 damage and skin trouble among manufacturers of wires and 8 cables and so forth, but like the old rhyme, every dog 9 has fleas and the fleas have fleas, we also have 10 customers who use wires and cables in tunnels, in 11 enclosed spaces, splicing them together and doing all -- 12 sorts of things. I am not at all certain that we know 13 what the concentration of these chlorinated hydrocarbons 14 is under those conditions." 15 Did I read that accurately? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Now, what he is saying is -- is what -- what 18 you said yesterday. Is that not true? That is, he's 19 concerned about the people who are using the products 20 -that they manufacture. Isn't that true? 21 MR. CRAWFORD: If you know, Doctor. 22 A I don't know what he means about this. I 23 don't think he said that. I'll read it back to you. 24 "We have heard about the possibility of preventing liver 25 damage and skin trouble among manufacturers of wires." NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21376 283 1 That speaks for itself. He's heard about them. 2 ^We have customers who use wires and cables in tunnels, 3 jji_ enclosed spaces. I'm not at all certain we know what 4 the concentration of the chlorinated hydrocarbons is 5 under these conditions." He hasn't said anything about 6 preventing it. He's just said: We've heard about it 7 and I don't know what the concentration is. 8 MR. HENDERSON: 9 Q If you know, as Mr. Crawford has -- has 10 suggested if you know, if you know, do you believe 11 that -- that Dr. Vosburgh is talking about the concerns 12 of people who are using their products and what their - 13 exposures might be and whether or not they could be 14 exposed to a potential toxic substance? 15 A I don't know what he meant by that paragraph. 16 Q Okay. Thank you. And weren't you concerned 17 yesterday as you in your -- in the questioning by -- by 18 Mr. Lacey about how the products were being used at 19 Westinghouse and at the TVA and Ford, that is, the PCB 20 .products and their potential toxic hazardous effect? 21 MR. CRAWFORD: What's the question? 22 MR. HENDERSON: 23 Q While you were medical director of the 24 Monsanto Company, were you not concerned about the use 25 of your PCBs by -- by people using the products employed NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21377 284 1 by Westinghouse, TVA, Ford, General Electric, Ward 2 Electric and all the others that you sold PCB products 3 to? 4 A We were concerned that we had adequately 5 given warnings and safe handling data and methods to 6 prevent any ill effect -- 7 Q And that's what -- 8 A -- in our customers. 9 Q And that's what Dr. Vosburgh is concerned 10 about for people using their products, is he not? 11 A He hasn't said that yet -- 12 Q Okay. 13 A -- Mr. Henderson. 14 MR. HENDERSON: Thank you. 15 [Off the record discussion between 16 plaintiffs' counsel] 17 COURT REPORTER: I just want to remind you 18 that can be heard on the mike. 19 MR. HENDERSON: 20 Q Going to Exhibit 4, Dr. Kelly, there's a 21 short piece entitled Chlorinated Naphthalenes and 22 Diphenyls authored by Leonard Greenburg, M.D., who is 23 with the Division of Industrial Hygiene in the New York 24 State Department of Labor. And I represent to you that 25 this article was published in the late 19 -- 194 -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21378 285 1 well, it's at the bottom. It's 1943. Although there's 2 nothing that I have that shows the date of publication 3 or. where it was published. Have you seen this before? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Okay. Do you know Dr.Greenburg? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q What -- was Dr.Greenburg -- he's obviously a 8 medical doctor. What was his area of specialty or 9 expertise? 10 A His area of special -- of expertise was 11 occupational medicine in regard to various chemicals. -- 12 He worked a great deal with mercury. He reported a 13 great deal about various occupational conditions that he 14 had encountered in New York. 15 Q Have you seen this article in the last three 16 months? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Was this one of the articles that -- that the 19 Monsanto lawyers reviewed with you? 20 A They didn't review it. They showed it to me. 21 Q Okay. Had you seen the article back in the 22 1940s when it was published? 23 A I don't know when it was published, but I've 24 seen the article before this case, certainly. 25 Q Okay. Going to the second page, under NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21379 286 1 Conclusions, No. 1 says: "Chlorinated naphthalenes and 2 diphenyls are in general highly toxic compounds and must 3 housed with extreme care." Do you agree with that? 4 A No, sir, I do not. 5 Q Where do you -- how do you disagree with 6 that? 7 A I do not consider chlorinated diphenyl to be 8 generally highly toxic compound. 9 Q You consider it to be what, moderately toxic? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Okay. Do youagree that even though it's -- 12 moderately toxic in yourview that it should be used 13 with extreme care? 14 A Then again extreme, Mr. Henderson, is -- it's 15 got to be defined. If you mean by that extreme care 16 that you would use with a radioactive substance and use 17 a space suit, no, I do not believe that. I believe that 18 it should be used with care afforded an industrial 19 chemical and that -- that the two -- that the care to 20 .avoid skin -- prolonged or repeated skin contact and to 21 avoid breathing the vapors is care, is the care that's 22 needed. Whether that's extreme care under your 23 definition I don't know. 24 Q It's not my definition. It's what Dr. 25 Greenburg said. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021380 287 1 A Well -- well, then I don't know -- 2 -Q I mean -- 3 --A -- what Dr. Greenburg -- whether he considers 4 that. I would not consider that to be extreme care. 5 Q The next sentence is: "Industrial hygienists 6 should make every effort to see that such exposures are 7 controlled insofar as humanly possible." Do you agree 8 or disagree with that? 9 A Well, I agree that in 1943 that statement was 10 correct. In 1974 I don't believe it would be correct, 11 because we had a great deal of human exposure and -- 12 industrial exposure with no ill effects. So I don't - 13 believe that statement -- 14 Q That's what you had at -- that was your 15 experience at Monsanto, wasn't it, Dr. Kelly? 16 A That was the experience at Monsanto, it was 17 also the experience of the government people who checked 18 epidemiologically PCB workers. 19 Q That was your -- your -- you're here to 20 ^testify, as I understand it, regarding the experience of 21 Monsanto as -- as you concluded it from 1936 to 1974. 22 Is that true? 23 A Among other things, yes. 24 Q Now, in concept, do you agree or disagree 25 with the statement "Industrial hygienists should make NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021381 -288 1 every effort to see that such exposures are controlled 2 insofar as humanly possible"? - 3 __ A No, I don't agree with it. Because as far as 4 humanly possible, you could put people in a space suit 5 out there. And you don't need to do that. But that is 6 humanly possible. You could put a man who was filling a 7 transformer in a space suit and put an air line 8 respirator on them. You could do that humanly, but that 9 is not necessary. 10 Q Going to Recommendations on the next page, 11 No. 3, just read that over about the foremen. - 12 Did you read that No. 3? - 13 A Paragraph 3? Yes, sir. 14 Q Do you agree that the foremen of all 15 departments where the material is being handled should 16 be apprised of the toxic nature of the material and 17 instructed in safe handling practices? 18 A You have to refer that particular statement 19 to his first statement under Recommendations, where he's 20 stalking about impregnating materials. "Here he's talking 21 about impregnating wire, which I understand it was 22 discarded sometime along in that time. 23 Q Do you agree or disagree with Paragraph 3? 24 A I agree with it as far as his reference to 25 impregnating materials, yes, sir. I disagree with it -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021382 289 1 Q Do you -- do you -- with respect to -- 2 -A No, I agree with it that they should be 3 apprised of the toxic nature of the material and 4 instructed in safe handling procedures, yes, sir, I 5 agree with that. 6 Q Okay. 7 If you would, Dr. Kelly, would you go to 8 Exhibit 5? That's the February 1939 article appearing 9 in The Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Is 10 that correct? 11 A Yes, sir. - 12 Q Okay. And that's one of the journals that - 13 the Monsanto Company subscribed to and received in and 14 about that time. Is that true? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And this is an article entitled "The Systemic 17 Effects Resulting From Exposure to Certain Chlorinated 18 Hydrocarbons" by this same Dr. Greenburg and others. Do 19 you see that? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Go to Page 38, which is the last page of the 22 article. Do you see where it says Recommendations for 23 Medical -- Medical Control at the top? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q Go to No. 2. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21383 290 1 A Yes, sir. 2 -Q Says, "Persons suffering from the typical 3 axmeform eruption should be removed from further 4 exposure." Do you see that? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Would the typicalacneform eruptions be what 7 you referred to yesterday and earlier today as 8 chloracne? 9 A I'll have to read the article. I just can't 10 pick out one sentence and say what he's talking about. 11 So let's look at the article. - 12 Q All right. 13 A Well, the firstcase is a17-year-old girl 14 who was exposed to chlorinated tri- and 15 tetrachlornaphthalene. She had a papulo-pustular 16 eruption present on her face. Whether that was 17 chloracne or not I don't know. But it said here she has 18 pigmentation. And that very well may have been * 19 chloracne. And if that is correct, she should have been 20 x-emoved from her operation, should not be allowed to 21 come in contact with chlorinated naphthalene, which she 22 was doing. 23 Let's go to No. 2. He was working in a wire 24 factory coating wire with wax with the higher 25 chlorinated naphthalenes. It doesn't mention anything NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021384 291 1 about chlorinated diphenyl in this particular operation, 2 it doesn't say anything about whether he had a rash or 3 nob. He had an acute liver failure from inhalation of 4 chlorinated naphthalene. 5 No. 3 worked as the same wire plant as No. 2. 6 The only rash they talked about was healing 7 exanthematous rash of the forearms. That is not 8 chloracne. 9 Now, what was your question again, sir? 10 Q My question was: Do you agree that persons 11 suffering from the typical acneform eruptions exposed -to 12 chlorinated hydrocarbons should be removed from further 13 exposure? 14 A Yes, I think, depending on the amount of -- 15 of the chloracne. Some cases are minor. I've seen very 16 minor chloracne with insecticides. It was not necessary 17 to remove them. But certainly -- 18 Q Did you -- 19 A Yes, sir, okay. 20 Q I'm sorry. Are youfinished? 21 A That's enough. 22 Q Did you ever communicate that to General 23 Electric? 24 A Communicate what? 25 Q That persons suffering from typical acneform NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021385 292 1 eruptions should be removed from further exposure. 2 A No, sir. 3 __ Q Did you ever -- did you ever communicate that 4 to Westinghouse? 5 A No, sir. I'm sure their medical departments 6 read the same articles I did. 7 Q Did you ever communicate that to the TVA? 8 A No, sir. 9 Q Did you ever communicate that persons 10 suffering from the typical acneform eruption should be 11 removed from further exposure either to Westinghouse, - 12 TVA or Ford? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q If you would -- what exhibit number is that. 15 Doctor ? 16 A Five. 17 Q Would you go to Exhibit 6, please? This is 18 an article that was in The Review of Gastroenterology in 19 the November-December edition, 1944. Do you see that? 20 A Yes, sir. - 21 Q It's entitled "Hepato-Toxic EffectsFollowing 22 Occupational Exposure To Halowax (Chlorinated 23 Hydrocarbons)." Is that correct? 24 A That is correct. 25 Q Have you had an opportunity to review this NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMONOQ21386 293 1 article? 2 --A I don't recall if I've seen it in preparation 3 for this case. May I do it now? 4 Q Sure. 5 A Yes, sir, I think I've -- not in depth, but 6 I've gone over it. 7 MR. CRAWFORD: Be sure you understand it. 8 Doctor. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 MR. HENDERSON: 11 Q If there's any question I ask you, Dr. KelTy, 12 that you don't understand, you take whatever time you ' 13 need to review the article to -- 14 A Thank you. 15 Q -- familiarizeyourself sufficiently with it 16 before you attempt toanswer anyquestion. 17 A I will. 18 Q Okay. 19 Would you go to Page 386? Idon't want to 20 _xaad all of this into the record, but if you'll take -- 21 just take an opportunity to review those three 22 paragraphs starting at "Reports of Toxic Effects on 23 Humans." 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q . What they saythere, ineffect, is that there NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021387 294 1 have been several reported cases -- ten, in fact -- that 2 have demonstrated liver damage secondary to chlorinated 3 hydrocarbons. Is that true? 4 A I'll have to see whether they're referring to 5 the same cases or not, Drinker's three cases. Let me 6 take this one at a time. He had three cases that had 7 acute jaundice and liver failure after exposure to 8 Halowax. There was no further definition of the 9 Halowax. Halowax is in the main chlorinated naphthalene 10 and some Halowaxes have ten percent chlorinated 11 diphenyl, some have chlorinated diphenyl benzene. - 12 Then he mentions, in addition to the other - 13 three cases, "We have learned of four other possible 14 cases." But he gave no description. 15 Greenburg reported three additional cases 16 following exposure to chlorinated naphthalenes. 17 Q Okay. So that's -- that's six -- six persons 18 who died and four others that may be affected? 19 A Due to chlorinated naphthalenes. 20 -- Q Due to whatever the article says? 21 A Well, he said chlorinated naphthalenes. 22 Q Okay. Is that -- is my mathematics accurate? 23 Six deaths and four other possibles? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q Okay. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021388 295 1 A Then we have -- 2 -Q Do you have something else you want to say? 3 __ A Well -- beg your pardon. 4 Q Do you have something else you want to say? 5 Because that was my question. 6 A Well, then he comes down to one nonfatal 7 case, reported by Mayer and Smith, who was exposed to 8 Halowax vapor and she developed jaundice. 9 Another case. He was exposed, as a machinist 10 in a factory to chlorinated hydrocarbons. I don't know 11 what chlorinated hydrocarbons that was. It could have- 12 been tetrachlorethylene, it could be a lot of 13 chlorinated hydrocarbons. But he died of acute toxic 14 hepatitis. 15 Q Have you completed your review and answer? 16 A ' Yes, sir. 17 Q Okay. 18 Would you go to Page 396, the last page? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q There's adiscussion that -- that -- by 21 Dr. Alfred Angrist that's part of this -- part of the 22 article. Do you -- did you know of or do you know of 23 Dr. Angrist? 24 A No. 25 Q Within the lastparagraph,starting with NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21389 296 1 "There is another aspect," would you tell me when you 2 have finished reading that? 3 __ A Last paragraph? 4 Q Yeah. 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q He's -- Dr. Angrist is talking about the 7 synergistic action of the toxic chemicals. What is 8 this -- what is synergistic action? 9 A Synergistic means that if you have one 10 compound that produces a certain amount of toxicity and 11 a second compound that produces a second amount of ~~ 12 toxicity that the combined action may be more than ' 13 simple addition. 14 Q Were you aware that Bennett,Drinker and 15 Weiner had demonstrated synergism experimentally? 16 A In their paper they refer to given carbon 17 tetrachloride and no liver poison to individuals that 18 they had exposed to chlorinated diphenyl. Whether that 19 was synergistic or additive I don't know. 20 Q Do you agree with that last sentence where it 21 says, "Certainly no alcoholics should be employed for 22 duties exposing them to such toxic agents"? 23 A If by alcoholics he means a chronic 24 alcoholic, a person suffering from -- I don't know what 25 he means by an alcoholic. If he means -- may I finish? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021390 297 1 If he means by an alcoholic what is at present day 2 referred to somebody who has alcoholic abuse, certainly 3 they should not be. 4 Q What are the -- what are the modes of 5 exposure to a substance such as PCBs, Dr. Kelly? 6 A Skin absorption and inhalation. Conceivably 7 people could drink it, but -- but that is not a common 8 exposure. The common exposure is skin absorption and 9 inhalation. 10 Q But it -- but it can be ingested. Is that 11 true? -- 12 A Oh, it could be swallowed, certainly. - 13 Q Well, if somebody got it -- if somebody got 14 it on their hands and lighted a cigarette and put it to 15 his lips, it could be taken -- it could be ingested in 16 that fashion, could it not? 17 A Some infinitesimal amount could be, yes, sir. 18 Q All of these -- all three of those modes of 19 exposure were known back in the 1930s, were they not? 20 A At the time of Drinker's work, he gave 21 animals -- I don't know if Drinker did skin absorption 22 tests, but it was known -- so that ingestion was 23 known -- industrial ingestion was certainly not a 24 prominent thing then, isn't prominent now, never has 25 been prominent. Inhalation exposure was known, yes, NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021391 298 1 sir. 2 -Q The two principal ones that you referred to 3 ea-rlier, dermal or skin contact and inhalation of fumes, 4 were certainly known 50 years ago? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Can you -- if -- if a person tests at a 7 certain number of parts per billion in the blood, is 8 there -- do you have a way of comparing the toxicity of 9 that -- let's say -- let's assume that it's 10 parts per 10 million PCBs in the blood. 11 A Per million? -- 12 Q Per billion. ' 13 A Billion. 14 Q Per billion. PPB. 15 A Okay. 16 Q How does -- in terms of comparing the -- the 17 potential toxic effect, how would -- would you be able 18 to equate that with the same levels in the fat tissue? 19 A I wouldn't. Somebody might. 20 -- Q What would you do? 21 A Well, I don't know if you can look at a 22 person with 40 parts per billion in the blood and say 23 they've got X amounts parts per million in the fat. 24 Q No, I wasn't sayingthat. 25 A Oh. Well, you asked me to equate parts per NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021392 299 1 billion in the blood with parts in the fat. 2 -Q I understand. And I -- let me rephrase it. 3 If a -- if a person has 10 parts per billion in his 4 blood, would that equate in terms of its toxic -- 5 potential toxic effects to 10 parts per billion in the 6 fat? 7 A You're using billion in both cases now? 8 Q Yes. 9 A Would you -- I want to be sure about this 10 question. Repeat it, please. 11 COURT REPORTER: "I understand. Let me - 12 rephrase it. If a -- if a person has 10 parts per 13 billion in his blood, would that equate in terms of its 14 toxic -- potential toxic effects to 10 parts per billion 15 in the fat?" 16 A First of all, 10 parts per billion in the 17 blood does not equate to any toxic effect anyplace. 18 MR. HENDERSON: 19 Q That wasn't my question. We can -- we 20 -Gould -- 21 A Your question -- 22 Q We could make it -- what would you -- what do 23 you say is the minimum level for toxic effects -- for 24 potential toxic effects in a human of parts per billion 25 in the blood? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21393 300 1 A You said billion -- million this time? 2 -Q I said billion. 3 __ A You said billion. Okay. It depends on how 4 prolonged the level in the blood was. You have a higher 5 level in the blood when it is being excreted, if it is 6 going to be excreted. So if a person were to have -- 7 pick a figure. I'd have to speculate. I can't answer 8 that question. 9 Q Well, I don't -- I didn't want you to 10 speculate in the first place, I just wanted you to 11 - compare whether or not the potential for toxic effects-- 12 would be substantially the same for a person having the 13 same levels of PCBs in his blood as in his fat. 14 MR. CRAWFORD: If you know. 15 A I don't know. I don't know. Because we've 16 got to give me some levels in the fat and you've got to 17 give me some levels as to how long it's going to be in 18 the blood. I don't know. 19 MR. HENDERSON: 20 Q Is Mr. Crawford saying if you know -- 21 A No. 22 Q -- does that tell you that you're to answer 23 "I don't know"? 24 A No, he isn't telling me that. I'm not a 25 puppet here. There are people with elevated levels in NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021394 301 1 their fat that show no toxic effects. So it's hard for 2 me to equate your statement about potential toxic 3 efects in the blood versus potential toxic effects in 4 the fat. 5 Q In other words, you can't answer the 6 question? 7 A I cannot answer your question. 8 Q Okay. 9 Yesterday you -- you used the phrase -- and 10 I'll put it in context, because I need to know what it 11 means. You used the phrase "definite possibility." Du 12 you recall that? 13 A No, I don't. 14 Q Okay. I don't know if you -- Idon't know if 15 I copied this verbatim or not, but the sense that I had 16 from some of your answers yesterday was that you -- in 17 the -- in the context of examining periodically your 18 employees, or employees of Monsanto, you indicated that 19 you would recommend that they be examined more 20 -f-requently if there were a definite possibility of 21 chemically-induced problems. Do you recall that? 22 A I don't knowwhether I usedthoseparticular 23 words, yes, but I recall. 24 Q Well, I recall you definitely using the words 25 "definite possibility." NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021395 302 1 A Well -- 2 -Q And I'd like to know if you can tell me what 3 y_ou mean by that phrase or those two words. 4 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, you've got to put it in 5 context with some question. 6 A Well, I could give you -- Mr. Henderson, we 7 had a group of people that were exposed to chromic acid. 8 Chromic acid causes nosebleeds. If we knew that this 9 occurred, we knew that if people were left in long 10 enough exposed to chromic acids in addition to their 11 nosebleeds they would have perforation of the nasal -- 12 septum. That had been reported in the literature. So 13 there was a definite possibility that if a person had 14 high enough exposure to chromic acid he could get a 15 perforated nasal septum. So we looked -- there was a 16 target and an action that was known. So we looked at 17 these people oftener, because there was a possibility 18 that they may have developed this nasal irritation which 19 could lead to something worse. 20 __ MR. HENDERSON : 21 Q Well, in the 1930s, then, I take it by that 22 definition that there was a -- a definite possibility of 23 persons developing skin and liver problems some of which 24 could result in death from exposure to chlorinated 25 hydrocarbons. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021396 303 1 A Where? 2 -Q In the literature that we reviewed for the 3 last hour. There was a definite possibility of persons 4 exposed to chlorinated hydrocarbons of developing skin 5 problems, namely chloracne, and certain liver problems. 6 A Not a definite possibility. If they were 7 exposed in sufficient amounts, they would get it. If 8 they were exposed in the wire drawing industry, they got 9 it. But in other uses they did not get it. So there 10 was not a definite possibility in those cases. 11 Q Do you -- are you saying, then, that there is 12 a -- that there is a certain dose necessary for someone 13 to be exposed to before that individual will contract 14 some liver damage or hepatitis condition induced by 15 PCBs? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q What is thatdose? 18 A I don't think it's known in humans. 19 Q Okay. 20 -- And do you agree that individuals can vary 21 one from the other in terms of what it might take for 22 one individual to develop a certain problem as compared 23 to another individual? 24 A There are cases of individual differences in 25 susceptibility. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021397 304 1 Q That's otherwise referred to sometimes as the 2 host factor, is it not? Have you ever heard that 3 expression? 4 A Not in this context. 5 Q Okay. 6 What is the Industrial Health Foundation or, 7 something that you may have known it to be, the 8 Industrial Hygiene Foundation? 9 I thought the first designation was the Air 10 Hygiene Foundation, if I remember correctly. Whether it 11 went to the Industrial Hygiene Foundation or something- 12 else I don't know. It was a group in Pittsburgh that 13 did some work in industrial environments, as far as I 14 could tell. 15 Q Did you ever attend any of their meetings? 16 A Yes, I did. ' 17 Q Did you know Dr. -- did you know or do you 18 know Dr. Dan Braun? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q How -- when and -- approximately what time 21 frame and how frequently did you attend meetings of 22 the -- of the Industrial Health Foundation or Air 23 Hygiene Foundation or whatever name it went by at that 24 time that you attended? 25 A 'I thought it was -- I attended two or three NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021398 305 1 meetings sometime in the late Forties, early Fifties. 2 T'm not sure. 3 __ Q Okay. " 4 Did you also receive at the medical 5 department of Monsanto the Industrial Hygiene Digest 6 that was produced and sent out monthly by the Air 7 Hygiene Foundation or Industrial Hygiene Foundation? 8 A We received it. I don't know how long. I 9 don't know if it came monthly or quarterly. But we 10 received it for a few years. 11 Q What -- what can you tell -- what's your - 12 recollection of what those publications included? 13 A I don't remember. I thought they dealt 14 mostly with dust and fumes. I'm not sure. I don't 15 recall what they -- what they were. 16 Q ' Were you aware that the -- that the outfit 17 which I'll refer to as the foundation in Pittsburgh, 18 that the foundation also offered to its member companies 19 literature searches based upon whatever articles that 20 -f-hey had abstracted and had cataloged? 21 A No, sir. I have no recollection. I may 22 have. I don't know. 23 Q Okay. 24 Did you ever avail Monsanto of any of the 25 services of the foundation in Pittsburgh? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021399 306 1 A [No reply] 2 -Q If you recall. 3 __ A I don't recall. .' 4 MR. CRAWFORD: Are we near a breaking point? 5 We've been going -- 6 MR. HENDERSON: Anytime you want to break. 7 MR. CRAWFORD: -- pretty -- pretty good. 8 Let's take one. 9 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're going off the record. 10 The time is 10:27 a.m. 11 [Recess] - 12 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're now back on the 13 record. The time is 10:36 a.m. 14 MR. HENDERSON: 15 Q Dr. Kelly, did you ever attend any of the 16 meetings of the Saranac Laboratory? 