Document 4a4ozqQwEqna7LXoxNwExpea

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OP ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3. FRANCES S. KENNER, et. 1. ) ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 VS. ) NO: 30-L-970 ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 3 9 10 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 Before the HON. RICHARD P. G O L D E N H E R S H 12 EXCERPT OF T E STIMONY OF PHOCION PARK 13 Apr i l 11, 1935 14 15 A P P E A R A N C E S : lo Mr. Rex Carr I-ir. Jerome Seigfreid 17 On Behalf of tne Plaintiffs; 13 Mr. John Musgrave Mr. Joseph Massif li). On Behalf of the Defendant. 20 21 22 23 DeOi.a M. Husielak, CSR, CM 24 Official Court Reporter 1 1 (The following is a portion of the testimony of Phocion Park) 2 3 Q. (oy Mr, Carr) Now, Mr, Park, I think you m e n t ioned 4 tne other two or three elements that you would nee., to 5 consider oefore you notify OSIIA would oe the toxicity of the 6 product, the type of exposure, and the anticipated exposure, 7 correct, sir? 8 A. Yes, I don't know that I intended those would be, 9 they would be exclusive, could well be other factors. 10 Q. I want to know those other factors, sir, that 11 causes this committee -- 12 A. Mr. Carr, I don't know if I could tell you all the 13 factors we consider, the Statute, as you knov;, is extremely 14 b r i e f . 15 Q. What I want to know is the factors that you, as 15 part of this committee considers before you determine whether 17 or not you are going to notify the SPA that you have a 13 product that has a substantial risk or hazard a s sociated with 19 it as far as the public is concerned? 20 A. The Statute, I oelieve, is just one sentence, at 21 most two, ..t's very orief, and we vzould consider everything 22 that alight have any relevance Whatsoever to a determination 23 of substantial risk of injury. 24 C. Ce_i me what those things are, sir? 2 1 A. Might h a v e with a given situation? 2 Q. Vie11, the situation we are discussing right now is 3 this 2,4-dichlorophenol that Monsanto is manufacturing and 4 thac you've discussed au those meetings in May and your memos 5 in June? 6 A. All right, we are no longer discussing 1 hypotheticals then? 3 Q. No, we are discussing right now, we have taken care 9 or one or your four requirements, anl you now, since the 10 recess there laay he other requirements, other things, that 11 you will consider. I want to know what they are. 12 A. Mr. Carr, again, this was five years ago, I deal 13 with a great many matters, I'm looking at those two 14 memoranda, X cannot pull back into ny mind every bit of the 15 discussion that went o:i at those two meetings. 16 Q. Hr. Park, I didn't ask you that. 17 A. No, what you are asking me -- IS Q. I asked you for -- now, I don't want to jump anead 19 in this examination that I have, but you are pre s e n t l y doing 20 the same thing that you did in 1179, you are still part of 21 tnat committee tnat has the obligation to uecide whether you 22 will or will not notify the EPA that there are substantial 23 hazards associated with your product, isn't that correct, 24 sir? 3 1 A. Whether there would be -- 2 Q. You are still on tnat committee, aren't you? 3 A. Whether -- 4 A. You are still on that commictee, aren't you, sir? 5 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And you have exercised your function, you 7 participated as late as January of this year, according to 3 documents that were delivered to me at 1:30 today, isn't that 9 correct, sir? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. An 1 you are considering coday the lav/ hasn't 12 changed in cne meantime, nas it, sir? 13 A. No. 14 Q. The law is the same as it was when it was enacted 15 by Congress and signed oy the President. I don'c k now v/ho 16 was President then, '77, somebody was President, but in any 17 event, that is the same lav/ thac you are operating under 13 today, hasn't changed, has it, sir? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And the considerations haven't changed, the 21 elements that you must consider haven't changed, isn't that 22 correct, sir? 23 li . I might point out -- 24 Q. Couid you answer that question, please, sir, I'm 4 1 not really interested in you pointing out, I'm interesced in 2 you answering that question. 3 A. Tne law has not been judicially interpreted, it is 4 still one sentence. 5 Q. Did I ask you that, dr. Park, X asked you is the 6 law the same today as it was in 1977, '73, and '73, sir? 7 A. T h a t 's correct. 8 Q. And you are -- you are considering tne same things 3 today in making your judgment as to whether or not you notify 10 the BPA as you are considering in 1979, isn't that correct, 11 sir? 12 A. It raight vary with the situation. 13 3. The on,,y variance would be if there are different 14 health effects from a particular chemical, isn't that 15 correct, sir, everything e_se is the same, it's one health 16 effect taat we are talking about, that's what the whole law 17 is about, is it not, sir? 18 MR. MUSGRAVE: Whi c h question, M r . Carr? Ooject to 19 tne multiplicity. 20 THE COURT: Overruled. 21 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Isn't chat the only thing that the 22 law is aoout is tne health effect on human oeings, at least 23 that section of tne law that I'm asking you aoout now, not 24 cne environment and not, altnougn that is a part of it, out 5 1 waac I am concerned with and what this case is concerned 2 about are human beings, now, that is what chat lav? is about, 3 isn't it, sir? 4 A. Nell, the law specifically reads health and rue 5 environment. 6 Q. Yes, and I'm now talking about health, n eaith of 7 human beings, isn'c it, sir? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And was health in '77, '78, '79 and today, isn't 10 it, sir? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. So the only thing that might vary is whether or not 13 the chemical you are producing today might have different 14 health effects. Now, if you learn today chat a chemical that 15 you had thought was harmless in '77, if you learned today for 16 the first time that a chemical thought to be h a r m l e s s in '77 17 oecause you studied it and you've investigated and put it in 13 the laboratory, if you found today that what nad been 19 considered a harmless chemical was no longer harmless, that 20 is your duty, your obligated to notify tne SPA, isn't that 21 correct, sir? 22 A. If we determine there is a substantial risk of 23 injury to health or t-hef environment, we v/ili uo so. 24 Q. is the answer to my question yes? o 1 A. HO. 2 Q. Are you saying, Hr. Park, that if you discovered 3 today for the first time tnat there were new health effects 4 in what had seen theretofore thought to be a h a rmless 5 chemical, chat you are not obligated to notify the EPA? I 6 thought I spent a half an hour on that point with you? 7 A. Mr. Carr, you probably know the Statute as well as 8 I do, you know. 9 Q. Mr. Park, couid you please answer that question? 