Document 4GBaX3G8pJ0rqX7j8jxLjpka

COPY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI 4^ (V* fitvO JUDITH and STEPHEN BECHTOLD, Plaintiffs, ) ) V vs. ) ) Cause No. 862-00694 MONSANTO COMPANY and WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC ) ) Division No. 1 CORPORATION, Defendants, I DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. Taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs May 18, 1994 L.A.I. REPORTING 45 GAMLIN DRIVE FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS 1-800-289-7812 62208 TOWOLDMONOQ55012 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI JUDITH and STEPHEN BECHTOLD, Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY and WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No. 862-00694 Division No. 1 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E., produced, sworn, and examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs, May 18, 1994, between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon of that day, at the offices of Wilburn, Suggs & Watkins, 1221 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63103, before VICTORIA MENAUGH FAUSER, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and a Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri. APPEARANCES The Plaintiffs was represented by Joseph A. Race and C. Joseph Murray of the Muray Law Firm, 650 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. The Defendant Monsanto Company was represented by Carol A. Rutter of the law offices of Husch & Eppenberger, 100 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. The Defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation was represented by Richard A. Wunderlich of the law offices of Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, 8182 Maryland Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63105. TOWOLDMONOQ55013 3 1 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between 3 Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the Defendants, 4 that this deposition may be taken in shorthand byVICTORIA 5 MENAUGH FAUSER, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary 6 Public, and afterwards transcribed into typewriting and signed 7 by the witness. 8 9 oOo 10 11 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E., 12 13 of lawful age, being produced, sworn and examined on the 14 part of Plaintiffs, deposes and says: 15 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION 17 QUESTIONS BY MR. RACE: 18 Q. Could you state your name for the record, please? 19 A. William B. Papageorge. 20 MR. RACE: For purposes of this deposition, I 21 want the record to reflect that we had originally scheduled a 22 corporate deposition of Monsanto. Counsel for Monsanto 23 indicated that he would file and did in fact file a protective 24 order. In an attempt to circumvent that impasse we agreed to 25 go forward with the deposition of Mr. Papageorge with the hope TOWOLDMONOQ55014 4 1 that subsequent to this deposition we can reformulate a 2 corporate deposition premised on perhaps Mr. Papageorge's 3 independent recollection of events, how much he'll need 4 documentation, whether he can answer this without 5 documentation and if we can explore his background which may 6 provide us with an opportunity to reformulate a notice of 7 deposition which would be mutually agreeable to the parties 8 without requiring intervention of court. Okay? 9 MS. SUTTER: For the record, I would state that 10 there has been a lot of correspondence that has been exchanged 11 between counsel on this topic. It is true that a very broad 12 corporate designation notice was filed by Plaintiffs, that a 13 motion for protective order was filed by Monsanto, an argument 14 date was set and then Counsel discussed the matter and as a 15 result of that discussion Mr. Papageorge is here in his 16 personal capacity and it is my understanding that Counsel 17 intends to take this deposition and then perhaps reformulate 18 and narrow the deposition notice as you deem fit. 19 MR. RACE: Okay. 20 MS. SUTTER: Within the parameters permitted by 21 the Case Management Order in this case. . 22 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Mr. Papageorge, by whom are you 23 employed presently? 24 A. Presently I consider myself self-employed. 25 Q. Okay. And you do consulting work/ correct? TOWOLDMONOQ55015 5 A. Yes. Q. And you're consulting for Monsanto? A. That's one of the clients. Q. Do you consult for anyone other than Monsanto? A. On occasion, yes. Q. In what capacity do you consult for Monsanto? A. I consult with Monsanto on matters pertaining to PCBs as they occurred in the period of time prior to 1976. Q. And your consultation with Monsanto is in the context of PCB litigation; is that correct? A. Primarily, yes. Q. Is there any non-PCB litigation? A. No. Q. Okay. Just a couple of ground rules here. I known you've given a multitude of depositions, but if you do not understand any of my questions, please ask me to repeat them or rephrase them, because I will assume that your responses are answering my questions, okay? A. I'll try. Q. Okay. Secondly, and occasionally this occurs where the witness attempts to answer the question before the question is completed, conversely attorneys try to ask the questions before answers are completed. Why don't we give ourselves a fair shake on this one and you wait until I'm finished and I'll wait until you're finished. Okay? TOWOLDMONOQ55016 6 1 A. Fine. 2 Q. Now, you said you're a consultant. In what 3 capacity -- excuse me. What do you charge per hour? 4 A. A hundred twenty-five dollars an hour. 5 Q. Okay. When working at -- let's go back to this. 6 How long have you been a consultant for Monsanto? 7 A. Since the beginning of 1987. 8 Q. And that's continuously through present? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. How much do you derive on an annual basis from 11 your consulting work with Monsanto? 12 A. A hundred twothousanddollars. 13 Q. That's$102,000 fromthe period 1987 to present 14 or is that annual? 15 A. That's annual. 16 Q. Okay. Now, how many hours per week or per year, 17 can you give me an idea of how often you're doing the 18 consulting? 19 A. I've never kept score. It varies. 20 Q. Let me ask you this way: Does your income or 21 does your salary with Monsanto vary based on the work you do 22 or is that a flat rate? 23 A. Our agreement consists of two features: There is 24 the hourly rate I mentioned and then there is a retainer per 25 month and if the hours I devote to this activity exceed the TOWOLDMONOQ55017 7 1 multiplication of the 125 times the hour, if they exceed the 2 monthly retainer I am paid the difference. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. And that 125 is really the retaining amount. 5 Q. Okay. Have you exceeded that hourly rate then? 6 A. I did one year. I can't recall just which year 7 it was. 8 Q. Can you give me an idea of how many litigations 9 you have testified in? 10 A. In trials or -- 11 Q. Yes. Or how many -- 12 A. Depositions? 13 Q. Let me rephrase the question. How many cases 14 have you been involved in since your retention by Monsanto in 15 the capacity as a consultant? 16 A. I have not kept a record. It's going to be a 17 best guess. 18 Q. Fine. 19 A. About a dozen. 20 Q. Okay. And each of those 12 cases involved PCBs? 21 A. Yes. , 22 Q. During any of those cases have you been 23 designated as a corporate representative for purposes of 24 deposition or trial? 25 A. Yes. TOWOLDMONOQ55018 8 Q. With respect to purposes of the deposition, have you been assigned any area with respect to corporate depositions? MS. SUTTER: Objection to the overbroad and vague form of the question. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Subject to the objection, do you understand the question? A. I believe I do. Q. Okay. A. assigned. I don't know any specific area that I was m6 It seemed to we covered topics that in my mind or my understanding involve different kinds of activities. Q. Okay. Then let's go to -- back to when you were last employed by Monsanto, and that was 1980 what? A. The end of 1986 was my last working day. Q. So you started as a consultant immediately upon your retirement? A. I think I had a three- or four-month period there before I heard from Monsanto. Q. Okay. What was your capacity at the time PCBs were manufactured by Monsanto? . MS. SUTTER: I would object to the overbroad form of the question, but you may answer if you understand. A. It would be all the positions I held within Monsanto from the year 1951 until I retired in 1986. TOWOLDMONOQ55019 Q. Okay. How many of those are there? A. Ten, twelve. q. Okay. Can you give me axi idea of -- first of all, what's your educational background? A. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in chemical engineering from Washington University in St. Louis which I received in 1943. I have -- Q. And a Master's of Science in chemical engineering; correct? A. I was going to add that. I mentioned the Bachelor's and I have a Master's of Science from the same institution in 1947. Q. And when originally employed by Monsanto that was in what capacity? A. I was a process engineer in the plant engineering department. Q. Can you generally describe the areas to which you were assigned? A. Yes, I can. It involved -- half of my career involved work in plants that manufactured chemicals. In those plants I held positions in engineering departments, in. maintenance departments and in production departments. Q. When did you first become involved with PCBs? A. In about 1957 or so I was in charge of a group of maintenance personnel that in turn were involved with the TOWOLDMON0055020 10 occasional installation of electrical equipment which included . PCBs Q. Okay. Can you describe in broad terms, and I cut you off, perhaps I did, what your involvement with PCB was from the maintenance supervisor through your retirement? A. All right. I was a superintendent at a plant to which the utilities department reported. Now, utilities is that department that concerned itself with electricity, steam, water and the like, and there I was involved with PCBs in their use in the electrical equipment in the electrical distribution system of the plant. Also when I held that superintendency I had a unit that blended chemicals and some of the blending involved the use of PCBs in the mixture that ended up in the product. That was about 1963. In 1964 as a general manufacturing superintendent I was involved with PCBs in that they were present in equipment used in the manufacturing process, such as in air compressors and in heat transfer systems that were operated by the people reporting to my group. I forgot to mention that there was a period of time in about 1957, '58 when I was a superintendent of maintenance to which the mechanics in the plant, the maintenance people reported and they of course were involved with all matters of equipment that contained PCBs, whether they are in electrical equipment, heat transfer systems, machinery like compressors. Then in 1965 I was appointed the manager at the plant in TOWOLDMONOQ55021 11 Anniston, Alabama where PCBs were manufactured, so there of course I had a broader involvement; manufactured the packaging, the distribution. That I think describes my involvement with PCBs in the physical sense. Q. Okay. A. Following that I was involved with PCBs in sort of the information gathering, communications, regulatory sense. Q. And that started approximately the late sixties, early seventies? A. That was started January 1st, 1970 when I got involved with the PCBs as an environmental issue. Q. Now, I'm going