Document 7OpE4wbnbpjrR5jJmbNMzdre8

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 3 4 ROGER DALE HOLLAND AND DRENDA SHEPARD HOLLAND, INDIVIDUALLY 5 AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF TAUSHA MARIE HOLLAND AND JESSICA 6 NICOLE HOLLAND; WILLIE MAE HOLLAND AND J. SELMON HOLLAND 7 Plaintiffs, 8 vs . C. A. NO. C-91-78 9 MONSANTO, INC.; CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY; AND HOUSTON 10 LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, Defendants. 11 12 13 14 15 DEPOSITION OF DR. EMMET KELLY 16 Taken behalf of the Plaintiffs June 28, 1991 17 18 19 20 21 ' Reported by Suzanne Benoist, RPR, CSR 22 for KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY 23 408 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63102-2722 24 (314) 621-8883 25 FOntvj uor! - LAoc'rY ncPORi cno rAPERt* .viruVC .O ^^u-oLu-6313 WATER PCB-SD0000057200 2 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 3 ROGER DALE HOLLAND AND DRENDA ) SHEPARD HOLLAND, INDIVIDUALLY ) 4 AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF TAUSHA ) MARIE HOLLAND AND JESSICA ) 5 NICOLE HOLLAND; WILLIE MAE ) HOLLAND AND J. SELMON HOLLAND ) 6 Plaintiffs, ) 7 vs. ) ) ) 8 MONSANTO, INC.; CENTRAL POWER ) AND LIGHT COMPANY; AND HOUSTON ) 9 LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Defendants. ) 10 C. A. NO. C-91-78 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF DR. EMMET KELLY, produced, 15 sworn, and examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs on 16 June 28, 1991, between the hours of eight o'clock in 17 the forenoon and five o'clock in the afternoon of that 18 day at the offices of Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, 19 Cornfeld & Jenkins, 100 North Broadway, Suite 1300, 20 St. Louis, MO 63102, before SUZANNE BENOIST, a 21 Registered Professional Reporter and a Notary Public 22 within and for the State of Missouri. 23 24 25 WATER PCB-SD0000057201 3 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 The Plaintiff was represented by the law 4 firm of Edwards & Terry, 1400 Texas Commerce Plaza, 5 P.0. Drawer 480, Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 by Mr. 6 Michael G. Terry. 7 The Defendant Monsanto was represented by 8 the law firm of Woodard, Hall & Primm, P.C., 7000 9 Texas Commerce Tower, Houston, Texas 77002 by Mr. 10 Robert A. Hall. 11 The Defendant Houston Lighting & Power 12 Company was represented by the law firm of Baker & 13 Botts, One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, Texas 14 77002-4995 by Mr. Tracy D. Hester. 15 The Defendant Central Power & Light Company 16 was represented by the law firm of Bracewell & 17 Patterson, 2900 South Tower Pennzoil Place, Houston, 18 Texas 77002 by Ms. Lisa D. Anouilh. 19 The Defendant United States of America was 20 represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, Torts 21 Branch, Civil Division, P.O. Box 340, Ben Franklin 22 Station, Washington, DC 20044 by Mr. Michael T. 23 McCaul. 24 25 WATER PCB-SD0000057202 1 INDEX OF QUESTIONERS 2 3 4 MR. TERRY 5 6 7 MR. HESTER 8 9 10 MR. MCCAUL 11 12 13 MR. MCCAUL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 5 88 89 98 WATER PCB-SD0000057203 5 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 2 between Counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for the 3 Defendant, that this deposition may be taken in 4 shorthand by SUZANNE BENOIST, a Registered 5 Professional Reporter and Notary Public, and 6 afterwards signed by the Witness. 7 8 o-0-o 9 DR. EMMET KELLY 10 of lawful age, being produced, sworn and examined on 11 the part of the Plaintiff, deposes and says: 12 EXAMINATION 13 QUESTIONS BY MR. TERRY: 14 Q. Can you tell us your name, sir? 15 MR. HALL: Same stipulation? 16 MR. TERRY: Yes. 17 ARobert Emmet Kelly, M.D. K-e-l-l-y. 18 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Where do you reside Dr. 19 Kelly? 20 A. 665 South Skinker, St. Louis, Missouri, 21 63105 . 22 Q. How old a man are you? 23 A. 81. 24 Q. Did you work at Monsanto? 25 A. Yes. From 1936 until 1974. With the WATER PCB-SD0000057204 6 1 exception of four years in the service. 2 Q. Did you retire in 1974? 3 A. At 65. 4 Q. What did you do while you were at 5 Monsanto? 6 A. First, I was engaged at first as a plant 7 official in their plant in St. Louis called Plant A 8 which later was called the Queeny Plant. Then 9 following when I returned from the service I became 10 director of their medical department, that was a new 11 department, staff department, I was director of that 12 until I retired. 13 Q. Would that be from 1945 - 14 A. '46 until '74. 15 Q. As the director of the medical department 16 did your responsibility include any portion of 17 Monsanto's dealings with people outside the work 18 force? 19 A. Yes. You mean the customers? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can you describe for me what sorts of 23 responsibilities you would have with respect to the 24 customers? 25 A* Well, medical department under my WATER PCB-SD0000057205 7 1 direction had the responsibility for putting any safe 2 handling data, any toxicological data in any of the 3 published material that went out of the company. The 4 medical department had the responsibility of answering 5 any customer complaints or inquiries about actual or 6 possible harmful effects from contact with the 7 company's products. 8 Q. In connection with the toxicological data 9 that would accompany the products that left Monsanto, 10 where did you obtain the data? Was it independent 11 research conducted by you or how did you go about it? 12 A. If the data were not available we engaged 13 outside laboratories to run the toxicological 14 experiments. We had no laboratory of our own until 15 '75 or '76. 16 Q. After your retirement? 17 A. Yes. We started planning in 1973 or '74. 18 Q. When you referred to if data not 19 available, what were your sources for data? 20 A. Well your sources were several things. 21 One, if it were a compound, in other words Dow might 22 have made it or DuPont might have made it I would talk 23 to the medical directors of those companies, what do 24 you know about it; do you know any published data and 25 if they did they would give it to me just like it was WATER PCB-SD0000057206 8 1 a two way street, I would give them material that we 2 had. That material could be plant experience, 3 research, chemist's experience. Then there may be 4 data available in the published literature. We had a 5 librarian that catalogued the material in the English 6 language. There weren't that many publications in 7 those days, that many magazines, there were probably 8 two or three in the United States, one in the United 9 Kingdom. So we got the material that way. 10 Q. In this case that weare dealing with 11 today involves PCB's. Are you familiar with those? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Manufactured by Monsanto and used in 14 liquids designed for use in electrical transformers. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Are you familiar with those? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you have any personal involvement in 19 preparing safe handling data for PCB's or in 20 communicating toxicological data? 21 A. Yes. I enrolled and/or reviewed any 22 toxicological data that was in our development 23 bulletins, our technical bulletins. I wrote the safe 24 handling precautions on all our labels and I answered 25 inquiries both written and oral from any of our WATER PCB-SD0000057207 9 1 customers regarding effects of PCB's. 2 Q. Are there health hazards for humans 3 associated with PCB's? 4 A. Yes. If you get extensive exposure to it 5 at elevated temperatures or in confined spaces you can 6 get serious problems if you get enough. Just like 7 anything else. No compound, table salt is as harmful 8 in large amounts. But there have been with the 9 exception of chloracne there have been no reported 10 cases of illness in workers or users of PCB's in the 11 United States. 12 Q. Is there any health hazard other than 13 chloracne in your opinion associated with PCB's? 14 A. Yes. If you inhale the material in 15 sufficient quantities, and that means elevated 16 temperatures or in extremely confined spaces, one may 17 get liver trouble. There's a chemical hepatitis 18 that's associated, characterized by jaundice and I 19 would imagine you can get a fatality if you did enough 20 of it. There have been none however. There have been 21 few isolated cases of chemical hepatitis, not in the 22 transformer industry but in the heat transfer 23 industry. 24 Q. Are PCB's regarded as carcinogenic, 25 either animal or human? WATER PCB-SD0000057208 10 1 A. They certainly are not regarded by me or 2 what I believe the large amount of scientific evidence 3 as being carcinogenic in humans. There are data both 4 pro and con of the carcinogenicity of PCB's in 5 animals. That's carcinogenicity devoted to the liver, 6 some studies have shown carcinogenicity cancer 7 producing of the liver after prolonged feeding of two 8 years and some have not. 9 Q. Are PCB's in your opinion safe to use? 10 A. Certainly. 11 Q. Why did Monsanto stop making them? 12 A. Because of the environmental aspect. It 13 was causing two things that occurred: One was 14 material was found to be non-biodegradable. Secondly 15 the phenomenon of bioaccumulation occurred which meant 16 that if the material were say in the bottom of a river 17 the algae, the plankton that live in the bottom of the 18 river would ingest the PCB, they would be eaten by the 19 shrimp and the PCB level would increase in shrimp, 20 shrimp would be eaten by a fish, it would increase in 21 a fish then along comes a peregrine falcon and eats 22 the fish and lays an egg without shells on it and that 23 is a pretty serious effect for the avian species so 24 that's why they did it. They did not stop 25 manufacturing the material because of any possible WATER PCB-SD0000057209 ____________ ___________________________________________________________11 1 real or applied health hazards in humans, it was to 2 avian species and also the presence of a material in 3 fish and the FDA does not like the presence of any 4 untoward product in the food chain. So we stopped it. 5 Q. So Monsanto made the decision to stop the 6 production of PCB's because it was detected in the 7 environment? 8 A. Not only because it was detected in the 9 environment, it was harming the eagles, it was harming 10 the peregrine falcon, it was harming several species 11 of birds especially on the west coast. 12 Q. Do you know or have an opinion as to how 13 PCB's were being introduced into the environment? 14 A. Certainly by discarding it unwisely. 15 Q. By discarding expended or used material 16 containing PCB's unwisely? 17 A. Remember now PCB's constitute a large 18 amount of several different PCB's. There are also 19 other PCB manufacturers outside the United States. 20 Monsanto is the only one in the United States, there 21 were manufacturers in Japan and Germany and France, 22 Italy, so there were an awful lot of them, half a 23 dozen large manufacturers. They're used in heat 24 transfer operations, they're used in hydraulic fluids, 25 they were used in greases, they were used in paint, WATER PCB-SD0000057210 12 1 they were used to plasticize so there were a number of 2 ways they could get in the environment mostly by use 3 in carbonless copy paper, people discarded the carbons 4 and they were either put in a landfill or trash or 5 burned. So there's any number of ways they could get 6 into the environment. 7 Q. Is it your opinion that the primary 8 source for PCB's in the environment was discarding the 9 material or the material containing PCB's unwisely? 10 A. I would think so, yes. 11 Q. In connection with Monsanto's production 12 of PCB's was Monsanto unaware that the material was 13 biodegradable? 14 A. Not only Monsanto was everybody was 15 unaware that it was non-biodegradable. I mean we 16 considered it non-biodegradable but we did not think 17 that non-biodegradability was a negative factor. In 18 fact we thought that the PCB would lie down in the 19 settlement at the bottom of a lake or river like a 20 lump of coal or piece of gravel and just stay there. 21 We did not and the scientists did not recognize the 22 bioaccumulation factor which occurred about the same 23 time. 24 Q. Setting aside the bioaccumulation factor 25 Monsanto was aware that the PCB's were WATER PCB-SD0000057211 13 1 non-biodegradable was it not? 2 A. I don't believe that -- I can't answer 3 that. I don't believe that that was given much 4 thought until the 1968's. 5 Q. What are the properties of PCB's that 6 make it non-biodegradable? 7 A. Probably -- I can't answer that. I don't 8 know. I'd have to be surmising. 9 Q. Do you know whether or not the very 10 properties that make it non-biodegradable are the same 11 properties that make it most desireable in liquids 12 used for transformers? 13 A. I think so. I think there is a 14 relationship between the chlorine content of the 15 material that makes it important for electrical use 16 and non-biodegradability. 17 Q. The very qualities that make it most 18 suitable for use as a liquid in transformers where it 19 is resistant to heat, resistant in arcing, persistent 20 in its state for a long period of time, are the same 21 qualities that make it non-biodegradable; is that 22 fair? 23 A. Again I'd have to surmise, I'm not an 24 authority on that, but I would surmise yes, that that 25 is the reason. WATER PCB-SD0000057212 14 1 Q. And Monsanto was of course aware of the 2 properties of PCB's used in liquids for transformers 3 that made it desireable? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And in fact urged those properties as a 6 reason to use its product Askarel in transformers? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. As evidenced bythedocuments,deposition 9 exhibits, that you have before you. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q,, Did you have any hand in making any 12 determination about the specific chemical properties 13 of the particular product we are dealing with, 14 Askarel? 15 A. No sir. Remember now Askarel is a 16 generic term for half a dozen PCB's that go into 17 transformers and electric capacitors but the answer is 18 no because the history of PCB's and Askarel with 19 Monsanto was that the Swan Chemical Company made it in 20 1930, Monsanto bought the company in 1935, I came with 21 the company in 1936 so I had nothing to do with it. 22 Q. I'm sorry, I probably didn't make myself 23 clear. I'm not asking about whether or not you had 24 anything to do with the initial invention or discovery 25 of the compound Askarel, that became part of Askarel, WATER PCB-SD0000057213 15 1 but in connection with your work as medical director 2 did you have any occasion to determine the specific 3 chemical properties of Askarel? 4 A. No sir. 5 Q. Okay. In connection with determining the 6 toxicological information that should be communicated? 7 A. That's different. That's a different 8 question. 9 Q. But in connection with that did you do 10 any work with the material itself to determine what 11 its chemical properties were? 12 A. No. That was done by the manufacturing 13 group and analytical group. 14 Q. How did you determine what toxicological 15 information to be communicated about the product, 16 Askarel? 17 A. Well it depends on two - 18 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) 19 (WHEREUPON REPORTER READ FROM THE RECORD AS DIRECTED). 20 A. Decided on the use of the product. In 21 other words PCB's is an industrial chemical obviously, 22 it's not intended to be sold over the counter, it's 23 not intended to be used except as an industrial 24 chemical. So the toxicological information we 25 developed on that was to protect the worker who would WATER PCB-SD0000057214 16 1 use it and so that generally as short-term testing, 2 you test it on the skin to see what caused irritation, 3 you test it to see if the material can be absorbed by 4 the skin, you test it on eyes, you test it by 5 breathing a saturated vapor and you get what is called 6 an LD-50, that means the lethal dose for half the 7 animals that you administer the material to, it's sort 8 of a benchmark for toxicity much like specific gravity 9 is a benchmark for viscosity. Then when the material 10 started to be used in other aspects where -- it first 11 was used as a dielectric, then when it became 12 prominent as a hydraulic fluid and as a heat transfer 13 agent where it could be used in elevated temperatures 14 we ran testing on the material at elevated 15 temperatures to see what exposure a man could stand 16 without any harmful effects. Then when it turned up 17 to be present in the food chain, game fish especially, 18 although it was a small amount we didn't know what the 19 probability or whether there was any toxicity at low 20 levels, we ran two-year testing much like one would do 21 for a food additive, we did that after consultation 22 with the Food and Drug Administration, we were 23 obviously not going to recommend it as a food 24 additive, we ran through the same testing, that was in 25 late '60's we did this. WATER PCB-SD0000057215 17 1 So an industrial chemical you do one type 2 of tests if there's a possibility it can be ingested 3 by people over a long period of time you ran prolonged 4 testing. So that's what we did. 5 Q. In connection with the testing that you 6 did when the product would be used as a dielectric 7 what test did you do there? 8 A. There was a package testing that included 9 feeding the material to get the LD-50, see if the 10 material was absorbed through the skin, dropped in the 11 animal's eyes to see what occurred in the eyes and had 12 inhalation of the material at room temperatures. But 13 remember here we had this product that was made by 14 Swan that had some testing done previously by Swan, 15 that had some testing done by, at Harvard where they 16 would use the material not as a dielectric but as a 17 wire coating material so there was considerable amount 18 of toxicity work done back in the '30's. 19 Q. Did you redo the work that had been done 20 by Swan and Harvard? 21 A. No we did not. 22 Q.- Did you do additional work? 23 A. Not at that time because they came out 24 with some pretty definite answers. 25 Q. So in terms of the toxicological WATER PCB-SD0000057216 18 1 information that would be communicated for use, when 2 the product was intended to be used as a dielectric, 3 the data for that information was essentially drawn 4 from the work done by Swan and Harvard. 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And that work would have included feeding 7 the stuff to animals? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. To get the LD-50? 10 A. Well they didn't call it LD-50 at that 11 time, minimum lethal does or something like that they 12 called it. 13 Q. And applying it to the skin of animals? 14 A. Yes. I believe Harvard did. Swan did, 15 Flynn, F-l-y-n-n, in New York did work for Swan, he 16 applied it to the skin of animals. 17 Q. And into the eyes of animals? 18 A. I don't think he did. We did that 19 ourselves. 20 Q. Then you had the animals breathe vapors 21 at various concentrations? 22 A. Yes. At saturated room temperatures. 23 Q. And on the basis of that you determined 24 certain toxicological information that should be 25 communicated to users of the fluid as a dielectric. WATER PCB-SD0000057217 19 1 A. That's correct. As well as put on the 2 labels. 3 Q. Did the information that was communicated 4 to users of the fluid as a dielectric change over the 5 years ? 6 A. Well it changed at the time the 7 environmental aspect became prominent, that was in 8 1970 . 9 Q. Was there any change in the information 10 communicated from 1936 until 1970? 11 A. Would you repeat that question please? 12 Q. Was there any change in the information 13 that was communicated, and again we're talking about 14 toxicological information, communicated to users of 15 the product as a dielectric, from 1900 and 36 until 16 1900 and 70? 17 A. No sir. Not as a dielectric. It changed 18 as far as the heat transfer units were concerned but 19 not as a dielectric. 20 Q. In 1900 and 70 did the information 21 change? 22 A. Yes. Because of the environmental aspect 23 it changed. 24 Q. How did the information change? What was 25 added or what was taken away? WATER PCB-SD0000057218 20 1 A. Nothing was taken away. We added 2 cautions about being more stringent in disposing of 3 the material, we offered to have the material returned 4 to us and be incinerated by Monsanto. 5 Q. We learned from Mr. Pappageorge yesterday 6 that in 1900 and 70 to '71 Monsanto designed and put 7 in place an incinerator capable of combusting PCB's. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q.And we learned thereafter that Monsanto 10 offered to dispose of scrap or wastematerial 11 containing PCB's, liquids, at the rate of three cents 12 a pound beginning in '70 or '71. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you have anything to do with that 15 process or were you simply aware that it was ongoing? 16 A. I was aware. I didn't have anything to 17 do with the process. 18 Q. In connection with communicating the 19 information to users about being more stringent in 20 disposing the material and the fact that Monsanto had 21 the incinerator available did you have anything to do 22 with that? 23 A. Well there are two questions there. One, 24 as far as the information is concerned I had something 25 to do with putting it on the label and putting it in WATER PCB-SD0000057219 21 1 the technical bulletins however the actual interface 2 between the customers was on the part of Pappageorge 3 who was in 1970 appointed the environmental point man 4 as it were for PCB's. He was the primary contact with 5 the customer, and also the sale, the marketing group 6 let their customers know about the availability of the 7 incinerator. Now I think Pappageorge sent a whole 8 series of letters out to all the customers both 9 dielectric and plasticizers and everything else 10 telling what should be done and what we were doing and 11 when we were going to discontinue some of the open 12 uses . 13 Q. But in connection with preparing the 14 information that should be communicated to users in 15 1970 were you involved in that? 16 A. Well we had two industrial hygienists who 17 were pretty familiar with the EPA regulations before 18 Pappageorge came aboard, I mean came into his 19 position, and I believe they had quite a bit of 20 contact with the people who had discovered the 2 1 presence of PCB in eagles and falcons and other birds 22 in Sweden and on the west coast. So we did have some 23 input into that. 24 Q. But in terms of preparing the information 25 that was communicated to the customers about disposal WATER PCB-SD0000057220 22 1 did you have anything to do with that personally? 2 A. No sir. 3 Q. You were just aware that it wasongoing? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. Did you have anything to do prior to 1900 6 and 70 with communicating to customers about how the 7 material was supposed to be disposed of? 8 A. I can't answer that. It may very well be 9 that members of the medical department did because we 10 had people who were familiar with the rules of the 11 various states at that time and I'm sure whatever 12 information they sent out, that we sent out was what 13 we sent out on any industrial chemical to put it in an 14 approved landfill, don't just throw it down the sewer. 15 I mean putting it in an approved landfill seemed to be 16 the common method of disposal but I can't recall 17 telling customers what they should do. It may very 18 well be that some of the members of the medical 19 department may have. Our industrial hygiene group. 20 Q. Was the industrial hygiene group a group 21 under your direction? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q.- Was that the title of the group, 24 industrial hygiene? 25 A. Well the group was two people, it was WATER PCB-SD0000057221 23 1 four people but there were two people more directly 2 involved with the customers. 3 Q. Just two people, they probably didn't 4 have a group name. Who were the people; do you 5 remember? 6 A. One was Albert Wheeler who's now deceased 7 the other is Jack Garrett who's retired from the 8 company. 9 Q. Now Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Garrett would 10 have been industrial hygienists? 11 A. That's right. They started as industrial 12 hygienists and developed into doing some work in the 13 environmental aspect. 14 Q. And how long, I mean did you always have 15 an industrial hygienist or more? 16 A. Well I came with the company as a 17 director in 1946 and I think I engaged Wheeler in '47 18 or '48. 19 Q. And then Mr. Garrett? 20 A. Garrett came in the early '50's I think. 21 Q. So you would have had at least one 22 hygienist for as long as, within a year after you 23 became medical director? 24 A. Yes. But I do not believe they had any 25 contact with the environmental aspect until the '60's WATER PCB-SD0000057222 24 1 I suppose. 2 Q. If there were information communicated by 3 the medical department directly to customers about 4 disposal of PCB's or liquids containing PCB's it would 5 have come from Mr. Wheeler or Mr. Garrett? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. In connection with literature that 8 Monsanto would have delivered to its customers in 9 connection with proper disposal of liquids intended as 10 dielectric-containing PCB's who would have been 11 responsible for preparing that section of the 12 literature? 13 A. Well it depends on the time frame. After 14 1970 it was Pappageorge, before that it would be the 15 manufacturing group with input from the non-medical 16 part of the medical department who's Garrett and 17 Wheeler. 18 Q. All right. So prior to 1900 and 70 the 19 people in your department that would have had input 20 for that class of information would have been Mr. 21 Wheeler or Mr. Garrett. 22 A. Remember before 19, before the EPA came 23 out states had a great deal of regulations and things 24 and Garrett was, Garrett and Wheeler would help the 25 plants in their relationships with the various states WATER PCB-SD0000057223 25 1 and their governing bodies. 2 Q. Now in the literature that you have 3 before you, in my review of that literature, I see 4 that there is some information communicated about safe 5 handling and some indication of ill effects or how to 6 avoid ill effects from handling and I assume that that 7 is the kind of information that you would have 8 communicated as toxicological information. 9 A. And medical information, yes. That would 10 be my responsibility. Of course the other was my 11 responsibility also as it came from the medical 12 department. You know what Wheeler and Garrett might 13 have said about disposal ultimately was my 14 responsibility but I didn't do it myself. I was privy 15 to the information I'm sure because I knew Garrett and 16 Wheeler were around visiting or I would see 17 correspondence dealing with those matters. 18 Q. I understand that you did not do it 19 personally but people under you in your department 20 would communicate to customers about how to dispose of 21 the material. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. In terms of the literature that was 24 prepared do you know what Monsanto communicated to its 25 customers about proper disposal? WATER PCB-SD0000057224 26 1 A. Certainly after 1970 I did. 2 Q. Prior to 1900 and 70. 3 A. I don't recall knowing anything about 4 that. 5 Q. I assume, and you correct me if I'm 6 wrong, that you would have reviewed the publications 7 that are before you before they were sent out with 8 respect to the toxicological and safe handling 9 information from a health respect? 