10 MR. MUSGRAVE: He's trying to, Mr. Carr. 11 A. I did. 12 Q. And if you discovered that one of your chemicals 13 chat everybody had thought was harmless before your 14 laboratories, you nad bioassays and you had toxicological 15 studies conductevi and you found chat that chemical thought to 16 be harmless in fact is not harmless, that it is harmful to 17 human oeings, are you saying tnat you are not o b l i gated to 13 report that discovery to the EPA? 19 A. I'm saying that a group -- 20 Q. Could you answer that question, please, sir? 21 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, it's vague. 22 THE COURT: Overruled? 23 A. We may not me, depending upon it's use, anticipated 24 exposure, whatever, other factors. 7 1 Q. You are bringing the other factors into play again 2 then, anticipated exposure-and use, I'm talking about -- 3 those are other points that we will .get to. I'm talking 4 about the health effect. Doctor, Mr. Park? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Other things being equal, if you find new health 7 effects, harmful health effectf from your chemicals, you are 8 obligated to reporc that, aren't you, sir? 9 A. That alone mignt not be sufficient to require a 10 n o t i f i c a t i o n . 11 Q. Mr. Park, I'm asking you to assume the other things 12 are there, only that you've got the other elements that 13 you've required, but you have now discovered that this 14 heretofore thought to-be harmless chemical is now harmful, 15 hypothetically speaking, and assume ail the other elements 16 are that that is in your mind necessary, the lav; obliges you 17 to report it to the EPA, d o e s n 't i t , M r . Park? 18 A, The law obligates us no report whenever there is a 19 substantial risk of injury or of health or environnent and 20 that we d o . 21 HR. CARR: W o u l d you instruct the witness to 22 answer? * 23 THE COURT: Please assume them and answer the 24 question as posed? 3 1 A. If X must answer, as I understood the question I'd 2 have to answer no. 3 Q. And -- 4 Q. I feel it's an improper hypothetical. 5 Q. And have you been -- Mr. Park, you under s t a n d that :/ 6 you are not the judge of that, the Court is the judge v/hether 7 or not it's proper, you cannot take the lav; into your hands 8 in this courtroom, Mr. Park, you understand that, don't you, 9 sir? You are a lawyer, you understand that, don't you, sir? 10 A. Certainly. 11 Q. And if the Court tells you to assume certain facts 12 and by ruling on the question v/hether he's right or wrong, it 13 isn't for you .to decide, he has told you that you must assume 14 those facts and nov; you are saying t h a t it is an improper 15 hypothetical, you have taken unto yourself the obligation and 15 function of the Court, Mr. Park, and I p l e a s e ask you to obey 17 the Court. Will you assume that it is _a proper h y pothetical 18 question and answer, sir? 19 A. All right, I think I did so, Mr. Carr. 20 Q. And your answer is still no, even assuming the 21 hypothetical is proper? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. N o w , are you giving -- when you sit on this 24 committee, Mr. Park, are you advising the other members of 9 1 this committee of your view of what you at Monsanto are 2 obligated to d o f are you doing that job? 3 A. I'm trying to interpret the law to this committee. 4 Q. And you have been advising Monsanto in the same 5 .framework as you have been discussing it with us today? S A. No, we don't deal with h y p o t h e t i c a l s , Mr. Carr. 7 Q. Is that correct? 8 A. No, we deal with actual situations that arise. 9 Q. And did you understand that my h y p o t h e t i c a l wasn't 10 telling you to assume that it's a real life situation, did 11 you misunderstand the question, Mr. Park? 12 A. I understood you to describe to me a hypothetical I 13 situation that I was required to answer. 14 Q. Mr. Park, you understand that when we in the law 15 use the word hypothetical, that you must assume that it is a 16 true life situation, you understand that, Mr. Park? 17 A.: Well, Mr. Carr, but your description was ID incomplete. 19 Q. You understand that Mr. Park or not? 20 A. ' It -- 21 Q. Because I don't wish to continue this unless you do 22 understand those basic rules, if I think a w o r d means 23 something and you think it means something else, we can't 24 communicate. Now do you understand that you must assume this 10 1 is a real life situation that I'm giving you, that it really 2 occurred, that you really discovered that one of your 3 products that you thought to be harmless has now, you've 4 discovered it's, harmful that it hurts people, it kills 5 people, it paralyzes people, does all kind of horrible things 6 to people, do you persist in your judgment, sir, that you are 7 not obligated to tell the SPA that this harmless chemical is 8 not harmless? 3 A. Nov;, are you referring to an obligation under 10 Section 8E? 11 HR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the v;itness 12 to ansv/er that question? 13 THE COURT: Mr. Park, you have to answer the 14 question as posed. It's a proper question. 15 A. Under the c i rcumstances described, Section 3E would 16 not require a notification of the EPA, and in the absence of 17 other considerations -- 18 Q. And, that is the way you've been a d ministering the 19 requirements, the way you at Monsanto have been interpreting 20 and administering the requirements since it's enactment, is 21 that correct, Mr. Park? 22 A. tie consider all factors -- 23 Q. Excuse me, that's the way you've been interpreting 24 and administering the Statute since it's enactment in 1977? 11 1 A. We consider all factors. 2 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 3 to answer? 4 THE COURT: Mr. Park, again, and you are licensed 5 in Missouri, I really don't have to tell you this again. 6 Answer the question as posed,' Mr. Park. 1 A. Yes. 8 Q. And, is that true of all the products that come to 9 your attention, not just the chlorinated phenols, hut the 10 wide range of products, that Monsanto makes? 11 A. Yes, we comply fully with the laws requirements. 12 Q. Mr. Park, I didn't ask you that, X asked you 13 whether or not you use the same judgment and interpretation 14 with all the products as you have described to us today in 15 answer to my questions, or is that correct, sir, you do use 16 that same judgment w i t h all Monsanto products? 17 A. We- comply fully with all requirements. 18 MR. CARR,: Your Honor, would you direct -- 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. CARR: .-- the witness to answer that question? 21 THE COURT: Mr. Park, just answer the question. 