to ask you about some general areas, we can get into them more specifically later, but I'm trying to decide where you have previously testified and in what areas you feel you have expertise to testify or in the past on behalf of Monsanto. Okay? A. Fine. Q. The chemical composition of PCBs in the products sold by Monsanto, to include Inerteen, have you previously testified and have knowledge about that area? . A. I have testified. I believe I have some knowledge. Q. Some knowledge. Is there somebody in Monsanto who has more knowledge? TOWOLDMONOQ55022 12 MS. SUTTER: Objection. Calls for speculation and conjecture. A. I was trying to think. I just can't put myself in the heads of other people. Q. (BY MR. RACE) That's true. A. I think I'm conversant with the kinds of things that would be described in talking of these chemicals. Q. Okay. So you have addressed the areas of, as a represent -- now, all these questions I'm asking you now is when you have testified on behalf of Monsanto in the capacity of a designated corporate representative. Okay? A. Yes, I understand. MS. SUTTER: Well, for the record, that was not made clear previously. You're now saying that that is what you're doing. Q. (BY MR. RACE) If I have not made that clear I'm glad I'm doing so. Okay. The chemical compositions of PCBs and related products, have you testified about that area? MS. SUTTER: As a corporate designee? MR. RACE: I said all these questions until I say they do not do, otherwise I'm going to have to repeat that. So does that create a problem for you, Carol? MS. SUTTER: I think that's a confusing way to do it, but you've said what you are doing. A. I am having some difficulty because of the many TOWOLDMONOQ55023 13 1 times I've testified distinguishing or recalling when the -- 2 the situations when I was asked to describe the chemical 3 compositions of these materials as the corporate 4 representative - as distinguished from my personal 5 involvement. 6 Q. Okay. That would be the case in any question I 7 would phrase in that way; correct? 8 MS. SUTTER: Objection. Calls for speculation. 9 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Subject to the objection. 10 A. I believe so, yes. - 11 Q. Let's make it easy on both of us: When you 12 testified in this PCB litigation -- let's broaden the 13 question. Have you testified concerning the chemical 14 composition? 15 A. I have. 16 Q. Okay. Have you testified about the toxicity of 17 PCBs? 18 A. I have -- yes, I have been involved with 19 questions and attempted to respond to those questions relating 20 to toxicity, yes. 21 Q. Would you defer to anybody else at Monsanto for 22 answering those types of questions on toxicity? 23 A. Certainly. 24 Q. Who would that be? Dr. Kelly, for example? 25 A. Dr. Kelly. TOWOLDMONOQ55024 14 1 Q. with respect to the chemical compositions, you 2 feel asthough you could accurately represent Monsanto as to 3 what are contained in the products? 4 A. It depends on the detail of the explanation that 5 you're looking for. If you want someone to describe exactly 6 which of the isomers are present and what other materials are 7 present in this Inerteen mixture, for example, that would take 8 someone who has analytical chemistry expertise that I 9 personally do not have. 10 Q. That would be someone like Dr. Kaley? 11 A. Dr. Keller is certainly one of those individuals. 12 MS. SUTTER: I think he said Kaley and he 13 responded with Keller, just so -- 14 A. Well, Dr. Kaley is also knowledgeable. 15 Q. (BY MR. RACE) With respect to -- Strike that. 16 Have you testified with respect to the animal and human 17 studies conducted on behalf of Monsanto? 18 MS. SUTTER: Object to the compound form of the 19 question. 20 A. I have responded to questions with answers that I 21 would call a layman's understanding of the situation as 22 coached by medical experts and toxicologists. 23 Q. Do you have knowledge concerning which tests were 24 done on behalf of Monsanto? 25 A. I understand the studies -- that some studies TOWOLDMONOQ55025 15 were made using animals. Q. Okay. A. I have no information whatever relating to human studies. Q. Okay. Have you ever reviewed records by --- Monsanto records regarding the number of studies that were conducted and the types of studies that were conducted? A. I have been privileged to review documents that reflected the results of studies. Q. Okay. A. Which speak of records. I -- I don't know exactly what you mean by that. Q. Records or documents. I'm just saying documents. Excuse me. A. I have seen reports from laboratories describing the tests and the results of the tests. Q. Okay. And those documents help refresh your mind as you sit here today? A. certainly. Q. Okay. And you have not had the benefit of reviewing any documents prior to this deposition in . preparation for this deposition; is that correct? A. I have reviewed a few documents. Q. You have? A. Uh-huh. (Yes) TOWOLDMONOQ55026 16 1 Q. What documents have you reviewed for this 2 deposition; do you recall? 3 A. I'm trying to remember. About a dozen at the 4 most. 5 Q. What are the nature of those documents? 6 A. I've seen these documents so often I can't place 7 them in time and to which case they involve. I recall some 8 Monsanto memoranda. I recall some correspondence between 9 Monsanto and Westinghouse. I recall excerpts of minutes of 10 meetings of Monsanto corporate committees. I recall a summary 11 of minutes of a meeting of a committee that I chaired relating 12 to the proper use of PCBs in electrical eguipment. That's all 13 that comes to mind at the moment. 14 Q. When did you review those documents? 15 A. I'm trying to recall when we -- certainly last 16 Monday. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. And there was a day prior to that, we looked at a 19 couple, three. It was a week before that. I don't remember 20 which day. And this morning a couple of them. 21 Q. Had you previously prepared to give a deposition 22 as a corporate representative in this case, this being the 23 Bechtold case? 24 A. Not that I was aware of. 25 Q. Okay. And those documents helped refresh your TOWOLDMONOQ55027 17 1 recollection of events that occurred over the past 30 years? 2 MS. SUTTER: Objection. 3 A. That's always the way, sir. 4 MR. RACE: I called for the production of those 5 documents. 6 MS. SUTTER: Counsel, for the record, you 7 produced a stack of documents to our office and I -- he's 8 testified to a dozen.I don't know if thedozen can be 9 windowed out of that set, but we willattempt to do so. 10 MR. RACE: I would appreciate that, if I could. 11 Were there any documents that he reviewed that were not 12 contained in that set? 13 MS. SUTTER: I don't know. 14 MR. RACE: Who would know? 15 MS. SUTTER: No. (Shakes Head) 16 MR. RACE: You don't know what your witness 17 reviewed? 18 MS. SUTTER: He reviewed documents that you 19 produced. 20 MR. RACE: Okay. And my question was did he 21 review any documents that I did not produce and you said you 22 don't know. That's fine. I mean, I'm not going to fight you 23 on this. That's fine. 24 MS. SUTTER: It's not my deposition. I'm not 25 being deposed, Joseph. I will cooperate with you in the TOWOLDMONOQ55028 18 1 manner in which I said I would cooperate with you before. 2 MR. WUNDERLICH: When were these documents 3 produced? 4 MR. RACE: These were my response to 5 interrogatories that were Fed Ex'd to you. 6 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Have you testified with respect to 7 indemnity agreements specifically between Monsanto and 8 Westinghouse? 9 A. I have answered to questions raised in that area, 10 yes. 11 Q. Once again, would you defer to anybody else with 12 respect to that from Monsanto? 13 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the vague form of the 14 question. 15 A. Yes, I would suggest that a person like Mr. 16 Gossage was a lot closer to it than I certainly was. 17 Q. Let me back up again. With respect to toxicity, 18 it was -- Strike that. With respect to the chemical 19 composition, it was Dr. Keller or Dr. Kaley, is that correct, 20 who you would defer to? 21 A. Yes, Dr. Keller is Dr. Kaley's supervisor, so they 22 both belong to the same team. 23 Q. With respect totoxicity? 24 A. Toxicity,I would go to Dr. Kelly. 25 Q. Kelly? TOWOLDMONOQ55029 19 A. Kelly. Q. Okay. The tests performed by Monsanto, which tests were performed by Monsanto, once again that would be Dr. Kelly? A. Yes. Q. Indemnity, you have knowledge about the indemnity agreements; is that correct? A. I do. Q. And you have testified as a corporate representative with respect to indemnity agreements? A. Yes, I believe I have. Q. With respect to lawsuits, you have previously testified, as you have today, in lawsuits in which Monsanto was involved in; correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. With respect to contamination in dioxin? MS. SUTTER: In dioxin? Q. (BY MR. RACE) Excuse me. With respect to contaminates in PCB. MS. SUTTER: Just so your question is clear, your questions relate to has he ever testified -- . MR. RACE: On behalf of Monsanto. MS. SUTTER: You're not limiting this as to corporate designee? MR. RACE: No. TOWOLDMON0055030 20 A. I don't recall testifying relating to contaminates in PCBs as a corporate representative. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Have you done so in any deposition? A. In deposition regarding my personal knowledge, yes, I have tried to respond to the questions. Q. Have you testified with respect to warnings provided by Monsanto with respect to the use and potential dangers of PCBs? A. I've testified many times on that subject. I believe I testified as a corporate representative. Q. With respect to warnings, is that an area in which you require or would benefit from having documentation in front of you before testifying or is it -- A. That's always the case, sir. Q. So with each of these areas you feel more comfortable -- is it a fair statement you feel more comfortable having documentation in front of you while testifying? MS. SUTTER: Objection. I object to the incredibly overbroad and vague form of the question. We've been in the deposition now for 40 minutes and I think the question is far too broad. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Can you answer? A. Generally a document that's appropriate to the TOWOLDMONOQ55031 21 1 subject being discussed does help recall some details that my 2 memory may have failed me on. . 3 Q. Okay. Are there any areas in which you feel 4 comfortable testifying that would not require or be assisted 5 by having a document in front of you? 6 MS. SUTTER: Objection. That's incredibly broad 7 and over vague. It's far too broad and over vague. As 8 phrased I don't see how it's capable of being responded to. 9 A. I don't quite know how to respond to your 10 question. I can respond to questions as best my memory can 11 help me. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. Sometimes it's very, very vivid. The use of a 14 document is just a -- an additional assistance in recalling 15 the specifics that -- the detail that might or might not be 16 significant. 17 Q. Okay. You have testified with respect to 18 Monsanto's involvement with government regulations of PCB? 19 A. I have. 20 Q. You've testified with respect to the IBT studies? 21 A. I have responded to questions concerning IBT 22 studies, yes. 23 Q. Have you testified with respect to the 24 precautions installed by Monsanto with respect to their own 25 personnel and safety of their own personnel? TOWOLDMONOQ55032 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Okay. Have you testified about alternatives to PCBs, the development of alternatives? A. The development? To a limited degree, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Have you testified as to comparison of European versus American PCBs? A. Yes, in a limited area relating to those materials, yes. Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge or -- strike that. Have you testified with respect to any threats of lawsuits by Westinghouse, General Electric or any other purchaser of PCBs which may result from -- which could have resulted from Monsanto's unilateral decision to stop supplying PCBs prior to the date upon -- prior to 1977? A. I believe I've testified on that, but as a personal piece of information, not with the corporate representation, no. MS. SUTTER: Mr. Papageorge, it's my understanding, and Joseph, please correct me if I'm not correct, when you're asking him these questions you're asking him if he's testified ever on the topic, you're not limiting it to a corporate designee. A. I misunderstood. I thought we were still on the corporate designee on all ofthese. Q. (BY MR. RACE) No. Does it change -- well. TOWOLDMONOQ55033 23 1 you've just testified that you have in fact given testimony in 2 each of these areas? 3 A. Yes, I have. 4 Q. And now you're telling me each area that you've 5 responded that you've given testimony in these areas that when 6 you've responded yes you're indicating that you have done so 7 as a corporate representative; is that correct? 8 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the form of the 9 question. I think you're mischaracterizing his testimony. 10 A. When the question was asked of me I assumed going 11 back where we talked about as a corporate representative I 12 tried to respond with a definite yes as a corporate 13 representative. If I didn't answer as a corporate 14 representative I tried to make that distinction in my 15 response. 16 Q. Okay. So I can assume reading this transcript 17 that any time you said "yes, I testified," that would be as a 18 corporate representative unless you specifically denote that I 19 did so from a personal capacity; is that correct? 20 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the form of the 21 question. It is unfair based on the prior exchanges that have 22 gone on. You made one set of rules, Mr. Race, and then you 23 changed them in midstream. I objected at the outset that this 24 was a very confusing manner to conduct this questioning. The 25 transcript will reflect at one point in time you made one set TOWOLDMONOQ55034 24 of rules and at one point you made a set second set of rules and at one point in time you asked about corporate representatives when you stopped asking about that, so to try to get a generalization is grossly unfair. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Can you give me a general? A. At this time I find myself somewhat confused. Q. I apologize. I wasn't sure how to do it at the outset. But the areas that we have talked about you have testified either as a personal capacity or as a corporate representative; is that a fair statement? A. Yes, and I also mentioned others were better qualified to respond than I am. Q. Just for the completeness of the record, each of the areas which we mentioned that you have testified on, records would assist you in the accuracy and completeness of your testimony; is that correct? MS. SUTTER: Objection, Asked and answered and mischaracterizes prior testimony. A. Documents on occasion are helpful depending on the amount of detail that's suggested in the question. There are many areas where my recall is quite good and I can. respond without the document. There are areas where some points of that question I just -- it doesn't come to mind quickly and a document helps. Q. Okay. TOWOLDMONOQ55035 25 1 (WHEREUPON A BRIEF RECESS WAS HELD) 2 Q. (BY MR. RACE) At what point did Monsanto first 3 know that PCBs were contaminated with furans? 4 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the overbroad form of 5 the question. 6 A. Early -- well, at -- 7 MR. RACE: Counsel, for the record, what is wrong 8 with overbroad that is to form? Just take note that every 9 deposition I've given you or Tom are on every page and it must 10 be because my questions are all overbroad or poorly phrased. 11 Maybe you can enlighten me or maybe you want to be on every 12 page, I'm not sure. 13 MS. SUTTER: I am attempting -- let me attempt to 14 respond to make my objection as to form more specific, yet I 15 am trying very hard not to give -- make speeches and to keep 16 my objections succinct. I think that stating PCBs without 17 qualifying whose PCBs they are make the question overbroad as 18 to form. 19 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Okay. The question stands. Can 20 you give me an answer, please? 21 A. Would you 22 Q. At what time did Monsanto know that PCBs were 23 contaminated with furans? 24 A. In early 1970 Monsanto was informed by research 25 scientists in Europe. TOWOLDMONOQ55036 26 1 Holland in specific, and it was Dr. Vos; is that 2 correct? 3 A. That's correct. 4 MS. SUTTER: Could you allow the witness to 5 finish his answer, please? 6 A. That group under direction of Dr. Vos had 7 determined the presence of furans in PCB industrial materials 8 manufactured by European companies but he did not find it in 9 samples of material obtained from Monsanto's unit out of the 10 United Kingdom. 11 Q. Okay. Did Monsanto U.s. send Dr. Vos any samples 12 of PCBs manufactured here in the United States? 13 A. Eventually, yes. 14 Q. And eventually is when? : . 15 A. Oh, between the period 1970 and 1974 or so. 16 Q. Somewhere between -- as early as 1970 or as late 17 as 1974? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you recall specifically when, more 20 specifically when? ' 21 A. No, I don't. 22 Q. Do you know anybody at Monsanto that does? 23 A. I certainly can't put myself in somebody else's 24 head as to what they recall, but Dr. Keller would have been 25 the person that I would consult with. TOWOLDMONOQ55037 27 1 Q. in fact. Dr. Keller conversed -- conveyed the 2 findings to you; is that correct? The Vos findings? 3 A. Well, the initial findings came out of Monsanto's 4 European representatives and these findings were not specific 5 in terms of amounts and which manufacturer's product was 6 tested and so on until Monsanto people, including me, went to 7 the laboratory in the Netherlands and talked with Dr. Vos and 8 his team, and that's when to the best of my knowledge we got 9 more specific numbers as to amounts of the furans found. 10 Q. Okay. And do you recall what the contamination 11 levels were? 12 A. No, I don't. It's been over two decades. 1 13 Q. When Monsanto sent the furans to Dr. Vos -- 14 excuse me. Strike that. When Monsanto sent the PCBs, the 15 U.S. PCBs to Dr. Vos in Holland and they were examined, did 16 Dr. Vos substantiate that there were furan contamination in 17 Monsanto U.S. PCBs? 18 A. He did not. 19 Q. When was it first learned that contamination was 20 in Monsanto's U.S.-producedPCBs? 21 A. The initial report that Monsanto received.came 22 from the Food and Drug Administration laboratories in the 23 United States, but that initial report was one of skepticism 24 on the part of the FDA chemists as to were they really seeing 25 the furans or were they misinterpreting their results. This TOWOLDMONOQ55038 28 1 was in 1975, as best I recall, early '75. 2 Q. Okay. Did they suspect that -- Strike that. So 3 in 1975 it was established that furans were in Monsanto PCBs; 4 correct? 5 A. In 1975 at a national meeting held on PCBs in 6 Chicago the Food and Drug Administration went on record as 7 having identified the furans in Monsanto-produced PCBs but 8 only as I recall two of the commercial mixtures that were 9 sold, not the third one. 10 Q. Do you know -- do you recall which two mixtures? 11 A. The mixture referred to by Monsanto is Aroclor 12 1242 and Aroclor 1254. 13 Q. When did Monsanto start making Aroclor 1242? 14 A. Well, Monsanto purchased a company that made the 15 1242 type of PCB in 1935, so that's Monsanto's first 16 involvement. , 17 Q. Okay. Was the manufacturing process altered from 18 1935 to 1970? 19 A. Not significantly. 20 Q. Okay. Did Monsantosuspect by any means that 21 furans were in PCBs prior to 1970? . 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. If furans were found in polychlorinated 24 naphthalenes, would that lead you to suspect that furans may 25 also be present in polychlorinated biphenyls? TOWOLDMONOQ55039 29 1 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the overbroad and vague 2 form of the question. 3 A. Oh, that's -- that would amount to scientific 4 speculation. There are chlorinations of the processes, but 5 not knowing --. I don't know the process -which chlorinated 6 naphthalene is made so I really don't know. 7 Q. Does the manufacturing process of trichlorophenol 8 parallel the chemistry of polychlorinated biphenyl? 9 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the confusing form of 10 the question. 11 A. I'm having difficulty with your use of the word 12 parallel. I don't know quite how to define that in my own 13 thinking. There are of course organic chemicals involved and 14 then there is chlorine involved. Other than that I don't know 15 of any other parallelism. 16 Q. Is Dr. Keller still alive, to your knowledge? 17 A. Keller? 18 Q. Keller. 19 A. As far as I know, yes, sir. 20 Q. Okay. Wheeler is now deceased? 21 A. Yes. . 22 Q. Prior to 1970 was Monsanto aware that furans and 23 dioxins could be produced during the manufacture of 24 trichlorophenols? 25 A. I don't know that. TOWOLDMON0055040 30 1 Q. Is it not true that dioxin can be produced with 2 partial oxidation of chlorobenzenes? 3 MS. SUTTER: Could you repeat that, please, 4 Counsel? 5 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Is it true that dioxins can be 6 produced by partial oxidation of chlorobenzenes? 7 A. That is my understanding. 8 Q. Okay. And chlorobenzenes are added to PCBs in 9 transformer application; correct? 10 A. Some transformer applications, yes. 11 Q. And that's the Aroclor 1254; correct? 12 A. Well, that's one of the PCB mixtures used. There 13 others as well. 14 Q. Okay. Are there -- is there any chlorobenzene 15 added to Inerteen? 16 A. Some of Westinghouse's Inerteens contain 17 chlorobenzene. 18 Q. And that would be designated Inerteen PPO? 19 A. That's certainly one of the designations. 20 Q. Was the chlorobenzene added by -- added to 21 Inerteen added -- well,strike that. Was the chlorobenzene 22 added by Monsanto to theInerteen? 23 MS. SUTTER: Objection. Calls for speculation 24 and conjecture. 25 A. You'll have to help me with the point in time. TOWOLDMONOQ55041 31 1 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Okay. Between 1965 and 1970 was 2 it added -- was chlorobenzene added to Inerteen by Monsanto? 3 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the overbroad form of 4 the question, contains undefined terms. 5 A. In the period of time you mentioned Monsanto did 6 blend its PCB materials with chlorobenzene for some of 7 Westinghouse's Inerteen formulations. 8 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Okay. And that was blended at the 9 Monsanto facility and then shipped to Westinghouse; correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Under what circumstances is dioxin derived from 12 chlorobenzene? 