10 A. Yes. In fact I would probably write it 11 and then I would see the finished copy, they might do 12 some editorial corrections as far as space is 13 concerned but I would see the final product before it 14 went out. 15 Q. And then you would have reviewed the 16 remainder of the material to make certain that 17 inconsistent information was not communicated, for 18 example where you say you should avoid prolonged skin 19 contact the section that deals with testing says and 20 put your hand in it and keep it there for 20 minutes, 21 that sort of thing. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You woulddo that? 24 A. Yes . 25 Q. In connection with your review of the WATER PCB-SD0000057225 27 1 literature do you remember looking specifically to see 2 whether or not Monsanto would communicate information 3 about how to dispose of the materialproperly? 4 A. Before 1970? 5 Q. Before 1970. 6 A. No. Because I think the standard 7 practice at that time was it's an industrial chemical, 8 we tell you how to avoid ill harm from it and we 9 expect our customer to follow the same precautions 10 when he's getting rid of it. In other words if we 11 tell him don't get it on your skin when you're working 12 with it we don't expect him to give to somebody to 13 pour in a street where somebody could get in contact 14 with it. I think that was standard industrial 15 practice. The disposal of a product, we didn't 16 consider it our responsibility after the primary user, 17 in other words we sold it to transformer people or we 18 sold it to capacitor manufacturers. What they did 19 from then on out was their responsibility as far as 20 anything was communicated to their customers, 21 information we sent them, because we didn't know who 22 their customers were going to be in a vast majority of 23 cases. We didn't know what they were doing with it. 24 Q; I don't think that's an answer to the 25 specific question. WATER PCB-SD0000057226 28 1 A. What is the question again then? 2 Q. I've forgotten but I don't think you 3 answered it. That's all right, we'll come back to it. 4 I am looking to see whether or not you 5 reviewed the literature to see if appropriate 6 information about proper disposal was communicated. 7 Did you do that? 8 A. Before 1970 I did not. 9 Q. And then after 1970 did you do that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Prior to 1970 was it your assumption then 12 that either other people in Monsanto were 13 communicating information about proper disposal or it 14 was not necessary to communicate information about 15 disposal? 16 A. I think it was both. In other words here 17 is an industrial compound that was used for 40 years 18 and never had any problem, I mean no problem surfaced 19 until it "showed up in the birds in Sweden in 1968, it 20 had been manufactured since 1935 and there was 21 absolutely no problems with it, whether disposal or 22 during use. I can count on the fingers of one hand 23 how many inquiries I had about possible ill effects 24 and that's an extremely meager number considering the 25 ones we would get from any of our other chemicals. WATER PCB-SD0000057227 29 1 Q. Okay. Was there or did you know 2 personally as medical director of Monsanto what the 3 regular practices were prior to 1970 about the 4 disposal of industrial chemicals? 5 A. Well did I know personally? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. I mean did I know what GE did with them 8 after they put it in a transformer? Is that what you 9 mean? 10 MR. HALL: The question is do you know 11 what the proper method of disposal was before 1970. 12 A. Is that what the question was? 13 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Yes. Do you know what 14 was considered to be proper disposal of industrial 15 chemicals prior to 1970? 16 A. Yes, I did. 17 Q. What was it? 18 A. It was to be put in an approved landfill. 19 That was the standard method of disposing it. 20 Q. Do you know or did you know what it took 21 to make an approved landfill? 22 A. Just -23 Q. I understand and I appreciate that as 24 medical director1 it may not have been your area to 25 make a study as to what it takes to make a landfill. WATER PCB-SD0000057228 30 1 how much clay, what kind of containment, water 2 drainage and that sort of thing. 3 A. That again is a moving target, it all 4 depends. Before people now an approved landfill is 5 enormously different than what an approved landfill 6 was in 1960. I think in 1960 they had a landfill the 7 stuff didn't blow around or didn't leak out and get 8 into the ground water. Now they have all sorts of 9 liners arid covers and other things. But that's all I 10 know about what an approved landfill was in 1960. 11 Q. Did you understand prior to 1900 and 70 12 that the purpose of using an approved landfill as 13 apposed to simply pouring the stuff down the street or 14 in a sewer was to contain the industrial chemical? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And to prevent people, birds, animals 17 from coming into contact with the industrial chemical. 18 A. Repeat that question. 19 Q. The question was I understand that you 20 knew that the purpose of using an approved landfill 21 was to confine the industrial chemical after it had 22 been disposed of. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And not only to contain it but to prevent 25 accidental contact with those chemicals once they're WATER PCB-SD0000057229 31 1 disposed of by people, birds, animals, fish and that 2 sort of thing. 3 A. Now are we talking strictly about PCB's 4 now or any kind of a landfill? 5 Q. Let me back up. 6 It is my understanding that prior to 1900 7 and 70 you were of the opinion that the proper method 8 of disposal was to treat liquids containing PCB's as 9 an industrial chemical. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. They did not receive special treatment. 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. So prior to 1970 the liquids containing 14 PCB's in your opinion would simply be treated as any 15 other industrial chemical. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q.. So I'm not making a distinction prior to 18 1970 between the purposes for the landfill for 19 industrial chemicals and one devoted to PCB's. Okay? 20 Was one of the purposes of using an approved landfill 21 to handle the disposal of liquids containing PCB's to 22 prevent contact, unintentional contact, by people, 23 birds, animals, fish and fowl with the chemicals once 24 disposed of? 25 A. Yes. But I'd have to eliminate birds and WATER PCB-SD0000057230 32 1 animals. I mean I don't think they kept pigeons from 2 flying over landfills but they certainly didn't want 3 people mucking around in a landfill. 4 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as to 5 whether or not utilizing a landfill, an approved or 6 authorized landfill as that term was used prior to 7 1970, would have been sufficient to contain disposed 8 liquids containing PCB's? 9 A. Yes, I think it would have. 10 Q. Would it have been using an approved or 11 authorized landfill as that term was defined prior to 12 1960 -13 MR. HALL: '70. 14 Q. (By Mr. Terry) I'm sorry, '70. Would 15 that have been in your opinion sufficient to prevent 16 accidental or unintentional contact with the disposed 17 liquids containing PCB's by humans? 18 A. You would have to have a fence around it. 19 I mean if you had a landfill obviously there could be 20 contact with humans unless you had a guard there but I 21 would imagine that you had a landfill in a safe place 22 that was so arou,nd or so fenced in that people are 23 playing softball on it or something like that. 24 Q. No landfill I've ever seen. 25 But apart from individuals actually WATER PCB-SD0000057231 33 1 coming to the landfill and mucking around in the 2 landfill would using an approved landfill as that term 3 is defined prior to 1970 prevent contact from disposed 4 chemicals from other people, people who might drink 5 water, people who might eat food, people who might be 6 in the same geographic area as the landfill? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or 9 not Monsanto had a responsibility to communicate to 10 its customers toxicological information about PCB's in 11 liquids designed for use as a dielectric? 12 A. Yes, we did. 13 Q. It is my understanding that Monsanto was 14 the sole producer of PCB's in this country; is that 15 correct? 16 A. Yes. But recall GeneralElectric had the 17 patent on the material, they invented the material. 18 We manufactured for General Electric, we manufactured 19 them for Westinghouse under their specifications. 20 Q. But in terms of the manufacture of the 21 product within this country Monsanto was the only 22 company that did that. 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. There were other companieselsewhere in 25 the world that manufactured the material. WATER PCB-SD0000057232 34 1 A. Yes. 2 CK And from time to time it may have been 3 imported into this country? 4 A. It could have been, I thought it was very 5 little. 6 Q. In terms of the source of information 7 about the toxicological data pertaining to PCB's was 8 Monsanto the primary source of that information for 9 its customers? 10 A. Yes. Well yes, although I do, I've seen 11 reports that General Electric, I mean that 12 Westinghouse had some toxicological work done on some 13 of their products, I mean some of the PCB's that they 14 used but I would say that Monsanto was the primary 15 source of the toxicological information. 16 Q. With respect to the work that 17 Westinghouse did do you remember anything about it 18 particularly, for example when it was done, what it 19 was done on or anything like that? 20 A. I saw it in one of the depositions 21 someplace and it wasn't a very elaborate bit of work 22 and it was done by an outside person and it came from 23 the Westinghouse file, I think it was an acute feeding 24 study or 30 day feeding study or something like that. 25 Something not very elaborate. WATER PCB-SD0000057233 35 1 Q. Do you remember anything about when it 2 had been done? 3 A. I don't. 4 Q. Did you have any awareness of that study 5 by Westinghouse other than in connection with some 6 lawsuit? 7 A. No. I did not have any knowledge of it 8 at all. 9 Q. Did you come into possession of that 10 information then after you had retired? 11 A. Yes 12 Q. Do you know whether or not Monsanto or 13 anyone else in Monsanto was aware that Westinghouse 14 had done this other work however sketchy it was prior 15 to your becoming aware? 16 A. I feel quite sure they did not otherwise 17 I would have known about it. 18 Q. So in terms of the time that you were at 19 Monsanto preparing and reviewing the toxicological 20 information comiriunicated to customers you would have 21 been aware of no other source of information for your 22 customers for that information; is that fair? 23 A. Well there are always isolated case 24 reports in the medical literature but I don't believe 25 anybody was doing toxicological work on PCB's until. WATER PCB-SD0000057234 36 1 outside of Monsanto, until after 1972 or '73. 2 Q. Okay. So in terms of the information 3 that would have been available to your customers to 4 pass on to their customers on the toxicological effect 5 of PCB's "used in liquids for transformers your 6 information would have been the primary source. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or 9 not the customers of Monsanto's customers needed to 10 know the toxicological information that you provided 11 your customers? 12 A. No. Because I don't have an opinion 13 because I don't know exactly how they were using it or 14 what they did or whether they -- no, the answer is no. 15 Q. You' don't have an opinion? 16 A. Not without knowing more facts about 17 exactly what our customer's customers did. 18 Q.. Okay. When we talked to Mr. Pappageorge 19 yesterday he indicated that he divided the customers 20 into two classes essentially and I may be paraphrasing 21 but it was my understanding that he divided the 22 customers of customers into a class that for lack of a 23 better term we called a consumer and that would be 24 like the Holiday Inn where they have a transformer on 25 the premises but they never touch it, they hire out to WATER PCB-SD0000057235 37 1 have it worked on and then there are others who are 2 more knowledgeable and actually work on their own 3 stuff like a utility company where their own people 4 will come in contact with the transformers and the 5 liquids contained in the transformers. Are you with 6 me? 7 A. Yes, I'm with you. 8 Q. Setting aside the group of customers that 9 are essentially consumers and do not come in contact 10 with their transformer other than to have it on the 11 place, the hotel and that sort of thing, and 12 concentrating on those customers of customers that 13 actually -work with the transformer and come in contact 14 with the liquids that the transformer contains where 15 the workman may be required to filter the liquid, to 16 replace the liquid, to work inside the components, 17 inside the transformer, deal with the components. Are 18 you with me? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or 21 not those companies needed to know the toxicological 22 information that you were communicating and that you 23 considered important to communicate to the direct 24 customers of Monsanto? 25 A. Yes. I think they should have. WATER PCB-SD0000057236 38 1 Q. Now was the information that you 2 communicated to your customers, in your opinion, 3 sufficient for that class of customers of your 4 customers ? 5 A. Yes . 6 Q. What steps does Monsanto take to see to 7 it that the end users who would come in contact with 8 the liquids would be armed with the toxicological 9 information they needed? 10 A. The end user again meaning out to the 11 utility? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. I believe we did not consider that to be 14 our responsibility. We gave the information 15 completely to the transformer manufacturer and we 16 considered it his responsibility to inform his 17 customers. We didn't even know in a lot of cases who 18 their customers were. There's no way we could have 19 done it. 20 Q. Would it be fair to say then in order to 21 get that information, the toxicological information to 22 the end user like the utility, Monsanto relied on its 23 customers to communicate the information? 24 A. Well among other things. I mean these 25 utilities were not running in a vacuum, there were an WATER PCB-SD0000057237 39 1 awful lot of publications put out by the National 2 Electrical Manufacturers Association and by God knows 3 how many utility groups that discussed Askarel which 4 is a generic name, Askarel in transformers. 5 Q. Well in terms of the toxicological 6 information about Askarel used in transformers 7 Monsanto would have been the primary source of that 8 information in this country. 9 A. Yes. Of obtaining it but not of 10 disseminating it to the customer's customers. 11 Q. Did you make that kind of toxicological 12 information to these other groups and organizations 13 that you identified? 14 A. Well certainly if they asked for it we 15 gave it to them. We made it available and I know that 16 there have been publications by manufacturing groups 17 that had utility people on it, transformer 18 manufacturers on it and Monsanto personnel on it. 19 There have been those documents. 20 Q. Did those documents contain toxicological 21 information about the Askarel? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did Monsanto then communicate to these 24 other organizations toxicological information that 25 could be disseminated to the industry as a whole WATER PCB-SD0000057238 40 1 including the end users? 2 A. Not with the exception of those working 3 groups that I just mentioned. We did not to the best 4 of my knowledge -- we weren't a member say of the 5 NEMA, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 6 But we gave the information to GE, we gave the 7 information to Westinghouse, any of our customers. I 8 think the next step was from the transformer, 9 electrical equipment manufacturers to make it 10 available to these groups although we did work in 11 conjunction with them on several publications that 12 11 ve seen. 13 Q. When you say we worked in conjunction 14 with them who's the them? 15 A. Well the committee, whoever the committee 16 was. I mean there would be a committee of Monsanto 17 people, transformer manufacturer people and I can't be 18 sure about utility people, I don't know. 19 Q. When you say committee is this a 20 committee that is part of a recognized association? 21 A. I thought it was an ad hoc type of 22 committee just to write up Askarel in transformers or 23 something like that. 24 Q.- Was this prior to 1970? 25 A. To the best of my recollection I think it WATER PCB-SD0000057239 41 1 was . 2 Q. Is there any way you can identify or 3 define or describe the publication so that we can find 4 it? 5 A. No, I don't. I can't do that. 6 Q.' Did you personally do anything in 7 connection with this publication? 8 A. No I did not. 9 Q. Are you aware of the kind of information 10 that would be generally available to the utility 11 concerning the toxicological effect of Askarel prior 12 to 1970, whether the source of the information be the 13 transformer manufacturer, the NEMA or any other 14 association? 15 A. No, I would not knowthat. 16 Q. Do you havean opinion as to whether or 17 not there was enough information generally available 18 for utilities to be aware of the toxicological effects 19 of Askarel? 20 A. Yes I think so. 21 Q. Can you identify for me the sources of 22 information to the utilities? 23 A. No I can't. 24 Q. You would of course assume that the 25 transformer manufacturer would provide the WATER PCB-SD0000057240 42 1 information? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Any other source of information that you 4 can think of? 5 A. Well no, but I know that, I've talked to 6 people at Union Electric in St. Louis, they have 7 called me about toxicological information concerning 8 Askarels, maybe just because they were in St. Louis 9 they called me but I talked to them and they certainly 10 knew quite a bit about it. 11 Q. Any other source of information that you 12 can identify that supports your opinion thatthere was 13 enough information generally available to utilities 14 about the toxicological effects of Askarel? 15 A. The fact there were no health problems 16 reported at any of the utilities showed that they were 17 certainly following the same safety precautions we 18 gave the transformer people because there had been no 19 reported cases of any illness in electrical users in 20 the United States with the -- period. 21 Q. So the absence of as far as you know 22 reports of injuries associated with exposure to 23 Askarel by utility workers is a source of information? 24 A. Yes. Not only absence but also the 25 reports of prominent Government authorities on PCB's WATER PCB-SD0000057241 43 1 were not, Rena Kimbraugh who's probably the most 2 logical, I mean the most knowledgeable Government 3 worker working on PCB's for 20 years at least, she 4 stated there had been no health effects with the 5 exception of chloracne in any worker in the United 6 States. 7 Q. Is this Ms. Kimbraugh? 8 A. Yes. Doctor. She's at EPA or someplace. 9 Down in research triangle. She's had various 10 positions. . 11 Q. What's the research triangle? 12 A. That's Raleigh Durham, that's with NIOSH. 13 Q. Do you know if she is still with the 14 Government? 15 A. She was a year and a half ago or two 16 years ago when she came out with her latest paper. 17 Q. What was her title or position then? 18 A. Honestly I don't remember. I mean she 19 has changed titles but she's still working with the 20 same matter. 21 Q. Do you know what agency she was connected 22 with? _ 23 A. No, I don't. 24 Q. And her name is Kimbraugh? 25 A. K-i-m-b-r-a-u-g-h. WATER PCB-SD0000057242 44 1 Q. Do you remember the name or the title of 2 the latest paper? 3 A. Environmental Health Digest 4 Q. Did she have a paper in the digest? 5 A. Beg your pardon? 6 Q. Did she have a paper in the digest? 7 A. That was the paper. It was either 8 Environmental Health News or Environmental Health 9 Digest and there were several articles, she had the 10 lead article on it. 11 Q. What was her article called; do you 12 remember? 13 A. Health Effects of PCB's or something like 14 that. 15 Q. And is the digest a Government 16 publication? 17 A. No it is not. 18 Q. Private? 19 A. Yes. Certainly not Government but I 20 don't know what type of group puts it out. 21 Q. So you are of the opinion that the 22 utilities had enough information about the 23 toxicological effects of PCB's. 24 A. Well I didn't say that. I didn't say 25 that they had enough information I say there was WATER PCB-SD0000057243 45 1 enough information available. 2 Q. I'm sorry. Without asking you to 3 determine whether or not any particular utility had 4 enough information there was enough information 5 available to the utilities to know the toxicological 6 effects of PCB's. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you know whether or not the i 9 toxicological effects of PCB's persist even after the 10 liquid, the Askarel, is disposed of? 11 A. Wait a minute now. Do I know whether or 12 not the toxicological properties of Askarel persist 13 after it's disposed of? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Well it depends how it's disposed. If 16 it's burned it's gone. If it's incinerated it's gone. 17 If it's lying in a puddle in a landfill it's still 18 there. It has the same properties there as it does 19 when it was inside the transformer. 20 Q. When you say when it's burned it's 21 gone - 22 A. When I say burned I mean incinerated. 23 Q. Specifically using the process Monsanto 24 designed in 1970 or '71. 25 h: Well you have to get it up to a certain WATER PCB-SD0000057244 46 1 temperature to destroy all of it and so there are 2 other incinerators , commercial inci nerators around the 3 country that reach that temperature and do destroy it. 4 Q. But I mean in order to destroy the PCB ' s 5 by incineration you have to follow a particular 6 procedure using temperatures of 1,600 to 2,000 7 degrees, using particular combinations of oxygen, that 8 sort of thing. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. It's not just burning it like putting it 11 in the fireplace? 12 A. No. Because it doesn't burn easily, 13 that's the purpose of it. 14 Q. Did you know prior to 1900 and 70 that 15 the toxicological effects of Askarel would persist 16 even when the liquid was disposed of in an authorized 17 landfill? 18 A. There again I couldn't be sure because 19 even though we considered it non-biodegradable we 20 didn't know what would happen in a landfill, we didn't 21 know what else was in that landfill, we didn't know 22 what the bacterial content of the landfill was so I 23 can't answer that question. I would not know that. 24 Q. Did you know prior to 1900 and 70 that 25 the toxicological effects of the Askarel would WATER PCB-SD0000057245 _______________________________________________________________________ 47 1 continue after it was disposed of if it was not 2 disposed of in an authorized landfill, if it was 3 simply poured down the drain or poured out in the back 4 yard, that sort of thing? 5 A. Yes. I think it would still persist. 6 Q. Did Monsanto communicate to its customers 7 that the toxicological effects of the PCB's contained 8 in Askarel would persist even after the liquid 9 containing Askarels had reached the point where it 10 should be disposed of? 11 A. I don't recall any such communication. 12 Q. Do you consider that information 13 important to be communicated? 14 A. I don't think so because here's a 15 compound that is a stable compound and its use in 16 transformers is vitiated by other things rather than 17 the material breaking down into -- I think what 18 happens in a transformer, there is some change in the 19 material but we certainly were under the impression 20 that the material maintained the same toxicological 21 properties and I don't think that the question ever 22 came up that we said that after it was used in a 23 transformer it became innocuous. 24 Q. I did not mean to imply you communicated 25 that it became innocuous after it had been used but WATER PCB-SD0000057246 48 1 did you consider it important to communicate that it 2 retained the same toxicological properties even after 3 it had been used? 4 A. Say that over? 5 Q. Okay. I understand and did not mean to 6 imply that Monsanto communicated to its customers that 7 the toxicological properties of Askarel ceased and the 8 product became innocuous once it reached the point 9 where it was disposed of. You didn't say that did 10 you? " 11 A. No. 12 Q. The question is did you communicate to 13 your customers that Askarel retained its toxicological 14 properties even after it reached the point where it 15 would be disposed of? 16 A. No sir. We considered Askarel Askarel 17 whether it was, and the precautions we advised for 18 Askarel when it went in the transformer should be also 19 used when it came out of a transformer. 20 Q. Did you specify that? 21 A. No sir, not that I recall. 22 MR. HALL: Would this be a convenient 23 spot to stop for a second? 24 MR. TERRY: Absolutely. 25 (RECESS TAKEN BY PARTIES.) WATER PCB-SD0000057247 49 1 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Did Monsanto consider it 2 important to communicate to its customers that the 3 toxicological effects of the Askarel such as they were 4 persisted even after the Askarel was suitable for 5 disposal or reached a point where it would be 6 disposed? 7 A. No sir. I don't think they thought it 8 was important because they didn't believe the 9 toxicological properties changed. So the answer is 10 no. 11 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or 12 not it was generally understood by people who would 13 come in contact with the Askarel that the 14 toxicological properties would persist even after the 15 liquid had reached a point where it would be disposed 16 of? 17 A. Yes. I have an opinion. I can't tell 18 you what I base my opinion on except that Askarel 19 isn't a compound that spends itself or something of 20 that sort like a storage battery does or something 21 like that, so no. 22 Q. So in your opinion the people who would 23 use Askarel would know that whatever toxicological 24 properties it had would persist even when the Askarel 25 reached a point where they would dispose of it? WATER PCB-SD0000057248 50 1 A. Yes . 2 Q. Do you have any idea on what you base 3 that opinion? 4 A. No. But I think a general knowledge of 5 chemistry is that if you aren't reacting one chemical 6 with the other and you discard it for any number of 7 reasons whether it's contaminated or anything else 8 that there's nothing that will change the inherent 9 toxicity of the particular product. There's been no 10 information at all that I know of that transformers 11 that have used Askarel in them are any different 12 toxicological wise than when the Askarel went in. In 13 fact I think there's published material to the same, 14 to the reverse, that transformers that failed because 15 of dielectric failure and there have been 16 toxicological studies that show there's been no change 17 in it. I don't know how widespread that information 18 is but from my knowledge working in the chemical 19 industry people who use the material if you use it, 20 any kind of material you don't believe it's changed 21 inherently from the toxicity point of view. 22 Q. The studies on transformers with used 23 Askarel in them that you have referred to? 24 A. Yes . 25 Q. Can you identify those in any way? WATER PCB-SD0000057249 51 1 A. No I can't. But it has been, there have 2 been reports on it. I cannot identify them. 3 Q. And one of the reasons that the Askarel 4 when disposed of has to be disposed of in an 5 authorized landfill is because its toxicological 6 properties persist. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Not only because the Askarel itself 9 persists but its toxicological properties persist. 10 A. Yes. I think they're one in the same. 11 Q. Okay. In your opinion couldMonsanto 12 reasonably foresee that Askarel sold to a transformer 13 manufacturer would eventually reach the point where it 14 would be disposed of? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And therefore Monsanto could foresee that 17 the Askarel when disposed of should be disposed of in 18 a proper manner, be it an authorized landfill or after 19 1970, '71, incinerated in a proper way. 20 A. Repeat that again now. 21 Q.' Okay. It would be reasonable for 22 Monsanto to foresee that the Askarel when it was 23 disposed of would have to be disposed of or should be 24 disposed of in an authorized landfill or after 1971 25 incinerated in a proper way? WATER PCB-SD0000057250 52 1 A. Yes. 2 Q, And it would be reasonable for Monsanto 3 to foresee that if the Askarel were not properly 4 disposed of there would be a risk of injury to those 5 that might come in contact with it. 6 A. Well that I can't answer because I think 7 you have got to define how they're coming into contact 8 with, what the type of injury would be. 9 Q. Without identifying a particular type of 10 injury you recognized that there were certain 11 toxicities or toxicological properties associated with 12 Askarel. , 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So that if peoplewould come in contact 15 with it under some circumstances they could be hurt 16 even if it just be chloracne. 17 A. If they had sufficient contact. Are we 18 talking now about a landfill? 19 Q. No sir. 20 A. Yes. They could get chloracne if they 21 got enough of it over a sufficient, over a prolonged 22 period of time, yes. 23 Q. And if the materialis notproperly 24 disposed of, if it's simply poured out in a pond or 25 just collected in a lake there is a risk that people WATER PCB-SD0000057251 53 1 can come in contact with it and get hurt. 2 A. Well I can't answer that because I don't 3 know really what the dilution factor in any particular 4 lake or puddle or landfill is and I don't know what 5 the interaction of the other chemicals in that 6 particular landfill might be so I can't answer that 7 question. , 8 Q. Why is it that you wanted the Askarel 9 disposed of in a proper landfill? 10 A. To avoid any risk to anybody. 11 Q. Which would indicate to me that if it 12 were not done there is a risk that people could get 13 hurt, however slight there is the risk. Would you 14 agree with that? 15 A. If there were enough of the material and 16 the person had enough contact with it over a 17 prolonged, over a sufficient period of time he could 18 develop some injury, yes. 19 Q. And one of the conditions for that to 20 occur is that the material not be disposed of in a 21 proper way. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. So you and Monsanto could foresee that if 24 this material was not disposed of in a proper way 25 there was a risk of injury to people. Not that they WATER PCB-SD0000057252 54 1 would get hurt but that they might get hurt. 2 A. There's always a possibility, yes. 3 Q. Particularly if the material is not 4 properly disposed of. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did Monsanto prior to 1900 and 71 rely on 7 others to see to it that the material, Askarel, was 8 properly disposed of? 9 A. Yes. We did not arrange for the disposal 10 of it ourselves or we expected our customers who we 11 told, informed about the hazards of the material and 12 the safe handling procedures, we expected them to 13 follow that through in the disposal of the material. 14 Q. And you relied on your customers or your 15 customer's customers to see to it that the material 16 was properly disposed of prior to 1971. 17 A. Yes . 18 Q. Did Monsanto take any steps to inform 19 itself to see whether or not the material was being 20 properly handled prior to 1971? 21 A. Not that I know of. 22 Q. After 1970 did Monsanto take any steps to 23 see if the material was being properly handled? 24 A. We did not investigate our customers to 25 see what they did with it, we told our customers what WATER PCB-SD0000057253 55 1 our recommendation was. If that's an answer to your 2 question. We did not go out to the transformer 3 manufacturers and see what they did with the material 4 that they may have had leaks or over filling or 5 something like that. We did not do that. We told 6 them what our recommendations were, what they should 7 do, but we did not police them to the best of my 8 knowledge. We certainly did not go as far as a 9 customer's customer, or the third generation 10 customers. 11 Q. I guess the question I'm asking is 12 earlier we had discussed the fact that one of the 13 probable sources for widespread presence of PCB's in 14 the environment, be it the fish or the fowl, was 15 improper handling or disposal of materials containing 16 PCB's. 17 A. Well improper in the light of later 18 information. 19 Q. Well I thought that you had indicated 20 that even prior to 1900 and 70 if the liquids or if 21 the PCB's, if the materials containing PCB's were 22 properly disposed of in authorized landfills that that 23 would be sufficient to contain the PCB's. 24 A. Yes. That's correct. 25 Q. And the studies of the fish and the fowl WATER PCB-SD0000057254 56 1 and other things indicate that the PCB's were not 2 being contained. 3 A. That's correct also. 4 Q. So it would indicate that the presence of 5 PCB's in the environment resulted from improper 6 handling of disposal, one of the probable causes would 7 be improper handling. 8 A. One of the causes might very well be 9 that, yes. 10 Q. Other than making that conclusion from 11 the presence of PCB's in the environment generally, in 12 the fish and in the fowl, did Monsanto do anything to 13 determine how the materials were in fact being 14 handled, not so much policing customers but just 15 finding out what was happening to liquids containing 16 PCB's? 17 A. You'll have to repeat that one. 18 Q. Okay. I understand that the chain of 19 logic is that we can determine from the generalized 20 presence of PCB's in the environment as indicated by 21 presence in the fish, in the fowl and other portions 22 of the food chain, that one of the probable causes is 23 improper disposal of materials containing PCB's. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. The stuff's not being contained like it WATER PCB-SD0000057255 57 1 should be. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And that would indicate that materials 4 containing PCB's are not being properly disposed of. 5 Right ? 6 A. Yes. That's correct. Not all, I mean 7 some. 8 Q. Some are not. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So you can conclude from the presence of 11 PCB's in the environment that materials containing 12 PCB's, some of it, is not being properly disposed of. 13 A. Yes, I think so. 14 Q. Then the question is did Monsanto make 15 any effort to determine by any kind of investigation 16 whether or not that conclusion was correct? That is, 17 did you make an effort, the company, to determine if 18 the materials were not being properly disposed of? 19 A. When? 20 Q. After 1970. 21 A. You mean whether the proper disposal 22 continued after 1970? Is that what you said? 23 Q. Whether or not there was a practice of 24 properly disposing materials containing PCB's actually 25 in place in this country prior to 1970? WATER PCB-SD0000057256 58 1 A. I lost you. 2 Q. Okay. Let me do it again. 3 A. You got a little compound question. 4 Q. I must confess to you that it is a 5 difficult subject to discuss in a question and answer 6 form particularly by someone who's not a scientist 7 with someone who is so I'm constrained by the 8 structure that I have to deal with and I apology to 9 you for that. 10 A. No problem. 11 Q. But I understand from the presence of 12 PCB's in the environment one of the conclusions you 13 can draw is that materials containing PCB's are not 14 being properly disposed of. 15 A. Well that is one of the factors that 16 leads to the presence of PCB's in the environment. 17 Q. That's right. 18 A. There are other factors that we know 19 about and some we don't know about. 20 Q. I understand. But one of the factors is 21 improper disposal. 22 A. Yes. Correct. 23 Q. Then the question is having determined 24 that that's one of the factors that could explain the 25 presence of PCB's in the environment did Monsanto do WATER PCB-SD0000057257 59 1 anything to see what the actual disposal practices 2 were? 3 A. When? 4 Q. After 1970? What was going on out there 5 in the field; did you find out? 6 A. No sir. We warned the customers that we 7 sold the material to what the hazards were to the 8 environment. We recommended strict precautions of 9 disposal, we recommended ways to help them dispose of 10 it at a no profit to Monsanto arrangement but as far 11 as going past that we did not. 12 Q. Okay. These representations ondisposal 13 that you made, you and I had talked about the 14 incinerator and that Monsanto made that available. 15 Okay? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Mr. Pappageorgementioned that he 18 prepared a proposed disposal guideline or he was aware 19 that one had been prepared that he worked on. Do you 20 know anything about that? 21 A . No sir. 22 Q. Did you personally haveanything to do 23 with communicating to the customers about the 24 necessity for and the reasons behind the necessity for 25 proper disposal? WATER PCB-SD0000057258 60 1 A. No sir. 2 Q. Did you have any direct dealings with 3 Monsanto customers, and I mean you personally, 4 concerning disposal of the materials at any time 5 during your stay there? 6 A. No sir. Not that I can recall. 7 Q. Are you aware of anyone on your staff, 8 particularly Mr. Wheeler or Mr. Garrett, having 9 contact from customers about proper disposal of the 10 materials? 11 A. No sir. I'm not aware but it could have 12 occurred and I have no recollection of it. That's as 13 far as, I'm not sure. 14 Q. Are you aware of any written 15 communications to customers concerning the necessity 16 for proper disposal of Askarel containing PCB's prior 17 to 1970 other than the material that is attached to 18 these depositions that is before you? 19 A. No sir, I do not recall it. I'm not 20 aware of it at any rate. 21 Q. In connection with the preparation of 22 material that would be submitted to customers of 23 Monsanto was proper disposal within your area as 24 medical director or would that have been in some other 25 area? WATER PCB-SD0000057259 61 1 A. I think it would have been under 2 manufacturing or marketing. It wouldn't be under my 3 area . 4 Q. In connection with the preparation of 5 materials that go to customers I understand that you 6 personally had a role to play in preparing some of the ! 7 material and in reviewing the material. Who would be 8 your counterparts or would have been your counterparts 9 in manufacturing and marketing? 10 A. When? 11 Q. When this material was prepared? 12 A. You mean before '70? 13 Q. Yes. And if you could Doctor begin with 14 those that might still be alive. 15 A. Sorry? 16 Q. Begin with those that might still be 17 alive. 18 A. That's going to be hard to answer. 19 I think that the marketing director was 20 Howard Bergen, B-e-r-g-e-n, might be the one but 21 that's the only one I can think of. 22 Q. We heard the name Benignus yesterday and 23 Mr. Pappageorge described his relationship to 24 marketing and the communication of information to 25 customers. Do you know if Mr. Benignus had anything WATER PCB-SD0000057260 62 1 to do with 2 A. With disposal, I don't know whether he 3 did or not. He's alive to the best of my knowledge. 4 Q. Mr. Berger, is he still alive? 5 A. B-e-r-g-e-n, Bergen. Yes, I think so. 6 Q. Is he active with the company? 7 A. No, he's retired. 8 Q. And he would have been director of? 9 A. Marketing. 10 Q. 11 position? Do you remember about when he was in that 12 A. Late '60's, early '70's. 13 Q. Doctor, did you participate in -- and let 14 me tell you the background against which I'm asking 15 these questions. Mr. Pappageorge described the 16 decision making process that Monsanto used for '70 to 17 '77 which led to reduction of permitted uses of 18 products containing PCB's to the final cessation of 19 manufacture of PCB's. Okay? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. He described a committee of approximately 22 15 people composed of various representatives of 23 various divisions within the company that would review 24 the uses, make determinations or recommendations as to 25 whether or not that use was to be permitted and then WATER PCB-SD0000057261 63 1 they would recommend to the next order which involved 2 divisions of products involved in the manufacture and 3 sale of the use that they recommended curtailed and 4 then go up to the big dogs who would make decisions. 5 Did you participate in that decision making process? 6 A. No. But I believe probably Wheeler was 7 in that group, that group of 15. 8 Q. Okay. Were you aware that the process 9 was ongoing? 10 A. Yes, I believe that we, the manufacturing 11 people, the marketing people and the medical 12 department, told the executive committee that we were 13 going to cut down the uses where we couldn't control 14 the disposal, for example like we picked carbonless 15 copy paper. There was no way in the world that you 16 can collect all the carbons from throughout the United 17 States that contained PCB's so that operation went 18 out, it was discontinued. We knew the material was 19 used as a plasticizer, there was no way to contain 20 that material so we stopped there. So we stopped all 21 operations right after 1970. I don't know the exact 22 time frame. 