22 It's perfectly clear. What is your answer, Mr. Park? 23 A. Your Honor, I feel that Mr.' Carr is trying to 24 develop an appearance that we don't consider all factors. 12 1 THE COURT: Mr. Park, I don't care what your 2 feeling are about whatever Mr. Carr is trying to do with his 3 questioning. You have an obligation as a sworn witness to 4 answer the question as posed, and you are licensed in a 5 couple states, you know that. I'm licensed in Missouri, too, 6 I know the rules are not different over there. Nov?, please 7 answer the question as posed. 8 A. I w o uld answer it, Your Honor, but he's p o s e d a 9 question requiring a yes or no that -- 10 THE COURT: I believe that it can be answered by a 11 yes or no. I'm directing you to answer. 12 MR. MUSGRAVE: May my objection be noted requiring 13 the witness to 'answer yes of no when he w a n t s to give an 14 explanation? 15 THE COURT; Your objection is noted, objection is 16 overruled. Mr. Park, p lease answer the question. 17 A. .Then I would respond yes. 18 THE COURT s Thank y o u . 19 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Now, Mr.' Park, another element that 20 you mentioned and is -- dealing with' the toxicity of the 21 product now, assume at what level of contamination of your 22, products with 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 -TClilf u l ucme, or the dioxins in 23 general, at what level do you believe is required before you 24 think Monsanto should n otify the EPA under TSCA, assuming 13 1 .otner things being equal. 2 MR. M U S G R A V E : I object to the question as calling 3 for th^e witness to state conclusions that are medical or A toxicological in nature, and X don't believe he's been 5 qualified as an expert in that catagory. 6 THE COURT: Overruled. I don't think they do call 7 for that. 3 A. I don't really know what to say, Mr. Carr, I am not 9 a toxicologist. I rely on our experts in our Medical 10 D e p a r t m e n t . 11 Q. I understand that, but you've been relying on those 12 experts for a number of years, they have given you your 13 advice, you sit as a committee, you p a r t icipate in those, you .14 make those decisions based upon what you know about 15 toxicology, don't you, sir? 16 A. Hot on the basis of what X knov;, I think it would 17 presumptious of me -- 13 MR. MUSGRAVE: Just a moment. 19 O. From what you've been told -- 20 MR. MUSGRAVE: Just a moment, Mr. Carr, may he 21 finish his answer, Mr. Carr? v 22 THE COURT: You may finish your answer. 23 MR. MUSGRAVE: Go ahead. 24 A. I think it would be oresumptious of me to express 14 1 views on toxicology when it is not my field when we have 2 available to us at those meetings, where we consider how to 3 respond to this reporting requirement, qualified experts in 4 our Medical Department. 5 Q. Mr. Park, the memos that you have in front of you 6 that you prepared, that you wrote, tnat bear your signature, 7 you consider, do you not, the toxicity of the product, don't n you discuss it in tnose memos, the toxicity of the product? 9 A. I certainly do, please understand that those -- 10 Q. Mr. Park, I understand that you are not a 11 toxicologist, that you act upon information given to you by 12 those that you consider to be certain at that meeting, now, 13 bearing that in mind, Mr. Park, at v7hat level for 14 2,4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n o l , at what level do you consider it requires 15 notification to the EPA that dioxin is there? 1G MR. IIUSGRAVE: Same objection. 17 THE COURT: Same ruling. 18 Q. If there is any level, there may not be any level. 19 A. I really have no idea, Mr. Carr. 20 Q . .Have you not been a d v i s e d , at least meetings as to 21 the levels of dioxin content of the product? 22 A. I would certainly have been made aware of all 23 information that was presented at the meetings. 24 Q. My question is, sir, have you not been advised at 15 1 those meetings of the level of dioxin concent? Now, 2 directing your attention specifically to this meeting, the 3 meetings in Hay and June dealing with the 2 , 4-dichlorophenol? 4 A. I would certainly he aware of the information 5 that's expressed in those memoranda. 6 Q. Mr. Park, at those meetings, did the toxicologist 7 present tell you the levels at which the 2,3,7,0-TCDD is OLJ toxic? We have the information here that one part per 9 billion in TCDD in 2 , 4 , S-tr ichiorophenol v/ould cause cancer 10 in those animals that were tested. 11 MR. MUSGRAVH: Object to that, that's counsels 12 interpretation. The document speaks for itself. continue 13 my objection. 14 TH3 COURT: Overruled. It is a continuing 15 objection, and it has been so noted. 1.6 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Now, were you given information as 17 to other levels of dioxin contaminant other than the one part 18 per oillion that you know of? 19 A. don't even know of that, Mr. Carr, beyond just 20 this reference in this one memo with -- 21 Q. Well, is there any other information that you have 22 available to you other than those memos and those notes as to 23 what level of contamination was discussed with reference to 24 dioxins? 15 1 A At those two meetings? 2 Q Yes. 3 A. I note her down in the beginning of the bottom 4 paragraph on the first page, of the May 14, 1979 memorandum, 5 that is Exhibit 1238, says, "It was mentioned that the 6 product (93% 2 , 4-dichlorophenol) may contain mono-, di-, 7 tri-, and tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxins in trace amounts. After 3 a process change the product contain no detectable dioxin (at .9 the detection level of 10-20 parts per b i l l i o n ) . 10 Q. And did you accept that as fact at that time that, 11 after the process changed there was no d e tectable dioxin at 12 this level of 10 to 20 parts per billion? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And, you got that information, I take it, from the 15 chemists involved, the analytic chemists, perhaps Mr. Wilson, 16 D r . Wilson? 17 A. Certainly from someone at the meeting. 18 Q. And, they -- he told you that it was present in 19 trace amounts prior to the process change? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And v;hat did you consider, what do you consider to 22 be trace amounts? 23 A. Those are amounts that are quite low. 24 Q. I know that, but at what level, what you consider 17 i trace amounts? 2 A. Okay, I would consider trace amounts, you know,, 3 that's something I guess that may have with time,1 five years 4 ago I have no idea really what it would mean. 5 Q. Well, what do you consider it means today then? 6 A. I have no idea. X would guess it would mean -- 7 MR. MUSGRAVEs I object to the witness guessing, I 8 object to what the witness may today think trace amounts mean 9 when we are talking about a document and what a document 10 meant back in May of 1979. 