13 A. I don't pose to be the chemical expert on these 14 chemical reactions, but I have an understanding that it 15 takes -- of course the presence of the benzene ring has to be 16 present and oxygen of course has to be present togive the 17 dioxin combination. The chlorine is of course there because 18 it's present initially with the chlorobenzene and then a high 19 temperature must be achieved, and it's my understanding that 20 temperature has to be -- these are not the exact numbers, 300 21 to 600 degrees Centigrade, something like that. . 22 Q. (BY MR. RACE) And that would be the temperature 23 that would be produced or result from welding? 24 A. I don't know the temperature of welding so I 25 cannot relate that. TOWOLDMONOQ55042 32 1 Q. Was chlorobenzene added to any other Inerteens 2 other than Inerteen PPO? 3 A. At this point in time I don't recall all of the 4 Inerteens prepared for Westinghouse. I just -- I just can't 5 recall. But there were -- as best I recall there is certainly 6 more than just PPO. I don't recall all of them. And through 7 the period of time, as I recall, there were some changes made 8 with different Inerteen designations and different recipes, if 9 you will, for making them. 10 Q. Okay. Now, the FDA found furan contamination in 11 Aroclor 1242; correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Did Monsanto -- Strike that. And Monsanto 14 confirmed it with their own independent studies after 1975? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. And at no time did Dr. Vos ever find 17 furans in Monsanto's American PCBs? 18 A. I believe he did, yes, in about the '75, '76 time 19 frame. 20 Q. Okay. It was true that naphthalenes were found 21 in biphenyl? . 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And that was known back in 1970; correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Mr. Papageorge, do you recognize -- why don't we TOWOLDMONOQ55043 33 1 mark this. Let me call your attention to the first paragraph. 2 That which I've handed the Doctor is a letter from Papageorge 3 to J.R. Savage dated October 26, 1970. 4 A. It looks like a copy of a memorandum that I 5 authored back in October of 1970. 6 Q. It indicates that dibenzylfuran is in Santowax R. 7 A. It does say that, yes. 8 Q. And the inference that we can assume is that 9 since dibenzylfuran is in Santowax, and Santowax is 10 manufactured -- is used in the manufacture of Aroclor, 11 therefore dibenzylfurans may be in Aroclors? 12 A. Santawax R is terphenyl, not biphenyl. The 13 Aroclors referred to here are the chlorinated terphenyls which 14 is the Aroclor 5,000 series, not the Aroclor 1200 series. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. This is a different group of products. 17 Q. So it's not that furans were not in the 1242 but 18 Monsanto was recognizing that they were in an Aroclor; 19 correct? 20 A. No. They were recognizing the presence of 21 dibenzylfuran along with these other materials listed in the 22 starting material for the chlorinated terphenyls sold under 23 the trademark Aroclor. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. 5,000 with some other numbers. That's to TOWOLDMONOQ55044 34 1 distinguish from the use of biphenyl in the manufacture of the 2 Aroclor 1200 series. It's two different starting materials. 3 Q. It does recognize the presence of dibenzylfuran 4 in a product manufactured by Monsanto? 5 A. True, yes. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. It's a different product from biphenyl. 8 Q. What was the application of that Aroclor referred 9 to? 10 A. The Aroclor 5,000 series? 11 Q. Yeah. 12 A. They were solid materials used in such things as 13 plastic for ;fire retardancy, they were used in adhesives, they 14 were used in some paints. 15 Q. Okay. When did Monsanto commence chronic toxic 16 studies with respect to Aroclor 1242? 17 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the form of the 18 question, contains an undefined term. 19 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Do you understand the question? 20 A. I believe I do. Chronic studies with laboratory 21 test animals were begun on Aroclor 1242 as best I remember in 22 1969. 23 Q. Okay. And that was all the chronic toxicity 24 studies were done by IBT? 25 A. Yes. TOWOLDMONOQ55045 35 1 Q. Do you recognize this document dated November 2 3rd, 1970? I call your attention to No, 6: "No chronic 3 (two-year studies) would be anticipated." First of all, do 4 you recognize that document? 5 A. I recall the document, yes, sir. I'm reading to 6 help me refresh my memory on the considerable detail that's in 7 this document. 8 Q. Okay. Well, I would like you to -- 9 A. Well, I've quickly perused it. 10 Q. My question is with regard to -- 11 MS. SUTTER: Just a second. I would like an 12 opportunity to look at the document. 13 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Okay. With respect to No. 6, 14 could you explain why -- what was meant, or your understanding 15 of "no chronic (two-year studies) would be anticipated?" 16 A. This document is primarily put together for 17 budgetary purposes. That statement indicates that the monies 18 . mentioned on Page 2 do not include any costs that might be 19 associated with longer studies. The decision regarding the 20 two-year studies would depend on what was found with the 21 shorter studies that were proposed. . 22 Q. Okay. But the two year-study had in fact been 23 initiated in 1969? 24 A. No, no, no. This reference to two-year study has 25 to do with the materials listed on the pages attached to the TOWOLDMONOQ55046 36 1 memorandum, and you will note that they refer to products that 2 are not studied as yet, like Aroclor 1221, MCS 1016, HB-40 and 3 so on. There are chemicals here that were being considered as 4 substitutes for the PCBs and they were being put into a 5 program to get some better understanding of their toxicity and 6 depending on those results either feel comfortable with what 7 the results show or do some more studies to determine their 8 overall toxicity. So this document does not refer to the 9 studies that were already in place in 1969. 10 Q. Okay. Was it -- while you were employed by 11 Monsanto was it Monsanto's position to freely disseminate 12 information that it had gathered with respect to animal 13 studies? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you recognize this document? 16 A. I have read the document. 17 Q. Okay. I draw your attention to the second 18 paragraph: "Although Kanegafuchi is asking, they also are 19 testing to see how far Monsanto will go in giving away 20 information." What is your appreciation of that statement as 21 directed to you? . 22 A. That just tells me a little bit about how 23 Kanegafuchi representatives might be thinking. There was 24 nothing there that we were refusing to tell them, as far as I 25 know. TOWOLDMONOQ55047 37 Q. Okay. Did in fact Monsanto -- Strike that. So it's your testimony that Monsanto freely provided all information that was requested with respect to the animal studies? A. By Kanegafuchi representatives? Q. To anybody. A. As far as I know, yes, sir. Q. The FDA was studying Aroclor 1242 as well as other Aroclors for carcinogenicity; is that correct? A. I -- I need some help with your use of the word study. Do you mean were they placing animal studies and so on? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall the FDA having such a program. I know that they were interested in any health effects. including carcinogenicity. I don't recall any studies placed by FDA with any laboratory to help get information. Q. Isn't it true that you were informed that 1242 was more toxic to chickens than the higher chlorinated Aroclors? MS. SUTTER: Objection to the overbroad and vague form of the question. A. The test results from Monsanto's studies being conducted by IBT did indicate that the chickens in the tests were more sensitive to Aroclor 1242 than they were to Aroclor TOWOLDMONOQ55048 38 1 1254 or to Aroclor 1260 which were the other two Aroclors 2 being tested. 3 Q. (BY MR. RACE) So it's a safe statement that not 4 all animal studies indicated that thehigherchlorinated 5 Aroclors were more toxic, in some cases thelower chlorinated 6 Aroclors were more toxic? 7 A. There were effects noted in the different test 8 animals and they did vary depending on the material that they 9 were exposed to and the type of animal, yes, there were 10 differences 11 Q. Is George Levinskas still living? 12 A. As far as I know, yes, sir. 13 Q. And he lives in the Monsanto area -- I mean. 14 excuse me, the St. Louis area? 15 A. The last I heard he was, yes. 16 Q. Is he still employed by Monsanto or is he 17 retired? 18 A. He retired. 19 Q. There was no analysis done of the PCBs provided 20 to IBT with respect to contamination; was there? 21 A. At what point in time? . 22 Q. From 1970 to 1975. 23 A. I can't answer that. I do know that the 24 laboratory went back to the research samples of material 25 produced in that period of time and even prior to that. I TOWOLDMONOQ55049 39 1 personally do not know if they got any of the 1969 material 2 and tested it for the furans. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. I can't speak to that. 5 Q. During some of the animal studies conducted, 6 particularly those of birds, is it not true that unusually 7 high levels of PCBs were found in brain tissues? 8 A. I don't remember that detail. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. I would have to see the reports. 11 Q. I'm going to show you a report dated October 12 10th, 1972. Do you recognize that, the one in which you were 13 cc'd? 14 A. Yes. (Nods Head) 15 Q. And I draw your attention to Toxicity, Section 16 No. Ill in which it is I believe underlined. 17 MS. SUTTER: Not on the -- 18 A. I recall the essence of this memo. 19 Q. (BY MR. RACE) And do you recall being informed 20 or having read that unusually high levels of PCB were found in 21 the brain tissue of birds? 22 A. I'm trying to recall. It's not too vivid in my 23 thinking but ;-- see, what I don't recall is what birds are 24 they referring to here. These are not the test birds that 25 Monsanto used. These -- the reference to mink and birds TOWOLDMON0055050 40 1 indicates studies by other than Monsanto. 2 Q. Who is M. -- W.M. Mees, being the author of this 3 report? 4 A. Mr. Mees was a member of Monsanto's analytical 5 chemistry research group who reported to Dr. Tucker, the 6 addressee of this report, who in return reported to Dr. 7 Keller, one of the recipients of the copy. 8 Q. Okay. You do recall this document? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. I'm going to mark for identification No. 11 4. What is the relative toxicity of furans? 12 MS. SUTTER: Object to the overbroad and vague 13 form of the question. 14 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Strike the question. Is it not -- 15 would you agree that chlorinateddibenzylfurans are very 16 highly toxic? 17 A. That's my understanding as tutored by individuals 18 that are more knowledgeable in the area of toxicity. 19 Q. Do you recall this document dated December 6, 20 1974? I draw your attention to the handwritten note of which 21 you appear to be the author'. Is that your noteat the. bottom 22 of that? 23 A. Yes, it is. I recall this document. 24 Q. And it does in fact state that chlorinated 25 dibenzylfurans are very highlytoxic; correct? TOWOLDMONOQ55051 41 1 A. It does. 2 Q. Then you continue to write: "Many effects on 3 birds and animals noted and originally attributed to PCBs were 4 later found to be due to furan --" What's the last word 5 there? 6 A. "Content." 7 Q. "Content." Which birds and animals are you 8 referring to; test birds or wild birds? 9 A. Wild birds. 10 Q. These are wild birds in the United States; 11 correct? 