17 A We had a toxicological program up at Saranac 18 Laboratory. I went to Saranac Laboratory three or four 19 times. Whether or not there was a meeting at one of the 20 .times I went up there I just don't remember. I was 21 there one time when there were quite a few other people, 22 so whether I hitchhiked on to the meeting or not I don't 23 know. 24 Q Did Saranac ever do any consulting work for 25 Monsanto in terms of any of the -- the toxicological NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021400 307 1 effects of any of the Monsanto chemicals? 2 -A Yes, sir. 3 -- Q Which ones? Which chemicals? 4 A Santocel. 5 Q Santa -- 6 A Santocel. Santocel. 7 Q What is that? 8 A It's a polymorphous silica compound. 9 Q Did it ever do any work with respect to any 10 of the Monsanto polychlorinated hydrocarbons? 11 A No, sir. - 12 Q Did you ever have any meetings at Saranac 13 regarding the polychlorinated hydrocarbons? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Going back to the foundation in Pittsburgh -- 16 [Exhibit 7 marked] 17 COURT REPORTER: Exhibit No. 7. 18 MR. HENDERSON: 19 Q You are looking at what has been marked as 20 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 and you are handing it to 21 Mr. Crawford, who is sitting to your right, who is now 22 reviewing it. t 23 That, Dr. Kelly, I represent to you, is -- is 2 4 one of the abstracts that came out of the deposition 25 last week of Dr. Daniel Braun from the foundation in NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021401 308 1 Pittsburgh. And that would have been included in -- in 2 one of the Industrial Hygiene Digests. According to 3 what I understand how the testimony wertt with Dr. Braun 4 in April of 1945, which is the date that's shown up to 5 the right. Do you -- these, of course, would have been 6 in a much smaller piece when they were abstracted in the 7 digests that were sent to member companies. Do you 8 remember any better now than you did while we were 9 asking the few questions before the break of the 10 composition of that Industrial Hygiene Digest? 11 A No, sir, I don't. - 12 Q Do you remember -- do you remember anything- 13 about the abstracting of this article or the possible 14 translation of -- of this article into the English 15 language entitled "Toxicology of Some Chlorinated 16 Aromatic Hydrocarbons"? 17 A Well, this is -- do I remember -- what is 18 your question? Do I remember -- 19 Q Have you ever had access to this article by 20 -translation into the English language? 21 A I don't recall if I ever did. 22 Q Do you recall having seen this -- this 23 abstract? 24 A No, I don't recall having seen it. I don't 25 know whose chlorinated biphenyl it is. This is a NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021402 309 1 European article, is it not? 2 -Q Well, it appears to be. I don't know what 3 the -- it says Farmakoi i Toksikol. And I don't know 4 what -- 5 A Doesn't seem English. 6 Q -- language that is. 7 A Doesn't seem English. So presumably it's 8 some European chlorinated diphenyl. 9 MR. CRAWFORD: I think in fairness he 10 probably would need to see the article itself. I mean 11 you've got an abstract and it's just pulled out of - 12 context somewhere and I think that's going to be pretty 13 hard to identify. 14 THE WITNESS: Well, I haven't seen it and I 15 don't know whose diphenyl it is, I don't know which 16 diphenyl it is. 17 MR. HENDERSON: 18 Q Dr. Kelly, it says here about halfway down 19 "Both chlorodiphenyl and trichlorobenzene caused 20 .leucocytosis followed by leucopenia." What's -- what is 21 leucocytosis, if you know? 22 A Increase in white cells. 23 Q And what is leucopenia? 24 A Decrease in white cells. 25 Q . What's the difference between chlorodiphenyl NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021403 310 1 oxides and chlorodiphenyls? 2 -A One has an oxygen radical on which the other 3 one doesn't. I could comment they used very high levels 4 here, didn't they? 5 Q Is that what you want to comment about? 6 A Yes. They used three grams per cubic meter. 7 MR. HENDERSON: Bill, can you find these to 8 hand to the witness? I'll show you which ones I want to 9 give you. 10 MR. LITTLE: Yes. Can I walk in front of the 11 camera? ~ 12 MR. HENDERSON: Do you have these, Mr. ~ 13 Crawford, the ones that Dr. Kelly -- the medical reports 14 that you brought over after the lunch break yesterday? 15 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know. 16 THE WITNESS: I never got mine back. 17 MR. HENDERSON: Well, you look to your right. 18 There's Mr. Crawford. He's responsible for it if -- 19 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't think so. I think we 20 -must have left them up at the -- No. I don't know 21 where they are. 22 MR. HENDERSON: Weren't you going to give 23 those to the court reporter? 24 MR. CRAWFORD: Wait. Hang on. 25 MR. HENDERSON: Just hand the batch of them. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021404 311 1 MR. FREEMAN: These are the same. 2 -. MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah. 3 MR. HENDERSON: Have they been marked? 4 COURT REPORTER: No, sir. 5 MR. HENDERSON: Would you mark those, please, 6 Mr. Kelley? 7 COURT REPORTER: Do you want me to take the 8 time right now to mark them individually? 9 MR. HENDERSON: No, no. I just want each 10 group marked, Caves, Curtis, Evans and so on. 11 COURT REPORTER: Would you like to put thenr 12 in that order? I don't know -- " 13 MR. HENDERSON: They should be already. 14 COURT REPORTER: Y'all may want to go off the 15 camera while we do this. 16 MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Fine. 17 VIDEO OPERATOR: Off the record. 18 [Exhibit 8 marked] 19 [Exhibit 9 marked] 20 [Exhibit 10 marked] 21 [Exhibit 11 marked] 22 [Exhibit 12 marked] 23 [Exhibit 13 marked] 24 [Exhibit 14 marked] 25 [Exhibit 15 marked] NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021405 312 1 [Exhibit 16 marked] 2- [Exhibit 17 marked] 3 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're now back on the 4 record. 5 MR. HENDERSON: 6 Q Dr. Kelly, you have now before you what have 7 been marked as Exhibits 8 through 17. And if I might, 8 to speed this up, these are the records that you were 9 supplied by Monsanto of the various plaintiffs that are 10 going to -- presently scheduled to go to trial on -- 11 beginning June 8th, 1987, in Beaumont. Is that true? - 12 A Yes, sir. They supplied me these, yes, sirr 13 Q These are ten -- these are ten individuals? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Was this the -- was this the total supply 16 of -- of medical records by Monsanto or by any of the 17 lawyers representing Monsanto on these ten cases? 18 A This is all I've ever seen. In fact, I have 19 not looked over the records of Dr. Busch, I believe, who 20 .was appended to the back. I haven't seen -- I haven't 21 gone over his at all. 22 Q You just looked over the reports of the 23 examining -- or the experts engaged by the plaintiffs? 24 A Well, I only looked at what I saw here and I 25 made some notes about other medical records which I NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021406 313 1 would have liked to have seen. 2 -Q So that I understand it, you're not in any 3 position to offer any opinions one way or another on 4 these particular individual cases at this time. 5 A At the present time, I am not. 6 Q And the only way you would be comfortable in 7 doing that would be reviewing the -- the complete 8 medical records of all these people? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Would you need to do anything else to make 11 yourself sufficiently familiar with all of the other -- 12 with any of the other parameters that you told us about 13 yesterday entering into your -- your criteria for 14 determining causation in an individual case? 15 A I would talk to epidemiologists. 16 Q Would you want to review the epidemiological 17 literature as well? 18 A Well, I don't think I would have the time 19 between now and the trial to review the epidemiological 20 -literature, but I would ask for the epidemiologist who 21 presumably has reviewed the literature and ask him for 22 his opinion. 23 Q Now, going to what I would -- what I believe 24 is marked as Exhibit 9, that's the -- this first sheet 25 is the March 3, 1987, report of Dr. Daniel T. . NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021407 314 1 Teitlebaum. Is that correct? 2 -A Yes, sir. 3 Q And on the bottom of the -- of the first 4 sheet you have some handwritten notes. Would you tell 5 me what those are? 6 A One said the man has -- 7 Q I'm asking you what your notes are. 8 A Beg your pardon. 9 Q I'm asking you what your handwritten -- 10 A That's what I'm writing. 11 Q Yes. - 12 A That's what I'm saying. I have two notes - 13 on -- on Mr. -- on Dr. Teitlebaum's report. The first 14 has reference to his chronic obstructive pulmonary 15 disease. And I wrote on that that he had 120 pack years 16 of smoking. 17 Q I think you're -- I'm sorry. Are you looking 18 at Howard Curtis? 19 A No. I'm looking at No. 9. 20 Q Which number -- what is No. 9? 21 A Junior Caves. 22 Q I'm sorry. Please look at Mr. Curtis. 23 A Whoops. The first one? 24 Q It may be the one that you have turned over. 25 A Oh, he's 8. He's 8. Yes, sir. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021408 315 1 Q Would you indicate what your handwritten 2 notes are? 3 A Yes. It said -- I -- said, "Where is the 4 evidence about liver damage?" That's one handwritten 5 note. The other, I circled the statement where it says 6 "generated in the ovens in which transformers were 7 baked." I'm not familiar with transformers being baked. 8 Q And to that you said "This is nonsense"? 9 A I think so, yes, sir. 10 Q Where's -- what evidence would you want about 11 the liver damage? -- 12 A I would want a history, I would want all --~ 13 any previous hospitalization, I would want the amount 14 of -- his history of alcoholism, I would want liver 15 enzymes. None of which I see here. 16 Q With reference to the -- the breakdown of the 17 PCBs, you -- you do understand, do you not, that 18 phosgene can be created at certain temperatures at PCBs? 19 A I'm not certain of that, sir. You'll have to 20 ask someone else about that. 21 Q Would you go next to the -- the report of 22 Ralph Evans? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Is that Exhibit 10? 25 A Yes, sir. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021409 316 1 Q What is that note that you have down to 2 the -- in the right-hand margin at the bottom of the 3 page? 4 A It says: "What is different?" 5 Q Okay. 6 Would you go to Mr. French, please? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Is that Exhibit 11? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q You have written at the end of the -- one, 11 two, three -- fourth paragraph, you say, "Where is thrs" 12 evidence?" Do you see that? " 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Does that refer to the carcinogenicity or the 15 cancer-causing of PCBs? 16 A It refers toa statement "The carcinogenicity 17 of polychlorinated biphenyls undoubtedly contributed to 18 this skin disease." And my question on that was: 19 "Where is this evidence?" 20 -- Q Okay. 21 Going to Mr. Hutchens' report, which if it's 22 following should be Exhibit 12. Do you have Mr. 23 Hutchens' report? 24 A Yes, I do. 25 Q Is that Exhibit 12? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021410 317 1 A Twelve, yes, sir. 2 -Q Down at the -- near the bottom of the -- the 3 first page of Dr. Teitlebaum's report it says: Exposure 4 to benzene and known leukemogen, and to PCB, a probable 5 human carcinogen, makes it highly unlikely that these -- 6 makes it -- makes it highly likely that these two 7 substances were synergistically involved in the 8 causation of his leukemia. 9 And to that you wrote above the first line, 10 "but not leukemia." What did you mean by that? 11 A Well, he states that he has got leukemia, lie 12 states that he had chronic lymphocytic leukemia since - 13 1977. And PCB has not been linked to linked 14 epidemiologically with leukemia in humans. 15 Q Have you readthe -- have you read the recent 16 articles by Brown and Bertosse? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Is exposure to benzene a known leukemia -- a 19 known substance thatcauses leukemia? 20 A Yes. 21 Q I take it that you don't have any dispute 22 about PCB being a probable human carcinogen. 23 A I have a great deal of doubt that it's a 24 human carcinogen. In fact, I don't believe it is. 25 Q Going to the report on Mr. Toon, what is that NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21411 318 1 exhibit number? 2 -A Sixteen. . 3 Q What are your handwritten comments on Mr. 4 Toon? 5 A Said, "Westinghouse, Bloomington," on the 6 first page; nothing on the rest. 7 Q That's your only comment on Mr. Toon? 8 A It's the only one I wrote down. I may have 9 other comments if I study it more carefully. 10 MR. HENDERSON: Would you have those attached 11 as part of the exhibit, Mr. Kelley. -- 12 COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. ~ 13 MR. HENDERSON: Specifically those that Mr. 14 Crawford has. And provide back to Mr. Crawford copies 15 of those. Because there are -- 16 Q There are highlights on those, are there 17 not -- 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q -- Dr. Kelly? 20 A Yes, sir, 21 MR. HENDERSON: And -- and some of them 22 you -- those wouldn't -- I can represent to you did not 23 appear on the copies that I have. 24 May I see those a moment, Mr. Crawford? 25 MR. CRAWFORD: Sure. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021412 319 1 MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Kelley, would you mark 2 these as the next four exhibits, which should be 3 , 19, 20, a nd 21. 4 [Exhibit 18 marked] 5 [Exhibit 19 marked] 6 [Exhibit 20 marked] 7 [Exhibit 21 marked] 8 COURT REPORTER: Exhibits 18 through 21. 9 MR. HENDERSON: 10 Q Dr. Kelly, would you identify Exhibit 18 for 11 the record, please? ~* 12 A It is a report from Scientific Associates in 13 St. Louis, Missouri, dated November the 10th, 1953, 14 which refers to the acute oral toxicity of Aroclor 1254. 15 Q Is Aroclor 1254 one of the polychlorinated 16 biphenyls manufactured and sold by Monsanto? 17 A Yes, it is. 18 Q Would you refer toPage 3 of that report, 19 please -- 20 -- A Yes, sir. 21 Q -- Dr. Kelly? Underthe category 22 Discussion -- 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q -- there's a reference in the last sentence 25 of the first paragraph that says, "There was moderate NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021413 320 1 diarrhea, lethargy and poor appetite in all of the 2 animals." 3 -- A Yes, sir. 4 Q What -- what significance -- strike that. 5 Isn't the significance of that is that those symptoms 6 can -- I emphasize the word "can" -- occur in humans by 7 exposure to Aroclor 1254? 8 A Can? If somebody took a lethal dose of this 9 by mouth they could get diarrhea, lethargy and poor 10 appetite, yes. But that -- you've got to relate that to 11 the dose. They were killing these animals. Half of -- 12 them died. ~ 13 Q Well, the -- the diarrhea and the lethargy 14 and the poor appetite were demonstrated before their 15 deaths, surely, weren't they? 16 A Certainly. But they had a toxic dose that 17 would have killed them in what, three days? One to six 18 days. So -- the majority of the deaths occurred in two 19 to six days. Certainly that's a poisonous dose they 20 -were given by mouth. 21 Q Going to Exhibit 20, would you identify that 22 for us, please? 23 A Twenty is a report from the Younger 24 Laboratory on the acute toxicity of Aroclor 4465, dated 25 July the 3rd, 1962. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21414 321 1 Q Okay. Is that one of the aroclors that was 2 sold by Monsanto? 3 A Yes, sir. Aroclor 4465. 4 Q And that's the -- one of the polychlorinated 5 biphenyls, or PCBs? 6 A It's a mixture of biphenyls and terphenyls. 7 Q It's one of the PCBs? 8 A Yes. But it's -- you said before -- it's 9 terphenyls also. It is terphenyls as well as -- as 10 biphenyls. 11 Q I understand. -- 12 Go to the last -- I'm sorry, not the -- it - 13 would be Page 4, with the identification number at the 14 bottom of SCM 002625. 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q There is a discussion, andthese again were 17 lethal doses. It says: "Toxic symptoms included 18 lethargy and reduced appetite after several days. Those 19 succumbing developed tremors and anemic-like appearance 20 -several days before death." Do you see that? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q What are tremors ortremors? 23 A A tremor is an involuntarymuscle movement. 24 Q What causes a tremor? 25 A It could be caused fromanything from NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021415 322 1 nervousness, fright, or, in the case of animals, immense 2 doses. Five grams per kilogram to an animal, which 3 would be the equivalent of 350 grams to a 70-pound 4 individual by mouth. Ten ounces of it. 5 Q You reviewed an article published in one of 6 the dermatology journals authored by Dr. Tindall 7 associated with the United States Air Force Academy? 8 A Did you say have I reviewed it? 9 Q Yes. 10 A I don't know. May I see the article? 11 Q Well, I don't have it. I'm just asking you-- 12 if you recall it. I'm not going to ask you any ~ 13 questions -- 14 A I do not recall it. 15 Q -- about it otherthan that. 16 Dr. Kelly, have you read the -- have you 17 reviewed the toxicological literature with respect to 18 PCBs including -- of course, including those in those 19 toxicology reports that were produced for Monsanto at 20 .its request? 21 A [No reply] 22 Q Let me break that down. You are aware of the 23 toxicology reports, a sample of which you've just 24 reviewed and about which I've asked you a few questions, 25 from Scientific Associates, Younger, Industrial Biotest NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021416 323 1 and others that Monsanto retained and gauged over the 2 years? 3 A Yes, sir., I reviewed the articles, the 4 reports from toxicological laboratories that were sent 5 to me during the time I was with Monsanto. I may have 6 seen some articles or reports that were furnished 7 Monsanto subsequent to my departure. And if you show me 8 those articles, I can tell you whether I reviewed them 9 or not. 10 Q Did you review the -- the -- the 11 toxicological literature in the published medical and -- 12 scientific journals between 1936 and 1974? - 13 A I reviewed some of them. I didn't review the 14 ones in foreign languages. I depended on our 15 toxicologists in the latter years to do a lot of 16 reviewing. 17 Q Since your retirement in 1974, have you 18 reviewed the -- the toxicological literature regarding 19 PCBs that has -- that has developed since 1974? 20 A I've seen some articles on it. I can't say 21 that I have reviewed the entire scope of all the 22 articles that have been printed about PCB. But I've 23 seen any number -- a good number of them. 24 Q Have you -- did you review the -- the 25 literature -- the epidemiological literature while -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021417 324 1 regarding PCBs and their possible adverse health effects 2 during the time between 1936 and when you retired in 3 19.7 4? 4 A I do not recall any epidemiological reviews. 5 I may have seen some of them, I don't know. If you show 6 me the article, I'll tell you whether I reviewed it. I 7 do not remember which ones I reviewed. But if you show 8 me any article. I'll tell you if I've seen it before. 9 Q Do you recall specifically for us now, if you 10 can, what articles you have -- epidemiological articles 11 you have reviewed since 1974 in connection with PCBs? -- 12 A I've reviewed Dr. Gaffey's epidemiological ~ 13 review, I've -- 14 Q Dr. Gaffey is the -- 15 A Epidemiologist at Monsanto. 16 Q When did he -- when was he hired? 17 A Sometime after 1974. 18 Q Who was the coauthor of -- of the -- the 19 report that Dr. Gaffey authored? 20 .-A I don ' t know. 21 Q When did you review that? 22 A Sometime in the last two tothree years. 23 Q Have you reviewed any of the -- do you know 24 if Dr. Gaffey's report has been published? 25 A I don't know. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021418 325 1 Q Have you reviewed any of the epidemiological 2 work in the -- in the open literature? 3 A I've read some of them, yes, sir. I can't 4 recall which ones I've read, but, again, if you show me 5 an article I'll tell you if I've read it. 6 Q In particular have you -- do you recall 7 having read the series of articles coming out of the -- 8 the rice oil poisoning case -- cases in -- in Japan? 9 A Yes, I've read those. 10 Q Have you also read theseries of articles 11 coming out of the -- a similar incident in Taiwan some- 12 years later? ~ 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q When did you first review the articles 15 that -- that have come out of the Yusho poisoning 16 incident in the late 1960s in Japan? 17 A Sometime within three to six months after it 18 was published. 19 Q Would that have been in the early 1970s, 20 .prior to your -- while you were still the medical 21 director of the Monsanto Company? 22 A I can't tell you. If you show me when it was 23 published, I'll tell you when I read it. 24 Q No, I was -- I wasnot asking you whether you 25 read it. I was asking you about when you read the Yusho NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021419 326 1 articles. 2 -A Well, I answered by saying I read it three to 3 sjix months after it was published. I do not know the 4 date it was published. 5 Q Do you recall reading the -- any of the 6 articles by Fishbein and others at the Mount Sinai 7 School of Medicine regarding their work in connection 8 with the capacitor workers? 9 A I don't recall that. I may have. But again 10 if you show me the article I will tell you. But I do 11 not recall it. -- 12 Q Do you remember any of the articles -- do you 13 remember having read any one of the two or three 14 articles by Maroney in connection with the electrical 15 workers? 16 A I've read it at some time. I'm not familiar 17 with the details at the present time. I recall the 18 name. 19 Q Dr. Kelly, do you accept the -- the definite 20 .possibility of a relationship between exposures to PCBs 21 and chloracne? 22 A It depends again on how much you quantify the 23 exposure. 24 Q Well, if a person is -- if a person is -- is 25 exposed to PCBs and develops chloracne, do you accept NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021420 327 1 the -- the definite possibility of a relationship 2 between the two, that is, the exposure and the 3 chloracne? 4 A If he is exposed in a sufficient amount. If 5 the chloracne occurs in a time frame relative to his 6 exposure. 7 Q What is that time frame? 8 A Something within three to six months after 9 his exposure. 10 Q After chloracne -- 11 A Depending again on the dose. - 12 Q Well, if the chloracne occurs within three to 13 six months after his exposure to PCBs and he has had no 14 other known confounders, that is, anything else that may 15 have caused the chloracne, do you accept the 16 relationship between the exposure and the chloracne? 17 A If he has no other confounders, if he has a 18 definite demonstrable exposure, if he has a sufficient 19 high enough level of exposure, and if the chloracne is 20 .diagnosed by a reputable dermatologist on the basis of 21 looking at it while he has the chloracne rather than 22 looking at it from a historical point of view, then 23 there is a possibility that he got it from PCB if there 24 were no other chlorinated hydrocarbons such as 25 agricultural chemicals that this man was exposed to. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021421 328 1 Q Okay. My questions are going to -- are going 2 to have you assume that all of these other factors 3 a-re -- are taken into account. Because I'm really not 4 interested in whether or not in a -- in a particular 5 case the chloracne is a cause or is not a cause. I'm 6 asking you if you accept the definite possibility that 7 PCBs can cause chloracne. 8 A Yes, it can. 9 Q Okay. That's all I'm asking you. 10 A Again, in sufficient dose. 11 Q You can add all the things that you want to12 add and I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not gonna hold you to 13 any of those. I'm just asking you, and I think you've 14 answered the question -- 15 A But I amended it by saying, Mr. Henderson, 16 that you have to have a sufficient dose. If a man is 17 exposed to a -- a small amount of PCBs, under the 18 allowable limits, he will not get chloracne. 19 Q I understand. 20 A All right. 21 Q I'm only asking -- the word is -- itseems to 22 me the word I'm asking is can. All I'm asking is: Can 23 PCBs cause chloracne? 24 A In sufficientamounts, yes. You've got -- 25 Q I -- I -- I asked you -- let's assume that NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21422 329 1 there are sufficient amounts to which he has been 2 exposed. Now I'm asking you: Can PCBs cause chloracne? 3 __ A Yes. But that's _a different question than 4 you asked me before. PCBs cannot cause -- cause 5 chloracneif a man is exposed to a tenth of a milligram 6 per cubic meter. Can't cause it. If he is exposed to 7 three, four, five milligrams per cubic meter over a 8 prolonged period of time it could cause it, yes, sir. 9 Q Well, let's go back to the tenth of a --- one 10 tenth of a milligram per cubic meter. Is that what -- 11 is that the -- -- 12 A That's what I used. 13 Q Okay. What if he has that exposure and in 14 three to six months he's had no other exposure and he 15 develops chloracne. Are you -- are you saying that -- 16 that the exposure that he had three to six months 17 earlier had nothing to do with the development of the 18 chloracne? 19 A It may or it may not have. 20 _Q Okay. 21 Do you -- do you accept the -- that 22 exposure -- in sufficient quantities -- do you accept 23 the fact that exposure in sufficient quantities can 24 cause liver damage? 25 A Yes, sir. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021423 330 1 Q ' Do you accept that PCBs in sufficient 2 quantities can cause other forms of systemic toxicity? 3 __ A No, I do not. 4 Q Do you accept the fact that PCBs and/or their 5 breakdown products in sufficient quantities can cause 6 pulmonary or lung conditions? 7 A What breakdown products? 8 Q Phosgenes. Chlorine. 9 A First of all, I do not know the industrial 10 relationships in which phosgene is formed from 11 breakdowns of PCBs. And I do not know how much -- 12 phosphene -- phosgene could be -- could occur. I do not 13 know that. It has not been reported in -- to the best 14 of my knowledge, in any quantification. So I can't 15 answer your question. Could I have the question over? 16 See what I'll answer. 17 COURT REPORTER: "Do you accept the fact that 18 PCBs and/or their breakdown products in sufficient 19 quantities can cause pulmonary or lung conditions?" 20 -A If PCBs are broken down into phosgene and 21 chlorine or hydrochloric acid fumes in sufficient 22 quantities, they could cause lung problems. Then I said 23 there was no report of industrial situations where that 24 obtained. 25 MR. HENDERSON: NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21424 331 1 Q Well, if I showed you -- your opinion might 2 be different about what's in the literature if I were 3 able to show you something where pulmonary or lung 4 problems associated with PCBs had been reported? 5 A Certainly they have been reported. And they 6 have been discounted also in the literature. 7 Q Who has discounted them? 8 A Kimbrough. 9 Q Are you aware -- when did Kimbrough -- when 10 did -- are you referring to the -- the toxicologist 11 pathologist at the -- in Atlanta? - 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Renate Kimbrough? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And she reported -- she discounted the 16 pulmonary effects due to PCBs -- 17 A Yes. 18 Q -- in something that she has written? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 -Q When was that? 21 A Sometime this year. 22 Q In what journal was that? 23 A I don't recall. 24 Q Who showed you that? 25 A Mr. Crawford. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021425 332 1 Q When did he show you that? 2 A When? 3 __ Q Yes. 4 A Last two days. 5 Q Do you have a copy of the article? 