11 THE COURT: Overruled. 12 A. Five years or so trace amounts could be anything 13 from probably parts per. billion to parts per million "* 14 depending upon the analytical capabilities. c -- --------- ------------------------- ------ -------- ------ - 15 Q. And what is your idea of trace amounts today? 16 A. I think it would depend upon the same thing in the 17 products. 18 Q. Well, the 2 , 4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n o l , S a n t o p h e n , 19 orthochlorophenol? 20 A. I think the term trace amounts is used when it's 21 felt that the amounts are so small as to not be significant, r 22 "~ 1' " Q. My question is, Mr. Park, what are -- and you still 23 are meeting on those committees and you discussed it just as 24 late as January the 25th, because the memo was delivered to 18 1 me two hours ago that you had such a meeting in whi c h you 2 discussed the levels of, dioxin. Please don't fence with me, *3 O Mr. Park, the meeting v/as just a couple of m onths ago, What A do you consider trace amounts? 5 MR. MUSGRAVE: I object Your Honor, he's asked him 6 and he's answered the question. 7 THE COURT: Overruled. 3 Q. The level? 9 A. I'm not a toxicologist, Mr. Carr, I w o u l d -- if a 10 toxicologist tells me trace amounts are present, I guess I 11 don't feel I need to go further, there v?ould be something 12 i n s i g n i f i c a nt . 13 Q. You are saying at those meetings you do not cover, 14 you do not discuss the level of contamination? ------ - -------------------- -- 15 A. It would if it v/as significant. 16 Q. Well, what are the levels that you consider 17 significant then, put it -- that would be non-trace, I take 18 it? 19 A. (pause) You are asking me levels of what would I 20 consider significant, because I guess it v/ould vary, I really 21 am reluctant, 22 Q. 2 , 4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n o l , o r t h o c h l o r o p h e n o l - c r u d e , 23 parachlorophenol, Santophen, what levels do you consider to 24 be significant, sir, that, is by your definition they v/ould 19 1 not be trace? 2 A. Mr. Carr, don't we have t oxicologists that have or 3 will testify here that can give you a much more qualified 4 response? 5 Q. Mr. Park, they have been and will be examined (5 insofar as their knowledge is concerned: You are being 1 examined at this time with all due respect, Mr. Park, about 8 your knowledge of the matter, because you all jointly go 9 together and you make up Monsanto -- you make the decisions 10 for Monsanto as to whether or not you n otify EPA, w h e ther or 11 not you notify*the people at Sturgeon, whether or not you 12 notify the workers in the plant. You are Monsanto, you are 13 part of it, I'm asking you now about your knowledge, what do 14 you consider significant amounts based upon your experience 15 in this department? For t wenty years or longer you've been 16 doing the work and having conference after c o nference with 17 medical doctors, conference after conference on health 18 effects, conference after conference with chemists on levels 19 and amounts, conference after conference with t o x i c ologists 20 I'm. Asking you, Mr. Park, what you've learned in that 21 period of time and what you consider to be significant 22 amounts of dioxin in the chemicals prod u c e d by Monsanto. 23 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to counsel's speecn, request 24 it be stricken, assuming facts that are not in evidence, have 20 1 never been proven. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. Proper question. 3 A. I guess I v?ould c o n s i d e r trace amounts to be parts 4 per billion un XT .raarts ^er mill inn. 5 Q. * ,.At w--hat --leve^l? 6 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to witness' guess, Your 7 Honor, request it be stricken. We are not here to have 3 witnesses guess. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 Q. At what level of parts per billion, Mr. -- did it 11 start at one, at two? 12 A. I simply cannot go any further, I'm not a 13 toxicologist, I'm not a chemist. 14 Q. Mr. Park, we have gone through this a number of 15 times, do you not consider that level w h e n you have those 16 meetings? 17 MR. MUSGRAVE: You mean Mr. Park or others? 18 Q, Do you not, Hr. Park, do you not as the member of 19 the committee that considers whether or not the EPA should be 20 notified, do you not consider the level of contamination? 21 A. If the meeting concerns something of that sort, 22 then -- 23 Q. That's what we are talking about, Mr. Park. 24 MR. MUSGRAVE: Well, you didn't tell him that, Mr. 21 1 Carr, you just said do you not consider, did, 2 particular facts. 3 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Carr. 4 Q. W ould you answer the question, please? i 5 A. The trace amounts would be again from I guess 6 detectable amounts up to so many parts per million, something 7 less perhaps than one percent. *1 3 Q. Detectable amounts, you have the capa c i t y to'detect 9 it then it is not a trace chemical, is that correct? i 10 A. Mo. No. No. You have to detect it before it can 11 become a trace. ii 1i 12 Q. Well, what is it, at what level? j 13 A. Anything let's say up to one percent. j ------ ' ' "'' i 14 Q. Anything that you can detect up to one percent is t 15 considered a significant amount? i I r IS A. See, your question was what would I consider' trace. 17 Q. Or is it anything from d e tectable levels up to one 18 percent is considered trace, vzhich do you mean, Mr. Park? 19 A. Do I understand your question, Mr. Carr, that you l 20 are asking me to describe v/hat X would consider trace : 21 amount? J J! I 22 Q. You gave to me that you would consider trace 23 amounts to be something other than significant, so either w a y 24 you want to look at it, v/hat do you consider trace amounts, i 22 1 or to put it another way, what could you consider to be of 2 significance for dixoin in your chlorinated phenols? 3 A. As a lawyer responding to a chemist's question, I 4 v/ould say 1 would guess that, depending upon the substance, a 5 trace amount could be anything, any concentration perhaps up <---------------------------------------------------- -------------- ---6 to 1 percent. 7 Q. I'm sorry, your voice dropped and I could not hear 8 your answer. !7ould you repeat it please, sir, what do you 9 consider trace amounts in chlorinated phenols for dioxin? 10 THE COURT: I had trouble hearing the last part, 11 too, if you would repeat it, Mr. Par!;? 12 A. Okay. 13 THE COURT: Your voice dropped right toward the 14 e n d . 15 A. When pressed I would guess that in my view, a trace IS amount depending upon the chemicals involved -- 17 Q. Mr. Park, I gave you the chemicals. Mr. Park, 18 don't fence on that, chemicals are chlorinated phenols, tell 19 me what you consider as a member of this committee to be 20 trace amounts of dioxins in chlorinated phenols. 