Document B5NM1gVxYqarD2b0D2mw48koJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE COUNTY, INDIANA, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs, ) Civ No. ) ) WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) IP 83-9-C a Pennsylvania corporation; and MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, ) ) ) ) Dsisndants*.,._______________________ 1 The continued deposition of W. B. PAPAGEORGE, called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Courts, pertaining to the taking of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public and Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at Three First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, on October 15, 1986, at the hour of ten o'clock a.m. T a f ^ a 1 ^ r * 4 STLCOPCB4030032 APPEARANCES: Mr. James G. McConnell Bell, Boyd & Lloyd Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 -and- Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner Law Offices of Geoffrey M. One City Centre Suite 100 Bloomington, Indiana 47401 Grodner appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald Barnes & Thornburg 1313 Merchants Bank Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 appeared on behalf of Defendant Monsanto Company. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030033 WITNESS W. B. PAPAGEORGE Direct Examination By Mr. Me Connell 409 - 464 EXHIBITS BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 232 234 235 236 Pass 418 420 423 424 428 429 431 432 433 435 438 440 442 445 446 455 456 457 459 464 466 468 468 469 471 474 476 477 478 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030034 40 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 ' 22 23 24 EXHIBITS BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. (Continued) 237 23 8 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 25 8 259 260 261 26 2 263 26 4 265 266 267 26 8 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 27 7 278 279 479 482 486 490 492 495 501 50 5 506 506 509 511 519 521 522 530 530 531 537 537 542 543 543 546 547 550 554 555 556 556 557 558 560 56 2 562 565 568 56 8 572 573 576 577 578 Longoria fi Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030035 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HB BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. 280 281 282 283 284 . 285 286 287 288 289 0 (Continued) 581 583 584 584 585 585 587 589 590 592 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030036 40 9 1 L. MR. MC CONNELL: Let the record show this is 2 the continuation of the deposition of Mr. 3 Papageorge, pursuant to notice and the applicable 4 provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5 and the local rules of the United States District 6 Court for the Southern District of Indiana. 7 8 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 9 having been previously duly sworn, 10 was examined and testified as follows: 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED): 12 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 13 Q. Mr. Papageorge, in the course of the 14 Monsanto Company's pcb business, there came a time 15 when the company retained a laboratory called 16 Industrial Bio-Test to do some animal testing on 17 pcb's, do you recall that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Before Industrial Bio-Test was retained 20 to do pcb animal testing by Monsanto, I take it 21 - they had done other animal testing on other 22 Monsanto products? 23 A. That is my understanding. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030037 410 1~2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 Were you involved in any of those other product test efforts? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you know what the approximate annual dollar volume of business was in 1967, '68, '69, '70 between Monsanto and Industrial Bio-Test? A. I do not. Q. Were you involved in the decision-making process at Monsanto that led to the decision to use Industrial Bio-Test to do these animal studies on pcb' s? A. NO. Q. Okay, That was before you came into the role of pcb coordinator? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Before you took over , or took I guess is better than took over, before you became the pcb coordinator at Monsanto, had you been involved in any kind of program on the animal testing on Monsanto products? A. No. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030038 411 1 1___ I Q. Is there anything in your educational or 2 other background before Monsanto involving animal 3 testing of chemicals? 4 A. No. 5 Q. So this pcb testing at Industrial 6 Bio-Test was your first exposure to the area of 7 animal testing for health effects of chemicals, is 8 that a fair statement? 9 A. I don't know about fairness. But I need 10 a definition. I was aware of results of animal 11 testing. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. On other products, in addition to the 14 pcb's. 15 Q. Other Monsanto products? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. 18 Before you became involved with the 19 pcb's, as the pcb coordinator at Monsanto, were 20 you aware of the general scientific principles 21 . that go into animal testing of chemicals? 22 A. In a very general way, yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 In your earlier experience with Monsanto Longoria s. Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030039 412 1 before you were the pcb coordinator, had you been 2 called upon to convey animal testing information 3 or results from the company to customers? 