6 A No, I don't. 7 MR. HENDERSON: Do you have a copy of the 8 article? 9 MR. CRAWFORD: I can get you one. 10 MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you. When can 11 you get it? - 12 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know. I'll try to get 13 one this afternoon. It's over at Shoebotham's. 14 MR. HENDERSON: 15 Q Do you accept the -- the fact that PCBs in 16 sufficient quantities can cause neurological conditions? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Have you read the reports from -- from Yusho 19 in that regard? 20 _A Yes, sir. - 21 Q Do you reject those? 22 A No. There were other things in there besides 23 PCBs. There were -- 24 Q Do you -- 25 A -- benzofurans. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021426 333 1 Q All right. Do you accept the -- the fact 2 that dibenzofurans can cause -- dibenzofurans in 3 sufficient quantities can cause neurological conditions? 4 A I would have to review the literature. I'm 5 not prepared to answer that yes or no at the present 6 time. 7 Q Well, you had reviewed the literature 8 sufficiently to reject out of hand the PCBs, but -- but 9 you're not prepared to give us an answer on the furans? 10 A That is correct. Because I recall them 11 stating that there were a large -- a considerable amou-nt 12 of benzofurans, and they related the untoward conditions 13 to benzofurans rather than PCBs. 14 Q Do you accept the fact that PCBs or 15 dibenzofurans in sufficiently -- in sufficient 16 quantities can cause gastrointestinal disorders? 17 MR. CRAWFORD: You say either/or or -- 18 , MR. HENDERSON: Either -- or. Or. 19 MR. CRAWFORD: One or the other? 20 _ ' MR. HENDERSON: One or the other. 21 MR. CRAWFORD: So that's two questions. 22 MR. HENDERSON: Well, no, it's one question 23 with an or. 24 A Can I answer one at a time? Will you give me 25 two questions if there's -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021427 334 1 MR. HENDERSON: 2 ;Q You can answer however you want. 3 A All right. I'll answer however I want. 4 What's the question? 5 COURT REPORTER: "Do you accept the fact that 6 PCBs or dibenzofurans in sufficiently -- in sufficient 7 quantities can cause gastrointestinal disorders?" 8 A Benzofurans have been known to cause 9 gastrointestinal problems. What the mechanism is or the 10 particular gastrointestinal disorder I don't -- I can't 11 answer at the present time. PCBs have not, in my - 12 experience, been associated with the causation of 13 gastrointestinal disorders. Whether or not in 14 sufficient quantities -- in acute episodes where the 15 liver is overwhelmed, they certainly could cause 16 gastrointestinal disorders in that context. 17 MR. HENDERSON: Thank you. 18 Q Do you accept the fact that PCBs or 19 dibenzofurans in sufficient -- either in sufficient 20 quantities-can-produce certain immunological effects? 21 A Like which immunological effects? 22 Q Do you know whether or not any immunological 23 effects can be caused by PCBs or dibenzofurans in 24 sufficient quantities? 25 A It is my impression that benzofurans can NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21428 335 1 cause immunological defects when given in sufficient 2 quantities. I am not familiar with any evidence that 3 would show that PCBs in sufficient quantities could 4 cause it. I have no recollection of that at the present 5 time. 6 Q Is -- is your support for your statement 7 about the possible relationship of furans and 8 immunological defects based in part at least on the 9 Yusho experience? 10 A It's been based part on that and part on the 11 reviews of the Yusho experience by other people. - 12 Q Is there any other support that you can lead 13 us to that would provide the basis for -- for your 14 statement that furans can cause -- taken in sufficient 15 quantities can cause immunological defects? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q Do you know who Dr. HaroldKlawans is? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q Have youhad the opportunity toreview any of 20 his -- have you reviewed any papers of Dr. Klawans, 21 either published papers or papers to be published? 22 A I can't say. If you show me one of his 23 papers. I'll answer it. I -- I don't know. 24 Q Have you reviewed any papers -- have you 25 reviewed any medical or scientific literature indicating NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21429 336 1 that certain neuromuscular problems have been associated 2 with exposures to PCBs or dibenzofurans or _ 3 dibenzodioxins? 4 A Let us take these one at a time. I know that 5 dibenzodioxins have been associated with epidemial 6 literature as stating they have neurological changes or 7 neurological symptoms and neurological occurrences. The 8 dibenzodioxins. I do not know of -- recall or have not 9 reviewed any with PCBs. I don't know of -- of those. 10 Any of those. I may have reviewed some on the 11 dibenzofurans. I -- I don't -- can't answer that. - 12 Q So my question is clear, I asked you about 13 neuromuscular problems and you indicated neurological. 14 Are you distinguishing between neurological and 15 neuromuscular or do you want -- excuse me -- or do you 16 accept the fact that neuromuscular problems can come 17 from neurological disorders? 18 A Well, if you have a neurologicaldisorder, if 19 you have a peripheral neuritis, you may have muscular 20 problemsassociated with it if thatperipheral neuritis 21 is in amuscular nerve. 22 Q Okay. 23 Have you observed or have you seen reported 24 in the open literature the relationship of PCBs or 25 dibenzofurans in sufficient quantities and certain NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021430 337 1 musculoskeletal problems? 2 :A No, sir, I have not reviewed those. 3 -- Q Have you seen the reports in the Yusho -- do 4 you recall the reports in the Yusho series of articles 5 regarding the presence of joint pain? 6 A I have a vague recollection, but I can't be 7 positive about it. 8 Q If there were, would that be a 9 musculoskeletal problem? 10 A Well, then again it depends on what you mean 11 by musculoskeletal problem. If a person has a joint - 12 pain for two weeks, he does not have a -- and it goes 13 away, he does not have a musculoskeletal problem. But 14 it obviously has happened to the skeleton, because the 15 joints are part of the skeleton. So by your definition 16 you could consider that. I wouldn't consider temporary 17 joint pain a musculoskeletal problem. 18 Q If the joint pain continued for some months 19 on a regular, perhaps frequent, basis, you would 20 consider that a musculoskeletal problem? 21 A And led to skeletal changes, yes, sir. 22 Q Did you work with phosgene in the -- in the 23 second world war? 24 A I was around where it was, if that's what you 25 mean. I was there when they filled phosgene shells. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021431 338 1 Q Were you aware of the -- of the potential 2 tpxic effects of exposure to phosgene? 3 _A Oh, yes. 4 Q What were those? 5 A Pulmonary edema. 6 MR. HENDERSON: I'm about to ask for a break, 7 so -- Okay. Having lost my microphone and having it 8 put back on by the able attendant, I'm going to ask for 9 a few-minute break in order to consult and determine if 10 I have any more questions. 11 MR. LACEY: Do you want to go ahead and tak- 12 an early lunch break, Walter, at this point and try to 13 maximize our time? 14 MR. CRAWFORD: That may be a good idea. 15 Because you say it's a problem. 16 ' MR. LACEY: Why don't we shoot for 12:15. 17 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, why don't we take an 18 hour? Because we've been at it pretty hard here for 19 three hours. 20 _ ' MR. LACEY: I'm just recognizing we're going 21 to have a real hard time finishing up today. Whatever 22 y'all want to do. 23 MR. CRAWFORD: What have you got? How much? 24 You are going to -- 25 MR. LACEY: Quite a bit. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21432 339 1 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. 2 _ . MR. LACEY: I'm letting Tom get his questions 3 on the expert issue out of the way, but we've still got 4 quite a bit -- 5 MR. CRAWFORD: He's done a good, efficient 6 job. I'd like to see you -- 7 Tom, can you give me Klawans' articles, too? 8 Would you do that? I'd like to just take a look at 9 them. 10 MR. HENDERSON: I don't have them with me. 11 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. - 12 MR. HENDERSON: We're trying to get the -- 13 we're trying to get the prepublication, that which he is 14 presenting over -- 15 MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah, I'd like to see that. 16 I'll get -- I'll get the Kimbrough thing to you, too. 17 MR. HENDERSON: Can you get that? Can you 18 have that sent up to me? 19 MR. CRAWFORD: I think so. Yeah, I can do 20 that. 21 MR. LACEY: Do you have all the exhibits that 22 we had here yesterday -- 23 MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah. 24 MR. LACEY: -- that were -- 25 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, I don't know. No, not NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021433 340 1 all of them. 2 _ MR. HENDERSON: Is this still on? 3 __ MR. LACEY: Yes, it should be. 4 All the documents that you had here yesterday 5 that were provided him, I'm not through with those. So 6 we need to have those back. 7 MR. CRAWFORD: Now, wait. They were 8 mostly -- 9 Are we off the record? 10 MR. LACEY: No, we're on the record. And we 11 need to stay on the record. -- 12 There were a group of documents that were 13 brought over yesterday and identified as all the 14 documents he had been supplied by you-all, and we still 15 need to have those here this afternoon. 16 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're now going off the 17 record. The time is 11:38 a.m. 18 [Recess] 19 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're now back on the 20 record. The time is 12:30 p.m. 21 22 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY 23 MR. LACEY: 24 Q Dr. Kelly, yesterday before we took the 25 nighttime recess you were going to do some calculations NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21434 341 1 and have that information for us on the relationship 2 between exposures in parts per million for the 3 categories of highly toxic, moderately toxic and 4 slightly toxic. Have you done that? 5 A Yes, I have. I have done it in a different 6 sense, because you would have to get a toxicologist to 7 calculate dry weight to average weight. But I happen to 8 have here a tabulation of toxicity classes in which it 9 lists extremely toxic up to one milligram, which means a 10 taste, probable lethal dose for a man, a taste or one 11 grain. To put that in context, a small aspirin tablet-- 12 is five grains, although it's not all aspirin, there's 13 starch in it. 14 Highly toxic is one to fifty milligrams. And 15 that would mean the probable lethal dose for a man is 16 one teaspoon. 17 Moderately toxic is 50 to 500, which is 18 calculated probable lethal dose for a man is one pint -- 19 is one ounce, sorry. 20 -- Slightly toxic goes from .5 to 5 grams per 21 single oral dose per kilogram. That's a -- one pint. 22 Practically nontoxic is 5 to 15 grams per 23 kilogram. Probable lethal dose for a man is a quart. 24 Relatively harmless is 15 grams and above. 25 This is from the Society of Toxicology, by NELL MC. CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021435 342 1 Harold Hodge and James Sterner from Eastman Kodak. And 2 T_!_ll be happy to give you a copy of it. 3 __ Q Fine. Why don't you hand -- 4 A If I can get it back. 5 MR. LACEY: Why don't you hand that to 6 reporter and we'll let him mark that as the next 7 exhibit. 8 [Exhibit 22 marked] 9 COURT REPORTER: Exhibit 22. 10 MR. LACEY: 11 Q Dr. Kelly, is Exhibit 22 the source you've -- 12 used to give me the information you've just elucidated? 13 A Yes, sir, it is. 14 Q Now, that had anadditional category you 15 didn't tell me about yesterday of extremely toxic. 16 Correct? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q What sort of things are in the extremely 19 toxic category? 20 --A Sodium fluoroacetate, which isParathion, 21 which is a -- an insecticide, a generic name for 22 Parathion. They may have listed other compounds in 23 there -- sodium fluoroacetate is the only one they list. 24 Q Okay. Is that -- is there a way to translate 25 that into a parts per million or a parts per billion? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21436 343 1 Did you do that in terms of -- 2 _A Well, I tried to, but you'll have to get a 3 toxicologist. Because I could tell you how many grams a 4 person eats a day in a standard diet, but I do not 5 know -- that's dry weight. And I don't know how that 6 is -- is -- corresponds to your total intake. 7 Q Okay. 8 Now, you mentioned at some point in your 9 examination about the patenting of PCBs. It's my 10 understanding that the process for the manufacture of 11 PCBs was patented by the Swann Chemical Company. Is -- 12 that your understanding? 13 A No. If I mentioned about patenting, I should 14 withdraw any knowledge of the patent. I don't know 15 anything about when it was patented, who patented what. 16 I do know that General Electric had a patent on the 17 material that we manufactured for them. When they got 18 it I don't know. 19 Q You're not aware of the fact, then, that was 20 a. use patent for the use as dielectric, but not a patent 21 that even entitled them to manufacture it? 22 A I don't know the details of the patent. 23 Q Are you aware of any PCBs actually being 24 manufactured by General Electric? 25 A Now or ever? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21437 344 1 Q Well, in the period of time you were employed 2 by. Monsanto did they manufacture PCBs for commercial 3 purposes? 4 A I don't know whether they did or not. 5 Q As far as you know, Monsanto was the sole 6 supplier of PCBs to General Electric, were they not? 7 A As far as I know. 8 Q Despite whatever the patent arrangements may 9 have been? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q And you really don't understand what those -- 12 patent arrangements are on behalf of GE or Monsanto or 13 Westinghouse or anybody else? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Okay. 16 You mentioned something about space suits and 17 people wearing space suits. What do you mean when you 18 talk about a space suit? 19 A Well, a space suit is a totally-enclosed, 20 impervious garment. 21 Q Are space suits sometimes used in connection 22 with the handling of chemicals? 23 A Sometimes they are, yes, sir. 24 Q Okay. And in fact isn't it correct that 25 space suits are used today in handling spills of PCB NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021438 345 1 materials? 2 _A They may be. They may be. I do not know. 3 The EPA may demand that. I don't know. 4 Q You haven't kept up with the developments in 5 the PCB business enough since your retirement to know 6 what the law requires with regard to their safe 7 handling? 8 A I haven't kept up with the details. But I do 9 know that there was no manufacturer of the material in 10 the United States since 19 -- the middle of 1970s. So 11 during that time -- following that time there have been 12 regulations put out by EPA and OSHA as to what people 13 should wear. Whether I agree with those regulations is 14 a different point of view. 15 Q Well, my question to you is whether you knew 16 enough about those regulations to tell me whether they 17 required the wearing of this thing that you called a 18 space suit. 19 A I'm not familiar enough with the regulations, 20 no, sir. 21 Q Okay. You don't know what level of 22 protection, if any, that they required, then, in 23 handling PCBs? 24 A No, I don't know the levels. 25 Q Okay. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021439 346 1 When did space suits become available? 2 _A They were available during World War I -- or 3 World War II when they were used in places where they 4 were making components for the atom bomb, radioactive 5 materials. 6 Q Okay. So they've been around since World War 7 II? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Are they used in industrial applications at 10 all? 11 A [No reply] -- 12 Q Commercial production I mean. Say in 13 chemical plants. 14 A They may on certain spills. I do not know of 15 them being used routinely except in some radioactive 16 installations. 17 Q Okay. 18 You or people working for you were 19 responsible for the precautions actually exercised in 20 the Monsanto production facilities for PCBs, were you 21 not? 22 A No, sir. We were responsible for setting 23 forth the precautions and the procedures. The actual 24 implementing of the precautions and procedures were -- 25 was a function of the safety department of manufacturing NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021440 347 1 installations. Manufacturing people. 2 _Q Let me try to make my question clear. You or 3 your group would recommend, for example, the wearing of 4 gloves if that were necessary. Correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q You would recommend the availability of 7 protective clothing by the plant, if necessary? 8 A If necessary. 9 Q You would recommend showers on company time. 10 if necessary? 11 A I do not believe we would recommend whether- 12 it was company time or not. 13 Q You would just recommend that there be 14 showers? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q And whether or not it was on company time was 17 a plant decision? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q You would recommend the availability of 20 special creams to put on the skin of workers. Correct? 21 A No, sir. Protective creams really have not 22 been particularly effective, so we wouldn't recommend 23 them. 24 Q I see. Would you then recommend the 25 withdrawal of protective creams so that they wouldn't NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21441 348 1 give a false sense of security? 2 _A It would depend on the operation. 3 -- Q Who determined whether a particular operation 4 within a particular plant was considered a toxic 5 department or not? Your group? 6 A First of all, I do not know whether 7 particular -- particular plants -- particular 8 departments were considered toxic. I don't know what 9 that appellation means -- meant in an individual plant. 10 When I came with the Queeny plant, there were some 11 departments where aniline was used, they were considered 12 toxic departments. But I didn't hear that word used for 13 any except those few departments at the Queeny plant. 14 Q Did you have anything to do with the labeling 15 of the departments as toxic departments or not having 16 such a label? 17 A I had a lot to do with unlabeling them. 18 Q I see. So you went around and unlabeled 19 departments from being toxic departments? 20 -A Yes. 21 Q Okay.And what was theeffect of your doing 22 that? 23 A Nothing. 24 Q I see.I guess itmight makeworkers who 25 worked in that department feel a little bit better about NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21442 349 1 it that they weren't working in a toxic department. 2 A Well, I don't know. But the -- our 3 experience was such that it was not -- 4 Q I see. 5 A -- a toxicdepartment. 6 Q I see. 7 Let me show you a document, 998 through 1002, 8 which relates to plant operating instructions, dated 9 August 29th, 1946. Among other things, that document 10 deals with plant precautions, does it not? 11 A Yes, sir. - 12 Q For the manufacture of the PCB aroclors. 13 Correct? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And that document was put out after you 16 became the head of the medical department, was it not? 17 A Well, it was dated after I became the head 18 of -- of that. I don't know if this was existing 19 beforehand and this was a rewrite of the same thing or a 20 second edition of the same thing. The date is after I 21 became medical director, yes, sir. 22 Q Well, unless somebody misdated it, that 23 particular document was put out after you became head of 24 the medical department. Correct? 25 A This one that I'm holding in my hand, yes. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021443 350 1 Q Yes. And one of your functions as the head 2 of the medical department was to review and comment on 3 the plant precautions that were taken with regard to 4 various manufacturing operations of Monsanto. Correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Let me look at the document with you briefly 7 if we can. Let's try to work our way through it. 8 MR. CRAWFORD: Have you got another copy of 9 this? 10 MR. LACEY: No, I don't. They're all 11 documents that you-all produced to us, Walter. - 12 May I see it? 13 MR. CRAWFORD: Sure. 14 MR. LACEY: Thank you. 15 Q This document talks about toxicity, does it 16 not? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And aroclors are defined as toxic materials. 19 Correct? 20 -A By their definition, yes, sir. 21 Q Well, this is a Monsanto definition, is it 22 not? 23 A That's right. I do not know who wrote -- 24 Mr. Smith and Mr. Soffranko, I don't know who those 25 people are. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021444 351 1 Q Well, at least we do know that Monsanto is 2 putting out for its own internal use a document in 3 August of 1946 that identifies aroclors as toxic 4 materials. Correct? 5 A No. Two people at some plant, I don't know 6 which plant this is, put out this document. I don't 7 believe that that means Monsanto is putting out this 8 document. Mr. Smith and Mr. Soffranko at a particularly 9 unnamed plant put this out. 10 Q I see. 11 A I don't recall if I've ever seen this - 12 document before. 13 Q Okay. Well, let me -- let me go ahead and 14 finish looking at it with you here, if we could. It 15 indicates that to prevent toxicity clean change of 16 clothes is furnished daily to each employee and time is 17 allotted at the end of each shift for bathing. In 18 addition, one should wash his hands and face before 19 eating. Was that the Monsanto policy for people working 20 in the Aroclor department in 1946? 21 A I can't answer that. I don't remember 22 whether it was or not. This may have been at this 23 particular plant. I don't know which plant it was, so I 24 can't tell you. 25 Q How many plants could it possibly be? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21445 352 1 A The Anniston plant and the Krummrich plant. 2 -Q Okay. _ 3 It also indicates that a spare change of 4 clothes is kept in a case mounted in the actual Aroclor 5 portion of the plant. Correct? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Also indicates that personal safety equipment 8 was provided to employees. Correct? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And in their department -- 11 A Please, not in my ear. - 12 Q Oh, I'm sorry. 13 In their department they got goggles, 14 spectacles, rubber-covered gloves, canvas gloves, rubber 15 shoes and a fume respirator. Correct? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Do you recall which plant had those things 18 supplied in the Aroclor department? 19 A I don't know. 20 -Q Okay. There was also a gas mask in the 21 department as well. Correct? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Let me show you anotherdocument from 24 Monsanto, beginning at 999 -- I'm sorry -- beginning at 25 990 and continuing through 997. Now, this is a document NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021446 353 1 dated April 1955 regarding the process for producing 2 aroclors at both the Anniston and the Krummrich plant. 3 Correct? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now, thisdocument was putoutalmost ten 6 years after the medical department had been functioning 7 and you were medical director. Correct? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And you would have examined boththe Anniston 10 plant and the Krummrich plant, including the Aroclor 11 departments, on several occasions before this document- 12 was put out. 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Correct? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q ' Let me take a look at that document with you 17 as well, if we could. By the way, there's a 18 distribution list that included people in Newport. Is 19 that in England? 20 -A Yes, it is. 21 Q Okay. Did they also have a PCB manufacturing 22 facility by this time? 23 A They had one. I do not know the time frame 24 they had it. 25 Q Okay. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021447 354 1 A But these people are atNewport. 2 _Q Okay. 3 _ In this document, at the page that's numbered 4 991, there's a discussion of toxicity. Correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And it describes the fact or states that 7 there are many literature references to harmful effects 8 of the type of chloracne resulting from exposure to 9 chlorinated diphenyls, especially in cases where people 10 working with small electrical components had been 11 exposed to the fumes -- do you want to look at that with 12 me? 13 A I want to see who wrote this, yes, first. 14 MR. LACEY: Feel free. 15 MR. CRAWFORD: Be sure and read through it, 16 Doctor. 17 THE WITNESS: It doesn't say who wrote it. 18 MR. LACEY: 19 Q Actually -- 20 -A Mather. Mather wrote it. 21 Q Who is Mr. Mather? 22 A I haven't the slightest idea. 23 Q I see. That very clearly is a Monsanto 24 document put out for use in connection with the 25 production facilities at the two United States plants. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21448 355 1 is it not? 2 _ .A It is -- I can't answer that, too, because 3 this talks about the process. I do not know who Mr. 4 Mather is. I notice that there was no distribution to 5 the medical department on this. So whether I've ever 6 seen this before or not, I have no recollection. But it 7 certainly was not sent to the medical department. And 8 when you say put out by Monsanto, these are obviously 9 Mr. Mather's opinions, whoever he was, and I've never -- 10 I don't recall ever seeing it. 11 Q Well, every document put out by Monsanto is- 12 some employee's opinion, isn't it? 13 A Yes, it is. But when it goes outside the 14 company it is a Monsanto opinion from the corporate 15 point of view. If it's an internal memorandum, it could 16 very well be just an individual's ideas about either 17 historical or his thoughts on it. So I cannot vouch for 18 the accuracy of their many literature references to 19 harmful effects of the type of chloracne resulting from 20 exposure to chlorinated biphenyls, because I only know 21 of the -- of the references in 1936 where they all -- 22 everybody referred to the same episode. There was one 23 at the Swann Chemical Company, there was another one in 24 the heat transfer agency that was reported, and there 25 may have been one more. So I know three. But I don't NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021449 356 1 know if they all occurred before 1955. 2 _Q Well, in fact, he gives his references at the 3 bottom of the page, doesn't he? And he does give 4 several references. 5 A Well, I don't see any references here as far 6 as chloracne. The first one he talks about is synthetic 7 drugs, the second reference has to do with the safe 8 concentration of aroclors in the air, third is the 9 allowable limits, fourth is the MCC bulletin, mentions 10 systemic effects arising from the oral injection of 11 aroclors. I think Mr. Mather is an Englishman. - 12 Q It goes on -- it goes on to mention here that 13 chloracne is sometimes accompanied by gastric troubles 14 and there are literature references to liver trouble. 15 A Even -- certainly there are literature 16 references to liver troubles. But I do not know any 17 documentation where it says that chloracne is sometimes 18 accompanied by gastric troubles. You would have to ask 19 Mr. Mather, wherever he is, for that. 20 -Q Let me ask you about this last paragraph down 21 here which talks about how things were actually operated 22 in the plants. You visited the Krummrich plant on an 23 annual basis to inspect how they operated, did you not? 24 A Yes, I did. 25 Q And you visited the Anniston plant? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021450 357 1 A Yes, I did. 2 _Q On a yearly basis to see how they operated? 3 _A Yes, I did. 4 Q He indicates that from the start of Aroclor 5 manufacture at the Krummrich plant -- now, that's the 6 one that's there in Illinois just across from St. Louis. 7 Correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q The operators have been supplied a clean 10 change of clothes every day and time has been allotted 11 at the end of the shift for bathing. Is that statemen-t 12 factually accurate? 13 A You can't prove it by me. But he obviously 14 knows more about what happened in 1956 than I do. And I 15 would accept this statement as very probably factually 16 accurate. 17 Q Well, he's not talking about just '56. He's 18 saying ever since the Krummrich plant started that's 19 been the case, isn't he? 20 -A That is what he's saying. But I have no 21 independent recollection if this is correct. It very 22 probably is correct, but I don't know. 23 Q Which was the larger and more modern plant, 24 the Krummrich plant or the Anniston plant? 25 A Well, you have to talk about the department. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21451 358 1 Q Okay. Let me -- let me make my question -- 2 _A Anniston is an older plant. 3 Q Let me make my question more specifically, 4 then. Which department that made PCBs at the Krummrich 5 plant versus the Anniston plant was the larger 6 department? 7 A I don't believe I can answer that, because I 8 don't know the relative tonnage produced at both of the 9 plants. 10 Q Which department that made PCBs at the two 11 plants was the more modern department? - 12 A The Krummrich plant was newer. Whether the 13 manufacturing installation there was any different than 14 at the Anniston plant I don't know. 15 Q Okay. 16 He goes on to say that operators are advised 17 to wash hands and face before eating. Is that factually 18 correct? 19 A I don't know what you mean by "is that 20 factually correct?" 21 Q Were the operators, at the direction of the 22 medical department, advised to wash their hands and face 23 before they ate? Or is that a matter about which the 24 medical director, the medical department of Monsanto 25 gave no attention? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021452 359 1 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, okay, let's -- which 2 question do you want him to answer? 3 MR. LACEY: Well, either hexknows - 4 THE WITNESS: Please not so loud. 5 MR. LACEY: I'm sorry. 6 MR. FREEMAN: Mr. Lacey, you are bothering me 7 standing over the witness on camera with a loud voice in 8 his ear. If you would like to take a few minutes, we'll 9 be glad to let you have the opportunity to make a copy 10 of the document, you can sit in your chair -- 11 MR. LACEY: We don't -- we don't have the -- 12 time to make the copies. I'll try to not speak quite so 13 loudly, but we need to look at the document together. 14 Q Is it factually correct -- 15 MR. FREEMAN: We just took an hour break to 16 make copies. You had these copies marked before the 17 break. And if you want to take the time, you are more 18 than welcome. I just don't like you standing over the 19 witness hollering at him. 20 __ MR. LACEY: I don't want to take the time. 21 Q What time do you have to leave today? 22 A My plane leaves at 5:20. 23 Q Can you stay over tomorrow with us? 24 A Impossible. 25 Q Why not? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMONOQ21453 360 1 A Because I have appointments in St. Louis that 2 live had long before I had this. 3 --Q Okay. x 4 Now, my question to you is: Did the medical 5 department direct that the operators be advised to wash 6 their hands and face before eating? 7 A I do not ever recall advising anybody to wash 8 their face before they ate. Certainly we have advised 9 people to wash your hands before you eat. 10 Q Okay. 11 Now, it goes on to say that the Anniston -- 12 operators do not have the same issue of clean clothes. 13 Do you know why the people in the southern plant in 14 Alabama did not get the same daily issue of clean 15 clothes that the people did in the Krummrich plant there 16 in Missouri? 17 A Unless it was a plant fringe benefit that was 18 given to the employees at the Krummrich plant and the 19 Anniston employees did not have the same -- did not 20 require the same issue of clean clothes. After 1936 no 21 cases of chloracne ever -- after 1934 no cases of 22 chloracne occurred at the Anniston plant, no cases 23 occurred in the Aroclor departments of the Krummrich 24 plant. So whether they had change of clothes or not 25 doesn't make any difference. There were no chloracne NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21454 361 1 cases in either plant. 2 _ Q The point is, you really can't explain the 3 difference in treatment, -.then? 4 A Well, the Anniston people didn't need it 5 and -- 6 Q Well, did the Krummrich people need it? 7 A I -- no, I don't believe they needed it. But 8 I think because of plant policy it may very well be that 9 the Krummrich plant were giving change of clothes to 10 everybody. 11 Q Let me -- let me direct your attention to the 12 page numbered 994 under Health and Safety, where it 13 says: "At Anniston no special protective clothing is 14 provided for the diphenyl and Aroclor operators. A 15 daily change of clothing was provided in the past, but 16 this practice ceased before the war." So they had had 17 it in the past and then they stopped. Correct? 18 A That's what this says. I do not know if that 19 is true. They might very well have had the daily change 20 xxf clothing when they had that episode of the chloracne 21 when they found out that by changing the benzene 22 specifications and changing a small amount of 23 ventilation and changing housekeeping the daily change 24 of clothes was not needed, as proven by the fact they 25 never got any chloracne, Mr. Lacey, from the time of NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21455 362 1 this one episode until they ceased manufacturing it. 2 They didn't have it. 3 Q Did you in your plant visits between 1938 and 4 1942 recommend to the management of the Anniston plant 5 that they cease providing daily clothing to the workers 6 there who worked in the PCB department? 7 A No, sir, not that I can recall. 8 Q Okay. 9 The next paragraph talks about ointment to be 10 provided to men who can put it on before they start 11 work. Correct? -- 12 A That's what -- that's what that recommends, 13 yes. 14 Q Monsanto made those ointments available to 15 its workmen, did it not? 16 A Presumably at the English plant they did. I 17 don't recall them ever making it available at any other 18 plant. 19 Q Actually, that's talking about the Anniston 20 -P-lant, is it not? 21 A Oh, no, it isn't. It says Mr. Pennington of 22 Newport reporting on his tour writes -- 23 Q On his American tour. He was touring the 24 Anniston plant and the St. Louis Krummrich plant, wasn't 25 he? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021456 363 1 A Well, I'm looking over it more carefully. 2 I_don11 know what -- what plant he is referring to. I 3 do_D' t ever recall seeing tins of cold cream, ointment, 4 theatrical quantity, present in any Anniston -- either 5 the Anniston or the Krummrich plant. 6 Q I see. 7 A I would not have recommended it. 8 Q I see. What was the purpose of making those 9 creams available to the employees? 10 A I haven't the slightest idea. I would not 11 have recommended it. -- 12 Q I see. Is it your opinion that people who 13 are reputable in the business of medical concerns and 14 toxicology would not recommend creams to try to block 15 out the absorption, the skin absorption, of chemicals 16 people were working with? 17 A Depends on the chemical. If you have a 18 chemical that is soluble in fat, I think creams make it 19 worse. 20 Q I see. 21 Also notes, then, in the third paragraph 22 under Health and Safety that emergency showers are 23 provided on each floor of the diphenyl building, and 24 safety notices are widely used. Is that correct? 25 A Yes, it is. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21457 364 1 Q And then the fourth paragraph talks about the 2 St. Louis Plant B. Now, that's the Krummrich plant, 3 i-sn' t it? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q It talks about the Aroclor building is rated 6 as a toxic department. Correct? 7 A That's what it states. 8 Q Okay. And at that place, that is, the 9 Krummrich plant, each operator is provided with a 10 complete set of clothes, comprising a hat, a coat, 11 trousers, combination underclothes, socks and rubber -- 12 shoes. Correct? 13 A That's what is stated. 14 Q In fact, that clean change of clothing, 15 except for the shoes, is placed in the operator's locker 16 in time for the following shift. So when he comes in 17 each day all that clothing has been prepared for him by 18 Monsanto. Correct? 19 A That is what is stated there. 20 Q In fact, men working over, working extra 21 shifts, are given a clean set of clothing for the 22 beginning of the second shift, aren't they? 23 A That's what he states. 24 Q They also provide canvas gloves and goggles, 25 and ply hand barrier cream is available for use when NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021458 365 1 necessary. 2 _A I told you I never saw barrier creams in any 3 Arx>clor department. 4 Q Did you visit the Aroclor department? 5 A I certainly did. 6 Q Of the Krummrich plant on a regular basis? 7 A Yes, I did. 8 Q Would these people be hiding that stuff from 9 you for some reason? 10 A I would know no reason why they would be 11 hiding it. -- 12 Q Now, at the St. Louis Plant B it also notes 13 that 20 minutes paid time is allotted for bathing at the 14 end of the shift. Correct? 15 A That's what is stated, yes, sir. 16 Q And there are instructions that hands and 17 face should be washed before eating. Correct? 18 A That's whatthis states, yes, sir. 19 Q And it finally concludes that employees in 20 .toxic departments are given an annual medical 21 examination and a lung x-ray every three years. And 22 that would include the employees of the PCB department 23 of the Krummrich plant. Correct? 24 A Yes, if they call that a toxic department. 25 And according to him, they called it a toxic department. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021459 366 1 Q Well, do you have any reason why Mr. 2 Pennington, who was employed by Monsanto in England, in 3 making a tour of the American PCB plants, wouldn't 4 correctly report? 5 A I have no idea. But I did not hear the words 6 "toxic department," to the best of my recollection, 7 referred to in context with any departments outside of 8 the Queeny plant in St. Louis. 9 Q I see. Did you ever attempt to have the PCB 10 department at the Krummrich plant declassified as a 11 toxic department? -- 12 A I said I never even knew that they had it. ~ 13 Q I see. 14 A I don't -- realize I did not get a copy of 15 this article in 1955. 16 Q I see. 17 Did you continue to review the departments at 18 the Krummrich and the Anniston plants that made PCBs 19 from the middle Fifties on up through the 1960s? 20 --A After we had industrial hygienists I may have 21 not reviewed all the departments in the Krummrich plant 22 until they ceased operations. 23 Q Okay. But somebody in your department would 24 have? 25 A Yes. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021460 367 1 MR. LACEY: Let me show you another document, 2 if I might. 3 -- MR. CRAWFORD: David, if you are going to 4 walk over, can you bring that last one and let me look 5 at it and get the numbers off of it? 6 MR. LACEY: . 7 Q This is a document that is called the Organic 8 Chemical Division Research Report No. 3281, dated 9 February 16th, 1966, Document No. 7393 through 7435. Do 10 you recognize that type of document? 11 A I recognize the type of document. I don't -- 12 recognize this particular document. ~ 13 Q Okay. Those documents were put out by the 14 research department of Monsanto, were they not? 15 A Yes, they were. 16 Q Would you consider those documents a Monsanto 17 document? 18 A This is an internal Monsanto document. 19 Q Well, is that just somebody's opinion or does 20 -that rise to a level of being a little bit more than 21 just some one man's opinion? 22 A Well, it was written by one person, a 23 research chemist, Mr. -- 24 Q But that's a form -- 25 A Huh? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021461 368 1 Q That's a formal report, is it not? 2 _A It's a formal research report, certainly. 3 --Q In fact, it's the final version. Doesn't it 4 indicate it's gone through the approval process and is 5 the final version? 6 A It's the final version of how to fractionate 7 Aroclor 1142 for improving product stability, yes, as 8 far as that's concerned. They're talking about a 9 particular research problem and they're saying "This is 10 our report on how far we fractionate Aroclor 1142," yes, 11 sir. -- 12 Q Okay. And that would be an official Monsanto 13 document, then, would it not? 14 A No, it isn't an official -- it's a research 15 document put out by Mr. Lee for internal purposes 16 reporting on how to fractionate 1142. 17 Q Let me look at Page 7411 with you, or 18 Document No. 7411, where the toxicology and hazards are 19 discussed. Do you see that section of the report by 20 -Mr. Lee? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And he indicates that Aroclor has a medium 23 toxicity range for liquid ingestion and a high toxicity 24 for vapor inhalation. Correct? 25 A That's what he indicates, yes, sir. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021462 369 1 Q He indicates that Aroclor can cause 2 dermatitis, systemic poisoning from the fumes, and 3 yellow atrophy of the liver. Is that correct? 4 A Yes, sir, that's what it states. 5 Q He also recommends extreme cause, those are 6 his words, extreme caution? . 7 A At elevated temperatures, yes, sir. 8 Q Okay. Now, again, you would not consider 9 that to be an official Monsanto document? 10 A That is a research document put out by a 11 research chemist whose expertise in -- in medical -- 12 matters has certainly not been established. I don't -- 13 know who he is, I've never seen that report before, it 14 is not an official medical department document. 15 Q I see. 16 Was one of the reasons that all the 17 information that went through the medical department 18 with regard to toxicology and safe handling was so that 19 you could make sure it went out consistently with what 20 .you personally thought? 21 A Consistent with what was correct. 22 Q I see. 23 A So that we didnot havechemists, advertising 24 people, anybody else sending out information. 25 Q I see. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021463 371 1 Certainly there's an eye hazard. If you get it on your 2 skin, it's a -- it's an irritant to the skin. Certainly 3 tjhat's true. 4 Q I see. 5 Let me show you another document, entitled 6 "The Standard Manufacturing Process for Pydraul A-200 in 7 Department B-246," with a 10/66 date on it, document 8 5707 through 5754. Let me ask you first if you would 9 consider that an official Monsanto document. 10 A It depends -- you're the man using the term 11 "official Monsanto document." You'll have to explain to 12 me what you mean by an official Monsanto document and -- 13 I'll be able to tell you whether this corresponds to 14 your definition. 15 Q I guess my question is whether it's a 16 document that Monsanto would put out and expect people 17 to rely on and use within the Monsanto organization. 18 A It is a document -- this is a document that 19 is primarily designed to discuss the manufacturing 20 .process for Pydraul A-200. Now, this again is written 21 by manufacturing people. There is no information here 22 that has ever been submitted to the medical department 23 or the medical department had any input in it. So I 24 cannot tell you whether -- this is not the type of a 25 thing we would put out to our workers. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021464 372 1 Q That's the type of thing that would go out to 2 the supervisors who were responsible for what the 3 workers did, isn't it? 4 A This? I don't know who this goes to. This 5 is a process -- manufacturing process. Whether that 6 goes to manufacturing people, whether it goes back to 7 research people I just don't know. 8 Q Can you agree with me, Dr. Kelly, that one of 9 the most important things that Monsanto would want to do 10 is to make sure that its workmen who are making any 11 chemical for the company were adequately protected so - 12 they wouldn't be harmed by the chemicals they were -- 13 working with on the job? 14 A There is no question about it. And there is 15 no question that in the case of chlorinated biphenyls 16 that is absolutely what happened. They were protected 17 while they were working on the job. 18 Q And one of the ways to do that is to make 19 sure that the people who are responsible for supervising 20 -the units where the materials ore manufactured have the 21 proper instructions and carry out the proper 22 instructions to -- to ensure that the workmen remain 23 safe, isn't it? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q And that document contained in it the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21465 373 1 information that went to the people who operated the 2 units, who told them how to make the product and also 3 how totry to protect the workmen from getting sick? 4 A No, it did not go to the people who 5 manufactured -- the workers. This does not go to the 6 workers. 7 Q No. It goes to the supervisors of the unit 8 who knew how to operate it and what they were to do, 9 didn1t it? 10 A I don't know who this went to. You will have 11 to ask the people who -- to whom this document was sent. 12 It went to research, the general superintendent and the13 technical production manager. I don't know the purpose 14 of this document. 15 Q I see. Well, maybe we can -- maybe we can 16 look at the table of contents and help you figure it 17 out. It describes the process, has the flow sheet for 18 the process, describes the equipment used, the materials 19 used, the raw materials, the finished goods, the 20 .constant, utilities, the personnel, how to package it, 21 how to ship it, how to dispose of the waste, how to 22 control it, and also discussed the safety and toxicology 23 to go with it, didn't it? 24 A That's in the table of contents, yes. I have 25 not looked at -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021466 375 1 A And that's -- beg your pardon. 2 _Q Did you give those instructions in writing? 3 __ A We gave them in bulletins, yes. We sent them 4 out in bulletins. 5 Q The same sorts of bulletins we looked at 6 yesterday? 7 A No. There were other bulletins that we sent 8 out. We sent out bulletins from the -- anytime an 9 official -- a bulletin came out from -- Monsanto made 10 safety data sheets of their own that they sent out. 11 They had safety -- to their employees. They had - 12 reprints from the American Conference of Industrial -- 13 Hygienists. When they arrived, we sent those out to the 14 plants. So those were bulletins that you did not show 15 me yesterday. 16 MR. LACEY: I'm not sure I've seen those 17 bulletins that went to describe the safety, if the ones 18 that we're looking at now don't contain that 19 information. Let me show you -- 20 MR. CRAWFORD: What is the safety data sheet? 21 THE WITNESS: Well, Monsanto had about 200 22 safety data sheets that -- on their own products that we 23 sent out to the plants. 24 MR. CRAWFORD: Just describes the product? 25 THE WITNESS: Described the safety and safe NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021467 376 1 handling data of the product. 2 _ MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. 3 MR. LACEY: Let me see if I can't find 4 something maybe that will look like that. 5 Q Are you telling me that a material safety 6 data sheet was the only type of document that you used 7 to communicate with the plant employees about the safe 8 handling of your products? 9 A No, that is not correct. Whenever a new 10 product was put in at the plant, it received letters 11 from us, the plant received letters from us detailing 12 the safety, the toxic properties and safe handling of -- 13 the various products. Of the various raw materials and 14 finished product. 15 Q Let me show you another document, which is 16 reference the standard operating instructions for 17 drumming and flaking, Monsanto Company Anniston plant, 18 October 1969, Document No. 8481 through 8639. And I 19 want to direct your attention to the page 8602 and ask 20 _you whether that page 8602 is the type of data sheet 21 you're talking about putting out to provide the plant 22 with information on their products. 23 A No, sir. 24 Q I see. 25 A There's no relationship at all. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021468 377 1 Q I see. Okay. Because that document right 2 there has information on all sorts of aspects of the . 3 problem except it doesn't say anything about toxicology, 4 it says just call the medical department. Right? 5 A Yes. It shows that these people knew that 6 they got the information from the medical department and 7 we supplemented this -- this physical properties. This 8 is talking about physical constants. 9 Q I see. Okay. 10 Let me see if I can find another document. 11 Maybe this is -- is what you're talking about. Let me- 12 show you a document 19732733. Is that the sort of ~ 13 safety sheet you're talking about? 14 A No, sir. This is a later one that was -- 15 Q I see. 16 A -- put out to customers in response to Labor 17 Department OSHA requirements that we list certain 18 things. This is not the type of thing that I said was a 19 Monsanto medical department safety data sheet. This is 20 -not it. 21 Q I see. Well, describe for me what a Monsanto 22 medical department safety data sheet looked like. 23 A It looked like this without the lines in it. 24 It had paragraphs, it had -- it was not a filled-in 25 form. It started with the product, it said, "This is NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21469 378 1 what the physical characteristics of it is, this is what 2 the toxic characteristics of it is, this is what our 3 plant experience has been, this is how to prevent any 4 ill effect." 5 Q I see. And to whom was that provided? 6 A To the safety department, to the medical 7 departments and to the manufacturing superintendents of 8 the plants. 9 Q What provision did you make to get 10 information to the individual operators in the plant? 11 A That was the responsibility of both the - 12 safety department and the line manufacturing operators.-- 13 Q I see. Let me ask you to look at that 14 particular material safety data sheet you have there. 15 Can you tell me whether that relates to a toxic or 16 nontoxic chemical? 17 MR. CRAWFORD: That's not a material safety 18 data sheet, is it? 19 MR. LACEY: 20 Q What does it say at the top? Material safety 21 data sheet? 22 A United States Department of Labor. 23 Q And right below that the title of the 24 document is -- 25 A Yes, Department of Labor. We're talking NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021470 379 1 about two different things now, remember. 2 _Q I'm just asking you to take a look at that 3 material safety data sheet. 4 A Yes, I am looking at it. 5 Q That relates to a nonhazardous chemical, does 6 it not? 7 A It's nonhazardous by the definition in 29 CFR 8 Section 15, Federal Register, 1501-2. 9 Q Okay. And it was permissible to dispose of 10 that material the same as motor oil, wasn't it? 11 A Yes, sir. - 12 Q This was not a PCB-containing material, was-- 13 it? 14 A I don't know what this -- what OS 45 is. 15 Q I see. Well, don't we know that you couldn't 16 dispose of PCBs just like motor oil by the date of that 17 document? 18 A Yes, certainly. But you asked me -- I do not 19 know what this is. 20 Q No. My question to you was: We know it 21 wasn't a PCB material, don't we? 22 A If this document is correct, we know it 23 wasn't. But it's easy enough to find out what OS 45 is. 24 I can't say that this is a PCB or not a PCB without 25 knowing the chemical -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021471 380 1 Q Well, let me ask it this way. 2 - A - -- structure of it. 3 -- Q Let me ask it this way. If this was a PCB- 4 containing material, the directions for safe handling 5 and disposal are incorrect, aren't they? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q Okay. And if we assume the information on 8 the document is correct, that the material referred to 9 there is a nonhazardous material -- 10 A From the standpoint of the definitions in the 11 Federal Register, yes, sir. - 12 Q Look on over on the next page where it talks- 13 about spill or leak procedures. Doesn't it say there to 14 clean up like other nonhazardous liquids? 15 A Yes. But that refers back to the first page, 16 where it says not hazardous by these definitions. 17 Q Right. And up at the top it indicates it's 18 impossible to get overexposure at ambient temperatures, 19 doesn't it? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And down in thespecialprecautions section 22 it indicates respiratory protection is not necessary. 23 Correct? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q Protectivegloves are not necessary? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021472 381 1 A Yes, sir. 2 _Q No other protective equipment is needed. 3 Correct? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And then it references: Even though in 6 special precautions -- even though no special 7 precautions appear necessary, it still recommends good 8 industrial practice as to housekeeping and personal 9 hygiene. Correct? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Further recommends avoidance of prolonged and 12 repeated skin contact. Correct? -- 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q That was something that yourecommended at 15 Monsanto for every chemical, even the nonhazardous 16 chemicals. 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Correct? 19 A Yes, sir. Industrial chemicals are not meant 20 be put on your skin. 21 Q Right. But if someone simply sees the 22 direction "avoid prolonged or repeated skin contact," 23 that in and of itself doesn't tell them whether they're 24 dealing with a hazardous or nonhazardous chemical, does 25 it? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021473 382 1 A Well, certainly it does. This has been 2 prefaced with by the statement that says although no 3 special precautions appear necessary. We never said 4 that about PCBs or any hazardous chemicals. 5 Q That wasn't my question. Doctor. 6 A Well, yes, but you were giving me a loaded 7 question. 8 Q Your answer is not responsive. Let me ask my 9 question again. 10 A Do it, please. 11 Q Simply seeing the phraseology "avoid -- 12 prolonged and repeated skin contact" would not tell a -- 13 person whether the chemical he was working with was a 14 toxic or nontoxic chemical, would it? 15 A Yes, it would if there were no other 16 qualifications on it. This states that, but there are 17 qualifications. 18 Q I see. So you're telling me when I see the 19 phrase "avoid prolonged or repeated skin contact," I 20 j^an't tell whether it's a toxic or nontoxic chemical 21 without looking for other information. Correct? 22 A That -- no, not necessarily. This particular 23 phrase just tells you what you shouldn't do. 24 Q And that's true for every chemical Monsanto 25 manufactured, wasn't it? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021474 383 1 A No, I don't believe so. 2 Q What chemicals did you not give advice to 3 avoid repeated and prolonged skin contact? 4 A I can't tell you. But there are any number 5 of labels that we had on chemicals that did not have 6 that particular phrase on it. 7 Q I see. I see. But we do know at least with 8 regard to some chemicals that you considered 9 nonhazardous you nevertheless said to avoid repeated and 10 prolonged skin contact? 11 A But I qualified it that you are not reading-- 12 the whole statement, Mr. Lacey. -- 13 Q I'm just trying to understand your use of 14 those terms. And you use them even for nonhazardous 15 chemicals, don't you? 16 A ' With qualifications. 