21 MR. H U S G R A V E : Ion Object to his prior question will 22 be noted, Your Honor? 23 THE COURT: It's noted. 24 A. (pause) If your question is directed toward those 23 1 memoranda, it may be able to be d e termined v/hat the trace 2 amount referred to specifically right here. On HR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 4 to answer? 5 THE COURT: Mr. Park, that wasn't the question, o please answer the question as posed. 7 A. Well, if I'm required to answer. 8 THE COURT: Yes, you are, Mr. Park. 9 A. I v/ould guess that a trace amount in general means 10 something up to several parts per million. ^---------------------------------- -----------------11 0. I'm sorry? 12 A. Up to several parts per million. 13 THE COURT: Thank you. 14 Q. And -- 15 MR. MUSGRAVE: Again for the record, I object to 15 the witness guessing. t 17 THE COURT: So noted, IS Q. And what is your view of several? 19! MR. LIUSGRAVE: View of several? 20 0. What do you mean when you say several? 21 A. I really don't know, Mr. Carr, I do not know. 22 Q. You know what you mean, Mr. Park. I'm asking you 23 what is your definition of the word "several"? 24 A. I've done my best to explain that I do not know not 24 1 being a chemist, not being schooled. 2 Q. Mr. Park, you are misunderstanding my question, X 3 simply want you to define a word that you use every day. 4 When you use the word several, what do you mean? 5 A. I do not know what I mean in terms of trace 6 amounts, Mr. Carr. 7 Q. I'm not even asking you in terms of trace amounts, 8 you said several parts per million, I'm simply trying to find 9 out is one several? 10 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr. 11 Q. You don't know whether or not one is several, Mr. 12 Park. Well, perhaps is two several? 13 A. I don't knoii. 14 Q. Is three several? 15 A, I don't know. 16 Q. Sir? 17 A. I don 11 know. 13 Q. Is four several? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Is five several? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Is six several? 23 A. I don't know. 2 4 Q. Is a thousand several? 25 1 A. A thousand may be a little more than several. { 2 Q. Well, then is 900 several? 3 A. I don't knov/. A Q. Is eight several? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q, Is twenty several? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Is thirty several? 9 A. Could be. 10 Q. Could be? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Mr. Park, when you took the bar exam, I'm sure some 13 of those questions included the word several, didn't it, 14 sir? 15 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, that has n o t hing to do in 15 the context of a question asked of this witn e s s with regard 17 to a field he has no expertise in as to what might constitute 18 several parts pe'r million as being trace. Object as improper 19 q u e s t i o n . 20 THE COURT: Overruled, does not deal with that at 21 a l l . 22 A. I don't recall, Mr. Carr. 23 Q. When you see -- when you come home and you tell 24 your son or your daughter, I sav; several children on the 26 1 street today, what is the limits, the lower limit that you 2 w o u l d define or use the word several with, the very lowest 3 limit that you' would use the word several in c o nnection with? 4 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr. 5 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 6 to answer that question? 7 MR. MUSGRAVH: He has answered the question, he 8 doesn't know. There' is nothing in the lav? that says a 9 witness cannot say he doesn't know^ 10 Q. Okay, I'll accept that for the moment. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 Q. If you don't know then one could be several, 13 couldn'tt it, sir? 14 A. Possibly. > 15 THE COURT: Mr. Carr -- 15 Q. We have got it- defined that several can be between 17 one and thirty, don't we, sir? 18 A. Yes, at that .point -- I didn't intend to so limit 19 i t . 20 THE COURT: We will take about a five minute break 21 and we will resume testimony. The admon i s h m e n ts I gave you 22 earlier will apply during this break also. Court is in a 23 very short recess. 24 (Following a recess, these p r o c eedings were had in open 27 1 c o u r t .) 2 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Nov/, Mr. Park, if X understand you 3 correctly, products that contain v/hat you believe to be trace 4 amounts of the contaminant such as dioxins, need not be 5 reported under the T S C A Section 8E, is that correct, sir? 6 A. I v/ouldn't v/ant to make that general a statement, 7 Mr. Carr, there might be other factors that could require. 8 Q. The factors we are talking about is dioxin content 9 of the chlorinated phenols, that's the factors that we are 10 talking about, Mr. Park. Have I correctly quoted you? Do I 11 understand you to say that chlorinated phenols that contain 12 what you define as trace amounts of dioxin need not be 13 reported to the EPA under Section 8E of the toxic control, 14 Toxic Substances Control Act, is that correct, sir? 15 A. wouldn't make that broad a statement, it 16 obviously was a consideration at the meeting to consider the 17 8E obligation on May, May 11. 18 Q. Mr. Park, do you understand my question? 19 A. Y e s , I think did. 20 Q. Then, is there -- are there levels lower than trace 21 amounts at which you consider in those c h l o rinated phen 22 one or all that need to be reported to the EPA under TS 23 A. Not because of their dioxin content. 24 Q. Then i am correct in saying that other things being 28 1 equal in your chlorinated phenols, if they contain dioxin 2 levels, trace amount levels, as you have stated here, that 3 need not be reported to the EPA, is that correct, sir? 4 MR. MUSGRAVE: I object to counsel's 5 characterisation of the witness' testimony as to what he has S stated with regard to trace amounts. He has never testified, 7 never been asked whether trace amounts need be or need not be 3 reported. He's never, testified to that. 9 TIIE COURT: Objection is overruled, it's a proper 10 question? , 11 A. I note the comment on the m e m o r a n d u m that in -- 12 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 13 to answer that question, please? 14 THE COURT: Mr. Park, please answer the question as 15 posed? 16 A. Could'I have the question read again? 17 THE COURT: Read' it one time. 18 - COURT REPORTER: VThen I am correct in saying that 19 other 'things being equal in your c h l o rinated phenols, if they 20 contain dioxin levels, trace amount levels, as you have 21 stated here, that need not be reported to the EPA, is that 22 correct, sir?" 23 MR, MUSGRAVE: Also-object ,to the vagueness of ,24 being equal. 29 1 THE COURT: *Overruled. 