23 Q. And were you aware that this decision was 24 being made? 25 A. Yes. WATER PCB-SD0000057262 64 1 Q. Did you have input into the decision in 2 your capacity as the medical director or were you 3 simply just aware of the process? 4 A. I think I was aware of it because I think 5 there were people a lot closer to the end use of the 6 PCB than I was. It was a question of hazard to people 7 as a question of being you contain the material once 8 it's, reaches a final use. 9 Q. I understand that but my question is 10 before I ask you any more questions is did you have 11 anything to do with the decision making process? 12 A. No sir. 13 Q. Was it your understanding that the 14 decision making process was premised on whether or not 15 we can control the disposal of the PCB's? 16 A. Disposal of the product that used, that 17 had the PCB used, in it, yes. 18 Q. Right. Okay. And if that product, the 19 disposal of that product could not be contained than 20 the use was discontinued. 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Why was the use of PCB's in Askarel which 23 is a closed container system eventually terminated? 24 A. I don't know. It was terminated after I 25 left the company. It was terminated I think in 1977, WATER PCB-SD0000057263 65 1 I left the company in 1974. 2 Q. In connection with the decision making 3 process to terminate open uses or closed uses of 4 products containing PCB's it would appear that someone 5 would have to make a decision as to whether or not we 6 can contain the disposal of the product containing 7 PCB's. 8 A.' Yes. 9 Q. Do you know if anyone within Monsanto 10 made that kind of decision before you left the 11 company, in connection with Askarel, liquids 12 containing PCB's designed for use in transformers? 13 A. No, I don't think they did. Because I 14 know that they were encouraged by the Government to 15 keep manufacturing material because there were places 16 that it was absolutely impossible to do without the 17 Askarel, there was no statute in subways, in the White 18 House, the transformers at Busch Stadium where it was 19 important to have a fire resistant product and there 20 was no fire resistant statute at that time. 21 Q. They were using Askarel or they did in 22 the White House? 23 A. Yes. The transformers in the White 24 House. 25 Q. Are you sure it doesn't have some WATER PCB-SD0000057264 66 1 toxicological effect - 2 A. We never tested it for that. 3 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) 4 A. I might add that we withdrew, one of the 5 reasons that we withdrew from those operations was 6 that statutes were available. They were available for 7 plasticizers, I think they were available for 8 carbonless copy paper but for the dielectric uses 9 there were no statutes at that time. They were 10 non-inflammable. 11 Q. (By Mr. Terry) In connection with the 12 continued protection of Askarel as a dielectric are 13 you personally aware of Government insistence on 14 continued production or was that something you just 15 heard about? 16 A. Something I just heard. 17 Q. Can you associate it with any Government 18 offices, agencies or names? 19 A. No sir, I cannot. 20 Q. Is there any way for you to arrange these 21 documents in chronological order? We asked 22 Pappageorge to do this and he just about shot us. 23 A. I don't think so. 24 Q. I figure the ones with the pixies on them 25 are pretty old but beyond that I can't tell. WATER PCB-SD0000057265 67 1 A. (Reviewing Document). 2 Q. What I'd like you to do Doctor is I would 3 like you to take a moment to review some of that 4 literature and identify the particular passages that 5 you did or worked on. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. If you wouldn't mind taking about five or 8 ten minutes to do that. 9 A. (Reviewing Document). 10 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) 11 MR. HALL: Mr. Terry, Dr. Kelly has 12 looked through Discovery Exhibits No. 7, 18, 19, 14, 13 9, 13, 8, 3, 2, 4, 15, 5, 12, 11, 10, 16 and 17 and of 14 course as you can appreciate he has not had time to 15 read every word in all of these documents and he has 16 separated the ones that he feels he did have some 17 input into and we have tried to mark them with a paper 18 clip for your ease of location and the ones that he 19 feels that he did have input into are numbers 7, 18, 20 19, 14, 9, 13, 8, 3, 2, 4 and 15. (Indicating). 21 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Doctor, Exhibit No. 7 is 22 an instrument that is dated 1900 and 60 on the bottom. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And then you have paper clipped a section 25 that deals with -- WATER PCB-SD0000057266 68 1 A. Dermatology AndToxicology. 2 Q. Right. 3 A. Pages 98, 99 and 100. 4 Q. Do you know if there was a document that 5 existed before 1900 and 60 that served the same 6 function as Exhibit No. 7? 7 A. I'd have to assume it because it says it 8 was revised in January of 1960 so presumably there was 9 one before that. 10 Q. I did the same. 11 Do you know or can you remember whether 12 or not the toxicological information in the prior 13 document -or documents was the same as the information 14 in Exhibit No. 7? 15 A. Well I don't know. I mean I don't know 16 without seeing it. There was no change in the 17 information -- well, I just don't know because I don't 18 know when that other document was. If it were written 19 in the '50's there's some information that we have in 20 this document we would have had in the 1950's but I 21 can't answer the question. 22 Q. Can you identify for me from Exhibit 7 23 the information communicated in '60 that you wouldn't 24 have had available in the '50's in that section that 25 was your responsibility? WATER PCB-SD0000057267 69 1 A. (Reviewing Document). Yes. On Page 99 2 in the first paragraph the experimental work in 3 animals indicates that the maximum safe concentration 4 of vapors in work rooms is in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air. This work was done 6 in 1954 and 1955. 7 Q. Would the information about safe 8 concentrations in vapor have been available after the 9 work in 1955? 10 A. Yes. 11 QWas there any safe concentration in vapor 12 published prior to 1955? 13 A. I do not believe there was. Well, I 14 can't answer that because there had been some work 15 done on one or two isolated Arochlors done by Trinker 16 back in 1938 he did some vapor inhalations but I do 17 not know if that was published by the American 18 Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists who 19 were the people that put out these safe levels and I 20 know they used these fish after 1954 or '55 to arrive, 21 to publish their safe level but I do not know if they 22 had one before that. 23 Q. Trinker. Have you mentioned his name 24 before? 25 A. Yes. WATER PCB-SD0000057268 70 1 Q. Is he that fellow at Harvard? 2 A. Fellow at Harvard, yes. 3 Q. Was there any published safe level in 4 vapor that Monsanto published prior to 1955? 5 A. No, I do not believe so. 6 Q. Were there any directions or guidance 7 given about concentrations in vapor in any sense prior 8 to 1955? 9 A. No sir. Except elevated temperatures are 10 in confined spaces but no mention of concentration was 11 made. 12 Q. Was the use of vapor concentrations as 13 stated in the 1960 publication a common term used 14 prior to 1960? > 15 A. You mean the actual fish? 16 Q. Not the fish but the use of that kind of 17 threshold where you define it in terms of milligram 18 per cubic foot of air. 19 A. Well it was used, again the ACGIH group 20 published a set of standards for any number of 21 chemicals, 50 or 100, which they called it first the 22 maximum allowable concentration then the threshold 23 limit value, they changed that. These were published 24 but they were not used much until OSHA came out in 25 ' 70's and that sort of either mandated or recommended WATER PCB-SD0000057269 ______________________________________________________________________________ 7 1 1 people analyze for concentrations. They were not done 2 routinely at all in the industry. 3 Q. Prior to that time. 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. Other than the information that you have 6 identified pertaining to vapor concentrations 7 contained in the 1960 manual as far as you can 8 remember was every other element of information 9 communicated in earlier publications? Or were there 10 any other changes or additions made in 1960? 11 A. (Reviewing Document). No sir. Except 12 back in 19 -- did you say prior to '60 or after? 13 Q. Prior to '60. 14 A. No there were not. 15 Q. After '60 were there any changes made? 16 A. Yes. We went to synthetic rubber gloves, 17 we added that in our bulletins. 18 Q. Is the information contained in that 19 deposition exhibit that we're reviewing now the basic 20 toxicological information that Monsanto communicated 21 to its customers? 22 A. When? 23 Q. At all times? 24 A." No. Because we didn't do the two-year 25 feeding testing, that was done in 1968 to '70 or '71. WATER PCB-SD0000057270 72 1 Q. Then prior to the two-year feeding 2 testing was that the basic toxicological information 3 communicated by Monsanto to its customers? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. At alltimes? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. In your opinion is that sufficient 8 information about the toxicological properties or 9 toxicity of the product to be communicated to a user 10 of Askarel like a utility company? Is that enough for 11 them to know? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Is there anything in the material that 14 you prepared and have reviewed today that indicates 15 that the toxicity such as it is persists even when the 16 liquid is to be disposed of? Do you mention that one 17 way or another? 18 A. No we did not mention it one way or the 19 other. 20 Q. In the material that you prepared that 21 you are looking at in that exhibit is there any 22 direction or guidance given as to disposal or proper 23 disposal of the material? 24 A. I didn't overlook it for that. 25 Q. Not the book generally but just in the WATER PCB-SD0000057271 ______________________________________________________________________________ 73 1 material that you prepared? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Was that book ever supplemented after 4 1960 prior to your departure from the company in 1974 5 with additional information pertaining to the 6 toxicology of the product? 7 A. I don't know when the information 8 concerning long term feeding tests was written or I'm 9 not even sure whether it was included in our bulletins 10 because at that time we were getting out of them, I 11 mean the toxicity information was sent to various 12 groups of the Government, it was sent to our various 13 customers by letter but I'm not certain whether we had 14 bulletins about it or not. 15 Q. In connection with the two-year feeding 16 study. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Can you describe for me the basic 19 parameters of the test? 20 A. Sure. You take two species of animals, 21 usually a rodent rather, both sexes, dogs and you feed 22 them three levels. You feed them material mixed with 23 their food. You feed at a level that you are pretty 24 sure will cause some trouble, that's the top level. 25 Then you pick one that you know as well as you can you WATER PCB-SD0000057272 74 1 assume it will not cause any trouble then you try to 2 get one in the middle. So generally 100 parts per 3 million, 10 parts per million then one part per 4 million. You feed that for two years. Before you go 5 into the two years testing, it really takes three 6 years to run a two-year test because you have to get 7 the animals, quarantine them, make sure they're well 8 then you got to do rank finding tests because there's 9 no sense starting off with a series of doses that have 10 the animals die six months down the road. 11 Q. It would make record keeping for the next 12 18 months easy. 13 A. You would have to keep them in a deep 14 freeze. 15 So it takes about six months to do all 16 that. Then at the end you run pathology on the 17 animals, you sacrifice some along the way to see how 18 they're going and then at the end you do microscopic 19 examination of 15 or 20 different tissues. 20 Q. Now was this test performed at your 21 place? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you do it yourself? 24 A. I made the request, certainly. 25 Q. Was it run by your people? WATER PCB-SD0000057273 75 1 A. No. It was outside laboratory, 2 commercial laboratory. 3 Q. Do you remember the name - 4 A. Yes, Industrial Biotest Laboratory. 5 Q. Were the results published generally or 6 just communicated to you? 7 A. I do not believe -- well, we were sent 8 the reports but I sent the reports to the FDA and 9 Department of Agriculture, EPA got those, a lot of 10 Government people as well as our large transformer 11 customers. 12 Q. What were the results? 13 A. Well nothing happened to the dogs over 14 two years, at all levels the dogs were all right. At 15 100 parts per million we did have liver problems in 16 the 100 parts per million in some of the, we ran three 17 different PCB's, I think we ran either 42 or 48, 54 18 and 60 and we ran, we got liver problems with probably 19 all three to the best of my recollection at 100 parts 20 per million. 21 Q. In the rodents? 22 A. Yes, in the rodents. 23 Q. And what happened to 10 parts per 24 million? 25 A. I think there were some minor changes but WATER PCB-SD0000057274 76 1 not nearly as conclusive as the, in the 100 parts per 2 million. One part per million was clean. 3 Q. In connection with the toxicological 4 information that would be communicated to a user as a 5 result of that test how would that modify the 6 information you would communicate? 