17 MR. LACEY: Okay. 18 MR. FREEMAN: Mr. Lacey, are you using the 19 words "toxic" and "hazardous" as synonyms here? You've 20 used those very frequently interchanging. 21 MR. LACEY: The witness, I'm sure, is having 22 no trouble with it. If you've got a problem with it, 23 you might want to talk with the witness about it after 24 the deposition is over. 25 Q Now, are you aware of the fact that the -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021475 384 1 tell me about what the National Institute for 2 Occupational Safety and Health is. 3 __ A It's a government body that regulates safety 4 and -- in the workplace. 5 Q And do they make recommendations for the safe 6 handling of chemicals in the workplace? 7 A Yes, they do. 8 Q Are you familiar with the recommendations 9 that they made for the safe handling of PCB-containing 10 materials? 11 A Who,NIOSH -- - 12 Q Yes. - 13 A -- itself? Well, NIOSH is a research arm. 14 They put out a -- recommendations which have to be 15 approved by OSHA. 16 Q My question to you is: Are you familiar with 17 the recommendations that NIOSH made for the safe 18 handling of PCBs in the workplace? 19 A Yes, I am. 20 Q Okay. Thoserecommendations were 21 considerably more stringent in protecting workmen from 22 exposure to PCBs than the recommendations that had 23 previously been made by Monsanto, weren't they? 24 A I don't know. Will you show me them? 25 Q Sure. Happy to. Let me showyou a document NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021476 385 1 1209 through 1441. And I direct your attention to 1220 2 and following. 3 -- A What about -- what do you want me to comment 4 on in this? 5 Q Well, you asked to see the document. 6 A Yes. I couldn't very well comment without 7 seeing it. 8 Q Okay. 9 A Now, do you want me to go through the 200 10 pages? 11 Q No, I think probably that would be a little-" 12 bit much. Maybe we can take a look here at some of the" 13 specific recommendations. One of the recommendations 14 had to do with concentrations in the environmental -- 15 and what it talks about is the workplace air. Correct? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And the recommendations there are no greater 18 than one microgram of PCBs per cubic meter of air. 19 Correct? 20 A That's what they recommended, yes,sir. 21 Q The Monsanto recommendations ranged from a 22 number about a thousand times higher than that, did it 23 not? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q Okay. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021477 386 1 A Now let me tell you -- first of all, where is 2 the date on this? Do we have one? September '77. This 3 was a recommended standard. OSHA is the regulatory arm 4 of the United States Government. They have not accepted 5 the standard. 6 Q Well, do you know what the standard is? 7 A The standard was accepted by the American 8 Government Industrial Hygienists of five-tenths 9 milligrams per cubic meter in the case of 1242 and one 10 milligram per cubic meter in the case of 1254. I may 11 have them reversed. 12 Q That's the OSHA standard? -- 13 A No, that's -- OSHA has not made a standard, 14 to the best of my knowledge. 15 Q Oh, I see. 16 A They have not accepted this standard, 17 however. 18 Q But the government standard recommended by 19 the National Insitute for Occupational Safety and Health 20 -is a thousand times lower than that promulgated by 21 Monsanto to its customers. Correct? 22 A Yes. But also Monsanto has promulgated the 23 standards set by the American Government Industrial 24 Hygienists Association, which is a authoritative group 25 of industrial hygienists whose standards were in great NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21478 387 1 part accepted by OSHA all the way through, and OSHA has 2 not accepted this particular standard. 3 __ Q Didn't accept the association of hygienists 4 standards that were a thousand times higher, either, did 5 they? 6 A No, they didn't. They haven't accepted any 7 standard. 8 Q By the way, that group of industrial 9 hygienists, is that primarily made up of people who work 10 for companies like Monsanto as industrial hygienists? 11 A It's made up exclusively of people who work-- 12 for the government. Monsanto people or General Electrirc 13 people are not in it. It is city, state and government 14 employees, as the name implies. 15 Q I see. 16 Let me direct your attention now to the 17 section of the document that deals with labeling and 18 posting. Here they're talking about labeling and a 19 warning label on PCB processing or other equipment and 20 _oji PCB storage tanks or containers. Correct? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And they recommend that warning labels be 23 readily visible. Correct? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q And the warning label reads: Polychlorinated NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21479 388 1 biphenyls (PCBs). Danger. Contains polychlorinated 2 biphenyls. Cancer suspect agent. Use only with 3 adequate ventilation. Do not get in eyes, on skin or 4 clothing. Correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q That wasn't exactly the warning that'Monsanto 7 was giving, was it? 8 A In 1977, I don't believe we were even making 9 the material. 10 Q My question to you is -- 11 A Well -- - 12 Q That's -- -- 13 A This is the thinking of NIOSH in 1977. And 14 you -- Monsanto was not manufacturing PCBs in 1977. And 15 I didn't have PCB processing or other equipment or on 16 PCB storage tanks. So, no, they did not use this. 17 Q Well, actually, Monsanto was still making 18 PCBs in 1977, wasn't it? 19 A I don't know. Were they? 20 ___ Q ' I believe they were. 21 A I can't answer that. 22 Q I believe they were. And they were still 23 selling PCBs in 1977, weren't they? 24 A You'll have to ask someone else. I can't 25 answer. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021480 389 1 Q I see, I see. 2_ They also recommended warning placards to be 3 affixed in readily visible locations in or near PCB work 4 areas. Correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And that placard was similar to the warning 7 sticker that said: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 8 Danger. Cancer suspect agent. Authorized personnel 9 only. Do not enter unless area is adequately 10 ventilated. Do not get in eyes, on skin or clothing. 11 Correct? -- 12 A Yes, sir. -- 13 Q Then they went on to talk about personal 14 protective equipment -- 15 A But remember again, Mr. Lacey,the sister 16 body of this organization in the Labor Department did 17 not accept this standard. 18 You're asking me: Did Monsanto accept it? 19 I'm saying to you: No, they didn't. 20 __ But I asked you: Did OSHAaccept it? 21 And you haven't answered me. But I'll have 22 to say OSHA did not accept it and required that these 23 standards be put on. 24 MR. LACEY: I'm going to object to the last 25 part of the answer as nonresponsive to the question. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021481 t 390 1 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, David, just a second. 2 Before you go on with all this ad nauseum, a couple of 3 observations here. First of all, you're asking him 4 about standards from NIOSH that apparently were not 5 adopted and you are also asking him about standards that 6 were promulgated after he was no longer with the medical 7 department. So I really don't know what you're -- where 8 you're going with all this, but I -- I think it's 9 probably improper. 10 MR. LACEY: Well, let me ask you this. Dr. 11 Kelly. -- 12 Q There's no reason that Monsanto couldn't have 13 made the same recommendations that were made by NIOSH 14 with regard to protection of workers in the workplace, 15 is there? 16 MR. CRAWFORD: That's speculative. 17 MR. LACEY: No, that's a simple matter of the 18 English language in writing it down and sending it out. 19 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, you're asking him to 20 speculate. 21 MR. LACEY: I'm not at all. 22 Let me make the question clear, since Mr. 23 Crawford believes it calls for speculation. 24 Q You as the medical director of Monsanto had 25 the power to draft Monsanto documents on toxicology and NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21482 391 1 safe handling to provide for the same levels of air 2 concentrations that NIOSH recommended, didn't you? 3 __ MR. CRAWFORD: He wasn't medical director 4 when those came out. 5 MR. LACEY: I'm not talking about now. I'm 6 talking about when he was medical director. 7 Q You could have in 1950 promulgated the same 8 air concentration standards that NIOSH suggested, 9 couldn't you? 10 MR. CRAWFORD: NIOSH wasn't around in '50. 11 MR. LACEY: You know, we're going to be at -- 12 this a long time, Walter, if you don't let him answer ~ 13 the question. The question is -- let me rephrase it so 14 it's real simple. 15 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, you've been screaming at 16 the witness now for an hour -- 17 MR. LACEY: I haven't been screaming at the 18 witness for an hour. 19 MR. CRAWFORD: -- and dropping documents on 20 Jiim. I suggest we get on to something that's -- that's 21 relevant. 22 MR. LACEY: I think this is highly relevant, 23 I think the jury is going to find it highly relevant. 24 Q Now, you could have in your documents that 25 the medical department prepared for Monsanto in the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021483 392 1 1950s and 1960s recommended that air concentrations of 2 PCBs be controlled so that the concentrations were no 3 gxeater than one microgram per cubic meter of air, 4 couldn't you? 5 A I could have if I believed that was accurate. 6 Q And the difference and the reason you didn't 7 is because you don't have the same belief as apparently 8 the drafters of this document did. Correct? 9 A And also the same belief that OSHA did as far 10 as the combined belief of every government industrial 11 hygienist. They all put it -- they all approved the -- 12 label -- the concentrations that we adopted. We went -- 13 with the current thinking of all the government 14 industrial hygienists who worked for the U. S. 15 Government, the states and the cities, and they put out 16 and still put out, to the best of my knowledge, the same 17 levels that Monsanto used. 18 Q OSHA never approved the standards or levels 19 recommended by Monsanto, did they? 20 A No. And they never approved the standards 21 recommended by NIOSH either. 22 Q And the reason they didn't is because the 23 manufacture, sale and distribution of PCBs was banned in 24 this country. Correct? 25 A I don't know the reasons they didn't. You NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021484 393 1 would have to ask people from OSHA. 2 _Q That made it unnecessary, didn't it? 3 __ A I don't think so. Because you have just said 4 that there are still PCBs around. 5 VIDEO OPERATOR: Excuse me. We need to take 6 a short pause. 7 [Recess] 8 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're now back on the 9 record. The time is 1:42. 10 MR. LACEY: 11 Q Dr. Kelly, let me hand you a group of -- 12 documents numbered 15252 through 15377. I believe all- 13 these documents are labels of one type or another. I'll 14 ask you to briefly review those for me and see if you 15 recognize those types of labels. 16 A ' That one, too. Yes, sir. 17 Q Those are all warning labels or labels of 18 some sort, whether they're warning labels or not, that 19 Monsanto put on products containing PCBs, are they not? 20 A ' Yes, sir. I'm not sure about all the 21 Pydrauls. Some of the ones have not -- I'm,not sure 22 about them. They don't mention the fact that they 23 contain chlorinated hydrocarbons. But there may be 24 other labels that would define it. 25 Q If I could get all these labels back in front NELL MC CALLUM 8t ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021485 394 1 of you, I'd like to have some help from you in 2 establishing when these labels were used. And in 3 particular if we can sort out maybe early from late or 4 into the decade by which they were used, what was used 5 in the Forties, what was used in the Fifties, what was 6 used in the Sixties, what was used in the Seventies, 7 that will help us understand the type of information 8 that you were arranging to have put into the hands of 9 your customers about any health hazards. 10 A I don't believe I'll be able to help you in 11 dating it. -- 12 Q I see. Well, I thought you were responsible- 13 for reviewing the literature and making sure that the 14 warning labels had the appropriate warnings as to what 15 the literature at any point in time contained. 16 A Well, yes, but that is a different statement 17 than do I know when this label was dated. 18 Q I see. Do you know when the labels were 19 used? 20 A No, I don't know when these labels were used. 21 Q You can't give me any help at all with trying 22 to identify which of these labels might have been used 23 in the Forties versus which ones might have been used in 24 the Seventies? 25 A The ones that talk about environmental NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021486 395 1 contamination were certainly late in the game. They 2 were presumably in the Seventies. 3 --Q Okay. 4 A Late Sixties. 5 Q Can you separate out those that talk about 6 environmental contamination from those that don't? 7 Maybe we can at least get two stacks of documents. 8 A Well, that many. 9 Q Okay. The group you are handing me now are 10 ones that are -- 11 A Presumably later than theothers. -- 12 Q Okay. ~ 13 A Assumedly -- assuming that the -- where they 14 mention environmental contamination that would be later. 15 Q We in fact know that has to be later, don't 16 we? 17 A Well, yes. Later than what? Some of the 18 others without -- 19 Q Later than the mid-Sixties,don't we? 20 -- A Yes, sir, I think so. 21 Some more. 22 Q Have you got them separated now into two 23 groups, one group which you believe is after the 24 mid-1960s, where environmental matters are -- 25 A Have come to the surface, yes. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21487 396 1 Q Have come to the surface? And the other of 2 which is before that time? . 3 __ A To the best of my knowledge, yes. 4 Q Okay. And have you handed me all of those 5 that are after environmental matters came to the 6 forefront? 7 A Of this group you sent me -- you gave me, 8 yes. 9 Q Yes. To help us distinguish between those of 10 the group that I gave you which are after the 11 mid-Sixties and those which may not be because they have 12 nothing about environmental matters, can you give us the 13 numbers of the documents there that you have separated 14 out as being possibly before the time that environmental 15 concerns came to the fore? And you don't need to read 16 the SCM letters, you can just read the last digits to 17 help us identify them. 18 A 15295. 19 15352. 20 15351. 21 15353. 22 15354. 23 15355. 24 15356. 25 15357. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021488 1 Whoops. Got another one here. 2 -Q Okay. 3 __ A 15345. . 4 15346. 5 15347. 6 15348. 7 15349. 8 15350. 9 15344. 10 15338. 11 15339. 12 15340. 13 15341. 14 15342. 15 15343. 16 15358. 17 15360. 18 15359. 19 15361. 20 15362. 21 15363. 22 15364. 23 15368. 24 15367. 25 15370. 397 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21489 398 1 153 -- 15281. 2 -- 15283. 3 __ 152 -- whoops. There's another one. One for 4 you. 5 15272. 6 15252. 7 15255. 8 Q You've nowlisted the numbers of the 9 different labels in this first group that we've looked 10 at that do not reference environmental matters and 11 therefore may be before that matter came to the -- 12 forefront. Correct? - 13 A Correct. 14 Q Are you able to tell within that group any 15 order or sequence that those labels would have been used 16 in? ' 17 A No, sir, 11m not. 18 Q I see. Some of those labels reference 19 specific Monsanto products that contain PCBs, do they 20 .aot? ' 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And we at least would know with regard to a 23 label that referenced a specific product that it 24 wouldn't exist before that product went to the market? 25 A Yes, that's correct. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021490 399 1 Q Okay. Otherwise you -- you can't tell us 2 anything about them? . 3 __ A No, I can't. 4 Q Okay. 5 There are a couple of labels in that group 6 that are very general. I notice the one on the top 7 there is a rather general label, doesn't reference a 8 specific product. Correct? 9 A Yes, sir. It does not. It just says 10 chlorinated diphenyl technical. It doesn't say anything 11 more than that. -- 12 Q And the next document in the group that's -- 13 laying there is likewise a very general document. 14 Correct? 15 A Yes, it is. 16 Q Are those the types of labels that were first 17 used on PCBs, very general labels? 18 A I don't know. I can't -- I can't put these 19 into a time frame at all. 20 Q Let me get you to identify by document number 21 those documents that have the least information in this 22 group, those that we just looked at. Can you give me 23 the document numbers on those two we just looked at? 24 A Do you mean these -- 25 Q Yes. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021491 400 1 A These two documents? The least information? 2 --Q Well, they have the least -- they have less 3 said on them than the rest of them. Correct? 4 MR. FREEMAN: He just wants the number, the 5 SCM number of those first two documents. 6 A Oh. 15253. 15254. They have -- they do not 7 describe which Aroclor it is. They do have a second 8 page with them. Caution labels. 9 MR. LACEY: 10 Q When you started to work at Monsanto and took 11 over, as you said, the de facto job of medical director 12 in about '38 or so but without your portfolio, were you- 13 involved in looking at the information that went on 14 products and out to customers about health matters? 15 A Sometime along in that time I did. But it 16 was a gradual accumulation of duties. I cannot tell you 17 when -- when I did. It was certainly much less formal 18 than when I came back in '46. 19 Q By '46 you very definitely had that 20 .responsibility as a formal responsibility? 21 A Well, whether it was formal or not, I was 22 there all day and people -- I think with our increased 23 toxicological information it became -- whether it was 24 formalized or not, the medical department was furnishing 25 information and people would come in to us with it. And NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021492 401 1 we had an accord with the labeling supervisor for the 2 corporation who -- who saw us frequently. 3 __ Q . You had mentioned that when questions arose 4 regarding health and toxicological matters sometime in 5 the 1940 time frame the word had gone out that those 6 questions were to come to you. Correct? 7 A Correct. 8 Q And the information that went into technical 9 bulletins or product bulletins that were published with 10 regard to toxicology and safe handling had to be 11 approved by you? - 12 A Yes, sir. - 13 Q Did the labels that went on containers of 14 products have to likewise be approved by you? 15 A Yes, sir. I believe that's correct. 16 Q So then the labels that went on PCB products 17 did not go out unless they had been approved by you as 18 appropriate with regard to health effects and safe 19 handling? 20 A Unless there were no change in -- there could 21 be graphic changes in the label. 22 Q Graphic changes? 23 A Yes. In other words, there could be 24 different logos or different typing or that -- different 25 printing. But if the text of toxicological statements NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21493 402 1 or safe handling statements were changed it would have 2 bo come to us -- from us. 3 __ Q Who decided what the label looked like? 4 A Somebody in the art department. 5 Q Okay. Who decided what the substance of the 6 information on the label was? 7 A That was a division of responsibility. The 8 people who -- the marketing people decided on some of 9 the material. The safe handling and toxicity data or 10 precautions was the medical department's responsibility. 11 Q So you had the final say on the toxicology - 12 and safe handling? - 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And the marketing department had the final 15 say on the portion of the label that dealt with 16 things -- 17 A I can't be sure. I don't know who did it. 18 Q Somebody other than the medical department? 19 A That's correct, certainly. 20 Q But you are certain that your department was 21 responsible for the toxicology and safe handling 22 information? 23 A And caution statements, right. 24 Q Okay. 25 A With the exception of fire or explosion. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021494 403 1 Q Okay. Now, is there some consistency within 2 the chemical business about the terminology used on 3 these labels? 4 A I don't know whether there is any consistency 5 now. At the time of my contact -- my employment with 6 Monsanto there was some consistency as far as the 7 information about chlorinated hydrocarbons was 8 concerned. 9 Q What was the source of that consistency that 10 you recall? 11 A I don't recall. I -- I just don't recall. 12 Q How did you select, for example, whether to13 say danger or warning or caution or -- or what -- what 14 criteria did you use in trying to make the decision how 15 to word the information on toxicology, health effects, 16 safe handling? 17 A I think the nature of the compound, the 18 physical nature of it, its proposed use. 19 Q With regard to these labels, I know that many 20 of them say caution as opposed to, say, danger or as 21 opposed to, say, warning. Why did you choose the word 22 "caution"? 23 A Well, we used it because we considered it 24 strong enough that the label was protecting our 25 customers and there were no problems. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021495 404 1 Q Was there something stronger than caution 2 that you could have used? 3 --A Sure. We could have said danger, we could 4 have said warning. If we wanted to be -- we could put 5 skull and crossbones on. I don't think there's any 6 particular level that people put skull and crossbones 7 on. But there are other things you could use. 8 Q Was it your decision to use the word 9 "caution" on these labels? 10 A Where it appeared, yes. 11 Q Okay. And the details of the handling - 12 precautions beyond the word "caution," were those also- 13 your choice of words? 14 A You'll have to show me the label and I'll 15 tell you. 16 Q Well, any label in this stack that you have 17 got here. 18 A All right. Let's take this one right here. 19 Q Surely. 20 -- A Caution. Avoid prolonged and repeated 21 contact with the skin. Avoid prolonged breathing of 22 vaporous dust. Avoid contact with eyes or prolonged 23 contact with skin. If skin contact occurs, remove by 24 washing with soap and water. If clothing becomes soaked 25 with fluid, launder before wearing again. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21496 405 1 Yes, that's certainly from me. Now, I do not 2 kfiow if the format "Caution. Contains chlorinated 3 hyjdrocarbon" was an industrywide type of -- of warning 4 label. I don't know. I don't know if that came from 5 there and we followed their format. But the rest of it 6 certainly was approved by me. 7 Q Okay. And do you know at what point in time 8 those sorts of labels were being used? 9 A I don't. 10 Q Okay. These labels weren't dated, were they? 11 A I don't know. There are some codes down - 12 here, but I don't know what they mean. - 13 Q I see. 14 A 1040-240-7-54-53. I don't know what that 15 means. I don't know if that's dated or not. 16 Q I see. Those aren't your numbering schemes? 17 A Mine? 18 Q Yes. 19 A I had nothing to do with anything except 20 _the -- the precautionary statements. 21 Q What -- what was the purpose of having a 22 label like that on theproduct that went out? 23 A Well, several. One to tellpeople what was 24 in it. 25 Q All right. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021497 406 1 A No. 2. To tell them about the size of the -- 2 ttie amount in there. 3 __ No. 3. To give them precautions as to safe 4 handling of the material. 5 4. To give -- well, that's really three. 6 That's about it. Those were some of the reasons. 7 Q To tell them what the product was, to tell 8 them how much was in it and to tell them how to handle 9 it safely? 10 A That there may be -- that there are other 11 things that the marketing people had in their mind when 12 they put a label on. But as far as the -- as the ~ 13 medical department was concerned, I can only say that we 14 put -- we were responsible and the purpose of the 15 medical department was to put on safe handling 16 procedures and cautions to protect the user against any 17 ill effects. 18 Q And it was your intention, to the extent you 19 put on information regarding toxicology and safe 20 -handling, that the words that you used be sufficient to 21 convey to the purchaser what you intended that they 22 should do by the way of safe handling. Correct? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Did you ever undertake as the medical 25 department of Monsanto to actually go into customers' NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021498 407 1 facilities and observe how the product was being used so 2 &s to figure out whether the labels were accomplishing 3 yjDur purpose? 4 A In these products here we're talking about? 5 Q Yes. 6 A No, I did not. 7 Q Did anyone in yourdepartment? 8 A I -- they may have gone into the departments, 9 not for the -- the primary purpose of seeing whether the 10 individuals were following the labels. We were sending 11 these compounds to General Electric, Ford, TVA, Allis-12 Chalmers, who were, as I said, pretty sophisticated 13 manufacturers. And we sent it to them, we sent them 14 the -- the product bulletins, and we expected them to 15 follow the procedures outlined. We did not go in and 16 check them, no, sir. 17 Q Well -- 18 A As far as I know. 19 Q Okay. My question was not so much whether 20 ^rou expected them to follow the procedures outlined, but 21 whether or not the way you wrote up what you wanted to 22 be accomplished or what you thought needed to be 23 accomplished was in fact communicating to the customer 24 what you intended for it to communicate. 25 A Repeat that, please. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021499 408 1 Q Let me see if I can give you an example. For 2 example, the word "avoid prolonged contact," to you did 3 that mean if you got some on your skin you should wash 4 it off immediately? 5 A To me it would mean wash it off within five 6 minutes, ten minutes. 7 Q Okay. My question, then, would be: Did you 8 go, for example, into a customer's plant to ensure what 9 they meant by that was -- or they didn't interpret that 10 to mean wash it off at the next break or at the lunch 11 break and let it stay on the skin for two or three - 12 hours? - 13 A No, sir, it did not. 14 Q My question to you was whether you went into 15 customers' plants to see if they might be 16 misinterpreting what you intended by prolonged contact. 17 For example, five or ten minutes versus two or three 18 hours. 19 MR. FREEMAN: He's already answered the 20 .question he was not in any customers' plants to do that. 21 You can answer the question again, I guess. 22 A I think I said no, I did not. 23 MR. LACEY: Okay. 24 Q Were you ever able to determine whether your 25 customers were interpreting your labels the same way you NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. . HARTOLDMON0021500 409 1 intended them to be interpreted? 2 -A Well, I think from the empirical point of 3 v_i_ew I was, because we had -- there was no ill effects 4 of any workers getting -- from exposure to PCBs as 5 reflected by reports in the literature as reports from 6 our sales and marketing people as reports from these 7 individuals back to us. We had no records of any ill 8 effects. There were no records of any medical 9 conditions that surfaced in the literature. 