2 A. Your Honor, may I ask you a question? 3 THE COURT,: No, sir, just answer the question. 4 A. It would depend upon I think some other factors 5 such as -- 6 Q, X already-gave you, Mr. Park, tne -- Sir, I gave 7 you already other things being equal, I saia assume anything 8 else that you want fc6 assume with regard to the consideration g that you want to c o n s i d er, is it your view that chlorinated^ 10 phenols that contain trace amounts as you have defined trace 11 amounts or less than those amounts need not be reported to 12 the EPA under the mandatory provisions of the Toxic 13 Substances Control Act Section 8E? 14 A. Yes, my answer to that question woiild b that it y 15 n*-e-e-d__n--o-t---b-e---r-e-p--o-r-t-e--d-.N ** 16 Q. And, has that been your view since the first '/ 17 obligation that you had connected with the c o mmittees that IS considered those things for 'Monsanto? 19 A. Taking your words as I understood them, Mr. Carr, 20 considering all other factors with this, that this would not 21 of itself require reporting, yes. 22 Q. And to be fair with you, you have considered that 23 there will be exposure, you have c o nsidered the knowledge 24 that you have that you've been told by toxicologist as to the 30 1 toxicity of various levels of dioxin including what you've 2 defined as trace amounts, you've considered all those things 3 in giving this answer, have you not, lir. Park? 4 A. Mr. Carr, I've considered such things as the fact 5 6 Q. Excuse me, could you answer that question, please, 7 M r . Park? 8 A. Mr. Carr, that question raises a question in my 9 mind as to whether I understood you earlier when I was 10 responding to an earlier question. If a p r o duct has been in 11 use for many many years and there are no known health effects 12 as a result of that use, and then it is found that it 13 contains a trace amount of dioxin or anything else, the mere 14 fact that a trace amount of contaminant is found is not of 15 itself a reason for submitting an SE report to the EPA. 16 Q. And that is your u n derstanding of the law? 17 A. T h a t 's c o r r e c t . 18 Q. That if you have a trace amount, as you defined it, 19 that it need not be reported. 20 MR. M U S G R A V E : I 'object to counsel paraphrasing 21 what this witness defined. 22 Q. I have every right to paraphrase and I intend to do 23 s o . 24 MR. MUSGRAVE: You do not, because the testimony 31 1 was a guess and the v^itness so stated it. 2 THE COURT: I ruled on that point. Objection is 3 overruled. His paraphrasing was proper, M r . Carr, you may 4 proceed. 5 Q. W ould you read the question to him, please. 6 COURT REPORTER: "That if you have a trace amount, 7 as you defined it, that it need not be reported." 3 A. Didn't I answer that? 9 COURT REPORTER: There was an objection. 10 G . Answer that q u e s t i o n , p l e a s e . 11 A. In the absence of a substantial risk of injury of 12 health or environment there would be no reporting required. 13 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 14 to answer the question as I posed it to him? 15 THE COURT: Mr. Park, it's been asked of you once, 16' it's been read back to you once. Answer the question as 17 p o s e a . 18 MR. HUSGRAVE : I object. He answered, let it be 19 noted, he has not. 20 A. Would you again ask the question? 21 Q. W o uld you read the question to him again. 22 THE COURT: Mo, my Court Reporters are not 23 dictating machines. It's been read to you once, asked of you 24 once, ansvier the question as posed, Mr. Park. 32 r 1 A. I don't remember what the question was, Your Honor, 2 I'm sorry. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Carr, would you ask it again, 4 please? 5 Q. Is it your view of the lav? that if the chemical 6 contains trace amounts as you have defined it, that you need 7 not report the presence of those trace amounts as you have^ 8 defined it in the chlorinated phenols to the EPA under the 9 Toxic Substances Control Act Section 8E? 10 A. That's correct, that is my view. 11 * Q. And, is that your belief, sir, based upon the fact 12 or what you believe to be the fact that the substance, the 13 chemical in question has been used for years? 14 A. I'm sorry, Mr. Carr, I'm not sure, you say is it my 15 understanding the chemical has been used for years. 15 Q. Yes, you gave that as a factor that you took into 17 play w hen you answ e r e d the question? 18 A. Yes, it is my u nderstanding that that's the case. 19 Q, And, does that pr e s u p p o s e that you know that all 20 the chemicals that have been m a n u f a c t u r e d before contained 21 those l e v e l s 1of dioxin that is from 1 part per million to 30 22 parts per million? 23 A. It mere l y supposes that there are no known adverse 24 health effects from use of the chemical over many years. 33 1 Q. Does that not i n c l u d e , Mr. Park, that you didn't, 2 that you^don't know whether or not that chemical did or did 3 not contain the contaminant, the dioxins? 4 A. I guess it would c o n t a i n an a s sumption that the -5 composition over the years -- 5 Q. Remained the s a m e , d o e s n 't i t , M r . Park? 7 A. Remained the same. 8 Q. But now, if, you learned that your p r o d u c t s vary, 9* that perhaps 90 percent of your products, perh a p s 99 percent 10 of your chlorinated phenols contained very ultra ultra, not 11 your definition of trace, but ultra ultra trace levels of 12 dioxin but that every now and then you find a batch that 13 contains higher levels of dioxin, w o u l d not that change your 14 assumption, Mr. Park? 15 A. Here I would rely on our toxic o l o g i s ts as to the 16 extent of whether to which a variation might have any impact. 17 Q. And you would then rely on your toxicologist for 10 dioxin content then even though your product had theretofore 19 been used in your belief w i t hout harmful effect, w o uldn't 20 you, s i r ? . 21 A,' I would rely on our toxicologist. 22 Q. You would do that because you "do know that 2,3,7,8 23 and other dioxins n early as toxic as 2,3,7,8, you do know 24 that that does have injurious health effects on people, you 34 1 do know that, don't you, sir? 2 A. I believe on the basis of -- 3 Q. You've been told that, haven't you, Mr. Park, by 4 the toxicologist? 5 MR. M U S G R A V E : He asked him what he knew. 5 MR. CARR: I think if he knows he can say he knows, 7 he can say he doesn't know. 3 MR. MUSGRAVE: You asked him, you said you do know, 9 you challenged him to answer, I would request he be permitted 10 to answer the question as posed. 11. A. I think there are some questions as to the 12 injurious effect of dioxin. 13 . Q. And you've had those questions in mind when you've 14 made your decisions, haven't you, sir? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And have you -- 17 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your a n s w e r , 18 did you say yes? 19 A. Yes. 20 THE COURT: Thank you. 21 Q. And you decided, did you, sir, that there were no 22 injurious health effects from exposure to any level of 23 dioxin? 24 A. Now again, I don't participate as a member of this 35 1 group as a toxicologist or a chemist. I participate to try 2 to interpret the law for them and merely to take down the 3 minutes. 4 Q. Mr. Park, you know when you have to interpret the 5 law you've got to know .whether, or not the substance is toxic, 6 that's part of the law interpretation? 7 A. And here I have to rely on other experts. 3 Q. A n d have the experts told you -- what have they .9 told you as far as health effects, that there are none other 10 than Chloracne, is that what you've been told, Mr. Park?" 11 A. I believe I've been told that there is no known 12 death resulting from dioxin exposure. 13 THE COURT: Mr. Park, I m issed the w h o l e last part 14 of what you said. Could you please keep your- voice up? 15 A. I'm sorry. I believe I can recall h aving been told 16 that there is no known death as a result of dioxin exposure. 17 ^ THE C O U R T : Thank y o u . 13 A. I have been told that it is h ighly toxic to certain 19 species- of animals, a p parently conside r a b l y less toxic to 20 other species and to humans. 21 Q. And what do you believe that the injurious health 22 effects that dioxin exposure is to human beings, what have 23 you been told that? , 24 MR. MUSGRAVE: Asked h i m what he believes or what 36 1 he's been told, there are two different questions there, Mr. 2 Carr. 3 Q. All right, first of all what you believe. 4 MR. MUSGRAVE: You want him to testify as an 5 expert? I don't believe he's been qualified as an expert to 6 testify. 7 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Go ahead. 8 Q. Then what you've been told, I don't care, give me 9 either one that you want to give as your counsel might want 10 you to do? 11 A. I'm trying to recall v/hat I have been told, v/hat I 12 have heard about dioxin toxicity, because it is not my 13 field. I believe I am aware that the first sign of an 14 adverse effect is Chloracne. 15 Q. You've been told there are any other bad results 16 from dioxin exposure? 17 A. Here it is my u n derstanding there is some question 18 as to v/hat -- 19 ,Q. My question, have you been told there are any other 20 bad effects in dioxin? 21 A. I have -- 22 Q. Other than acne? 23 A. I have been toldthereissomequestion as to other 24 effects and frankly I cannotrememberv/hat theyare. 37 1 Q. So the only one you can remember that you've been 2 told is acne? 3 A. Q h l o r a c n e , y e s . 4 Q. Yes. And, have you been e x ercising your judgment, 5 have you been using your roll based upon that that you can 5 remember is the bad result from dioxin that is Chloracne? 7 A. My roll is really not to speak to toxicity, it's to 8 try to see that the group properly complies with the law. 9 Q. Nov;, Mr. Park, I again insist that your memo that 10 you've given us indeed deals with toxicity, you talk about 11 carcinogenic effects, you talk about toxic effects, you are 12 dealing with it, and you may not again say it today, the memo 13 you have in front of you, you discuss it, don't you, sir? \ 14 A. Mr. Carr, I'm w r i ting down what toxic o l o g i s ts tell 15 me, you see. 16 Q. And you are using that knov;iedge, aren't you, sir? 17 A . N o . 18 Q. You are not using it when you prepare those memos, 19 you are not using it, aren't you speaking as a part of this 20 committee, and aren't you speaking for the committee when you 21 make those reports? 22 A. Those reports contain information prov i d e d to me by 23 the toxicologist, they participate in writing. 24 Q. I'm certainly aware of that, Mr. Park, are you not 33 1 participating, are you not speaking for the committee v/hen 2 you v;rite those reports? 3 A. I am speaking for the committee. 4 Q. And you discuss the toxicity, do you not, sir? 5 A. The toxicity information from the t oxicologists is 6 placed into those reports. 7 Q. And the only thing that your committee so far as 8 you can remember the ill health effects of dioxin is 9 Chloracne? 10 A. I do remember that the Chloracne is ap p a r e n t l y the 11 first sign of an adverse effect. 12 Q. And you can remember no other adverse effects from 13 dioxin exposure other than the Chloracne, is that what you 14 are telling us, sir? 15 A. Hot specifically. I can recall that there are some 16 others, but I believe there is some question as to other 17 e f f e c t s . 18 Q. Have you ever seen the 1267 A, or the page from IS which it comes? 20 A. I frankly don't recall. 21 Q. Have you ever been told that those as shown in 22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1267 are the toxic effects of 23 2,3,7,0-TCDD dioxin in man, have you ever been told that, 24 sir? 39 1 A. ji'm sorry, that those are the effects? 2 Q. Have you ever been told that? 3 . A. I could well have been. 4 Q. But you don't remember anything except the first 5 one Chloracne, is that right, sir? 6 A. I remember that one specifically. Can you tell me 7 what this is? 8 Q. Mr. Park, it's not important that you know v/hat it 9 is because I don't want to influence your judgment. You may 10 decide well so and so said it, I'll accept it, if somebody 11 else said it, I don't want to accept it. I'm asking you, 12 have you been told when you sit on that committee, when you 13 make a decision as to whether or not to n o tify the EP A about 14 substantial health risks, have you ever been told that 15 porphyria is a'health risk that's a s sociated w i t h dioxin 16 exposure? 17 A. I frankly cannot remember hardly any details about 18 those meetings. 19 Q. You had one just -- 20 A. That took place years ago. 21 o. You had one just in January, I have the memo here, 22 just January the 25th you had a meeting and v/hat you 23 discussed toxic effects and whether or not you should report 24 to the Government, just in January, you had to have discussed 40 1 those things? 2 A. W h ich substance was that, Mr. Carr, the J a n u a r y -- 3 you refer to that a couple of times, I'd like to bring that 4 back into my mind. 5 Q. It deals with dioxin content of a substance. 6 A. Which s u b s t a n c e . 7 Q. Makes no difference which substance, what it is, 8 dioxin content, we are talking about the toxicity of the 9 dioxin, v/e are not talking about a particular product. Do 10 you believe that we are really talking about 11 2 , 4-dichlorophenol or really talking about o r t h o c h lorophenol 12 or really talking about Santophen? We are talking about 13 dioxin? 14 A. Hr. Carr, I believe I can remember the J a n u a r y 15 o n e . As I recall -- 16 Q. I'm not asking you about that. 17 A. There was no tetra in the product, so there was no 18 need to get into any of those things that you have on your 19 b o a r d . 