4 A. no. 5 Q. Had you been involved at Monsanto before 6 you became pcb coordinator in any way with the 7 consideration of what meaning animal test results 8 on Monsanto products might have for the health of 9 Monsanto's own employees who worked with those 10 products? 11 A. To a very limited degree. 12 Q. Okay. 13 What was your involvement in that regard? 14 A. I was in a position to discuss with 15 members of the medical department the effects of 16 chemicals that my plant had to deal with. And in 17 those discussions I felt were involved with animal 18 studies. 19 Q. And this was in relationship to the 20 health of Monsanto employees, is that correct, 21 rather than customer employees or outsiders? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Was there a particular product of that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030040 413 ' 1 plant that you can recall as involving discussions 2 with the medical department? 3 A. Oh, there were many. The one I recall 4 very vividly is an insecticide called Parathion. 5 Q. P-a-r-a-t-h-i-o-n? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Okay. 8 Any others that you can recall? 9 A. Chlorine. Mercury. Hydrochloric acid. 10 Those are the key chemicals. 11 Q. Okay. 12 What was the health concern with respect 13 to Parathion? 14 A. Parathion, I guess I better describe that 15 as a nerve damaging chemical, if humans are 16 exposed to some given amount which I have 17 forgotten. 18 Q. Okay. 1 9 In fact, that is the mechanism of action 20 on the insects as well, isn't it? 21 - A. That is my understanding, yes. 22 Q. Does Monsanto still make Parathion? 23 A. I don't believe so, no. 24 Q. Do you recall what -- let's back up a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030041 414 1 little bit. I1 2 In the context of Parathion, did you have 3 occasion to discuss animal studies on Parathion 4 with the Monsanto medical department? 5 A. Yes. They came up, the referenced animal 6 studies came up in the discussion, examples of 7 what effects could be noted in humans, possibly in 8 humans. 9 Q. When you say referenced animal studies. 10 you are referring to studies published in the 11 literature? 12 A. I don't -- let me think. Some of them 13 were published in the literature and some were 14 Monsanto results, as best I can remember. 15 Q. So at least some of the studies on 16 Parathion were commissioned by Monsanto? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Were any of those performed by Industrial 19 Bio-Test, to your knowledge? 20 21 22 A. I do not recall. I don't know. Q. Did your involvement in these discussions result from some expression of concern by 23 employees at the plant? 24 A. No. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030042 1 I___ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 415 Q. Okay. How was that initiated, how were those discussions initiated? A. I was assigned the management of the Anniston plant, that was one of the principal products of the plant, and at my request the discussions were held, so I could become more knowledgeable of the chemical and what it can do. Q. More on the order then of bringing yourself up to date as you took over responsibility for the plant that produced the product? . A. Yes. Q. Okay. When you took over the Anniston plant, were there any particular protective measures in effect for the employees who worked in the Parathion manufacturing process? A. Certainly. Q. Do you recall what they were? A. They had access to complete changes of clean clothing. And were required to wear the proper type of gloves to protect their hands. Safety spectacles, hard hats. And under some Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaqo STLCOPCB4030043 conditions of operating or repairing the equipment, they had to wear proper breathing equipment. And there was easy access to showers in the event that material got on their clothing or bodies, they could wash quickly. Q. Were any or all of these same safety precautions recommended by Monsanto to customers who were in the business of applying the insecticide? A. Yes, that is a requirement by the regulatory agencies on pesticides. Q. Okay. Whatever they required you had on your labeling, is that a fair statement? A. Yes. Q. Were any of those same protective measures in effect for the people who worked in the Anniston plant manufacturing pcb's? A. Well, in different degrees. There were showers, but not as many. Clean clothing was provided. Gloves were provided, but they were of different material of construction because the chemicals are different. And they, too, had to wear the safety Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030044 417 1 glasses for eye protection and the hard hats. And 2 there again on certain assignments, duties that 3 were to be performed, they had the proper 4 respiratory protection equipment. 5 Q. In the discussions you had with the 6 Monsanto medical department about animal tests on 7 Parathion, did you understand the medical people 8 to be drawing conclusions about the effects of the 9 chemical on human health, based on the 10 demonstrated effects on the animals? 11 A. Some of that, as well as some accidental 12 exposures to humans that were as I remember 13 documented at the time. 14 Q. So Monsanto's own medical people looked 15 at both whatever human data was available and had 16 the animal studies, advising you about the 17 potential health effects of Parathion? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 And was it your general understanding 21 that they did that same process with respect to 22 other Monsanto products; that is, they looked at 23 both the human data and the animal data? 24 A. Yes. Whatever was available. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030045 1___ 1 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 418 Q. To your knowledge, had there been any animal toxicology studies on pcb's before the studies commissioned by Monsanto at Industrial Bio-Test? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you know by whom those had been done? A. I recall a reference to a Younger Laboratories. There is a reference to another laboratory, at the moment the name escapes me, it started with an "S," named after I believe the owner or the investigator who made the studies. Starts with an "S". It doesn't come to me at the moment. Q. Okay. Take a look at what the court reporter has marked as Deposition Exhibit 208 which is a two-page letter to Dr. Hunt of Monsanto from William Randolph at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Do you want to look at this? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 208 for identification.) Lonqnris & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030046 A. I have looked at it. Q. Does that letter indicate to you that Dr. Hunt or someone at Monsanto had made a request of the government for whatever information the government had on animal studies on Aroclor products? A. That is what I would infer from the wording of the first paragraph. Q. Okay. The particular product that is referred to in that letter which is 5460, as I understand it that is not a pcb product; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Would it be the usual practice at Monsanto before commissioning animal studies on a product to make an effort to find out what information was already available from other sources? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether there were any requests to any other outside sources other than the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for information on pcb animal testing before the Industrial Bio-Test studies were launched? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 20- A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. And, again, this was at a time before you were the pcb coordinator; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Did I read the date of that into the record. January 5, 1967. I don't think I did. MR. FRUEHWALD: I believe it is 9. MR. MC CONNELL: Okay. Q. Before you became the pcb coordinator. did you have any general knowledge about the cost involved in conducting this kind of animal study? A. NO. Q. Okay. Would you take you a look at Exhibit 209, pi ease. (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 209 for identification.) A. I have looked at it. Q. That letter commissions, or, rather, that letter encloses the plans that Industrial Bio-Test generated for three studies on Aroclor 5460, is Lonqoria S Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030048 421 1 that correct? 2 HR. FRUEHWALD: Are you representing this is 3 an Industrial Bio-Test document? It doesn't say 4 so on the document itself. 5 MR. MC CONNELL: That is where we got it from. 6 So I assume it is their file copy. I know Dr. 7 Fancher to be affiliated with Industrial Bio-Test 8 at that time. 9 Would you read the question back. I 10 forgot what I asked. 11 (The record was read.) 12 A. Your use of the word plans is similar to 13 the word protocol, which is the methodology, 14 procedure followed in conducting the tests. 15 Q. Okay. 16 The protocol describes what animal is to 17 be used, how many and in each group, what the 18 dosage level is going to be and what the 19 investigator is looking for with respect to 20 examining the treated animals? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Now, can you tell me as you sit here 24 today what the reason was that prompted the Longoria & Ooldstine 236 1030 STLCOPCB4030049 422 1 company to look at the health effects on animals L_j 2 of the 5460 product? 3 A. I cannot. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Would one thing that Monsanto would want 6 to do in beginning a program of animal testing of 7 pcb's be to determine whether its selected 8 laboratory could duplicate results of experiments 9 that had been reported elsewhere? 10 A. That could be a reason, yes. 11 Q. Okay. 12 Do you know why the particular animals 13 that are shown in Exhibit 209 were chosen for 14 those studies? 15 A. No, I don't. 16 Q. Okay. 17 As I understand the process of animal 18 testing, one of the first things that needs to 19 determined before extensive testing can be 20 undertaken is what is the lethal dose; that is, 21 how much can you give before you kill the test 22 animals; is that a fair statement? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So that you don't plan a long test and V.fNnc<i'>r'<55 C. Cl r\ 1 e * 1 no ln^n rhinaao STLCOPCB4030050 U- " 423 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 end up killing off all the animals early in the test, because the dose is too high? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 210, which is a memo dated June 23, 1967 from Richard Palazzolo to G. Jackson. (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 210 for identification.) A. I have looked at it. Q. Does that describe the type of study that we just discussed that would be done to determine what dosage levels might reasonably be employed in a longer term animal study? A. I don't know that it suggests anything to me, because I don't know what acute toxicity study was actually conducted, and whether these numbers were arrived at mathematically or by actual observations. Q. Okay. A. But that is the intent of this letter. Q. Acute toxicity refers to the level of material which when administered, whether by Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030051 424 1 **" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 feeding or otherwise, produces immediate observable effects or effects observable in a relatively short period of time; is that a fair statement? A. Yes. Q. As opposed to a chronic study, which looks for effects that occur when the product is administered over a comparatively longer period of time? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So the acute studies ordinarily come first in the sequence of events, in order to determine the appropriate dose range for the chronic studies? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 211, if you would, please. (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 211 for identification.) A. All right. Q. 211 is a memo also from Richard Palazzolo Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030052 1 1___ i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 425 to G. Jackson dated July 28, 1967 subject chick edema study Monsanto Aroclor. Do you know why it was that those studies were being rerun as reflected in that memo? A. No, I don11. MR. FRUEHWALD: Off the record. (Discussion had off the record.) BY MR. MC CONNELL: Q. Do you know whether it had been the practice between Monsanto and Industrial Bio-Test before the pcb studies were commissioned by Monsanto for Industrial Bio-Test to forward to Monsanto draft reports of the results of animal studies on Monsanto products for comment and criticism? A. No. I do not. Q. Do you know whether it had been the practice between Monsanto and Industrial Bio-Test before the pcb studies were commissioned by Monsanto for Industrial Bio-Test to occasionally make revisions to its study reports and forward pages to Monsanto to be inserted in the original copies of the report or to replace pages from the original copies of the report? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030053 426 1 A. I do not know. 2 Q. Okay. 3 As your understanding was then of the 4 proper procedures, your general understanding you 5 you have described or testified to of the proper 6 procedures for animal studies, would such a 7 substitution of pages in a report be proper? 8 A. Yes. Hy understanding, yes. 9 Q. Okay. 10 And under what circumstances? 11 A. When the professional toxicologist is 12 managing the study for Monsanto's -- of Monsanto's 13 chemicals, he does get involved in a dialogue with 14 the toxicologists and technicians and others in 15 the laboratories. To this day that dialogue still 16 takes place as to what is observed and what 17 conclusions are drawn. 18 Q. Between the Monsanto toxicologist and the 19 outside laboratory? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. 22 Does that dialogue commonly include the 23 exchange of draft reports and revisions to the 24 draft reports, if you know? Lonaoria & ^nldstins 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030054 427 1 A. In every instance that I have been close 2 to since I was assigned pcb coordinator, that has 3 been my observation, yes. 4 Q. Okay. ' 5 Have you ever observed outside the pcb 6 studies a circumstance where after new pages were 7 substituted in a draft report, the old pages would 8 be destroyed? 9 A. I was never that close to the paper 10 handling, no. 11 Q. Okay. 12 According to your knowledge then, and I 13 will ask you about your knowledge now. 14 According to your knowledge then; that 15 is, back in the early seventies, would it have 16 been the preferred practice to keep the earlier 17 version as well as the later version of those 18 reports on file? 19 A. To my knowledge, the various drafts, can 20 be anywhere from one to a dozen, are discarded 21 when the final draft is published. 22 Q. And that is still the practice at 23 Monsanto? ___ 24 A. To my understanding, yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaqo STLCOPCB4030055 42 8 1 Q. Do you know if that is also the practice 2 at the outside laboratories? 3 A. That is my understanding. 4 Q. Okay. 5 And is that the case even with respect to 6 those products where the tests are done in 7 compliance with government regulations? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is it a common practice at Monsanto to 10 pay in advance for animal studies on its products 11 by outside laboratories? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Why is that? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Take a look at what'the court reporter 16 has marked as Exhibit 212 which is a letter dated 17 October 20, 1967 from J. C. Calandra to Dr. Hunt 18 at Monsanto, 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 212 for identification.) 22 A. I have seen it. 23 Q. Does that reflect one of the " 24 substitutions of pages in a draft repot* that we Lonooria & Ortlrist-'inp 236 1030 Ghica.ao STLCOPCB4030056 42 9 1 have discussed? ' 2 A. That is what I would assume from the 3 wording of this letter. 4 Q. And that refers to a 90-day sub-acute 5 oral toxicity study of Aroclor 5460 in albino 6 r a ts ? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. Take a look at Deposition Exhibit 213, 9 which is a document consisting of 26 pages, 10 including a cover memo, which is a report to 11 Monsanto Company, Industrial Bio-Test Number 5313, 12 90-day subacute oral toxicity of Aroclor 5460 13 albino rats, and I will ask you if you can 14 determine from reviewing 213 whether that version 15 of the report represents the report before or 16 after the substitution of the pages that is 17 referred to in 212? 1 8 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 213 for identification.) 21 A. I am looking through this multi-page 22 report. I find that page 29 is missing, which is 23 referred to in the previous exhibit we discussed. 24 Q. In fact, it ends on page 25, does it not? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030057 430 1 A. That's correct. 2 Page 24 appears to be a transmittal - 3 not a transmittal so much as a reference to 4 tables, which -- one of which appears on page 25 5 and the second table referenced is missing. 6 As to whether the correction referred to 7 in the previous letter is included in this 8 document, the dates of the two would imply to me 9 that the document which is dated October 18 does 10 not have the correction referred to in the letter 11 dated October 20. 12 Q. Okay. 13 Would it ordinarily be the practice at 14 Monsanto in the case of such a correction or 15 substitution of pages in a report, to change the 16 date on the report to reflect the date of the 17 correction? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Take a look at what the court reporter 20 has marked as -- before we do this. It is 11:15. 21 (Discussion had off the record.) 22 Take a look at what has been marked as 23 Exhibit 214, which is a memo which looks like it 24 is dated September 9, 1967, although the month is Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030058 43 1 1 very unclear, to Dr. Kodras, K-o-d-r-a-s, from A1 2 Wolvin, W-o-l-v-i-n, subject: J5315. 3 (The document above-referred to 4 was marked Bloomington Deposition 5 Exhibit No. 214 for identification.) 6 One of the things that is referred to in 7 that document is transmission of blank peracardial 8 edema sheets. 9 Why would blank sheets of that nature be 10 transmitted to Monsanto, if you know? 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: To Monsanto? 12 MR. MC CONNELL: If they were. 13 That is not a fair question because it 14 just says they are transmitted, it doesn't really 15 say to whom. 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: Again, I don't think any of us 17 is familiar with these documents, but it appears 18 to me they are being transmitted 'within IBT. 19 MR. MC CONNELL: You are right, I will 20 withdraw the question. 21 Okay, I have a different question about 22 this, though. 23 Q. This refers again to a repeat study. Do 24 you know why the study, the chicken study on I.onaoris ft Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030059 43 2 1 Aroclor 5460 was repeated? 2 A. i do not. 3 Q. Let's just let the record show that we 4 have already marked as Exhibit 215 a document 5 which appears to me to be an identical copy of 6 what has already been marked as 212. Although the 7 copy that was marked as 212 is of somewhat better 8 quality. So we will not use it. 9 I am not going to try and renumber all of 10 these. 11 (The document above-referred to 12 was marked Bloomington Deposition 13 Exhibit No. 215 for identification.) 14 Q. I am going to show you a document that 15 has been marked as Exhibit 216, which is a memo to 16 Greenie Jackson from R. Kodras, dated October 23, 17 1967 and I direct your attention particularly to 18 the numbered paragraph 2. 19 It appears to me that the rest of this 20 document refers to studies IBT was doing for other 21 customers or on other substances, but paragraph 2 22 refers to J5314, Monsanto's Aroclor study. 23 Can you read that? 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030060 433 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 216 for identification.) 4 A. I have looked at it. " 5 Q. Okay. 6 Can you tell whether the directions that 7 are included in paragraph 2 represent a change 8 from the original protocol of the study or whether 9 that is just carrying out what was originally 10 planned to be done? 11 A. I have no way of knowing. 12 Q. Okay. . 13 During your experience at Monsanto 14 dealing with Industrial Bio-Test on the animal 15 studies, do you know whether it was a practice 16 from time to time to change the protocol of the 17 study in the middle of the course of the study 18 somewhere? 19 A. On certain occasions that would take 20 place, depending on the results that were being 21 observed as the study progressed. 22 Q. Why might such a change be made? 23 A. Oh, there are several reasons. One is 24 the animals might be dying off unexpectedly Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaoo STLCOPCB4030061 43 4 1 because of the high dosage. Or an observation 2 might be made of an effect that could better be 3 studied under a different test. So you terminate 4 the old test and design a new one to pursue that 5 observation. 6 Sometimes the animals in the test 7 developed diseases that were not anticipated. 8 This includes not only those being exposed to 9 chemicals, but the controls. So the directors of 10 the study have to make decisions on how much of 11 the test can be salvaged and results be acceptable 12 or how much must be altered, how much must be 13 terminated. 14 Those are some examples of the kinds of 15 things that happen. 