12 A. No, not necessarily. It's my recollection at the 13 time that all that I had read in a several-year period leading 14 to this particular time, December '74. 15 Q. So you don't know whether these birds and animals 16 were in the U.S. or whether they were abroad; is that what 17 you're telling me? 18 A. Some of them were abroad. For example. Dr. Vos' 19 group did some studies in Europe and attributed the effects 20 they saw or observed were due to furan content. 21 Q. The same furans that were noted later established 22 to be contained in PCBs in the United States; correct? 23 A. Chemically the same. The amounts were different. 24 Q. I'm marking for identification Plaintiffs' 25 Identification No. 5. What were the differences in the TOWOLDMONOQ55052 42 amounts? A. I don't recall the numbers, but they were significantly different. Q. Was it higher abroad or lower abroad? A. I don't mean to indicate that this higher level of furans to which the animals and birds were exposed existed only in the European work. It appeared to be general. Q. So you had higher levels of furans in the birds in the United States as well; correct? A. I don't -- when you say higher, higher than what? I don't know what to compare it to. It's a significant amount that was fairly easily detectable; therefore, it had to be above the very low levels that the analytical method could detect. Q. So there were high levels of furans found in American birds and animals; correct? MS. SUTTER: Objection. Mischaracterizes prior testimony. A. There were detectable levels found. I don't know how to compare it in terms of higher or lower. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Okay. . A. I don't have a base. Q. And these levels were detected prior to 1974, furan levels? A. Yes. Keep in mind that isn't -- the source of TOWOLDMONOQ55053 43 furans is not known. Q. Judging from what -- I came here trying to make a good-faith effort to go through this, and unfortunately it's a little lengthy because of the documents I brought with me. And I'11 try to go as quickly as I can. Doctor, you would be available for another date if we -- you have to break at 4:00, I'm given to understand today; correct? A. That's my understanding. Q. You would be available, as opposed to inconveniencing you and trying to keep you on today and not breaking for lunch, you have no personal problem with that; do you? A. It depends on the day. I do have some commitments in the future. Q. You are not totally booked for the next two weeks or three weeks? A. Not totally, but spotty. I don't have my calendar with me. Q. With that caveat, why don't we break for a half hour lunch or 45 minutes. . (WHEREUPON A LUNCH RECESS WAS HELD) MR. RACE: For the record, it's 1:30. The documents are taking fairly long. Mr. Papageorge has outlined certain areas and named expertise, I provided you with a list TOWOLDMONOQ55054 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of areas, and perhaps for the remainder of this afternoon I'll finish going through these documents and then talk to Tom about how to formulate a corporate deposition; does that appear reasonable to you? MS. SUTTER: Based on our discussion off the record where you gave me the number of paragraphs that you were thinking of reducing your corporate deposition notice to, it certainly sounds to me more reasonable than the original document. I am concerned about the time frame in which we are dealing under the Case Management Order to deal with all this last-minute discovery that's being conducted, but the paragraphs you mentioned to me sounded like an effort to narrow the scope, we're appreciative of that, and Tom Carney and I are both willing to meet with you and see what can be worked out during the remaining time that we have under the parameters of the Case Management Order. agreement. MR. RACE: It's been expanded to June 8th by you. MR. RACE: Rick, I would like to do the same with earlier. MR. WUNDERLICH: You know, I suggested that MR. RACE: It takes time. You know, it's like Mark Twain said, "If I had more time this letter would be shorter." TOWOLDMONOQ55055 45 1 MR. WUNDERLICH: My only additional comment, Joe, 2 as I've told you, I have more difficulty in locating 3 someone -- we have to respond to certain areas and because of 4 the lack of people that are still employed with Westinghouse 5 who may have had knowledge concerning PCBs, you know, so the 6 quicker the better would be my response in terms of telling me 7 exactly -- if we can reach some sort of agreement on it. 8 MR. RACE: Part of the exercise is to take a look 9 at the documents and that's -- has been true in both cases. 10 And so that's being done and it will be done when I get back 11 to the office. 12 MR. WUNDERLICH: Okay. 13 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Okay. Do you recognize this 14 correspondence of June 16th, 1975, previously marked as 1505? 15 A. I have read the document. 16 Q. Do you recognize that document? 17 A. Yes, sir, I do. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. I don't -- 20 Q. You were in fact cc'd on this document; correct? 21 A. Yes. To clarify, I do not recognize the . 22 handwritten notes on the document. 23 Q. Okay. With respect to the document, this 24 indicates that, as you've previously testified, that Vos had 25 substantiated that there was furans in chlorinated biphenyls; ;*r TOWOLDMONOQ55056 46 1 correct? 2 A. It does refer to Dr. Vos' study. He misses it by 3 a year or so in terms of time, what had happened. 4 Q. Who is D. Wood? 5 A. David Wood, a Monsanto employee. 6 Q. What capacity? 7 A. 1975, I don't recall his formal title. He was 8 the individual that was involved with the marketing back at 9 the home office of PCBs used in the electrical industry. 10 Q. And J.N. Haggart? 11 A. Haggart is his counterpart in theUnited Kingdom. 12 Q. Okay. Now, Wood is writing saying: "We need to 13 develop our own methods to determine if indeed chlorinated 14 dibenzylfurans are present and what is the potential hazard." 15 A. Uh-huh. (Yes) 16 Q. One, when did you know that furans were toxic? 17 A. I had a personal I'm going to call it inkling 18 that furans were potential health hazards, health problems not 19 only to humans but to wildlife about the middle of 1970, but 20 Emmett Kelly would be the one to -- 21 Q, Emmett Kelly would be the one to address that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And he said "we need to develop our own method;" 24 from that am I correct in stating that at the time of this 25 correspondence Monsanto did not have a method similar to Vos? TOWOLDMONOQ55057 A. No, that is not correct. Q. Okay. Tell me why Monsanto could not simply use Vos' method of determining furan contamination. A. We did. We were using it. It appears that David Wood wasn't tuned in to what the research analytical chemists were up to. Q. Do you know why Vos' method was not successful in determining contamination in American PCBs? A. Vos' method was able to detect PCB -- furans in PCBs down to a certain low level. The presence of furans in Monsanto-produced PCBs was below that level so the instrument couldn't see it no matter how much the fine-tune knob was turned, so to speak, literally. Q. Do you know what the level of furan contamination, I think I've asked this, in the Vos studies were, parts per million? A. I don't remember now, no. Q. And what level were the furan -- what was the contamination level of furans in Monsanto PCBs ultimately established in the seventies? MS. SUTTER: Objection to the vague form of the question. A. I don't pretend to remember the exact numbers, but it seems to me I recall a range like five, ten parts per million, something like that, but those are not exact numbers. TOWOLDMONOQ55058 48 1 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Do you recognize thatwhich is 2 dated August 15th, 1975? Actually, Doctor, I'mgoing to 3 address the first page of that. Do yourecognize the first 4 page? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. Okay. This establishes that in 1975 7 dibenzylfurans were identified in PCBs, in Monsanto PCBs in 8 specific; is that correct? 9 A. That's the reference to Dr. Risebrough's work, 10 yes. 11 Q. We're going to mark that as Exhibit No. 7. I 12 call your attention to September -- internal memo September 13 25th, 1975. Do you recognize that? 14 A. Yes, I recognize it. 15 Q. I'll mark thisnow as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 8. 16 This is written by Mr. Levinskas? 17 A. Yes. 18 MS. SUTTER: Are you referring to the front page 19 of Exhibit 8 or theentire Exhibit 8? 20 Q. (BY MR. RACE) The front page. Do you know who 21 preparedthe toxicitystatementwhich is attached to that 22 memo? 23 A. I do not. 24 Q. Okay.Had you -- you've seen that toxicity 25 statement in -- as reflected in the memo on September 25th, TOWOLDMONOQ55059 49 1 1975? 2 A. On or about that period of time, yes. 3 Q. Okay. How many versions were written prior to 4 the final? 5 A. I have no way of knowing. I don't know. 6 Q. Okay. Down on the last page of the memo -- 7 statement, excuse me, the last page of the statement it says: 8 "Aroclors" and then penciled in above that is 1242 and 1254. 9 Do you know who was responsible for that? 10 A. I do not. 11 Q. To whom was this statement issued? 12 A. I just am having difficulty recalling exactly who 13 received copies of this. I just don't remember. 14 Q. Okay. Well, my question was who penciled in the 15 1254 and the 1254? 16 A. I answered that. I don't know. 17 Q. Excuse me. Do you agree with the statement that 18 "Not withstanding the furan contamination the 1242 and 1254 do 19 not present any unreasonable human health hazards?" 20 MS. SUTTER: Where are you finding that 21 statement? 22 A. The reference to furans, I don't see that here. 23 MS. SUTTER: Nor do I. 24 Q. (BY MR. RACE) At that point in September of 1975 25 it was known that Monsanto -- Monsanto's PCB contained furans; TOWOLDMON0055060 50 1 correct? *2 A. It was known that the Food and Drug ' - i i 3 Administration laboratory had found what they noted as being i 4 furans, chlorinated furans in Monsanto's Aroclors, yes. ; 5 Q. Did the existence of those furans ever change 1 6 Monsanto's position with respect to the health hazards 7 associated with PCBs? 8 A. No. There was no new -- no new toxicity derted (X ne&-d -fo 9 indicate^ in--the(change. 10 Q. Was there any discussion as to the level of . 11 contamination that would have to be reached before furans 12 posed a threat to human health? 13 A. I personally don't know. You have to ask Dr. 14 Kelly. 15 Q. I call your attention to an internal memo 16 November 20th, 1975. Do you recognize that? 17 A. I recall this memo, yes. 18 Q. Okay. This memo reflects studies of Dr. 19 Kimbrough in which carcinogens were found in rats exposed to 20 Aroclor 1260. It doesn't say in this study. The setting -- 21 do you recall the setting in which this -- . 22 A. This memo pertains to another memo in which the 23 two studies were reviewed and discussed. 24 Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Kimbrough's studies, you would 25 agree, found lesions or precancer tumors in rats exposed to TOWOLDMONOQ55061 51 1 PCB; correct? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. Now, do you recall --- Strike that. Monsanto's --..............4 ------response was to have the slides analyzed by pathologists 5 employed at IBT; is that correct? As well as the Eppley 6 Institute; is that correct? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. Now, how many Monsanto -- excuse me. Strike 9 that. How many pathologists in total reviewed those slides on 10 behalf of Monsanto? 