7 A. Well we really didn't -- you said a 8 person, a brochure listing a bunch of toxicological 9 information. I mean I think that's an exercise in 10 futility because they're not -- 11 Q. No, don't misunderstand me. I understand 12 that you take the data and you put it in terms that 13 the user can understand as you did in Deposition 14 Exhibit No. 7 and you had indicated to me that you 15 were not certain if that data was modified because of 16 the two year animal study and so my question is if it 17 was modified by the two-year animal study how would 18 you have modified it? 19 A. I don't think we would have modified it 20 at all because we weren't expecting people to eat the 21 stuff or to eat this every day for their lifetime so a 22 two-year feeding test is a two-year lifetime study in 23 a rodent, that's all they live. Two years, 28 months, 24 something like that. So it wouldn't have modified our 25 safe handling procedures or our recommendations as to WATER PCB-SD0000057275 77 1 avoiding any problems. 2 Q. In connection with Deposition Exhibit No. 3 7 and it's predecessors or successors if any what kind 4 of distribution does it receive? Who gets this? Do 5 you know? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. These exhibits, 18, 19, 16, 9 and 15 all 8 bear the title Inspection And Maintenance Guide. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And I assume that they are a series of 11 publications under the same title. Inspection And 12 Maintenance Guide. Okay? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. When you reviewed thatportion that you 15 provided input for did the input change at all over 16 the life of this publication? 17 A. No sir. I don't think so at all. 18 Q. Did you look at it for that? 19 A. It looked like it was pretty much the 20 same all the way through. (Reviewing Document). 21 Q. Generally speakingDoctor does the 22 information show up in the section of the manual 23 dealing with handling? 24 A. Page 4 and 5, yes. 25 Q. And it shows up where you, there's the WATER PCB-SD0000057276 _______________________________________ ______________________________________ 78 1 section that talks about using ordinary personal 2 precautions. 3 A. Yes. And then the next page. 4 Q. But that's the section where the 5 information shows up. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And the information shows up in the same 8 place in each of the manuals? 9 A. I think so. (Reviewing Document). These 10 two are the same. I think they're all the same. 11 ' MR. HALL: You want him to check and see? 12 A. I want to check, I want to be sure. 13 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Take your time. 14 A. (Reviewing Document). 15 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) 16 Q. (By Mr. Terry) These deposition exhibits 17 that are all labeled Inspection And Maintenance 18 Guide, do you know what the distribution for this 19 is, who gets these? 20 A. No, I don't. I have to assume but I 21 don't want to assume all our customers. I don't know. 22 Q. Is, and since the information that was 23 communicated about the safe handling or the 24 toxicological information is the same throughout it 25 doesn't really make any difference when they were WATER PCB-SD0000057277 79 1 submitted, it's always the same information from your 2 perspective; correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you know if there's any way to arrange 5 them in chronological order? 6 A. No sir, I don't. 7 Q. Now these that have, this one that has 8 the title Care and Grooming of Askarel Fluid, the 9 section that you identified as being yours is again is 10 it the safe handling section? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you know what the distribution on this 13 was? Is this promotional material or is this material 14 that a purchaser gets or have any idea? 15 A. I haven't the slightest idea. I don't 16 think I've ever seen one of these before. 17 Q. Okay. This, the technical bulletin that 18 is Deposition Exhibit No. 8 - 19 MR.. HALL: For the record the document he 20 just referred to in that last answer was Discovery 21 Exhibit No. 13. 22 MR. TERRY: Okay. 23 A. (Reviewing Document). 24 Q. (By Mr. Terry) In the technical bulletin 25 could you give me the page numbers that you have WATER PCB-SD0000057278 80 1 clipped? 2 A. 17 . 3 Q. And what is the title of the section if 4 it has one? 5 A. Dermatology and Toxicology. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. And there's also a section on page - 8 don't have a page. 9 MR. HALL: It's not numbered. 10 A. But it follows -- there's no page number 11 on i t. 12 Q. (By Mr. Terry) At the bottom there 13 should be a xerox copy of a sticker that I added. 14 Q. This is 202-002240 is the page. 15 A. The other page then -16 Q. That's all right. What is the section? 17 A. Safe Handling. 18 Q. Is the information communicated in the 19 safe handling section essentially the same as the 20 information in the Inspection and Maintenance Guide? 21 A. No. This is now a later one because they 22 talk about avoiding environmental contamination with 23 PCB's and they talk about facilities for proper 24 incineration and they talk also about how PCB fluid 25 should be removed from solid scrap. That information WATER PCB-SD0000057279 81 1 was not my part of the paragraphs. 2 Q. Okay. In terms of the information that 3 was your part of the paragraphs it was essentially the 4 same as had been communicated earlier. 5 A f Well -- 6 Q. I'm not talking about Page 18 yet, I'm 7 talking about just the last page, the safe handling 8 page. That's essentially the same information that 9 you had been communicating before. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Now the other part. Page 18? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now that's the part that was labeled 14 Dermatology and - 15 A. No,, that's 17.Dermatology and 16 Toxicology. 17 Q. I'm sorry. Is that new information? 18 A. It's not new, I don't know why they put 19 in this information about the patch testing on people 20 because that was done when the material was being 21 advocated as a plasticizer and so we ran patch tests 22 to see if there would be any irritation or sensitivity 23 so if a baby were sitting in an automobile seat cover 24 that Aroclor is a plasticizer so what that has to do 25 with transformers I don't know but that's information WATER PCB-SD0000057280 82 1 they obtained from us on, was in other bulletins and I 2 think they just transposed it into this. 3 Q. Do you know what the date of that 4 technical bulletin is? 5 A. Date of what? 6 Q. The bulletin, the technical bulletin? 7 MR. HALL: Exhibit No. 8. 8 A. No. But it's after we had the 9 incinerator because they talk about - 10 MR. HALL: Is there a date on the front? 11 A. No. I don't know why they never dated 12 these things. They must have had their own code 13 somehow or other. Well there's a thing down here 8/71 14 on Page 7202-002241 that's listed 8/71. I would 15 assume that's the date. 16 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Approximate date of 17 production. And we can verify that it was after the 18 incinerator went on line because there is reference 19 there to the incinerator. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Do you know if that technical bulletin 22 replaced, that is this particular one that is 23 Deposition Exhibit No. 8, replaced a technical 24 bulletin that was currently in publication or was this 25 a brand new document? WATER PCB-SD0000057281 83 1 A. I'm sure it was brand new because there 2 certainly has been technical bulletins on Arochlors 3 for a long time so I'm sure whether it replaced or was 4 an addition I do not know but this is specifically 5 directed to capacitors and transformers and I don't 6 know if they had a specific bulletin on capacitors and 7 transformers before or not, I don't know that. 8 Q. Do you know if there was a technical 9 bulletin on Ascholors prior? 10 MR. HALL: On what? 11 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Askarel. Do you know if 12 there was a technical bulletin that would have covered 13 Askarel? , 14 A. I don't believe there would be because I 15 think it would be under Monsanto's trade name of 16 Arochlors. Askarel is a generic like aspirin then 17 there's Bayer aspirin, St. Joseph aspirin only they 18 have different names so I don't think, there may or 19 may not have been an Askarel technical bulletin, I 20 don't know. 21 Q. Okay. In that technical bulletin you had 22 alluded to the information on Page 18. 23 Q. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And we can tell that that 25 particular page had to be prepared after 1971 because WATER PCB-SD0000057282 84 1 the reference to the Monsanto incinerator is there. 2 Okay? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you knowif the informationcontained 5 on Page 18 had been contained in a technical bulletin 6 prior to 1971 save and except for that element we know 7 couldn't have been there before the incinerator went 8 on line? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. Do you know if there was any other 11 publication that Monsanto made available to customers 12 that contained this kind of instruction about disposal 13 prior to 1971? 14 A. I do not know that. 15 Q. Now Exhibit No. 3 had to beafter 1971; 16 correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What involvement did you have in the 19 preparation of that? 20 A. No sir. 21 Q. It was clipped. 22 A. This part was on it. 23 Q. I'm with you. I think that Mr. 24 Pappageorge indicated that those two pages that you're 25 looking at generally came together. That may have WATER PCB-SD0000057283 85 1 been why. 2 A. Yes. I had the precaution statement. 3 Q. And that would have been done after 1971? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And then the same with - 6 A. If this was on it that was after '71 but 7 if the statement of environmental, being an 8 environmental contaminant that could have been 1970. 9 Q. And then this one, which exhibit number 10 is that? 11 MR. HALL: No. 4. 12 Q. (By Mr. Terry)No. 4, essentially the 13 same as the prior in terms of the information 14 communicated? 15 MR. HALL: 2 and 3. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. (By Mr. Terry) Okay. Now do you know 18 what these things are that we're looking at? What 19 this is? 20 A. What what is? 21 Q. Is it a sticker that goes on a 55 gallon 22 drum? 23 A. That's the whole label. 24 Q. That's the whole label? 25 A. Yes. WATER PCB-SD0000057284 86 1 Q. Did this label replace the kind of labels 2 that had been used before? 3 A. It replaced it as far as this was 4 concerned. (Indicating). When they were changing the 5 labels -- now I don't know if this was on an Inerteen 6 PPO label or not. When they were changing the labels 7 they had a sticker they put on until they got the new 8 labels then they discarded the old label which had the 9 cautions and had a label that contained both the 10 cautions, the waste disposal and the environmental 11 problems. 12 Q. The information that was on the caution, 13 contains chlorinated hydrocarbons, would that 14 information have been contained on all the labels? 15 A. Yes . 16 Q. Whenever the : 17 A. Yes . 18 Q. The stuff on 19 studies have shown may be 20 contaminant, that sort of 21 A. Yes . 22 Q. That informat 23 labels after those studies 24 to '70; right? 25 A. Yes . WATER PCB-SD0000057285 87 1 Q. Do you know when the decision was made to 2 put this information on the labels? 3 A. Some time around 1970 give or take six 4 months. 5 Q. Now that information, that section that 6 I'm asking you to review also says extreme care to be 7 taken to prevent any entry into the environment. Do 8 you see that section? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you know if there was anything on the 11 prior labels which referred to disposal that this 12 sentence replaced? 13 A. No sir, I do not know of any. 14 Q. Do you know why the decision was made to 15 include this on the label in 1970? Did you 16 participate in that decision? 17 A. Yes because the material was showing up 18 in fish and the avian species and it hadn't been 19 showing up before 19, well it first showed up in 1968 20 but there was no harm, '66 or '68 I guess but there 21 was no evidence of any harm for another year. 22 Q. Do you know if the prior labels contained 23 any directions, any suggestions, any reference to 24 disposal of the material or spills, leakage or use in 25 any way, shape or form prior to 1970? WATER PCB-SD0000057286 88 1 A. I do not know that either. 2 Q. Okay. Thank you sir, that's all I have. 3 EXAMINATION 4 QUESTIONS BY MR. HESTER: 5 Q. Hello Dr. Kelly, my name is Tracy Hester, 6 I'm here representing Houston Lighting and Power 7 Company and I have only a few questions for you. 8 When you were working at Monsanto as 9 director of the .medical department did you have 10 responsibility for investigating employee health or 11 safety issues? 12 A. Of Monsanto employees, yes. 13 Q. For example if a Monsanto employee 14 claimed that he had gotten a particular condition from 15 a Monsanto product would you have been the person to 16 investigate that claim? 17 A. Yes. It depends on the condition. 18 Suppose a man had a skin rash down in our Texas City 19 plant the plant doctor would take care of it but if a 20 man complained that he had an occupational illness, 21 that he had selenosis or hepatitis, that information 22 would come to me and I would discuss it with our plant 23 doctor and decide on investigating it, yes. 24 Q. And even if an employee -- strike that. 25 Even if the information does not arise WATER PCB-SD0000057287 89 1 from a report from an employee but say for example 2 Monsanto simply noticed that there was an incidence of 3 a particular condition among several of its employees 4 would you have investigated that as well? 5 A. Yes. Because I made weekly or yearly 6 visits to all the plants and I would check with the 7 plant doctor and the plant nurse as to whether there 8 was any clustering of conditions there. 