16 Q. Okay. 17 In the second example you gave, that is, 18 an effect is observed which could better be 19 studied under a different test. Would the 20 appropriate procedure be to terminate the 21 experiment that was underway and start the new 22 test with the new group of animals, or would it 23 ever be appropriate to use the animals who have ___ 24 been on the old test for a period of time? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030062 435 1 A. That is a judgment call of the study 2 director. But it has been my observation they 3 prefer starting with a new group of animals that 4 are exposed under controlled conditions, rather 5 than have animals that have been previously 6 exposed and an additional study be made, an 7 additional exposure be imposed which would 8 complicate the study, 9 Q. So it is less complicated to start over 10 with fresh animals? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I am going to show you a document that 13 has been marked as Exhibit 217, dated October 27, 14 1967 from R. Kodras to Greenie Jackson confirming 15 a telephone conversation of October 25, 1967. I 16 will ask you to review that. 17 (The document above-referred to 18 was marked Bloomington Deposition 19 Exhibit No. 217 for identification.) 20 A. I have reviewed Exhibit 217. 21 Q. In the last paragraph on that document 22 which is the paragraph numbered 3, I take that to 23 be a suggestion that the possibility exists that 24 inappropriate technique was used in creating the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030063 - 436 1 blood smear slides in that dog study, too much 2 pressure was applied, it couldn't be read. Does 3 that agree with your understanding? 4 A. That is what I would infer from the 5 words. 6 Q. What steps, if any, could be taken to 7 correct that situation with respect to the -- let 8 me back up a little bit. 9 As I understand the studies that were 10 done with the dogs, blood samples were drawn at 11 different times of the study? 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: Excuse me, this is a 1967 13 study of some other product. I don't think this 14 has to do with any of our products, or it doesn't 15 indicate that it does. 16 Are you representing that it does? 17 MR. MC CONNELL: No. 18 I am interested in the techniques 19 employed by the people who did all of the dog 20 studies. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: It not sure Mr. Papageorge is 22 the man to tell you about that, you but you can 23 ask the question. 24 MR. MC CONNELL: Let me ask the same question Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030064 437 1 a different way. 2 Q. During the time that .you, were dealing , 3 with Industrial Bio-Test on the pcb studies, one 4 of the species of animals that was used was Beagle 5 dogs; is that correct? 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. And they were housed at a farm in 8 Wisconsin? 9 A. Not the dogs that I saw, no. 10 Q. Okay. 11 Where were the dogs that you saw? 12 A. In the IBT laboratories in Northbrook. 13 Q. In Northbrook? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. 16 One of the things that was done in the 17 course of the dog study was that blood was drawn 18 at different times and examined for various 19 characteristics; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. 22 Do you know who the Industrial Bio-Test 23 technicians were that were involved in the blood 24 tests on the dogs? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030065 438 1 A. NO. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Did anybody ever bring to your attention 4 problems with laboratory technique in the blood 5 cell counts in the Industrial Bio-Test dog 6 studies? 7 A. NO. 8 Q. In the case of the paragraphs following 9 the numbered heading 2, J5314 Monsanto's Aroclor 10 study, that study was done on chickens; is that 11 correct? 12 A. It is not specific. But the chicken was 13 the typical bird used. 14 Q. Okay. 15 Take a look at Exhibit 218, which is a 16 letter to Dr. Hunt from Rudolph Kodrau, dated 17 October 27 , 1967 . 18 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 218 for identification.) 21 Do you know whether the study that is 22 referred to in that letter was one of the studies 23 involving pcb products? 24 A. No, I don't. -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030066 43 9 1 Q. Why would Monsanto be interested in the 2 conditions under which the birds were housed and 3 the eggs incubated? 4 A. We are always interested in fallowing 5 proper laboratory procedures, so that the results 6 obtained from the study are not affected by other 7 conditions in the laboratory which are brought 8 about by improper care, improper procedures. 9 Q. Okay. 10 The control animals, whether they be 11 chickens or rats or mice or fish, whatever, and 12 the animals being tested by exposure to the 13 chemical should all be housed under the identical 14 conditions, should they not, in order for the 15 experiment to be valid? 16 A. That is my understanding, yes. 17 Q. Okay. 18 Was it the fact that during these studies 19 on pcb's that Industrial Bio-Test did for Monsanto 20 that some of the tissues from the study animals 21 and the control animals were sent to Monsanto's 22 own laboratories for pcb residue analysis? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Why was that done? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030067 440 1 A. This was done to determine if pcb's 2 accumulate in animals. If so, which of the pcb's 3 remain as residues. 