11 A. I don't know the number. 12 Q. It was more than Dr. Pour; is that correct? More 13 than just Dr. Pour? 14 A. Certainly there were the pathologists at IBT and 15 there is at least two or three there. 16 Q. There is a Dr. Richter? 17 A. Dr. Richter, Dr. Gordon and others. 18 Q. Have you had discussions with any of those 19 pathologists personally? 20 A. At what time? 21 Q. Concerning Dr. Kimbrough's findings. . 22 A. Not me personally, no. 23 Q. Were you aware that Dr. Richter and Dr. Gordon 24 actually concurred with Dr. Kimbrough's findings? 25 A. Yes. TOWOLDMONOQ55062 52 Q. And it was only Dr. Pour who contested Dr. Kimbrough's findings; is that not correct? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. And Monsanto did not request Dr. Kimbrough or Dr. Richter or Dr. Gordon to publish any statements concerning their review of Dr. Kimbrough's slides; is that correct? MS. SUTTER: Could I hear that question again, please? MR. RACE: Would you read it back? (PENDING QUESTION READ BACK BY THE REPORTER) A. If I understand the question correctly. Dr. Kimbrough did publish her findings and -- Q. (BY MR. RACE) But -- go ahead. A. Now, in terms of whether Dr. Richter or Dr. Gordon published findings, as I recall, a document was prepared and issued by Dr, Callandra who was the top individual at IBT to whom Drs. Richter and Gordon reported, so IBT is represented by that document regarding these observations, these findings. Q. The statement issued by Dr. Callandra indicated that Dr. Kimbrough's slides -- Dr. Kimbrough's interpretation of the slides was correct? A. Yes. It also indicated that the findings of the two studies were different. Q. Okay. Now, you say the findings of the two TOWOLDMONOQ55063 53 1 studies; did Dr. Pour actually conduct a study or did he just 2 review the Kimbrough --Dr. Kimbrough's slides? 3 A. He reviewed both the IBT slides and the Kimbrough 4 slides. 5 Q. Okay. And Dr. Pour took the position that both 6 the Kimbrough slides and the IBT slides were negative insofar 7 as relationship between PCBs and cancer? 8 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the form of the 9 question. 10 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Is that correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Let me mark that as Exhibit 9. Okay. I call 13 your attention to the January 29th, 1970 memo from Wheeler 14 which you are cc'd. Do you recognize that? 15 A. I do. 16 Q. Okay. I mark that as Exhibit 10. Which chronic 17 studies is Wheeler referring to? 18 A. He's referring to the lifetime studies with rats. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. To which were exposed to Aroclors 1242, 1254 and 21 1260. He' s also referring to long-term studies with Beagle 22 dogs and also with leg horn chickens. 23 Q. Now, these are studies that were conducted by 24 IBT? 25 A. That's correct. TOWOLDMONOQ55064 54 1 Q. Once again, all the chronic studies that Monsanto 2 directed were conducted by IBT; is that correct? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. Those studies commenced in 1969? 5 A. The chronic studies, yes. 6 Q. Is it true that even before the study was 7 completed it was recognized that PCBs are exhibiting a greater 8 degree of toxicity than anticipated? 9 A. That is true. 10 Q. Okay. But ultimately the IBT studies held that 11 PCBs were non toxic; correct? 12 A. No, no, no. 13 Q. Excuse me. Not non toxic, non carcinogenic? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. You concur with the statement that PCBs are about 16 the same with respect to toxicity as DDT? 17 A. That's my understanding, yes. 18 MS. SUTTER: I would object in that Counsel 19 didn't complete the whole sentence. It says "about the same 20 as DDT in mammals." 21 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Are humans mammals? . 22 A. Yes, it's my understanding. 23 Q. Mr. Papageorge, are you aware of a bate stamp 24 method, have you come into that -- 25 A. I'm sorry? TOWOLDMONOQ55065 55 1 Q. Bate stamp, are you familiar with that? 2 A. Bate stamp? 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. I'm not familiar with that expression. 5 Q. Do you recognize any of the numbers on the bottom 6 of this page? Now I'm referring to -- I'm specifically 7 referring to SCM and then a series of numbers. Can you draw 8 any conclusions from looking at that number? 9 A. No, I'm sorry, Ican't. 10 Q. Okay. Did you give testimony in the Scott case 11 in Beaumont, Texas? 12 A. Yes, I did. 13 Q. Had you seen or reviewed this document that I'm 14 now referring to? 15 MR. WUNDERLICH: What's the date of that 16 document? 17 MS. SUTTER: The date of the document is December 18 17, 1951. I do have an objection to the form of question. 19 Are you asking him whether he ever saw it or whether he saw it 20 in connection with Scott? 21 MR. RACE: If he's ever seen it. . 22 MS. SUTTER: If he's ever seen it. All right. 23 A. I don't recall this document at all. 24 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Are any of the names of the 25 individuals there familiar to you? TOWOLDMONOQ55066 56 A. Mr. Mather and Dr. Weddell and Mr. Marshall are Monsanto employees in Monsanto's research department. Q. Okay. This appears to be an internal Monsanto memo? A. It appears to be so, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Chlorinated diphenyl is the same as a chlorinated biphenyl; is it not? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And are you aware that literature back in 1951 revealed a history of skin trouble or liver trouble including some fatal cases attributed to heavy exposures to chlorinated diphenyls? A. I'm aware of literature that referred to those kinds of symptoms and ailments as it related to commercial mixtures of chlorinated naphthalenes with some chlorinated diphenyls present, yes. Q. Okay. Was chlorinated naphthalene a contaminant in Aroclors? A. I don't believe I ever saw a report that reported the presence of chlorinated naphthalenes in Aroclors. Q. Is --chlorinatednaphthalene is a hydrocarbon; correct; chlorinated hydrocarbon? A. Yes. Q. As PCB is achlorinatedhydrocarbon? A. Yes. TOWOLDMONOQ55067 57 1 Q. Within the family of chlorinated hydrocarbons you 2 can break them into smaller categories; can you not? 3 A. I don't know what you mean by category. You mean 4 solids and liquids and gases? 5 Q. Is there not a category of chlorinated aromatic 6 hydrocarbon? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. And both PCBs and the naphthalenes fall 9 into that category? 10 A. Yes, anything that has the hexagon formation 11 reflecting the benzene ring iscalled an aromatic. 12 Q. Okay. And there are recognized similarities of 13 substances within that I'm going to call it family; is that 14 correct? 15 A. Well, that's true of so many chemicals; there are 16 similarities and there are dissimilarities. I don't know how 17 to answer that. 18 Q. Okay. If you -- okay. Is it also true that the 19 chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons tend to be the more toxic 20 chlorinated hydrocarbons? 21 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the form of the. 22 question. 23 A. You'll have to ask Dr. Kelly how that compares to 24 other chlorinated hydrocarbons like chloroform and carbon tet. 25 and literally hundreds of chlorinated hydrocarbons. TOWOLDMONOQ55068 58 1 MR. RACE: Premised on Mr. Papageorge recognizing 2 this as being a Monsanto internal memo, although he doesn't 3 have personal knowledge of the memo itself, but recognizing 4 the people mentioned in the memo I will attach it as 5 Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 11. 6 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Doctor, is it true that the 7 chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons have in common the fact that 8 they produce an odor? I don't know, I'm just guessing. 9 A. All chemicals have a distinctive odor. 10 Q. Do you know what the aromatic specifically refers 11 to, what common property? 12 A. I'm not aware of any such description. 13 Q. PCB has an odor; does it not? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you describe that odor? 16 A. I can describe what I sense, and I would suggest 17 that this is quite subjective; different people smell 18 different odors. To me it reminds me of a mild disinfectant 19 type odor 20 Q. And your ability to smell that odor indicates the 21 chemical is in the air? . 22 A. Oh, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't smell it. 23 Q. Okay. And the stronger the smell the greater the 24 volume the chemical would be in the air; is that correct? 25 A. That's generally the way with materials. TOWOLDMONOQ55069 59 1 Q. Okay. Now, do you recognize the document dated 2 8th September, 1955 and attached thereto I believe is a letter 3 dated September 20th, 1955? 4 MS. SUTTER: I would like a moment to take a look 5 at these documents, please. 6 A. I do not recall seeing any of these three -- 7 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Three documents? 8 A. -- documents. 9 Q. Could you tell me in the first document who is 10 Dr. H.R. Newman? 11 A. He was the -- I don't know the official 12 designation. He was the head medical person in Monsanto in 13 the United Kingdom. 14 Q. And the author of the letter on the first one is 15 J.W. Barrett? 16 A. Dr. Barrett was -- again, I don't recall his 17 official designated title, but hewas a principle individual 18 in the research activities of Monsanto Europe. 19 Q. Okay. And the second document is authored by 20 Kelly and we can ask Dr. Kelly about that, I suppose? 21 A. I would suggest that, yes. . 22 Q. When you started with Monsanto in '57; was it? 23 A. '51. 24 Q. Excuse me. '51, until 1955 did vou have 25 concern --- Strike that. Was it -- to the best of your TOWOLDMON0055070 60 . knowledge did Monsanto have concern prior to 1955 concerning the toxicology of Aroclors? A. Well, the -- there were guidelines as to the kinds of things to avoid doing to limit exposure. There were, for example, guidelines regarding the amount of PCBs that could be in the breathing air or the working environment. There were of course concerns regarding getting it on the skin. There were concerns about getting too much on your clothing and not changing it as appropriate. Yeah, there were concerns of that kind. Q. Do you know what Monsanto's policy was with respect to advising client -- customers of the relevant -- not relevant, various toxicity of the different Aroclors? MS. SUTTER: Mr. Race, I apologize, I didn't understand that question. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Let me strike the question and try again. It's true that back in the early fifties Monsanto was of the opinion that higher chlorinated Aroclors were more toxic than the lower chlorinated Aroclors? A. Yes, they got that from the animal studies that were made up to that time. . Q. Okay. And did -- let me direct your attention to the September 20th, 1955 letter, the last paragraph. Will you agree with MCC's position, that's Monsanto Chemical Company; correct? The last paragraph of the -- the last paragraph on TOWOLDMONOQ55071 61 Page 1 of that correspondence. A. Page 1. Yeah, MCC was commonly used to describe Monsanto Chemical Company. Q. Okay. I -- are you -- do you concur with the statement in the last paragraph indicating Monsanto's position can be summarized up in this fashion: "We know Aroclors are toxic but the actual limit has not been precisely defined. It does not make too much difference, it seems to me, because our main worry is what will happen if an individual develops any type of liver disease and gives a history of Aroclor exposure. I am sure the juries would not pay a great deal of attention to MACS." A. I'm sorry, I missed the question. Q. Would you agree with that statement? A. Well, in essence I agree with it. Of course, it doesn't describe what is meant by history of Aroclor exposure and I would like -- a person would have preferred seeing some level of exposure, time, how long an exposure, but in my viewpoint, yes, overexposure to these materials can lead to health problems, that's well-known. Q. MACS refer to what? . A. Maximum Allowable Concentrations. I believe that's -- it had to do with exposure levels in the workplace. Q. Does this appear to be communications, the first one, the letter from Monsanto U.K. to Monsanto U.S. and then TOWOLDMONOQ55072 62 1 the response by Dr. Kelly to the U.K.? 2 A. Well, as I see it, there are two responses that 3 Dr. Kelly made; he made the initial one on September 20 and 4 then apparently had some additional thoughts that he sent two 5 days later. 6 Q. Okay. I'll mark that as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12. 7 I call your attention to the correspondence dated December 6, 8 1955. The first correspondence was written by D.V. Hardy. 9 MS. SUTTER: The witness is still reviewing the 10 document. Do you want to interrupt his review to ask one 11 question? 12 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Do you need to reviewtheentire 13 document to ascertain whether you're familiar with it, if 14 you've ever seen itbefore? 15 A. No. I can say that I don't recall ever seeing 16 this document. 17 Q. Well, then I'm not trying to make you read it 18 now. That saves us time. You don't have toread theentire 19 thing. 20 A. I didn't know what kind of questions to expect. 21 Q. If -- let me try it this way. The -- this first 22 letter was written, itappears to be authored byD.V.N. Hardy; 23 correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. It'smarkedconfidential. Do youknow who Mr. TOWOLDMONOQ55073 63 1 Hardy is? 2 A. Dr. Hardy was a medical doctor in Monsanto Europe 3 reporting to Dr. Newman. 4 Q. Okay. And this appears to be a Monsanto 5 correspondence; is that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Is it true that the lower chlorinated 8 Aroclors are more vaporous? 9 A. I guess you could use that term. They are -- 10 they can form vapors at lower temperatures. 11 Q. Okay. So at a given temperature you may have 12 more of the lower chlorinated PCBs in the air than the higher 13 chlorinated PCBs; correct? 14 A. That is generally true, yes. 15 Q. Okay. And the toxicity is directly proportionate 16 to -- Strike that. A harmful effect would be directly 17 proportionate to an equation of toxicity and concentration; 18 correct? 19 MS. SUTTER: Objection to the vague and confusing 20 form of the question. 21 Q. (BY MR. RACE) In other words, Dr. -- . 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Would you agree with that statement? 24 A. I'm trying to recall your first words. 25 Q. Let me try to ask it this way: If you get more TOWOLDMONOQ55074 64 1 of a less toxic substance it may be equally harmful as if you 2 got less of a more toxic substance? 3 A. it's a combination of the type of material, how 4 much of the material, and of course, time. 5 Q. okay. Now, if you will, could I call your 6 attention to last sentence of the second paragraph on Page 2. 7 MS. SUTTER: Just a minute. This is the document 8 that you said you weren't going to ask him questions about so 9 now the witness is going to complete his review of the 10 document that you're about to start asking him questions 11 about. 12 Q. (BY MR. RACE) Either that, or I'll ask you this 13 question: Do you agree or do you disagree: "It is now clear 14 that toxicity increases with degree of chlorination and that 15 this effect may cancel or even outweigh the advantage due to 16 decreased vapor pressure?" 17 MS. SUTTER: I object to the form of the question 18 in that you've picked one sentence out of a whole-page 19 document after encouraging the witness not to read the entire 20 document. I think he has a right to do that. 21 Q. I don't think it's necessary. Can you agree with 22 that statement or do you have to read the entire document? 23 A. No, I -- I heard some words you read off here and 24 I haven't found the words yet. 25 Q. The last sentence, right there. TOWOLDMONOQ55075 65 A. Well, I -- from what I understand of these PCB materials, the reference to toxicity increasing with degree of chlorination is not necessarily true. It depends on the creature -- I'm looking for a word. That is exposed to it. An example that we found out is that the chickens were susceptible to the lower chlorinated materials, so that contradicts this statement here. And then the second part of that sentence when it says "may cancel or even outweigh," that's speculative. There is no way to really equate that with accuracy. Q. Now, you recognize this as being a Monsanto correspondence; correct? A. Yes. it is a collection of documents from Monsanto. Q. What is the similarities between Pydraul 150 and Aroclor 1242? A. Pydraul 150 is a mixture of chemicals. As best I recall one of the ingredients in that mixture is Aroclor 1242. Q. Do you recall any of the other chemicals in Pydraul 150? A. Not in specific detail. . Q. Who would know about that from Monsanto? A. I'm trying to recall an individual in Monsanto's research department that developed these mixtures. I would suggest -- I don't know how available this person is. Dr. TOWOLDMONOQ55076 66 Roger Hatton, H-A-T-T-O-N, was an individual familiar with Monsanto's hydraulic fluids. Q. Are -- do you know whether any of the other substances in the Pydraul 150 were of equivalent toxicity of 1242 or greater? A. Not -- since I don't remember what they were I can't answer. Q. Okay. MR. RACE: Off the record. (WHEREUPON AN OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD) MR. RACE: Let me just say, just quickly, we're going to agree -- I'll go through a few documents that I have here and we have agreed to meet to try to work out some type of corporate deposition as well as some stipulation as to documents. Is that everybody's agreement? MS. SUTTER: All counsel for all parties have agreed that we will meet and attempt to stipulate to documents. MR. RACE: And work out something for the corporate deposition. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Do you recognize this memo, dated July 30th, 1975? Have you previously seen that document? A. I recall the document, yes, sir. Q. Okay. We'll mark this as 14. Okay. This document reflects that Monsanto acknowledged that -- TOWOLDMONOQ55077 67 acknowledged evidence of Aroclor 1260 being carcinogenic; is that correct? A. No. It acknowledges that a study which used a strain of rats of one sex did show some liver effects that could be construed as being carcinogenic in nature, but it also points out that there are other studies that do not show the same results. Q. What is a carcinogenic effect -- or the carcinogenicity of DDT? A. I don't know. You'll have to ask Dr. Kelly. Q. Do you have an opinion one way or another as to whether Aroclor 1260 has a potency comparable to that of DDT? A. I do not. Q. I draw your attention to that which has previously been marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 817. Do you recognize this document? MR. WUNDERLICH: What's the date on that? MS. SUTTER: April 17, 1970. Q. (BY MR. RACE) I'm not going to ask you about the attached documents, but only the first page. A. I recall the document. . Q. Okay. I'll mark it as 15. Now, what is meant by the paragraph "Please do not present any Teach-In "visitors" with prepared handouts on PCBs. You may use this information in verbal conversation should the occasion arise?" TOWOLDMONOQ55078 68 A. Well, just like it says; in other words, don't give this to any individuals. Q. What was your reasoning for not wishing to give the question and answer sheet on PCBs to individuals? A. Primarily because I personally saw this as a highly technical kind of subject that could be misunderstood by individuals who didn't have the -- what I felt was the appropriate background and would be best to have someone talking to them and finding out what the concerns if any might be and then attempt to answer them and if the Monsanto person couldn't answer them he could come back to people like me or Dr. Kelly and get a -- and get an answer. Q. Okay. You testified before concerning Dr. Pour's evaluation of Dr. Kimbrough's study. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I'm going to callyour attention to a letter dated November 17th, 1975. A memo, excuse me. In which you were cc'd. Do you recognize that? A. As I read it I recall it, yes. Q. Okay. Do you know who scribbled the handwritten note on the bottom? . A. I do not. Q. Now,the EppleyInstitute was aninstitute that had -- Strike that. Dr. Pour was employed by the Eppley Institute; correct? TOWOLDMONOQ55079 69 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Do you know why the Eppley Institute did not want 3 to be associated with Dr. Pour's position on PCBs? 4 A. I don't think that's a correct interpretation of 5 the positions of the two. The Eppley Institute supported Dr. 6 Pour's position regarding the -- his findings, but they didn't 7 want his name, as well as Dr. Pour didn't want his name, in 8 the public press. Dr. Pour and the institute preferred to 9 deal with scientists on a scientist-to-scientist basis rather 10 than work through the public media. 11 Q. Do you know if Dr. Pour had made a statement that 12 he did not want his interpretation of Dr. Kimbrough's slides 13 subjected to peer review? 14 A. That I don't know anything about. I never heard 15 that before. 16 Q. Had you seen previously that handwritten note at 17 all? 18 A. I don't recall the handwritten note. 19 Q. Do you recall the memo? 20 A. I do. 21 Q. I call your attention to a handwritten note, the 22 top of which is written "charges against Monsanto products in 23 5-13-83 Wall Street Journal, WSJ." Do you recognize the 24 handwriting on this? 25 A. No. This is the first time I've seen this TOWOLDMON0055080 70 1 document. 2 Q. Were you aware that Levinskas caused Callandra -- 3 I call your attention to the second category, Callandra at IBT 4 to change language from mildly tumorigenic to does not appear 5 to be carcinogenic in an IBT report on toxicity of PCBs. 6 A. I'm aware of the proposed change in wording that 7 Dr. Levinskas made and it's based on the fact that there were 8 three studies run simultaneously. The data was similar so 9 that the conclusions were identical really. Two of the 10 reports had the expression "does not appear to be 11 carcinogenic," the third one had the phrase "mildly 12 tumorigenic," and Dr. Levinskas suggested that since the data 13 does not indicate otherwise why not have the same conclusion 14 for all three reports, and that's the basis for his 15 recommendation. 16 Q. Are the other two reports -- the other two 17 studies were also conducted by IBT? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. When did Monsanto first insist on indemnity 20 contracts with theirpurchasers of PCBs? 21 A. The program was initiated inDecember of f71 to 22 become effective starting in1972. 