10 Q So you concluded that because you didn't hear 11 anything that meant people were understanding the - 12 directions you gave and following it. Correct? - 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. 15 Let me show you anothergroup of labels. Let 16 me get those back here and we'll get them all batched 17 together. Nos. 445 through 4 -- strike that. 18 Let me show you another group of labels, 19 Nos. 444 through 460, and ask that you do the same 20 _thing. I think they may be already somewhat in 21 sequence. 22 A Do the same thing? I do not know what you 23 mean by do the same thing. 24 Q To separate out thosethat would beinvolving 25 environmental problems and therefore assuredly after the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021501 410 1 mid-Sixties versus those that have no reference to the 2 environmental problem. 3 _A I am handing you those that to the best of my 4 information represent labels that were used when 5 environmental contamination became important. 6 Q Okay. And the reason you are able to 7 separate these out is because they talk about protecting 8 the environment? 9 A Yes. And disposal procedures. 10 Q And those were not things that anyone would 11 have any reason to put anything on the label about - 12 before it came to Monsanto's attention that there was a- 13 problem of PCBs in the environment and their 14 persistence. Correct? 15 A Correct. 16 Q Okay. Now, which ones of that group, then, 17 are ones that don't talk about the environment and 18 therefore potentially earlier labels? 19 A Three zeros 444, 445 -- 20 __ . COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. The three zeros 21 threw me off. 22 THE WITNESS: 000444, 000445, 000446. 23 COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 24 MR. LACEY: 25 Q Now, with regard to the actual warnings or NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021502 411 1 labeling about potential health effects and safe 2 handling, from your standpoint, was there ever any 3 reason for the labels to get more detailed in that 4 regard than they initially were? 5 A Repeat that, Mr. Lacey. 6 Q Yes. Was there ever any reason for the 7 labels that talked about how to handle PCBs safely or 8 that warned about any adverse consequences of PCBs to 9 get more detailed than they were in the 1940s or 10 Fifties? . 11 A If -- was there any reason for them? - 12 Q Yes. To become more -- - 13 A Real reason or projected reason or possible 14 reason? 15 Q Whatever. 16 A Well, if something had occurred toshow that 17 in our customers we were having -- they were having ill 18 effects with our product, there may have been a reason 19 to be more detailed about it. But this did not occur. 20 .And to answer your question, no, I didn't see any reason 21 for more detailed. 22 Q Okay. 23 Let me show you one of thedocuments that 24 you've handed back to me and -- it's document 460 -- 25 and ask you to take a look at the caution statement NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021503 412 1 there on that document and compare it with the caution 2 s-.tatements on the earlier documents that you have 3 Identified which did not contain the environmental 4 warnings. 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Do you believe that that statement on the 7 later document contains more detail about appropriate 8 handling procedures to protect a person using PCBs from 9 possible harm as a result of working with them? 10 A Well, it has practically the same 11 information. It says caution. Both say caution. - 12 Contain chlorinated hydrocarbon -- carbons. It says - 13 harmful substance if taken internally or in prolonged 14 contact with the skin. We say on the other labels avoid 15 skin contact, prolonged skin contact. They talk about 16 skin irritation. Eyes. We didn't mention eyes in the 17 other one, but it says causes irritation of the skin and 18 eyes. Then they have several pages -- several sentences 19 about avoiding spills and contamination of other 20 products. Keep container tightly closed. Do not eat or 21 smoke while using. Avoid breathing vapors, mist or 22 fumes. Do not wear contaminated clothing. I would say 23 the only thing they've added here is: Do not eat or 24 smoke while using and causes irritation of the skin -- 25 of the eyes. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021504 413 1 Q There's a reference to not wearing 2 contaminated clothing, is there not? 3 __ A Yes, sir. 4 Q Was that in the earlier label? 5 A It's in some labels I've seen. Discard or 6 launder clothing before use. I don't know if it was in 7 the earlier ones. 8 Q All right. Launder clothing before use? 9 A Reuse, I think is -- I thought I saw in some 10 of the labels. 11 Q You would take that to mean exactly the same 12 thing as do not wear contaminated clothing? - 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q You wouldn't understand do not wear 15 contaminated clothing to mean that if you spill some on 16 you you ought to immediately change clothing? 17 A It depends how much you spilled on you. 18 Q I see. 19 A If you had a teaspoonful, you wouldn't. But 20 JLf you were doused with it, both legs were sprayed on 21 it, you would get rid of that, certainly. 22 Q Okay. And you feel that both theearly 23 labels and the late labels would communicate that 24 concept? 25 A I think so. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021505 414 1 Q Okay. 2- Now would you hand me those others there and 3 we.'11 put them together. 4 You mentioned your customers to whom this 5 material went. Were the warning labels for the benefit 6 of even customers like General Electric and Westinghouse 7 and TVA and Ford -- did they get warning labels on their 8 products? 9 A They got the same -- the labels that -- yes, 10 they got the warning labels on them. 11 Q And did they look to you as the manufacturer 12 of that chemical for advice as to how to handle it and- 13 how to use it safely? 14 A No, sir. They knew all about how to handle 15 and use PCBs. 16 Q You don't recall themthen ever looking to 17 you for information on how to handle the chemicals? 18 A No, sir, I do not recall it. 19 Q I see. 20 , A It may have occurred,but I -- I do not 21 recall it. 22 Q Okay. 23 Would people in your department have talked 24 with you before they were involved in providing 25 information to customers about how to properly handle NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021506 415 1 chemicals? 2 -A They may and they may not have. In many 3 instances they would not. If they knew what to do, they 4 would go ahead and do it. 5 Q Now, Inerteen was a Westinghouse product, was 6 it not? 7 A Yes, it was. 8 Q Let me show you a letter, No. 25320 through 9 25322, dated October 23rd, 1959, from Elmer Wheeler to 10 Wilbur Speicher -- I'm not sure if I've pronounced that 11 correctly -- with Westinghouse. -- 12 A Yes, sir, I've seen this letter before. - 13 Q When did you see that letter? 14 A I've seen it -- oh, gosh. Sometime while I 15 was with Monsanto. 16 Q Did you talk with Mr. Wheeler before he sent 17 that letter out? 18 A I don't remember if I did or not. 19 Q Okay. 20 __ That letter was sent to Westinghouse by Mr. 21 Wheeler in response to questions for more information 22 about Inerteen, was it not? 23 A I'll have to read it. 24 Q Maybe if your lawyers can let you look at it 25 we can move ahead here. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021507 416 1 A I don't see the earlier correspondence on it. 2 That doesn't seem to be on it. 3 _- Q I provided to you what Monsanto has provided 4 to me. 5 A There was a letter of October the 21st which 6 seems to have not -- to have been discarded. So 7 obviously he inquired about the safe use of 8 trichlorodiphenyl, a mixture of 40 percent 9 trichlorbenzil -- benzene and 60 percent 10 hexachlorodiphenyl, yes, sir. 11 Q And that's what Monsanto provided to -- 12 Westinghouse as Inerteen PPO. Correct? - 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And while we don't have the letter to which 15 Mr. Wheeler is responding attached to it, it's clear 16 from the response that is given by Mr. Wheeler that they 17 had asked for some information on the safe handling and 18 toxicology of that product, is it not? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And Mr. Wheeler's response here is 21 considerably more detailed than the information on 22 toxicology and safe handling given in one of our 23 technical bulletins or product bulletins we looked at, 24 is it not? 25 A Yes, it is. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021508 417 1 Q Does that letter suggest at all to you that 2 Westinghouse might be looking to Monsanto for assistance 3 in understanding the toxicology and the safe handling 4 procedures for the PCB products that you supplied to 5 them? 6 A This might have been a new PCB to them and 7 they wanted to know what the information was about this. 8 I -- I don't -- I don't think I could say what else it 9 suggests to them. I don't know how -- Mr. Speicher was 10 an industrial hygienist and he asked some specific 11 questions about when you should use exhaust ventilation. 12 It said here, of course, "I have been told your company13 has had some 20 to 25 years experience with the products 14 discussed above." And he suggested that Mr. Ford, the 15 manager of Transformer Manufacturing Engineering at your 16 Sharron plant would be a source of information regarding 17 your experience with Inerteen. 18 Q And yet the industrial hygienist at 19 Westinghouse was looking to Monsanto, the manufacturer 20 of the chemical, for the information, was he not? 21 A He was. But it was obvious that other people 22 in Westinghouse had the information, because we referred 23 them to two people that -- 24 Q Well, actually, Mr. Wheeler didn't just write 25 back and say, "I received your letter, please talk to NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021509 418 1 Mr. Whoever," did he? 2 -A No, of course not. - 3 __ Q He supplied all the information? 4 A What he asked, yes. 5 Q One of the things that's a reality of a -- 6 of a large company like a Monsanto or a Westinghouse or 7 a Ford is that what one individual knows may not be 8 known to another individual in the company. 9 A That can occur, yes, sir. 10 Q I mean you've indicated to me in some cases 11 here that you don't know about everything that everybody 12 else at Monsanto was doing. - 13 A That's correct. 14 Q And you would certainly recognize that that 15 problem would be the same one at large customers that 16 you had. ' Would you agree with me? 17 A It could be that some people in large 18 customers didn't know what other people knew about a 19 product, yes, sir. It could occur. 20 Q ' For example, where was the headquarters of 21 Westinghouse? Do you know? 22 A Pittsburgh. 23 Q And the headquarters of Ford? 24 A Outside Detroit. 25 Q And the headquarters of the TVA? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021510 419 1 A Knoxville. 2 -Q Just because any one individual in Detroit or 3 o_utside Detroit with Ford or with Westinghouse in 4 Pittsburgh or with the TVA in Knoxville knew particular 5 information about a product supplied by Monsanto would 6 not necessarily mean that Monsanto could reasonably 7 assume everybody in the company knew that same 8 information, would it? 9 A They could reasonablyassumethat the people 10 who were responsible for the use of the product would 11 know about it, yes, sir. _ 12 Q I see. - 13 Well, would people in Monsanto reasonably 14 assume, then, that you would know about all the safety 15 precautions that were being taken with regard to 16 Monsanto workers in the units that manufactured PCBs? 17 MR. FREEMAN: I object to the form of the 18 question. It calls for an assumption of what somebody 19 else knew and outside this man's knowledge. 20 MR. LACEY: You can go ahead and answer the 21 question. 22 A Can I have the question again? 23 MR. LACEY: Certainly. 24 Will you read it back, please? 25 COURT REPORTER: "Well, would people in NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21511 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i 25 Monsanto reasonably assunle, then, that you would know about all the safety precautions that were being taken With regard to Monsanto workers in the units that manufactured PCBs?" A What people in Monsanto? Everybody? MR. LACEY: Q Yeah. A The 55,000 employees they have? Q That people would assume that you as the medical director would know about what was going on in manufacturing units and in the efforts to protect the _ workers' safety. "_ A I think the people in Monsanto recognized the fact it was the medical department's responsibility to protect the workers and they would assume that we had inaugurated, instituted procedures to protect these workers, yes, sir, I believe they would. Q And that you as the medical director would know the details of that? A . I may not know all the details, but I would know that procedures had been instituted. - Q Okay. But knowing the details, that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption, would it? A I don't know. It might be reasonable to some people, not reasonable to others. _-- ____ 1 ~ -. . i iT"ii i i a nmi nyON 421 1 Q Okay. 2- Let me show you another-letter, dated 3 February 12th, 1969 from Mr. Wheeler to a Mr. 4 Bindschadler with Westinghouse, document 25326, 25327, 5 also supplying additional or technical information on a 6 PCB product from Monsanto to Westinghouse. 7 A Yes, sir. . 8 Q Again, thisappears to beprovided in 9 response to a request for information about a PCB 10 product. Correct? ` 11 A Yes, sir. -- 12 Q And Westinghouse is looking toMonsanto for- 13 information about those products. 14 A I do not know exactly how long Mr. 15 Bindschadler was with Westinghouse, whether he was a new 16 employee there, whether he knew anything about the 17 workings of the organization, and he probably thought 18 the easiest thing is to write Monsanto and find out from 19 them, because again we referred to them that they had 20 jnany years of experience in handling and using these, 21 and in a -- in a sense -- well, stating that their 22 experience is wider than ours in terms of exposure 23 levels. So again I don't know what he was asking in 24 this letter of February the 3rd to the safety 25 department. This is a safety man. And the medical NPII MC CAI I tlM Hi ASSDCIATFS INC HARTOLDMON0021513 422 1 department at Westinghouse certainly knew about the safe 2 handling procedures for -- for their transformer fluid. 3 Whether Mr. Bindschadler was an old-time employee there 4 and knew I don't know, and I don't know what specific 5 questions he asked in this letter to Waiger, the safety 6 man. 7 Q We do see again, though, Mr. Wheeler 8 providing information from Monsanto to its customer 9 Westinghouse on a PCB product, do we not? . 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q In response to a request from the customer --- 12 A Yes, sir. - 13 Q -- for information. And as you've pointed 14 out, sometimes there's a change in employees. And that 15 happens in large corporations, does it not? 16 A Yes, it does. 17 Q And again that justreiterates or 18 demonstrates the need to continue to supply information 19 to make sure that when new employees come on board they 20 .have the same information that they need, doesn't it? 21 A No, it doesn't. I mean it -- it means that 22 the company, Westinghouse, should inform their new 23 employees. It doesn't mean that Monsanto should inform 24 every new employee that goes with Westinghouse something 25 that has been going on. We expect that a company like r> a i i tiftA o. APPAr>i Arrn ima HARTOLDMON0021514 423 1 Westinghouse which has had all the information available 2 on their own copyrighted product would tell their new 3 employees. 4 Q Let me show you another document, dated 5 September 27th, 1967, from James G. Bryant to a large 6 number of people, including Mr. Pappageorge and others, 7 document 25282. It references a visit by Monsanto to 8 the Anniston, Alabama, PCB plant of Monsanto, does it 9 not? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And it indicates that Westinghouse employees 12 are coming there to try to learn more about how to - 13 handle PCBs in order to avoid toxicological problems, 14 doesn't it? 15 A Repeat the question. I was reading this. 16 I 'm sorry'. 17 Q Let me. I'll repeat it for you. The memo 18 clearly indicates that employees of Westinghouse were 19 coming to Monsanto's Anniston, Alabama, PCB plant to 20 JLearn more about how to handle PCBs in order to avoid 21 dermatological and toxicological problems? 22 A Yes, sir, that's what it says, the prime 23 purpose is to discuss the best methods for handling 24 Aroclor 1242 to avoid problems of dermatitis and 25 toxicology. NFI I Mr. CALLUM & ASSOCIATES INC. HARTOLDMON0021515 424 1 Q So once again we see Westinghouse looking to 2 Monsanto as the manufacturer and supplier of the 3 chemical for information about how to handle the 4 chemical. Correct? 5 A Well, at this particular plant, this may be 6 when they started using the material, so they came to us 7 rather than going to their own headquarters. 8 Q The point is, that clearly shows that 9 Monsanto was looking to -- I mean Monsanto was being 10 looked to by Westinghouse, in particular the people in 11 Bloomington -- -- 12 A The people from Bloomington, yes. - 13 Q -- for information on how to handle the 14 chemical to avoid toxicological -- 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q -- dermatologicalproblems? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Let me show youanother document. This one 19 does have attached to it the original correspondence 20 J:rom Westinghouse to Monsanto, some memos about making 21 responses, along with the Monsanto response. The entire 22 package is document 25286 through 25297. And you might 23 look at the last part first, because it shows the 24 question letter coming in, and then going forward you 25 see the response. That one does have the letter from m r i aao a i i iifvfl e, ACcnriATcc iMr* HARTOLDMON0021516 425 1 Westinghouse to Monsanto attached, does it not? 2 -A Yes, sir. 3 Q And that's a request for information from 4 Westinghouse to Monsanto about the PCB products that 5 Monsanto supplied to Westinghouse. Correct? 6 A I have to read it. 7 Q Okay. 8 A Because this occurred after I left Monsanto. 9 This is dated 1975. 10 Q Fine. 11 A Well, this again, as I said, is a letter from 12 Westinghouse to Monsanto in 1975 following the publicity 13 concerning PCBs in the environment. The workers had 14 asked -- had brought up several concerns. So they did 15 come to us asking these concerns -- to get answers to 16 these concerns, yes, sir, they did. 17 Q And Monsanto provided a response to each one 18 of those questions to Westinghouse -- 19 A Yes, they -- 20 -Q -- for their use. Correct? 21 A Yes, they did. 22 Q In each of these letters that we've looked at 23 we see Westinghouse coming to Monsanto as the 24 manufacturer of PCBs to get additional information about 25 the toxicology and/or safe handling of the chemicals I r-- * A I tltftAO /* HARTOLDMON0021517 426 1 that Monsanto supplied to Westinghouse, don't we? 2 ~A We see individuals in Westinghouse getting -- 3 asking for information. 4 Q Of Monsanto? 5 A Of Monsanto. This is individuals, and this 6 does not mean that these people represent the body of 7 toxicological information in Westinghouse. 8 Q Well, companies can only work through 9 individuals, can't they? 10 A Yes, certainly. 11 Q And each of these individuals was asking that 12 question on behalf of his employer Westinghouse. ~ 13 Correct? 14 A Yes. He is asking questions -- 15 Q And each -- 16 A -- that were -- some were -- these were new 17 questions about supposed conditions due to the 18 environmental publicity about PBCs in this case. 19 Q You're talking about the last one? 20 -A Yes, the last one. 21 Q The others didn't -- weren't the result of 22 environmental publicity, were they? 23 A No, they were not. But I do not know what 24 they were the result of. I do not know whether that was 25 the result of a man figuring out it was easier to get it mci i r/i s' n a i i a, AQcnriATEc imp HARTOLDMON0021518 427 1 from Monsanto than his own company. I don't know. 2 -Q I see. By the way, do you know whether or 3 not Westinghouse even had a medical director or not? 4 A Yes, I believe they did. I really -- I 5 believe they did. I feel quite sure they did. I can't 6 tell you his name, but -- 7 Q Do you recall giving a deposition in a case 8 called Charles Wright versus Monsanto Company -- 9 A Yes, I do. 10 Q -- in the Eastern District of the United 11 States of Texas, Beaumont Division, back on September - 12 28th, last year? ~ 13 A Yes. 14 Q Have you reviewed and signed that deposition 15 yet? 16 A I can't answer that. 17 Q Okay. 18 A When was the deposition? 19 Q It was taken on September 26th, 1986. I note 20 -that it must have been typed up a little bit late, 21 because the signature sheet provided for it to be 22 notarized in 1987. So I assume it wasn't typed up until 23 early this year. 24 A I don't know whether I signed it or not. 25 Q Okay. Do you recall being asked there: mpi l MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES INC. HARTOLDMON0021519 428 1 What about with Westinghouse? Would you have had 2 contact with Westinghouse medically? Do you recall 3 being asked that question? 4 A Well, if you show it to me. I don't recall 5 it. 6 Q Okay. Let me show you the deposition. Let 7 me bring it over here. Beginning at Line 10: What 8 about with Westinghouse? Would you have had contact 9 with Westinghouse medically? 10 And then the lawyer there interposes an 11 objection. And then there's an answer. Says: You can 12 answer it. - 13 Then your answer starts right here, and you 14 say: No, I don't know if Westinghouse had a medical 15 director or not. 16 A Well, I didn't recall whether they did. I 17 still don't recall whether they did, but -- my 18 impression is they did, but I couldn't answer that 19 positively. 20 _Q I see. 21 A I knew positively General Electric had one, I 22 knew positively Ford had one, I knew Westinghouse had a 23 very large industrial hygiene group. My belief would be 24 that they had a medical director, but I didn't know. 25 Q That would be speculation on your part? Mm i Ann n A l i Mft/i o. a ecr\n i a tcc iMr HARTOLDMON0021520 429 1 A It would be speculation. 2 -Q I see. 3 _ _ Now, even companies with medical directors 4 might look to Monsanto for information on PCB products 5 supplied by Monsanto to those companies, mighten they? 6 A Yes, they might. 7 Q That wouldn't really be surprising to you, 8 would it? 9 A No, it wouldn't. 10 Q Do you recall an inquiry from Ford Motor 11 Company asking for specific information on a PCB - 12 product? " 13 A I don't recall it, but show me the 14 correspondence. It may refresh my memory. 15 Q Surely. Let me show you a package of 16 documents here that's numbered 25330 through 25333. And 17 the first one is a handwritten note apparently to Elmer 18 Wheeler, although it just says Elmer. There's a -- the 19 second sheet would indicate it went to Mr. Wheeler. 20 _ And then there's a response that was actually 21 written to that question that you prepared and signed. 22 Correct? 23 A Well, it appears to me that these people were 24 not using Pydraul at this time. Because it says Ford 25 looks bigger and bigger as a Pydraul potential. So it i o A r>f*A HARTOLDMONOQ21521 430 1 appears that Mr. Falls, whoever Mr. Falls was, wanted to 2 know about the safe handling of Pydraul before he 3 s-tarted using it. 4 Q And they were looking to Monsanto as the 5 supplier for information on that. Correct? 6 A Certainly. They were a new customer and they 7 were looking for it, so we sent them the toxicity and 8 safe handling bulletin on it, yes, sir. 9 Q And that should have been sufficient to 10 satisfy their needs without doubt. Correct? 11 A That should have been sufficient to satisfy- 12 their needs? ~ 13 Q Yes. I mean what I'm saying is the letter 14 that you sent them along with the materials that you 15 sent them would have been what they would have needed to 16 answer any questions they had about that product. 17 Correct? 18 A Yes, I think so. 19 Q And that product, of course, was a PCB 20 product, was it not? 21 A I don't know if Pydraul 312 is or not. I -- 22 Q I see. You don't recall? 23 A I don't recall. 24 Q Okay. 25 Let me show you another document, dated April i c>ai i I im R, AecnriATcc imp HARTOLDMONOQ21522 431 1 25th, 1968, document 25334, 25335. That memo indicates, 2 does it not, that the information in the letter that you 3 sent to Ford was not considered adequate by them? Does 4 it not? 5 A That's what this reported, yes, sir. 6 Q So apparently the standard literature that 7 you sent out was not something that Ford found 8 sufficient to meet their needs for information. 9 A This is my letter to them. The standard 10 information was this letter. Let's see what happened. 11 Well, he asks some things that were -- would certainly12 not be common if this is what he was concerned about. 13 He asked three things: 14 He would like it explained that the Pydraul 15 fluid would contain the same components as Pydraul 312. 16 In other words, we gave them the safe handling bulletin 17 that was -- or the safety data sheet on Kettering, and 18 he just said, "Look, I want to be sure this is the same 19 stuff." Well, I didn't say this Pydraul 312 is the same 20 ja.s was used at -- at Kettering, if that's what he was 21 complaining about. 22 No. 2. What are the actual chemical 23 constituents of the decomposition vapors of Pydraul 312? 24 Well, he wanted to know that. That wasn't included in 25 it. HARTOLDMONOQ21523 433 1 information that was in the technical materials. 2 -A That's correct. 3 Q Let me show you another letter, dated May 4 7th, 1968, from Mr. Wheeler to Mr. Falls, document 5 25336, 25337. This is the letter that was written back 6 in response to the memo that we've just looked at, is it 7 not? 8 A Yes. Well, this he wrote back and said that: 9 We checked the decomposition and didn't find any 10 phosgene in it. 11 Q Also, were you able to tell from that - 12 response whether the material contained PCBs or not? " 13 A Well, it said: The chlorinated hydrocarbon 14 components of our -- of our fire -- of our fire- 15 resistant fluids are not the simple short chain organic 16 compounds. So conceivably that would refer to aromatic 17 diphenyls. But I'm sure along with all this information 18 he had product bulletins about discussing whether it's 19 PCBs in it or not.But this is pretty clear. 20 _Q It does or does not contain PCBs? 21 A What? 22 Q It does or does not contain PCBs? 23 A I would think if it's -- this fire resistant 24 in 1968, it contained PCBs. 25 Q One of his specificquestions was: What were HARTOLDMONOQ21524 434 1 the chemicals that went into Pydraul 312? Correct? 2 ~A That was presumably answered by somebody 3 else. We answered the phosgene part. We answered 4 whether or not -- 5 Q I see. 6 A -- phosgene would be liberated or not by 7 decomposition, 8 Q So that letter is only a partial response? 9 A Presumably, yes. 10 Q Okay. And the way you responded was by 11 citing some tests that you had earlier done on some PCS 12 chemicals. Correct? ~ 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And so if the materials were not PCB 15 chemicals then the relevance of your response would be 16 limited, at best? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Okay. 19 Do you have any thoughts about why someone 20 -would be concerned about phosgene gas being liberated 21 from PCBs? 22 A There is no explanationfor people's 23 concerns. It could be -- he mighthave heard it during 24 a golf game and somebody would say it, a competitor 25 might have said it. I don't know what the reasons for HARTOLDMONOQ21525 435 1 his concerns are. But it seems like we dispelled it. 2 ~Q Okay. 3 -. Let me show you another set of correspondence 4 from Ford. And here we have the backup question and the 5 response, along with a form, 25338 through 25341. 