9 Q. In discharging that responsibility did 10 you ever get information indicating that there was a 11 link between PCB exposure and Hodgkin's disease? 12 A. No sir. I was never aware of any such 13 link either in Monsanto employees or in the medical 14 literature. 15 Q. Okay. In discharging those 16 responsibilities did you find any link between PCB's 17 and any kind of kidney disfunction? 18 A. No sir. There has been no report of any 19 in our employees and no report of any such occurences 20 in the literature. 21 Q. I have no more questions for you. 22 EXAMINATION 23 QUESTIONS BY MR. MCCAUL: 24 Q. My name is Mike McCaul I represent the 25 United States in this lawsuit. We've been brought in WATER PCB-SD0000057288 90 1 by the Monsanto Corporation into this lawsuit. The 2 allegations that Monsanto has made against the United 3 States are that we through one of our agencies 4 delivered batteries and transformers to the site that 5 is in question in this lawsuit. Do you have any 6 knowledge whatsoever about these allegations? 7 A. It's the first I ever heard of it. 8 Q. I believe off the record during the break 9 you asked me why the United States was in the lawsuit, 10 I responded it's a good question you should ask your 11 attorney. Do you remember that conversation? 12 A. Yes, I do. 13 Q. Do you have any documents or any 14 knowledge of any sale of PCB's or dielectric fluid to 15 the United States in the Corpus Christi area? 16 A. No sir, I do not. 17 Q. As to the health effects or risks of 18 exposure to PCB's you said chloracne was the only 19 symptom that has arisen from your experience that you 20 have seen from exposure? 21 A. Now are we talking about -- first of all 22 let me explain myself. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. I have seen no chloracne in electrical 25 workers. I have seen no chloracne in Monsanto workers WATER PCB-SD0000057289 91 1 who worked with PCB's. I have seen one instance of 2 chloracne in women who were working in a thermometer 3 factory in which they were making these blow 4 thermometers for ovens or something sort of like the 5 size of an onion in a leather container and they would 6 dip these things into the Arochlor to fill them up and 7 they developed chloracne and it was interesting 8 because that's the first I had heard of it, of 9 chloracne and I wanted to see it so I went up there. 10 It was someplace in New York and I said why don't you 11 get some sort of a gimmick like a forceps so you don't 12 have to put your hands in there so they did it and 13 that was it. That was the only chloracne that I know 14 of in the United States. There may have been some 15 chloracne reported in foreign literature in capacitors 16 but I am not too familiar with that. There have been 17 two acute episodes that I know of where people were 18 using Arochlors or PCB's in heat transfer units. 19 These were acute episodes where there were 20 installations that they developed chemical hepatitis 21 and they talked to me about it and I followed it up 22 and they did all recover but there were acute 23 episodes, two cases, I mean two instances, that's all 24 I know. 25 Q. And the latter cases involved elevated WATER PCB-SD0000057290 92 1 temperatures ? 2 A. Yes. Quite elevated. 3 Q. Do the properties change when the 4 temperature is elevated? 5 A. No. But you get more chances of 6 exposure. In other words you can have a pan of PCB's 7 on the floor and you can breathe it all day because 8 the vapor progresses so low you wouldn't get any 9 problem. But if you heat it you evolve the vapors so 10 it's a question of the amount of exposure rather than 11 the properties changing. 12 Q. PCB's as I understand are not volatile? 13 A. Very little. You can smell them but it's 14 a very low vapor. The higher ones, you can't smell 15 them at all at room temperature. 16 Q. Only when the temperature is elevated 17 will they vaporize? 18 A. I think if you, they'll vaporize over a 19 couple years I mean if you have a saucer full of PCB's 20 and you left it someplace 10 years later you may not 21 have it but it's a very slowly vaporizing material. 22 Q. Are you familiar with PCDF? 23 A. Sure. 24 Q. Could you explain to me what that is? 25 A. Well it's a contaminant that occurs in WATER PCB-SD0000057291 _______ ______________________________________________________________________ 93 1 PCB's. It's dibenzofuran, it occurs at a certain 2 window in the temperature range, in other words if you 3 start with a PCB and heat it up to like 600 degrees 4 Fahrenheit, I'm not too sure about this, between 600 5 degrees and 800 degrees, you will develop 6 dibenzofurans. If you raise the temperature over that 7 you will destroy the dibenzofurans. 8 Q. Am I correct then in saying that the 9 properties do change when the PCB's are heated if they 10 change into PCDF does that change the properties? 11 A. Yes. It doesn't change the properties it 12 adds, you got a different compound in there. I mean 13 you have both PCB's -- that doesn't change 14 immediately, you don't take two ounces of PCB's and 15 heat it up to 650 and get two ounces of dibenzofurans, 16 you get a certain percentage of them. 20 parts per 17 million, 50 parts per million, something like that. 18 Q. Is there more of a risk with PCDF's as 19 opposed to PCB's? 20 A. I think inherently the PCDF's are more 21 toxic than PCB, yes, by several magnitudes. 22 Q. So PCB's and the non-elevated temperature 23 state would be less, of less risk. 24 A. Then you have got to qualify exposure. I 25 mean PCB's have not shownn any risk in industrial use WATER PCB-SD0000057292 94 1 as mentioned by your exception to chloracne, as 2 mentioned by your Government expert Kimbraugh. 3 Q. By Kimbraugh, that's correct. 4 The Inerteen, is that the brand name? 5 A. That's the trademark name of 6 Westinghouse. 7 Q. What type of PCB is Inerteen? 8 A. I think 60 percent, 12, 60 and 40 percent 9 trichlorbenzene. 10 Q. When you observe the chloracne, and this 11 as I understand it were people in direct contact with 12 the fluid; right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So you would have to actually pour the 15 liquid onto you I assume to develop that? 16 A. Well presumably. I mean chloracne occurs 17 from a lot of things. It occurs, you can get it from 18 agricultural chemicals, you can get it from 19 'penachloraphenal', you do not get chloracne from the 20 access of the material on the skin, you get it from 21 the absorption of the material and it causes systemic 22 reaction which causes the chloracne. Now there's a 23 condition very close to chloracne that's something 24 like boils and whether these people back there had 25 that or chloracne, back in the thermometer business WATER PCB-SD0000057293 95 1 had that or chloracne I'm not so sure because it was 2 only on their arms, it was not anyplace else and the 3 chloracne I've seen in agricultural workers and wood 4 treating chemical workers has occurred not at the 5 place of contact but other places on the body like the 6 chin, the cheeks, places like that. 7 Q. Typically chloracne is found on the face 8 and behind the ears? 9 A. And the back, yes. 10 Q. That's typically on the arms you said? 11 A. That's a contact thing. 12 Q. Wherever they come in contact with it. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Is that associated with PCB exposure? 15 A. I don't think so. 16 Q. Do you know what the cause of that is? 17 A. I think it's probably clogging up of the 18 sweat follicles, the hair follicles and sweat glands 19 with the oil and you get infection under it. 20 Q. Do you know who made the determination to 21 ban PCB production in the United States? 22 A. Well the Government banned it two years 23 after we stopped making it but certainly the 24 management of the company made the decision, I didn't 25 make it. The CEO made it. WATER PCB-SD0000057294 96 1 Q. Right. 2 A. But he was acting on advise from a lot of 3 different people. 4 Q. Most likely EPA and OSHA? 5 A. Well no, they weren't in the act at that 6 time. We stopped it because statutes came out. They 7 came out with silicones or I don't know what the - 8 this happened after I left so I'm not so sure but 9 Monsanto stopped manufacturing it two years before the 10 Government banned it. 11 Q. Okay. I'm just about ready to wrap this 12 up. 13 As far as any type of liver problems that 14 could be associated with PCB exposure first of all as 15 I understand it it's your testimony that liver 16 problems are not the result of exposure to PCB's. 17 A. I didn't say that. I said there have 18 been acute exposures and I also said that animals have 19 shown liver problems after prolonged feeding with 20 PCB's but I said there have been no evidence of any 21 liver problems in industrial workers exposed to PCB 22 and no liver problems to anybody as far as I'm 23 concerned. 24 MR. HALL: You mentioned two cases of 25 hepatitis. WATER PCB-SD0000057295 97 1 A. With the exception of the acute 2 exposures. 3 Q. And I suppose the objection would be 4 anything acute? 5 A. What? 6 Q. Industrial would not include ingestion. 7 A. Vapor, you don't expect a person to drink 8 an industrial compound. 9 Q. I'm just referring to the Yusho cases. 10 You have to have very extreme cases. 11 A. Yes. There you had very high, first of 12 all Yusho was not a Monsanto PCB. 13 Q. Form for Monsanto, right. 14 A. It's made by a process, it's also had 15 levels of dibenzofuran that were high and then it was 16 a heat transfer unit that heated the material again 17 and then the Japanese and the Chinese 'Ye Chang' 18 episode heated this rice oil in woks or whatever they 19 used to heat the stuff to have their soybean pancakes 20 out of it, make the soybean pancakes so the Japanese 21 site as a permanent conclusion that it was the severly 22 elevated levels of dibenzofurans. 23 Q. So you're dealing with PCDF's again. 24 A. That's correct. 25 MR. MCCAUL: I have no further questions. WATER PCB-SD0000057296 98 1 MS. ANOUILH: No questions. 2 MR. TERRY: Just a couple. 3 EXAMINATION 4 QUESTIONS BY MR. TERRY: 5 Q. (By Mr. Terry) When did you become aware 6 that PCDF's had a degree of risks several magnitudes 7 higher than PCB's? 8 A. About the time of the Yusho episode and 9 that was in 1965, I believe. 10 Q. Did you know before that that PCB's 11 degenerated into PCDF's in the presence of heat? 12 A. First of all they do not degenerate into 13 it, you can get the presence of dibenzofurans, PCDF's, 14 from the application of certain levels of heat. They 15 do not degenerate into it in a transformer for 16 example. You don't get it from the use of a 17 transformer. Because there's no oxygen in there. 18 Q. When did you realize that PCB's in the 19 presence of heat can become associated with PCDF's? 20 A. 1966, '67, around then. 21 Q. Do you know what happens when the body or 22 does the body metabolize PCB's? 23 A. Well they store it and then they 24 eventually get rid of it, sure. 25 Q. Do you know the process by which the body WATER PCB-SD0000057297 99 1 metabolizes PCB's, what they become? 2 A. No sir, I don't. 3 Q. Thank you. That's all I have. 4 MR. HALL: I don't have any questions for 5 you Dr. Kelly. 6 7 DR. EMMET KELLY 8 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 10 and and seal. 11 My commission expires . 12 13 14 [NOTARY PUBLIC] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WATER PCB-SD0000057298 100 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 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS ) I, SUZANNE BENOIST, a Registered Professional Reporter and a duly commissioned Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri, do hereby certify that DR. EMMET KELLY, the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me and that this transcript of such deposition is a true record of the testimony given by such witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal July 23, 1991. My Commission expires October 7th, 1991. NOTARY PUBLIC WATER PCB-SD0000057299 101 1 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY 316 Merchants Laclede Building 2 408 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63102-2722 3 (314) 621-8883 4 5 July 16th, 1991 6 Woodard, Hall & Primm, P.C. 7000 Texas Commerce Tower 7 Houston, Texas 77002 ATTN: MR. ROBERT A. HALL 8 RE: HOLLAND VS. MONSANTO 9 Dear Mr. Hall, 10 This letter, incorporated as the last page of the deposition of DR. EMMET KELLY taken on June 28, 1991 11 will serve as notice to you that the testimony is now ready for reading and signing of same. 12 I have enclosed the original transcript along with an 13 errata sheet on which any necessary corrections should be made. 14 After the transcript has been reviewed and the 15 signature page signed and notarized please return it to Mr. Terry so that the original transcript can be 16 filed with court. 17 Sincerely yours. 18 19 SUZANNE BENOIST REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q i -no WATER PCB-SD0000057300 101 1 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY 316 Merchants Laclede Building 2 408 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63102-2722 3 (314) 621-8883 4 5 July 16th, 1991 6 Woodard, Hall & Primm, P.C. 7000 Texas Commerce Tower 7 Houston, Texas 77002 ATTN: MR. ROBERT A. HALL 8 RE: HOLLAND VS. MONSANTO 9 Dear Mr. Hall, 10 This letter, incorporated as the last page of the deposition of DR. EMMET KELLY taken on June 28, 1991 11 will serve as notice to you that the testimony is now ready for reading and signing of same. 12 I have enclosed the original transcript along with an 13 errata sheet on which any necessary corrections should be made. 14 After the transcript has been reviewed and the 15 signature page signed and notarized please return it to Mr. Terry so that the original transcript can be 16 filed with court. 17 Sincerely yours, 18 19 SUZANNE BENOIST REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER 20 21 22 23 24 25 WATER PCB-SD0000057301