23 Q. Okay. Had there been any indemnityagreements 24 prior to that date? 25 A. Not to my knowledge. TOWOLDMONOQ55081 71 Q. Do you have knowledge concerning those indemnity agreements? A. I have some knowledge. Q. Who is primarily responsible for those? A. I can give you my understanding. The director of the product group, Howard Bergen was the person who came up with this idea. Q. And the understanding was if there was any harm that was caused by the use or exposure to PCBs then Monsanto's customers would pay rather than Monsanto if the PCB had been resold or used by Monsanto customers; is that correct? MS. SUTTER: I object to the relevance of the inquiry. A. I would suggest that the documents that were prepared kind of speak for themselves. The wording is there about Monsanto's role and the customer's role should a situation arise. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Did Monsanto have indemnity agreements concerning any other products other than PCB? A. I don't know. Q. I call your attention to that which has . previously been marked as Exhibit 1536. A. I'm having trouble locating it. Q. Do you recognize that document? A. I recognize the document. TOWOLDMONOQ55082 72 Q. Okay. I'll mark it as Exhibit 16. Now, this document is talking about -- MR. WUNDERLICH: What is the date on that document, please? MR. RACE: January 24th, 1977. MR. WUNDERLICH: Okay. Q. (BY MR. RACE) Do you recall the conversations that you had in connection with this document, in connection with the production of this document? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. What was Mobil's belief with respect to PCB as being a possible carcinogen? A. Well, more correctly it was the belief of an investigator, and I don't at the moment remember whether she was a -- an employee of Mobil Oil or Mobil Chemical or some outside scientist, but she conducted a study that indicated that cases of melanoma were due to exposure to PCBs. At a meeting in Cincinatti with representatives of NIOSH, the Mobil representative, and I must confess, I've forgotten his name, I believe it was a Dr. Harbison, but I could be wrong, he was a member of a committee of which I was a member, commenting on a document that NIOSH was preparing for publication on PCBs and he told the group that the study was incomplete, that he preferred that any reference to that study be qualified and that the study would be continued, as far as Mobil was TOWOLDMONOQ55083 73 1 concerned. 2 Q. Do you know who authored the study? 3 A. Her name starts with a B. B-A-H-N. I'm not 4 positive of that. 5 Q. Bahn? 6 A. The Bahn study, that's it. 7 Q. That was a study of Bloomington workers? 8 A. No, Mobil laboratory employees. With that 9 discussion I was speaking with the representative of NIOSH who 10 is mentioned in the document and he understood the comments 11 the way I did and that's what triggered this particular 12 document. 13 Q. Do you know of any other studies that have shown 14 positive association between PCB exposure and melanomas? 15 MS. SUTTER: I object to the form of the question 16 in that I think it mischaracterizes the studies and contains 17 undefined technical epidemiological terms, namely "positive." 18 Subject to that, you may answer. 19 A. I'm not aware of any studies that relate PCBs to 20 melanoma other than this initial work that we discussed here 21 regarding Mobil Chemical laboratory workers. . 22 MR. RACE: Okay. I would like to -- I tell you 23 what I'm going to do for the record, although it's only 3:00, 24 what I would like to do is I think in order to expedite this 25 matter, the easiest way to handle it at this juncture is to TOWOLDMONOQ55084 74 1 continue your deposition and hopefully in lieu of continuing 2 this one we will do a corporate deposition which will forego 3 any of this in the future, subject to working out some terms 4 with counsel here. 5 MS. SUTTER: I certainly don't control when you 6 conclude a deposition or what you ask. This is a 7 knowledgeable -- you know, Mr. Papageorge, you mentioned some 8 areas I think out in the hall, and it was my understanding 9 that you were going to ask him a number of questions here 10 today. You're now saying that you prefer to depose him as a 11 corporate designee rather than in his personal capacity. I 12 think he has a lot of knowledge that you haven't started to 13 cover here yet today. You've mentioned -- 14 MR. RACE: Well, he's got to go by 4:00 and I 15 can't cover everything by 4:00. 16 MS. SUTTER: I understand that, Counsel, and it's 17 now five after three, and I'm not trying to tell you what you 18 should or should not be doing, I am just -- it's difficult for 19 me to comment on the corporate designee notice that you're 20 anticipating when I haven't seen it yet and -- 21 (WHEREUPON AN OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION WAS HELD) 22 MR. RACE: So for purposes of the record, I'm 23 going to say that my intent is if I have to continue this 24 deposition, if we can't agree on the parameters of a corporate 25 deposition, that's my position, for the record, so you know TOWOLDMONOQ55085 1 what it is. 2 MS. SUTTER: He will read it. 3 (SIGNATURE OF THE WITNESS NOT WAIVED) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 TOWOLDMONOQ55086 original w1 1 I, WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E., do hereby state that I have read the foregoing questions and answers appearing in this transcript of my deposition, Page 3 through and including Page 73; that this is a true and accurate (corrected) record of said answers given in response to the questions appearing herein. f/-. __ WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. CERTIFICATE STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) SS Before me personally appeared WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E., to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and before me that WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. executed the said instrument in the capacity and for the purpose therein expressed. Subscribed to before me this /5/~ day of 19 . My Notary commission expires: JOSEPHINE s. NIBLOCK NOTARY public stats of Hiwnvi. ST. LOUIS COUNTY ftv emssioN dcp. jan. ts.iccs [NOTARY PUBLIC] JUDITH and STEPHEN BECHTOLD VS. MONSANTO COMPANY and WESTINGHOUSE Cause No. 862-00694 TOWOLDMON0055087 CASE NAME: Bechtold v. Monsanto, Case # 922-00911 WITNESS NAME: William B. Papageorge DATE: May 18, 1994 DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET Upon reading the deposition and before subscribing thereto, the deponent indicated the following changes should be made: Page $ , Line // Should read: 5 5 / ^ n cd,5-r- e e. d -k> /tic, qC~c cq t'Qrc c/ ic. ( ,i /M if no c( Reason for change: _______co rec 1 c^o rd.___________________________ Page 3 ^ , Line S Should read: bi./ uj hi Cit h^-nous/tig - - ~L dpn'i ^nctu '/'ic prccc^.'S r i /cri h hd Reason for change: _____~3~^ c & r rec * t<,-<crc{ Page 3 o , Line >3 Should read: arc, o4'her5 at u/e f j , correct uj c rej Reason for change: Page S~ , Line Should read: Mo. there, loci^ no ne<-<J -kj-tcil-L, derh^, +-q Reason for change: ______C (gr, L, cc, 1?TM___________________ Page d~o , Line 7 Should read: inch cole. a m-eec! Ao eh o ^ , Reason for change: C ( u r t (-i c n h t>-? [yC' (3G2, Signature of Witness TOWOLDMONOQ55088 76 original 1 ^* I, WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. , do hereby state that I have read the foregoing questions and answers appearing 2 in this transcript of my deposition, Page 3 through and including Page 73; that this is a true and accurate 3 (corrected) record of said answers given in response to the questions appearing herein. 4 5 6 C'C'i ct __ WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. 7 8 CERTIFICATE 9 STATE OF MISSOURI ) 10 ) SS COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) 11 Before me personally appeared WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 12 P.E., to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and 13 before me that WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. executed the said instrument in the capacity and for the purpose therein 14 expressed. 15 16 Subscribed to before me this /jL day of 19 . 17 JOSEPHINE e. HIBLOCK My Notary commission expires:. KOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF KlSSttCa . 18 ST. LOUIS COUNTY HY COMMISSION EXP. JAN. I5.1C23 19 20 {A. tytjn^CC-/y_ u 7 [NOTARY* PUBLIC] 21 22 JUDITH and STEPHEN BECHTOLD VS. MONSANTO COMPANY and 23 WESTINGHOUSE Cause No. 862-00694 24 25 TOWOLDMONOQ55089 CASE NAME.* Bechtold v. Monsanto, Case # 922-00911 WITNESS NAME: William B. Papageorge DATE: May 18, 1994 DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET Upon reading the deposition and before subscribing thereto, the deponent indicated the following changes should be made: Page $ , Line / / Should read: ^ 55/ ^ necf h____If 5^ e "4? Pia < "f hc\ f i a ir\ (,/ >n ,,n' c( e cf ~k> me, tec co/Crccf Reason for change: __ ~Xn c c> r reel cu & rc{. Page , Line S' Should read: f^nc>^ t *c, - - ~L Jonf f-'intL process b i/ uj iii'cl'i c_ f; I on rtet (<c/ Reason for change: __ i d C(p r~ f Lucrc( Page 3 o ( Line )3 Should read: a o^her^ a5 U/e l/ . T,n co f vse f cue rc{. Reason for change: Page S~o , Line o Should read: Mo. I here, u/g -s n o n Cl.<J ~bj < a t-o, o(q f 4-0 Reason for change: ______C fa a, L( eg A-__________________ Page b~o, Line 9 Should read: itichccii-e. c( m fo cfiasxr,^ Reason for change: r (pa/ Ct eg Ap n (sfS C3 62 Signature of Witness ' <yc_ TOWOLDMONOQ55090 76 1 I, WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E., do hereby state that I have read the foregoing questions and answers appearing 2 in this transcript of my deposition, Page 3 through and including Page 73; that this is a true and accurate 3 (corrected) record of said answers given in response to the questions appearing herein. 4 5 6 _________ _______________ WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. 7 8 CERTIFICATE 9 STATE OF MISSOURI ) 10 ) SS COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) 11 Before me personally appeared WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 12 P.E., to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and 13 before me that WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. executed the said instrument in the capacity and for the purpose therein 14 expressed. 15 16 Subscribed to before me this day of , 19___. 17 My Notary commission expires:. 18 19 20 21 ____________________________________________________________________________________________- [NOTARY PUBLIC] . 22 JUDITH and STEPHEN BECHTOLD VS. MONSANTO COMPANY and 23 WESTINGHOUSE Cause No. 862-00694 24 25 TOWOLDMONOQ55091 77 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF MISSOURI CITY OF ST. LOUIS ) ) ) I, VICTORIA MENAUGH FAUSER, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and a duly commissioned Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri, do hereby certify that there came before me at the offices of Wilburn, Suggs & Watkins, 1221 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63103, WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E., who was by me first duly sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of all knowledge touching and concerning the matters in controversy in this cause; that the witness was thereupon examined under oath and said examination was reduced to writing by me; that the signature of the witness was not waived by agreement of all parties; and that this deposition is a true and correct record of the testimony given by the witness. - I further certify that I am neither attorney for, counsel for, nor related, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in this action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal May 24, 1994. My commission expires March 4, 1997. NOTARY PUBLIC TOWOLDMONOQ55092