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Apparently, even though you thought you had 8 dispelled the concerns, they come back for yet more 9 information on Pydraul 312. 10 A No, that is not correct at all, Mr. Lacey. 11 Q I see. - 12 A What Ford Motor Company was doing in this " 13 particular case is getting their own form questionnaire 14 on all the products that were supplied to them. So they 15 sent it to us to fill out the form for them. This, by 16 the way. is a phosphate ester-based fluid. 17 Q What other chemicals does it contain? 18 A Contains chlorinated hydrocarbon, but this -- 19 the base product is phosphate ester. So it presumably 20 is not a PCB. 21 _Q You don't think it has any PCBs in it? 22 A Well, they said it's phosphate based. I 23 think you would have to look up -- certainly the 24 catalogs would show 312. I can't tell you, but they say 25 it's phosphate based. HARTOLDMON0021526 436 1 Q I see. 2 -A And this occurs all the time. People decide, 3 I--am going to have my own clinical safety questionnaire 4 on all the products, and we send it to anybody that 5 sells us anything, and say: Fill it out. That's not a 6 question of saying we don't know the information, we 7 don't have the information, but we want it completed by 8 your people with particular attention to the 9 decomposition -- information on the decomposition 10 products. 11 Q That was the same question it asked earlier-, 12 wasn'tit? -- 13 A Well, somebody else asked, yes. Somebody 14 else at Ford asked. 15 Q Ford is still coming back with the same 16 question about decomposition products on the same 17 product, isn't it? 18 A No. They're coming back asking a 19 considerable amount of information. All sorts of -- of 20 information as far as the details of the toxicity, flash 21 point, specific gravity, the whole business. Does it 22 decompose violently? It asks any number of questions on 23 here. What are the products. In the event of fire, how 24 to put it out. Corrosive action. All sorts of 25 questions. ni i i it HARTOLDMON0021527 437 1 Q Okay. 2 - The Pydraul that was beingdiscussed in this 3 exchange of correspondence with Ford was a hydraulic 4 fluid, was it not? 5 A Let me have it back. 6 VIDEO OPERATOR: Excuse me. While he's 7 looking at that I need to take a short pause. 8 MR. CRAWFORD: Why don't we go ahead and take 9 a break since it's just about 3:00. Okay? 10 MR. LACEY: Fine. 11 A It's a hydraulic, yes. - 12 MR. CRAWFORD: That answered that. -- 13 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're going off the record. 14 The time is 2:56 p.m. 15 [Recess ] 16 VIDEO OPERATOR: Okay. I'm ready. 17 MR. LACEY: 18 Q One of the reasons that people would be 19 concerned about the decomposition products of hydraulic 20 .fluid is that in the die casting process those hydraulic 21 fluids would likely be heated under use circumstances. 22 Correct? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And that's something that you had been aware 25 of since at least November of 1962. Isn't that correct? HARTOLDMON0021528 438 1 A What was the question? 2 ~Q You had been aware at least from the date of 3 t4iat memo of the fact that hydraulic fluids used in the 4 auto manufacturing business could be heated by the 5 dropping of molten metal into fluids that might 6 accumulate around the machines. 7 A In this particular case, yes. 8 Q Yes. And obviously the questions that Ford 9 was asking about decomposition products at high 10 temperatures would indicate that they anticipated the 11 same thing might occur in their facilities. - 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Okay. 14 Now what decomposition products would you 15 expect from that type of event that was described in the 16 communication that you had with General Motors and the 17 circumstances that were questioned about by Ford? 18 A I'd have to check it. I'd have to check the 19 temperatures involved, I'd have to check which -- which 20 -hydraulic fluid it was. 21 Q I see. 22 Now, the Tennessee Valley Authority also 23 looked to Monsanto for information about its products, 24 did it not? 25 A Do we have letters from them? ni < i* HARTOLDMON0021529 439 1 Q Yes. 2 ~A Just happen to have one? 3 - Q Surely. We've already seen, have we not, 4 that there was substantial correspondence between 5 Westinghouse and Monsanto with Westinghouse inquiring 6 for information about Monsanto products? Correct? 7 A I was reading this. Sorry. 8 Q We've already seen substantialcorrespondence 9 back and forth between Monsanto and Westinghouse where 10 Westinghouse was inquiring about additional information 11 on Monsanto-supplied PCB products. Correct? - 12 A We -- Ireviewed two letters from 13 Westinghouse. 14 Q I see. 15 A I think it was two letters. 16 Q And we've seen correspondence back and forth 17 between Ford and Monsanto inquiring about information on 18 Monsanto products. Correct? 19 A We received correspondence from one 20 -individual at Ford who was contemplating using a -- a 21 Pydraul -- a Monsanto product. So he's asking for 22 information about it. 23 Q We see the same thing here with regard to the 24 TVA, do we not? 25 A Well, I don't know if they were using this at MCI I Mf* PA I I I IM ft/ AftftPIPIATCQ IMP HARTOLDMON0021530 440 1 all. I mean are they contemplating it? I don't know. 2 They apparently asked what it was. And he asked, 3 really, for the composition of the material, which we 4 couldn1t tell. 5 Q You could tell, but you wouldn't give out. 6 A Well, I think we legally weren't able to 7 because a second company was involved. 8 Q I see. 9 Then there's further correspondence with the 10 Tennessee Valley Authority with regard to this Pydraul 11 product. Let me hand you document 25350. - 12 A Is that December the 9th? What number is - 13 that? What date is that? November the 14th. Is there 14 a question before me, sir? 15 Q Yes. They were writing again requesting 16 additional information, and that is the response that is 17 being given by Monsanto to the TVA. Correct? 18 A They wanted to find specific answers to 19 specific questions, yes, that were not -- presumably not 20 ^covered in the bulletin. 21 Q And again they looked not to any in-house 22 source of information or doing any in-house testing or 23 anything like that, but rather looked to Monsanto as the 24 manufacturer of the chemical? 25 A I don't know what they did as far as looking ivrii-i t mo />ai i I I A o. AconniATrp imp HARTOLDMON0021531 441 1 in-house. I -- I certainly know they wrote us a letter. 2 ~Q Yes. Looking for answers to their questions. 3 Correct? 4 A Specific questions, yes, sir. 5 Q Let me see if I can understand the outside 6 laboratories that were used by Monsanto to conduct 7 testing, in particular animal testing. At one point in 8 time you used the Younger Laboratories? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And then at a later point in time you used 11 Industrial Biotest Laboratories? -- 12 A Yes, sir. - 13 Q Why the change from Younger toIndustrial 14 Biotest? 15 A Younger Laboratory was only efficient asfar 16 as running acute testing. It was where we needed to get 17 information about the acute hazard of a product for -- 18 for use in shipping or use in small quantities. For 19 example, we had a package deal that we used for all new 20 .products that were going out to research people, to -- 21 small amounts where we ran an acute LD 50, we dropped it 22 in their eyes to see the eye irritation, we put it on 23 the skin, we put it -- we had it breathed by animals at 24 ambient temperatures at saturated atmosphere. So it was 25 an acute testing laboratory. That's all they were able MFI I MP PAI I 1IM Ri ASSOPI ATFfJ IMP. HARTOLDMON0021532 442 1 to do. They were not sophisticated enough for long-term 2 feeding or pathology or anything else. 3 Industrial Biotest Laboratory was an 4 extremely sophisticated laboratory that was in high 5 repute by all the chemical companies including the -- 6 also including the government, the FDA. Any number of 7 government agencies used Industrial Biotest Laboratory. 8 We used them for long-term feedings and for -- for 9 laboratory work where residual analysis of tissues had 10 to be done. 11 We also used other laboratories. We used -- 12 Saranac Laboratory for chest things, we used Kettering13 Laboratory for inhalation and for other testing. We 14 used Hazelton Laboratories, we used Woodard 15 Laboratories, we used a lot of laboratories. 16 Q Were there other laboratories that could 17 perform the same types of tests that Industrial Biotest 18 Laboratories could? 19 A There were -- Hazelton Laboratory might have 20 .been able to. Woodward might have been able to. They 21 were not as convenient to us as Biotest. Chicago is a 22 lot easier to get to than Washington. 23 Q Now, you told me yesterday, I believe, that 24 one Monsanto employee worked at Industrial Biotest for a 25 while, and that was -- who was that? imci Mir' rai i i im a A.Qcnn atcc iwr HARTOLDMON0021533 443 1 A Paul Wright. 2 ~Q Was Mr. Wright the only Monsanto employee who 3 went from Monsanto to Industrial Biotest and then came 4 back to Monsanto? 5 A That was the only one I know of. To the best 6 of my knowledge, that's correct. 7 Q Was Mr. Wright working -- 8 A Dr. Wright, really. 9 Q Oh, Dr. Wright? Okay. 10 A Ph.D. He's a Ph.D. 11 Q Was Dr. Wright working in your department -- 12 when he left Monsanto? - 13 A No. He was working in agricultural 14 department. 15 Q Okay. As a toxicologist? 16 A As a research chemist. 17 Q Is there a relationship between being a 18 toxicologist and a research chemist? 19 A Well, a research chemist in agriculture -- in 20 -the agricultural field knows a great deal about 21 physiology, and a toxicologist knows a great deal about 22 physiology. So I think it was an excellent preparation 23 for him to go into toxicology, to become a toxicologist. 24 Q Did Mr. Wright work with your department 25 while he was at Industrial Biotest? im - i mio r* A l I I IM Q. AOCnhiATCP MO HARTOLDMON0021534 444 1 A I don't know what you mean by with my 2 department. 3 Q Well, you told me that Industrial Biotest did 4 work for many companies. 5 A That's right. 6 Q I guess I'm trying to find out whether Mr. 7 Wright was the person who was on the Monsanto account at 8 Industrial Biotest. 9 A I can't answer that. I -- they had probably 10 15 people in the same bracket as Mr. -- as Dr. Wright. 11 So I can't say whether he did -- and we had quite a -- 12 number of compounds up there. So he may have worked at 13 some, he may not have worked at some. 14 Q Let me show you a couple of letters and ask 15 if they refresh your recollection any at all about 16 whether Mr. Wright worked on Monsanto products while he 17 was at Industrial Biotest. 18 A Well, he certainly worked on teratology 19 studies with three different aroclors in September of 20 .1971. 21 It appeared he was going to work on -- do 22 some analytical work on urine specimens that we sent up 23 there from our workers in one of our operations. 24 Q Which operation? 25 A Decatur, Alabama. And he did some work -- he NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. HARTOLDMON0021535 445 1 presumably looked over the protocols on the Thermonol 2 and phosphate ester feeding studies. 3 MR. CRAWFORD: Doctor, do you know about this 4 personally or is this just something you are looking at 5 the correspondence and guessing about? I mean do you 6 know that or not? 7 THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. I mean this occurred 8 while I was there. 9 MR. CRAWFORD: That's fine. 10 THE WITNESS: Sure. 11 MR. CRAWFORD: I just want to be sure -- -- 12 THE WITNESS: I'm not guessing, no. I know13 Paul -- I mean this refreshed what he was working on, 14 but I think you have to realize what a laboratory is. 15 They've got a lot of different section heads. And 16 products from Monsanto might be worked on by five 17 different section heads. He was not as an advertising 18 man doing a whole account for one company. 19 MR. LACEY: 20 . Q What was the purpose of sending tests like 21 this out to independent laboratories? 22 A Several reasons: 23 1. Unless you had a large enough flow of 24 products coming, it was inefficient to have the variety 25 of specialists that you needed to carry out all the mci i Mr rAi i iim a Assnnatfs INC HARTOLDMONOQ21536 446 1 very -- all the details that you needed to do. 2~ No. 2. You had an objective point of view 3 f-rom an independent laboratory. That may or may not be 4 important. Sometimes it was thought to be important, 5 sometimes it wasn't. 6 But I would say the major point is, unless 7 you could keep your own laboratory busy all the time, 8 they would be sitting around the payroll without 9 compounds to test. 10 Q Did Monsanto have enough work to keep the 11 laboratory busy? -- 12 A Whichlaboratory? Alaboratory? - 13 Q Yeah. 14 A They did after about 1975 or '76, when they 15 built one after I left. 16 Q Prior to that time there had not been enough 17 work to keep a laboratory busy? 18 A That was one of the reasons. And we didn't 19 have the specialists that were needed in the various 20 fields. 21 Q Did you feel thathaving aformer Monsanto 22 employee work at an independent laboratory on Monsanto 23 products compromised that objectivity you talked about 24 as being one of the reasons you would send things to an 25 independent lab? mci i Mr pai i um a asrpipiatcr imp HARTOLDMONOQ21537 447 1 A Not in the least. 2 -Q Okay. 3 Now, if I understood correctly, Mr. Wright 4 came back to Monsanto from Industrial Biotest. 5 A That's correct. 6 Q And when he came back, he came back into your 7 department? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q And he came back into your department as the 10 manager of toxicology, did he not? 11 A I don't know if that was his title. He came 12 back there under -- I think Dr. Levinsksas was there at 13 that time. And Dr. Levinsksas was the head. So whether 14 he was a manager and Dr. Levinsksas was a director 15 I don't know. But Levinsksas was the top toxicologist 16 that we had. 17 Q Let me show you -- 18 A But I don't know when he came. 19 Q Let me show you a couple of letters that 20 .reference his title, just to refresh your recollection, 21 one written to him and one from him. 22 A Well, the first -- well, in 1975, when he was 23 manager of toxicology, Dr. Levinsksas was a supervisor. 24 I don't know whether Dr. Levinsksas was called director 25 of toxicology and Wright was a manager or not, but MCI i Mln rs I I I IM R) ASRnriATPQ IMP. HARTOLDMON0021538 448 1 Levinsksas was the No. 1 and Wright was the No. 2. 2 -Q Okay. He had, at least at that time, the 3 title of manager, whatever that meant? 4 A Yes, that's correct. 5 Q Was that a responsible position that Mr. 6 Wright came back to? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Would the position he came back to at 9 Monsanto be a better position than the one he left, one 10 with more compensation and more -- higher in the 11 organization, so to speak? -- 12 A I don't know what salary he was getting at ~ 13 Biotest. I don't know the reasons he wanted to come 14 back, whether it was family or whether he found -- 15 Q I'm sorry. I don't mean at Biotest. I was 16 trying to compare what he was when he left Monsanto with 17 the position he came back to, whether that was a 18 promotion or an improvement in position. 19 A I think it was. 20 Q When Dr. Wright came back to Monsanto, he 21 continued to work then from the Monsanto side with 22 Industrial Biotest on its work with Monsanto products. 23 Correct? 24 A I can't be sure whether he continued to work 25 there or whether -- we had a Dr. Hunt at that time. He n AOPAni A HARTOLDMON0021539 449 1 died someplace along the way. I'm not sure of that. We 2 trad a Fred Yohannsen who came at that time. I do not 3 nemember whether Dr. Wright was the go-between, as it 4 were, between Monsanto and Industrial Biotest. I can't 5 answer that. 6 Q Those last two letters I showed you are 7 correspondence to and from Industrial Biotest with 8 Mr. Wright involved, are they not? 9 A Yes, that's correct. But we had -- one of 10 our toxicologists would go up there on monthly visits. 11 So I do not know if Paul did that. -- 12 Q Okay. - 13 Who else might have been the toxicologist 14 from Monsanto that would have made monthly visits to 15 Industrial Biotest? 16 A Dr. Hunt before he died. 17 Q Okay. 18 A He died up there, by the way. 19 Q At Industrial Biotest? 20 A At the airport. 21 Q How old a man was Dr. Hunt? 22 A Younger than I. 23 Q Heart attack or something, I guess. 24 A Yes, a heart attack in the airport. And Fred 25 Yohannsen, who was a young toxicologist, I do not know HARTOLDMON0021540 450 1 exactly when he came, he came before I left, obviously, 2 apd he might very well have inherited the job of going 3 up and following the testing at Biotest. And Paul may 4 have done some, too. 5 Q Would it to you compromise the objectivity to 6 have a Monsanto person reviewing Industrial Biotest work 7 who had previously been involved in Industrial Biotest 8 work there? 9 A Not in the least. I had perfect confidence 10 in -- in Paul's scientific ability and intellectual 11 honesty. -- 12 Q What was the -- the point of sending a person 13 from your department up to Industrial Biotest each 14 month? 15 A To see how our various projects were getting 16 along, to see if anything was happening that might 17 require some changing in the test procedures. 18 Q Did you yourself ever go to Industrial 19 Biotest? 20 A Yes, I was there about three or four times. 21 Q Was there actual -- I guess laboratory would 22 be the right thing to call it there in Chicago? 23 A Northbrook up north of Chicago. 24 Q Okay. Did you ever physically go and observe 25 their laboratory? HARTOLDMONOQ21541 451 1 A Yes, certainly. 2 -Q How did -- how did the sort of -- the sort of 3 s-tudies that they were doing work? What was in the 4 laboratory or what happened? 5 A Well, it depends on what studies they were 6 doing. If they were doing feeding studies, two-year 7 feeding tests, they had a group of dogs and rodents in 8 different cages and fed them various levels of materials 9 and weighed them and did laboratory studies on them. 10 And then during the -- the span of the experiment would 11 sacrifice some of the animals, and sacrifice all of them 12 at the end of them. If it were inhalation, it would be 13 the same type of work, only using inhalation. 14 Q Did you ever observe any of the animals that 15 were actually being used in Monsanto studies to ensure 16 that they were being appropriately handled and all that 17 sort of thing? 18 A I observed them, but I didn't observe them 19 from the standpoint of telling them their business. 20 Because they were the most reputable laboratory in the 21 united -- commercial laboratory in the United States. 22 Q But I mean from your own perspective you were 23 looking to make sure things were being done correctly? 24 A Well, you cannot on an afternoon visit check 25 up on five or six products to be sure everything is done HARTOLDMONOQ21542 452 1 correctly. Generally you have to take the -- you have 2 to have confidence in Dr. Calandra, who was the head of 3 the laboratory, and the other people that I knew up 4 there. But from what I saw, it looked fine to me. 5 Q I mean you kept your eyes open while you were 6 walking through to see if there were any problems, 7 didn1t you? 8 A Well, yes. But I doubt if I would have 9 recognized them either. 10 Q What about your -- your own toxicology people 11 like Dr. Hunt? Were they in a position to better -- 12 evaluate whether or not there might be any problems in~ 13 the testing that was going on? 14 A Yes, I think so. They were toxicologists, 15 certainly. 16 Q And was one of the reasons they would go up 17 there on a monthly basis just to make sure that 18 everything was going well in the testing? 19 A That was one of the reasons. Whether that -- 20 I don't know if that was the primary reason. I think 21 the primary reason was to see if there should be any 22 changing in the manner of testing, report back. Because 23 the people whose products we were investigating were 24 always saying, "How are things going with product X?" 25 So you couldn't get a report back until certain periods mci i Mr cali UM s. AssnriATFs iwr HARTOLDMON0021543 453 1 so you could come back and say, "The animals are looking 2 fine, they're healthy, they're gaining weight," et 3 Getera, et cetera. 4 Q Giving sort of an oral report to your own 5 businesspeople about what the results looked like? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Did you do that after you made your visits, 8 give some shorthand summaries of what you saw? 9 A No, I think I went up there primarily on 10 budget reasons. We were going to do this product. We 11 would talk it over and decide whether or not we would -- 12 what it's liable to cost us and then come back and tell 13 them. 14 Q Did you have budget restraints with regard to 15 the extent of the research work you might do? 16 A Well, you always had a certain budgetary 17 allowance that you wanted -- that you had to do. You 18 couldn't spend a million dollars on a particular 19 agricultural chemical, you had to come back and say, 20 ."We are going to recommend two-year feeding tests on 21 this products in two species and it's going to cost X 22 hundred thousand dollars." 23 Q Who made the decision about the depth with 24 which to study the products and therefore the expense 25 involved? Was that basically your decision? Q./- < A I I I I ft/I A OPAni /\Tr"o i Kir* HARTOLDMONOQ21544 454 1 A Well, I think it was a -- a decision on a 2 number of people's parts. It was a decision -- you have 3 t-o make a commercial decision, you have to make a 4 decision from the standpoint of the laboratory itself, 5 you have to make a decision along with members of the 6 FDA or the agricultural department who are going to ask 7 you for what studies they think they need on this 8 particular product. 9 Q And when you say studies that they're going 10 to need, for whom are the studies being done ultimately? 11 A For Monsanto. - 12 Q And you're talking about people who are going 13 to decide what studies are needed. Is that a medical 14 department decision or are there other people who are 15 involved? 16 A Sure, other people made- the decision. Let me 17 tell you about the people inside Monsanto. The people 18 who are coming out with a particular product and say, 19 "I am going to have a soybean herbicide and this looks 20 promising." So I go up there and find out from the 21 government what they want to be done and then I take 22 these things up to Calandra. And sometimes Calandra 23 would go to the government with me. And we would come 24 back and say to the man with the soybean herbicide, 25 "This is going to cost $600,000." And he said, "Well, I HARTOLDMON0021545 455 1 don't think this looks this promising." 2 -Q Okay. 3 A And he may wash it out. 4 Q Okay. 5 A But if he said, "Well, that's all right, this 6 looks good, let's go right ahead with it," that's fine. 7 So decisions were made from a medical point 8 of view as to what was needed, that was made on -- in 9 confluence with the laboratory doing it, with our own 10 toxicologist and myself and the government authorities. 11 Q So representatives of IBT would go with -- 12 representatives of Monsanto to Washington or wherever ~ 13 the government offices might be to even negotiation on 14 the extent of study required for a product? 15 A They did at times, yes. 16 Q Did people at Monsanto consult with people at 17 IBT about how to phrase and word their reports and what 18 to report and what not to report in their studies? 19 A Do you mean did they edit their reports? 20 Q Yes. That's a way of putting it. 21 A Well, we would get back theirreports. They 22 may have suggested changes in phraseology, but they 23 certainly didn't suggest any changes in the data. 24 Q Don't you think that making changes in the 25 way the report is initially prepared by the outside HARTOLDMON0021546 456 1 independent lab compromises the independence of their 2 work? 3 _. A No, I don't think so. I think it's just like 4 saying: Do you say a glass is half full or half empty? 5 You are just talking about the same thing and you are 6 using a different phrase to express the -- the same 7 physical characteristic of the glass. 8 Q So it was perfectly acceptable from your 9 perspective as the medical director to have personnel 10 working for you edit and rephrase reports prepared by 11 your independent testing labs? -- 12 A I am not saying that they edited it. I am - 13 saying that at times there may have been some rephrasing 14 because they didn't appreciate the way the material was 15 going to be used or -- so that was the only rephrasing 16 that I can think of. 17 Q And you as the medical director would approve 18 of that type of work on the part of your subordinates to 19 assist in rephrasing reports? 20 A Well, I presume you have some -- some 21 correspondence there. I'll be happy to comment on it. 22 If you have some correspondence where we suggested some 23 changes in wording, I'll be happy to comment on it. 24 Q My question to you is whether or not that was 25 something that was acceptable for your employees who HARTOLDMON0021547 457 1 reported to you to do or not acceptable. 2 zh It was acceptable if our toxicologist decided 3 on stating, "I think these data should be presented in - 4 this the way," yes, that was acceptsable. 5 Q It would not be acceptable, I take it, to 6 change the substance of the report. 7 A It would be completely unacceptable. 8 Q Okay. 9 Do you recall yesterday when we discussed the 10 information on safe handling and toxicology of PCBs that 11 was put out in England by your English people? - 12 A Yes. ~ 13 Q The greatdetailed document? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And you discussed with me the fact that you 16 didn't think that much detail was required in the United 17 States? 18 A Yes. Orwouldbe read. 19 Q Okay. 20 Let me show you three documents. And I 21 believe they're each versions of -- in different dates 22 of the same document, which is titled The Proper 23 Handling of Aroclors and Their Mixtures in the 24 Electrical Industry. One that was put out in 1954, a 25 1956 version, and a 1960 version, documents 1967 through HARTOLDMONOQ21548 458 1 2051, 2052 through 2138, and 2139 through 2252. Each 2 csne of those has a section at the end on toxicology, 3 dermatology, safe handling. You might want to take a 4 brief look at that. 5 A Yes, sir, I have read 12 -- December '54. 6 Q Was that information supplied by you in that 7 section? 8 A Yes, I think so. 9 Q Now, have you actually seen that entire 10 document, the type of document it is? 11 A I very probably have during my course of time 12 with Monsanto. ~ 13 Q That is a very detailed technical document, 14 is it not? 15 A Yes, it is. 16 Q ' The section on dermatology and toxicology, 17 however, is not much more detailed than the sections 18 that you put in the ordinary technical bulletins or 19 product bulletins, is it? 20 A I don't know. I'll have to look. 21 Q Please do. 22 A Well, it describes that skin patch testing 23 that's not an irritant or a sensitizer, it says what to 24 do if it's spilled on the skin, the skin should be 25 washed of accidental burns, it states keeping the hands HARTOLDMON0021549 459 1 out of the liquid and handling it in a well-ventilated 2 hood. It is considered to be more detailed as far as 3 what should be done when sampling. So it is somewhat 4 more detailed, yes, sir. 5 Q None of it is as detailed as the information 6 that was contained in that bulletin put out by the UK 7 for the UK, was it? 8 A No, it is not. 9 Q Now, the rest of that book is very detailed, 10 is it not? 11 A Yes, I think so. ~ 12 Q Is there any reason why it would not have ~ 13 been appropriate to put in the same sort of detail on 14 dermatology and toxicology in that type of detail book 15 that was used in the UK? 16 A It wasn't needed. 17 Q So your answer then, if I understand it, is 18 that there just wasn't any circumstance under which the 19 detailed information of the type put out by the British 20 Monsanto people on PCBs was necessary. Correct? 