20 Q. Hr. Park, v/e will get to that in a few moments, v/e 21 are talking about dioxins in your products, get to the tetra, 22 to that particular exhibit in a moment, but I'm asking you, 23 have you been told, sir, that dioxin causes porphyria, 24 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes porphyria? 41 1 A. I cannot recall. 2 Q. Have you been told that it causes liver damage? 3 A. I cannot r e c a l l . 4 Q. Have you been told that it causes elevated serum 5 hepatic enzyme levels? 6 A. Is this -- 7 Q. Mr. Park, would you answer that question, please, 3 sir? 9 A. Mr. Carr, you are not being quite fair with m e f I 10 can see nov7 barely, my eyes are not like they used to be. 11 Thank you. Across the top it says toxic effects of 12 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin. Now, I a m just a 13 lawyer, but I do know enough to know that that is said to be 14 the most toxic of the dioxin isomers, yet in your discussions 15 out here with me, you just used the word dioxin, which is 16 much b r o a d e r . 17 Q. That's true, no question about that, Mr. Park, you 13 are a hundred percent right. You are a b s o l u t e l y correct. 19 A. The tetra, as I believe, was not a part of the 20 consideration at this 8E meeting in January. 21 Q. And I'm not asking about the J a n u a r y meeting other 22 than to remind you that you have discussed dioxins, and tetra 23 was discussed at that meeting, wasn't it, sir? 24 A. To the extent saying, okay, it was not found in the 42 1 product. 2 Q. Oh, no, what you did at that meeting, if I remind 3 you, you compared the toxicity of the dioxins that were 4 present with the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, that's exactly 5 what you did, Mr. Park, and I do not want to digress from 6 that to argue with that, Decause I'm asking you now this 7 question, have you been told that 2 , 3 , 7 , 3-TCDD v/ill cause a 3 toxic effect in man, elevated serum hepatic enzyme levels, 9 nave you been told that in the past, sir? 10 A. Can you tell me -- 11 MR. CARR: Would you direct tue w i t n e s s to answer 12 the question? 13 THE COURT: Mr. Park, answer the question. 14 A. I cannot recall. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 15 Q. Have you been told that exposure to 2 , 3 , 7 , 3-TCDD 17 can cause disorders of fat m e t a b o l i s m in man? 13 A. I'm sorry, I just can't recall. 19 Q. Have you been told that exposure to T CDD causes 20 cardio-vascular disorders, heart trouble? 21 A. I'm sorry, I do not recall. 22 Q. Have you been told that it can cause disorders of 23 carbohydrate metaoolism? 24 A. I don't recall. 43 1 Q. Have you been told that it causes ur-inary tract 2 disorders in man? 3 A. I don 11 r e c a l l . A Q, How about respiratory disorders, have you been told 5 about that? 6 A, I d o n 't r e c a l l . 7 0. Have you been told whether or not it causes 3 pancreatic disorders? 9 A. I don 11 r e c a l l . 10 Q. Have you been told whether or not it causes p e r -- 11 polyperipheral neuropathy, that's pain in the nerves? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. Have you been told that it causes lower extremity 14 weakness? 15 A. I'm sorry, I don't recall. 16 Q. Have you been told that it causes sensory 17 i m p a i r m e n t , s i g h t , h e a r i n g , s m e l l , taste, p h o tophobia? 18 A. I can 11 r e c a l l . 19 Q. Have you been told that it causes p s y c h i a t r i c 20 disorders, makes people depressed, neurasthenic syndromes, 21 have you been told that, sir? 22 A. I believe I can recall some vague discussion of 23 that, but I can't recall anything. 24 0. How -- 44 1 A. S p e c i f i c . 2 Q. Nov/ -- 3 THE COURT: Could you keep your voice up again, Mr. 4 Park? 5 A. Yeah 6 THE COURT: Thank you 7 Q. Mr. Park, when you have those meetings, and you 8 discuss whether or not exposure to those chlorinated phenols 9 that contain dioxin, you must of necessity, in order to 10 exercise an intelligent decision, you must of n e c e s s i t y be 11 told what the possible health effects can be, isn't that ------ ---- ---------------- ------- - 12 c o r r e c t , sir? ' 13 A. It would depend upon whether there was a 14 sufficiently high concentration of dioxin p r e sent to bring on /------------------------------------------------------------------ -------15 a health effect. 16 Q. All I've asked you about that concentration, and 17 you've told me that anything from 1 to 30 parts per million ID is what you consider something above trace? 19 A. Only v/hen you pressed me and required my answer. 20 Q. Certainly I pressed you. 21 A. Those are questions that I rely on a toxicologist 22 to answer. 23 Q. I understand that. What if a toxicologist told you 24 that 250 parts per billion of total dioxins can have a 45 1 harmful effect upon human beings, what if a toxicologist told 2 you that? 3 A. If a toxicologist tells us that a given exposure is A likely to result from the use of a product, and that that 5 exposure would present a substantial risk of health or to 6 environment -- 7 Q. You are talking about exposure again, I want to 8 leave that out of it. 9 THE COURT: Gentlemen, could I see you at the bench 10 for just a moment, please? 11 MR. CARR: Could I finish this? 12 THE COURT: You can finish this one question. 13 Q. I want to get this point established. If a 14 toxicologist told you that 250 parts per billion was 15 injurious to man, would you accept that, sir? 16 A. If one of our toxicologists -- 17 Q. Yes, one of your toxicologists told you that? 18 A. Yes, I would accept v/nat. nt 19 THE COURT: Okay. Fine. We will break at this 20 point. Ladies and gentlemen, we will resume tomorrow at 21 9:30. I would remind you as I do on any overnight break that 22 you are not to read, listen to, or watch anything about this 23 case in particular, or subject matter in general in any of 24 the press or electronic media. Court is adjourned. 46 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, DEBRA M. M U S I E L A K , certify the foregoing to oe a o true and accurate transcript of the testimony and proceedings 7 in the above-entitled cause. 8 Dated this \\ day of April, 1385. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 48 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, one of the Judges in and 6 for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, do hereby certify that I 7 have examinated the aforesaid transcript of proceedings, and S certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate transcript of 9 the testimony and proceedings in the above-styled cause. 10 Dated this ________ day of April, 1985. 11 12 13 14 15 16 HON. R I C HARD P. G O L D E N H E R S H 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 49