21 MR. FREEMAN: I object to the form of the 22 question. You're misinterpreting what the doctor's 23 answer to the prior question was. 24 MR. LACEY: Well, let me ask it again so I 25 won't misinterpret it. HARTOLDMON0021550 460 1 Q Was there any circumstance in the United 2 Slates that would ever be appropriate to give as much 3 delail on the safe handling and toxicity of PCBs as was 4 given by the Monsanto group in the United Kingdom? 5 A I do not know if any of those circumstances 6 occurred, because I do not know of any histories of ill 7 effect in the electrical industry when they followed the 8 instructions we gave them. 9 Q Well, if you didn't have a history of ill 10 effect, you would not think then that there would ever 11 be the need in the United States for the same level of- 12 detail given in the United Kingdom. Correct? - 13 A That's correct. 14 Q Even in a very detailed document of the type 15 that Mr. Benignus wrote and that you have in front of 16 you now? 17 A Well, I don't know why it is detailed in 18 there. These details must be important from the 19 standpoint of -- of use. But the detail is not 20 important in the standpoint of protection, because we 21 protected people by that particular section. 22 Q Okay. And it was, in your mind, perfectly 23 adequate for that? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q Okay. HARTOLDMON0021551 461 1 I want to hand you a group of documents. And 2 what I'm interested in doing is not discussing the 3 substance of the documents with you but rather to find 4 out from you whether this group of documents were all 5 documents that would have been available to Monsanto at 6 or about the time of the date of the documents. Some of 7 them are reports that appear to have been done 8 specifically for Monsanto by people like Scientific 9 Associates, Younger Laboratories and others. Others 10 appear to be studies that I cannot directly link to 11 Monsanto. But let me just give you the documents and - 12 I'll reference them. ~ 13 The first one is 2593 through 2596. Is that 14 a document that would have been available to people at 15 Monsanto at or about the time of the date of the 16 document? 17 A I cannot answer that, because that is a 1934 18 and they deal with Swann Chemical Company. That was two 19 years before I came to work. 20 Q Okay. 21 A And it was also some time before Monsanto 22 took over Swann. 23 Q Would that document have been available to 24 you prior to 1940 at Monsanto? 25 A It might very well have been. I'm sure I saw HARTOLDMON0021552 462 1 Flynn's report sometime in my time at Monsanto, yes, 2 sir. 3 --Q Before your service in World War II? 4 A I don't know when I saw it. 5 Q I see. 6 Let me show you document 21745 through 21753 7 and ask if that would have been available to people at 8 Monsanto at or about the time of the document. 9 A Well, this has got two documents on it. 10 Q That's the way the document was provided to 11 me by Monsanto. - 12 A Well -- - 13 Q You may speak -- if you can't answer it as to 14 one and can as to the other, that's fine. 15 A This second one, 21750, is a report on the 16 chronic toxicity of three polychlorinated biphenyls in 17 albino rats. I do not see a date on it, but it was sent 18 to Dr. Levinsksas. So that would be sometime in the 19 Seventies, either before or after I left the company. 20 Q Okay. What about the earlier document? 21 A The earlier document is the program of a 22 symposium on chlorinated hydrocarbons that was held by 23 Drinker in June 1930 -- 1937. 24 Q 1930 or 1937? 25 A June 30th, 1937. It was available to HARTOLDMON0021553 463 1 Monsanto because I was at the symposium. 2 -Q Okay. 3 --A The third one is a truncated article with two 4 pages. I don't know how many pages are supposed to be 5 in the article. 6 Q I have no idea either. That's what was 7 provided to me by Monsanto. 8 A I don't know the date, but if they -- it 9 appears that it was 1936 in -- in the Archives of 10 Dermatology and Encephalology. And that would have been 11 available to Monsanto because of our interest in ~ 12 anything relating to chloracne. ~ 13 Q Okay. 14 A But that is not the complete document. 15 Q Okay. Again, that's what's been provided to 16 me. But the complete document would have been available 17 to Monsanto? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q At about the time it waspublished? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Let me next show you areport to Monsanto 22 dated September 15th, 1938, by Cecil Drinker, document 23 2846 through 2856. Would that have been available to 24 Monsanto at about the time the document is dated? 25 A Oh, yes. It was a report to us. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021554 464 1 Q Yes. 2 t Let me show you another document, also a 3 report to the Monsanto Chemical Company by Cecil 4 Drinker, dated September 15th, 1938, document 2857 5 through 2870. Would that have been available to you at 6 about the time the document was dated? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Let me show you another document by Mr. 9 Drinker, which was printed in The Journal of Industrial 10 Hygiene and Toxicology in May of 1939, document 21622 11 through 21722, and ask whether that document would have 12 been available to you at about the time of the date it13 was published. 14 A You've -- you've given meseveral different 15 articles in this one batch. 16 Q Well, can you separate them out for us? I'm 17 just again grouping the document the way it was 18 presented to me. But if we've got a problem, let's take 19 them one by one and get them sorted out. 20 A We certainly have a problem. 21 Q Okay. 22 A Because it starts off with Drinker's article 23 for May of 1939. 24 Q Would that have beenavailable to Monsanto at 25 or about the time it was published? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021555 465 1 A Yes, it would have, yes. 2 TQ Okay. 3 --A In fact, this is the article -- it's an 4 important article, because this shows that -- 5 Q Let me -- let me just suggest to you we're 6 trying to move as quickly as we can. I've got specific 7 questions 8 A Okay. Fine. That's an important article. 9 Then there's a metabolism -- 10 MR. LACEY: I'm going to object to the 11 responsiveness of that comment, but ----- - 12 A -- of chlorinated naphthalenes from The - 13 Journal of Biological Chemistry. Whether or not that 14 would come to the medical department I don't know. In 15 those years we did not subscribe -- I did not review The 16 Journal of Biological Chemistry. 17 MR. LACEY: Okay. 18 Q What other documents do you have there? 19 A A report to Monsanto Company by Drinker on 20 September 15th, 1938. That obviously came to us. 21 ... Q Okay. 22 A An article by people, plus Drinker, from 23 The Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. That 24 would -- dated 1938. That would have been available to 25 us. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021556 466 1 Q Okay. 2 tA Get back to thesymposiumon chlorinated 3 hydrocarbons. My answer to that is the same as the one 4 before. 5 Q Whatever happened there,it was available. 6 Correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Then we have a paper by Drinker again in June 9 of '37 that was available to us. 10 More discussion about the symposium in 11 September of '37. - 12 Q That would have beenavailable? ~ 13 A That was available. 14 And then a report on a preliminary report of 15 the dermatological and systemic effects of exposure to 16 hexachloranaphthalene and chlorodiphenyl by the 17 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That might very well have 18 not been available to us. We don't follow all the state 19 publications. 20 Q Okay.Does that complete that group? 21 A Yes, it does. 22 Q Let me hand you another document, dated 23 December 22nd, 1949, addressed to you, document 4050 and 24 4051. That would have been available about the time of 25 the document, would it not? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21557 467 1 A Yes. That was work we had done. 2 -Q Okay. 3 -- Next a report of February 19th, 1951, by 4 Scientific Associates,documents19337 and 338. 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q The next document,another report by 7 Scientific Associates, April 17th, 1951, 19339, 340. 8 Would that have been available about the time of the 9 document? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Let me hand you another document, dated July 12 14th, 1951, document 19341, 342. Would that have been- 13 available about the time? 14 A Yes, it would. 15 Q Let me hand you another document, dated March 16 11th, 1953, document 4074 through 4155, and ask whether 17 that would have been available to you at about the time 18 it was dated. 19 A Yes. This was work carried out by Kettering 20 Laboratory for Monsanto. 21 Q Okay. 22 Let me hand you a January 13th, 1954, 23 Scientific Associates document, 19381 through 386, and 24 ask if that would have been available to Monsanto at 25 about the time of the document. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021558 468 1 A That was available to Monsanto 2 tQ Another Scientific Associates document, 3 September 13th, 1954, 19279 through 284, and ask if that 4 would have been available to Monsanto at about the time 5 of the article. 6 A Yes, it would. 7 Q Another Scientific Associates document, 8 February 1st, 1955, 19343 through 19348. Would that 9 have been available to Monsanto at about the date of the 10 document? 11 A Yes, it would. - 12 Q Another Scientific Associates,February 3rd^ 13 1955, document 19447 through 19452. Would that have 14 been available about the date of the document? 15 A Yes, it would. 16 Q Another document, dated June 22nd, 1955, from 17 the Kettering Laboratory on the toxicity of the vapor of 18 aroclors 1252 and 1254, document 3778 through 3879. 19 Would that have been available to Monsanto at about the 20 date of the document? 21 A Yes, it would have. 22 Q Another document, entitledToxicity ofthe 23 Vapor of Aroclor 1242 and 1254, dated June 28, 1955, by 24 the Kettering Laboratory, document 3704 through 3777. 25 Would that have been available to Monsanto at about the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021559 469 1 date of the document? 2 7A Yes, it would have. 3 --Q Another document from the Kettering 4 Laboratory, dated July 5, 1955, entitled "The Toxicity 5 of a Mist Generated by the Aspiration of Pydraul," 6 document 19238 through 19253, and ask: Would that have 7 been available at about the date of the document? 8 A Well, this one I can't be sure of, because 9 they are talking about two products, one that's not 10 Monsanto's and one is Monsanto's. It does not say that 11 they sent it to Monsanto. I know we used it, but I --~ 12 I cannot be certain on this one. - 13 Q You don't know how or when that would have 14 come into Monsanto's files? 15 A It might very well have come into Monsanto's 16 file if this came from Monsanto's file. 17 Q I will represent to you that Monsanto has 18 produced that document to me from their files, or 19 represented that it comes from their files. 20 A If Monsanto said that came from their files, 21 I would accept the fact that it -- it was available to 22 Monsanto. 23 Q And it would have come into Monsanto's files 24 at about the time the study was done. Correct? 25 MR. CRAWFORD: If you know. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021560 470 1 A Presumably. I can't answer that definitely, 2 because I don't know. 3 -- MR. LACEY: 4 Q That work was done -- what chemical was it 5 that was a Monsanto chemical being evaluated in that 6 study? 7 A It was a Pydraul that was being evaluated 8 against a Potosaf 271, which is from a different 9 company, I don't know which company it is. And they 10 were testing both of them to see which -- which one 11 might be the more toxic or not. So I -- I can't be - 12 positive on it. ~ 13 Q Is that the sort of thing that you had done 14 from time to time, comparing your products to someone 15 else's products? 16 A Well, if someone else were using a product 17 and our marketing people said, "Look, we like your 18 product but we would like to know if it is the same 19 ballpark figure of toxicity," we would have gone ahead 20 and done it and compared it with the product. So I say 21 it could very well have been done work for Monsanto, but 22 I can't be positive, because it doesn't say it was sent 23 to Monsanto. 24 Q Well, did the other Kettering Laboratory 25 reports that you indicated were sent to Monsanto NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021561 471 1 actually say they had been sent there? 2 rA No. But I remember these. 3 --Q I see. 4 A And these are all Monsanto products, whereas 5 this has a product of a different company. 6 Q I see. 7 Was the Kettering Laboratory in the business 8 of doing work for a fee? 9 A The Kettering Laboratory, yes, of course. 10 They were not philanthropic. 11 Q So somebody paid them for that report and * 12 that work? '* 13 A Certainly somebody did. Kettering Laboratory 14 is a department of University of Cincinnati Medical 15 School. 16 Q Let me show you another document, a 17 Scientific Associates documented dated July 13th, 1955, 18 document 19289 through 19294, and ask if that was 19 available to Monsanto -- 20 A Yes. 21 Q -- at about the time of the document. 22 A Yes. 23 Q I'llshow you anotherdocument,a Scientific 24 Associates document dated September 26,1955, 19295 25 through 297, and ask if that was available to Monsanto NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21562 472 1 at about the time of the document. 2 tA Yes, it was. 3 Q I'll show youanother document, from Younger 4 Laboratory, dated August 3rd, 1956, Document No. 19453 5 through 19459, and ask if that was available to Monsanto 6 at about the time of the document. 7 A Yes. 8 Q I note that some ofthese documents have 9 things handwritten up in the left-hand corner with 10 letters and numbers and the like. What does that mean? 11 Do you know? I noted that on those Kettering reports -- 12 and I see it again on that one. - 13 A It must be the filing system that they use. 14 K for Kettering. I don't know what 54 means, whether 15 that is Aroclor 54 or the year *54. But it could be 16 because it's dated '55. Then 050, I don't know. It 17 must be the filing system that they used. 18 Q I see. And they would -- these reports would 19 come to the medical department, would they not? 20 A Yes. 21 Q The report there was some question about had 22 that same identification on it, did it not, the K for 23 Kettering indicating some type of filing system? 24 A May I see it? It looks like just -- it says 25 K 49. I can't answer that. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021563 473 1 Q It has the same type of numbering these other 2 Kettering reports do, doesn't it? 3 -- A The others are three numbers. K 54-050. 4 This is K just plain 49. I don't know. 5 Q I see. 6 Let me show you another Younger Laboratory 7 report, dated February 26th, 1957, document 19206 8 through 19215, and ask if that would have been available 9 to Monsanto at about the time of the document. 10 A Yes, it would. 11 Q Okay. ~ 12 Let me show you another document, a report of 13 the United States Department of the Interior on the 14 toxicity of certain chemicals, dated March 1957, 15 document 21547 through 21621, and ask if that would have 16 been available to Monsanto at about the time of the 17 document, date of the document. 18 A Well, here we have another half a dozen 19 reports in here. 20 Q I see. Okay. Well, do you want to sort 21 those out for us? 22 A The first one starts with toxicity of fish. 23 That is 021547. That could have been -- by the 24 Department of Interior. That could have been available 25 to Monsanto. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21564 474 1 Then we have 21550, Toxicity of Vapors of 2 Axoclor 1242 and 1254 which was available to Monsanto 3 hacause that was a publication of work done for 4 Monsanto. 5 Then we get a photostat of Frank Patty's 6 book. Department of Toxicology. That would have been 7 available to Monsanto. We had the book. 8 MR. LACEY: Okay. 9 MR. CRAWFORD: What's the date on that, 10 Doctor? 11 THE WITNESS: It's hard to say. There's a -- 12 handwritten second edition. It says approximately 1955. 13 But I don't know. 14 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: Then there's also in this same 16 one what appears to be a 1955 publication from the 17 National Institute of Health by von Oettingen. 18 MR. LACEY: 19 Q Would that have been available to Monsanto? 20 A It could have been in our library. 21 MR. FREEMAN: What's -- what's the 22 identifying number on that document. Dr. Kelly? 23 THE WITNESS: 21570. 24 Then we have a letter to me from Meigs. That 25 certainly was available. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021565 475 1 A letter back from me to Meigs. Certainly 2 available, 3 __ And his paper, which was available. 4 And then a copy of a 1949 edition of 5 Industrial Toxicology, which was also present in our 6 library. 7 MR. LACEY: 8 Q And so it would have been available? 9 A Yes. 10 Then there is an article in here by Frederick 11 Flynn on industrial exposure to chlorinated hydrocarborrs 12 that may have been available to us, I don't know. I 13 find it hard to -- to get the date on it, because in the 14 front it's penciled in 1946, but the references are '44 15 and '41. But it would be easy enough to find out. 16 Q Can you tell where that article appeared? 17 A Yes. American Journal of Medicine. 18 Q That was out of a periodical that you 19 reviewed -- 20 A Not the American Journal of Medicine. That 21 was not one of my common ones. 22 Q Okay. 23 A And then the other one was by Miller, public 24 health report dated 1944. That would have shown up when 25 I was in the service. I can't comment on when or where NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21566 476 1 that was available to Monsanto. 2 rQ Would it have been available to Monsanto 3 a-ter you came back from the service and tried to catch 4 up on the periodical literature relating to Monsanto 5 products? 6 A It would have been. 7 Q So by 1946 or '47 it would have been. 8 Correct? 9 A Correct. 10 Q Okay. 11 A Then there's the Schwartz paper in 1943. -- 12 Q Would that have been available to Monsanto at 13 least by the time of your return from the service in 14 your review of literature? 15 A I wouldbelieve so. 16 Then Greenburg's paper in 1939. That would 17 have been available to Monsanto. 18 That's it. 19 Q Did youreview the journal Industrial 20 Medicine in connection with your literature review at 21 Monsanto? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And did you catch up on any wartime issues of 24 that, when you came back to Monsanto, as it related to 25 Monsanto products? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0021567 477 1 A I can't remember. But we -- we were still 2 subscribing to it, so I'm sure I looked through the 3 index to see what was happening. 4 Q You actually had that as a periodical you 5 received on a regular basis in your library? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q And that receipt continued throughout the war 8 years? 9 A To the best of my recollection. 10 Q Okay. 11 Let me show you a document dated July 9th, -- 12 1957, from Younger Laboratories, 19353 through 19355, ~ 13 and ask if that was available at about the date of the 14 document. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Another Younger Laboratories report, February 17 22nd, 1958, 19314 through 19320, and ask if that was 18 available at about the date of the document. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Another Younger Laboratories report, dated 21 September 29th, 1958, document 19298 through 19305, and 22 ask if that was available to Monsanto at about the date 23 of the document. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Another Younger Laboratories report, dated NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021568 478 1 October 20th, 1958, 19460 through 19463, and I'd ask if 2 that was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 3 dooument. 4 A Yes, it was. 5 Q Another Monsanto -- I'm sorry. Another 6 Younger Laboratories document, dated December 8th, 1958, 7 document 19321 through 19328. I'd ask if that was 8 available to Monsanto at about the date of the document. 9 A Yes. 10 Q Another Younger Laboratories report, dated 11 June 6, 1962, document 3974 through 3977, ask if that -- 12 was available to Monsanto at about the date of the - 13 document. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Another Younger Laboratories report, dated 16 June 13th, 1962, document 4156 through 4159, and ask if 17 that was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 18 document. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated June 21 19th, 1962, document 4070 through 4073, and I'd ask if 22 that was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 23 document. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated June NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21569 480 1 25th, 1962, document 2589 through 2592, and ask if that 2 was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 3 document. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated July 6 9th, 1962, document 2601 through 2604, and ask if that 7 was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 8 document. 9 A Yes. 10 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated July 11 17th, 1962, document 19349 through 19352, and I'd ask -if 12 that was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 13 document. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Let me ask you, there are a lot of Younger 16 Laboratory reports here bunched together, is there some 17 reason you had a big group of work done there in the 18 1962 time frame? 19 A I can't remember. I don't know why we did, 20 whether there were freight classifications had changed 21 at that time. These were all acute studies. So that I 22 don't know why we did it. But there would be reasons 23 similar. We may have had to reclassify them as far as 24 freight is concerned or something, I don't know. 25 Q Okay. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021570 481 1 I have another Younger Laboratory report, 2 dated March 4th, 1963, document 2564 through 2571. 3 Would that have been available to Monsanto at about the 4 date of the document? 5 A Yes, it was. 6 Q Another YoungerLaboratory report,March 4th, 7 1963, 19260 through 19267. Was that available to 8 Monsanto at about the date of the report? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Another report toMonsanto, datedMarch 28th, 11 1963, by Industrial Biotest, document 2892 through 2909, 12 and ask if that was available to Monsanto at about the13 date of the document. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Another Industrial Biotest report, dated 16 March 29th, 1963, document 2875 through 2891, and ask if 17 that was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 18 report. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Another Industrial Biotest report, dated 21 March 27th, 1963, document 3928 through 3943. I'd ask 22 if that was available to Monsanto at about the date of 23 the report. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Another Industrial Biotest report, dated NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21571 483 1 June 13th, 1964, document 19140 through 19147, ask if 2 tfiat was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 3 r-epor t. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated July 6 20th, 1964, 19363 through 19380. I would ask if that 7 was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 8 report. 9 A Yes. 10 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated 11 August 11th, 1964, document 19216 through 19223. I'd 12 ask if that was available to Monsanto at about the datn 13 of the report. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated 16 November 12th, 1964, document 19148 through 19155. I'd 17 ask if that was available to Monsanto at about the date 18 of the report. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated 21 January 10th, 1966, document 19156 through 19164. I'd 22 ask if that was available to Monsanto at about the date 23 of the report. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021572 485 1 November 19th, 1966, document 19275 through 19278, ask 2 irf that was available to Monsanto at about the date of 3 the report. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated 6 November 9th, 1966, document 19310 through 19313, ask if 7 that was available to Monsanto at about the date of the 8 report. 9 A Yes. 10 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated 11 November 19th, 1966, document 19306 through 19309, ask12 if that was available to Monsanto at about the date of13 the report. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated 16 November 9th, 1966, document 19165 through 19168. I'd 17 ask if that was available to Monsanto at about the date 18 of the report. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Another Younger Laboratory document, dated 21 November -- I'm sorry, dated October 13th, 1967, 22 document 19169 through 19176, ask if that was available 23 to Monsanto at about the date of the report. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Another Younger Laboratory report, dated NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21573 487 1 that book. 2 :Q Okay. 3 -- A December '58. That was in there. 4 Q Okay. And what document number does that 5 begin at? 6 A 21538. 7 Q Through -- 8 A Through 546. 21546. 9 MR. LACEY: Okay. 10 MR. CRAWFORD: David, we're going to need to 11 shut it down here pretty quick. I was thinking about - 12 some way to streamline this stuff you're doing right 13 now. Maybe you could give me the other documents that 14 you want dated and maybe we could just write you a 15 letter and agree that we had them on that date. Would 16 that do it? That may streamline -- 17 MR. LACEY: Well, if we can do that for these 18 reports, that will be fine. We've got quite a few that 19 we've got to get identified and established from this 20 man that they were available for Monsanto. So if the 21 information contained in them were part of the 22 information base that Monsanto had -- 23 MR. CRAWFORD: Let me suggest that if you 24 could give us the numbers of the documents and tell us 25 what you want that we might be able to do that without NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021574 490 1 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS 2 3 -- I, R. Emmet Kelly, M.D., solemnly swear or 4 affirm, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that 5 the foregoing 489 pages contain a true and correct 6 transcript of the testimony given by me at the time and 7 place stated, with the corrections, if any, and the 8 reasons therefor noted on a separate sheet of paper and 9 attached hereto, and that I am signing this before a 10 Notary Public. 11 12 13 14 R. Emmet Kelly, M.D. 15 16 THE STATE OF ] 17 18 Subscribed and sworn to before me, the 19 undersigned authority, by the said R. Emmet Kelly, M.D. 20 on this the day of , 1987. 21 22 23 24 Notary Public in and for 25 the State of NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ21575 491 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS] 2: CERTIFICATE 3 __ I, Jerry Kelley, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter, hereby certify that the foregoing testimony 5 was given before me after the witness had been duly 6 sworn. 7 I further certify that the foregoing is a 8 true and correct copy of the transcript of the 9 proceedings. 10 I further certify that I am neither 11 attorney for, related to nor employed by any of the -- 12 parties or any attorney of record in this cause, nor do 13 I have a financial interest in the matter. 14 Witness my hand in Houston, Texas, on May 15 1, 1987. 16 17 18 19 20 Jerry Kelley, Texas CSR 2004* 21 2900 Smith, Suite 104 22 Houston, Texas 77006 23 713/523-3767 24 *My Certificate Expires 25 December 31, 1988 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0021576