4 It was part of the biodegradation study 5 that Monsanto had ongoing. 6 Q. Perhaps ray question was inartfully 7 phrased. 8 What I am trying to get at is why that 9 was done at Monsanto rather than Industrial 10 Bio-Test? 11 A. At that point in time, Monsanto was one 12 of the -- had one of the few laboratories that had 13 the capability of analyzing pcb's at these low 14 levels. But Industrial Bio-Test laboratories did 15 not have that expertise. 16 Q. I am going to show you a memo that has 17 been marked as 219 dated November 16, 1967 to Dr. 18 Kodras from A1 Wolvin. I will ask you to take a 19 look at that. 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 219 for identification.) 23 A. I have reviewed it. 24 Q. Why would the path sheets on the animals Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030068 441 1 and the actual tissue samples be sent separately, 2 if you know? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Would it be a better practice to have the 5 documentation and the samples all packaged 6 together ? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Did there come a time in the course of 9 the Industrial Bio-Test studies when a great deal 10 of confusion arose about tissue samples that had 11 been transmitted to Monsanto but not received or 12 couldn't be located in Monsanto's laboratory? 13 A. There was an incident when that occurred, 14 yes. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Do you know if that was a result of the 17 fact that the documents were transmitted 18 separately from the samples? 19 A. No, I do not. 20 Q. Do you know if that situation was ever 21 resolved to Monsanto's satisfaction? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Was it? 24 A. We got other samples. -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030069 442 1 Q. Okay. 2 Deposition Exhibit 220 is a memo from R. 3 Kodras to C. W. Berndt, dated December 6, 1967. 4 (The document above-ref er.red to 5 was marked Bloomington Deposition 6 Exhibit No. 220 for identification.) 7 Do you know why the report on this study 8 J5314 was to be held? 9 A. No. 10 Q. To your knowledge, did Monsanto ever 11 terminate a study at Industrial Bio-Test and ask 12 for Industrial Bio-Test not to submit a report on 13 the study? 14 A. I am not aware of any. 15 Q. Was it ordinarily the practice then if a 16 study were terminated that there would be a report 17 on what had been done up to the point of 18 termination? 19 A. That has been my experience. 20 Q. So as far as you know, there should be no 21 Industrial Bio-Test animal study on pcb's which 22 went undocumented? 23 A. I am not aware of any. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030070 443 1 Was it the practice during the time that 2 you were the pcb coordinator between Monsanto and 3 Industrial Bio-Test that all of the raw data from 4 the studies, in addition to the reports5 themselves, was transmitted to Monsanto either on 6 paper or in the form of microfilm or microfiche? 7 A. I don't know if all of it was 8 transmitted, no. I don't know. 9 Q. Was there ordinarily some considerable 10 back up documentation that came along with or in 11 addition to the report, that came to Monsanto? 12 A. I know some data was sent forward. I 13 don't know if I can define it as considerable or 14 all. 15 Q. In the context of this dialogue which you 16 described between Monsanto's own toxicologist and 17 the outside laboratory, wouldn't it be important 18 for the Monsanto toxicologist who was evaluating 19 the draft of a report to also have the underlying 20 data that supported it? 21 A. It would be important and in many 22 instances this is done at the laboratory. The 23 Monsanto toxicologist goes to the laboratory. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030071 444 1 And looks through their files? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. At their laboratory notebooks and so 4 forth? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. Okay. 7 So one way or the other, he has access to 8 the raw data supporting the report? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. 11 Is it the routine practice, then, for the 12 Monsanto toxicologist who is supervising or 13 coordinating the outside study to at least spot 14 check the raw data with the corresponding report? 15 A. That is my observation, yes. 16 Q. I will show you what has been marked as 17 Deposition Exhibit 221, which appears to me, to 18 the extent that it is possible to determine it, an 19 internal Monsanto memorandum from Elmer Wheeler to 20 W. R. Richard, with a long list of other people. 21 Subject minutes of our discussions with Dr. 22 Calandra dated December 9, 1968. 23 Take a look it that. But I want to 24 particularly direct your attention to trhe last Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030072 445 1 paragraph on the second page of the two-page 2 document which is numbered 11. 3 (The document above-referred to 4 was marked Bloomington Deposition 5 Exhibit No. 221 for identification.) 6 A. I have reviewed Exhibit 221. 7 Q. Okay. 8 My question is paragraph 11 on the second 9 page refers to monthly meetings during the course 10 of the studies. Did those monthly meetings 11 continue throughout the course of the Industrial 12 Bio-Test animal studies on pcb's to your 13 k nowledge ? 14 A. No. They did not. 15 Q. When did they stop being monthly? 16 A. I do not know. 17 Q. Did there continue to be periodic 18 meetings at some interval other than monthly 19 throughout the course of the pcb project? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So there were meetings, but they are less 22 frequent than monthly? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030073 -4 4 6 1 I have marked as 222 another Monsanto 2 memorandum from W. R. Richard to E. Wheeler with a 3 list. The typed date on it is December 9, 1968 4 consisting of one page. I ask you to review that. 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 222 for identification.) 8 A. I have reviewed it. 9 Q. To your knowledge, was there ever a 10 written program objectives created for the pcb 11 animal studies at Industrial Bio-Test? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You don't know or there was not? 14 A. There was no program that I am aware of 15 prepared, a written. 16 Q. There was a program but it wasn't 17 written, is that what you are telling me? 18 A. That is my answer. 19 Q. Any particular reason why it wasn't 20 committed to writing? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Did someone convey to you when you became 23 the pcb coordinator for Monsanto what the program 24 objectives were with respect to the IBT animal Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030074 447 1 testing? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What was the understanding that you were 4 given of the program objectives? 5 A. To determine the effects of pcb's on 6 mammals and birds, to determine the effect on the 7 reproduction of birds. The effect on egg shell 8 thickness, viability of the eggs. That was it. 9 Also reproduction of mammals. 10 Q. Were there some fish studies as well? 11 A. Fish studies were never initiated. 12 There was some discussion along those 13 lines, but the studies were not initiated because 14 the government laboratories were very active in 15 this area, and we felt that they were more 16 capable. 17 Q. More capable than Monsanto or more 18 capable than Industrial Bio-Test, or both? 19 A. More capable than any commercial 20 laboratories that Monsanto was familiar with. 21 Q. The first numbered paragraph 1 on Exhibit 22 .222 refers to a determination whether Jensen and 23 company, I take that to be a reference to the -- 24 Swedish researcher; is that correct? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaqo STLCOPCB4030075 A. That is correct. Q. Really have Aroclor on not in the tissues of birds. Do you know whether there was ever a conclusion drawn as to whether or not the Jensen studies did in fact find Aroclor? A. Yes. We finally agreed with his findings. Q. The second paragraph of 222 refers to running a material balance on Aroclor to find out where it ends up. Was that done in the course of the Industrial Bio-Test animal studies? A. No. Q. What is a material balance? A. It is a mathematical approach to establish or equate the material introduced into an animal or in the environment and what routes it takes and where do the various parts of the original material end up. Q. Okay. Is there some reason why that wasn't done? A, I don't know. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030076 44 9 I___1 1 Q. Could that have been done in the course 2 of the tissue sample analysis that Monsanto did 3 perform at its own laboratories on the samples 4 that were supplied by Industrial Bio-Test, if you 5 know? 6 A. It could not be done, because all the 7 tissues had was the residual material. It did not 8 help explain where the rest of the material went 9 and what form it took. 10 Q. In order to do that, you would have to 11 collect the excreta during the course of the 12 study? 13 A. Excreta and as well as the exhilation 14 from the lungs, all outputs from the animal, and 15 you must also know what to look for, which was the 16 complicated part. 17 Q. In other words, what the metabolic 18 product is as well aswhat the initial material 19 is? 20 A. That is correct. 21 ' Q. Okay. 22 So it wasn't done because of the 23 complicated and expensive nature of the 24 undertaking, or is thata fair assumption? Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030077 A. I think complication was the obstacle. Q. Okay. Paragraph 3 in 222 refers to a determination whether Aroclor is an enzyme inducer which affects steroids and calcium metabolism, et cetera. I really don't know what I am saying here, but you can clarify. Do you know whether that was ever done? A. No. Q. Either one of those things? A. I do not know. Q. What is the significance of the issue whether Aroclor is an enzyme inducer, if you know? A. I really don't know. Q. Does that have something to do with causation of cancer to your knowledge? A. No. Q. You don't know or it doesn't have anything to do with that? A. My limited understanding tells me that it affects the liver in such a way that the enzymes the liver produces are changed, either in amount or type. That is all I can -Q. And the liver is one of the body organs Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030078 451 1 that is involved in detoxification of whatever you 2 might take in, or the animal might take in; is 3 that correct? 4 A. That is my understanding. 5 Q. Paragraph 4 says keep track of what 6 government research labs are doing in the way of 7 testing, plus interpret their results for 8 Monsanto. 9 Was there a program put into effect to 10 follow the results reported by government labs? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Who was in charge of that? 13 A. Mr. Wheeler and Dr. Scott Tucker were the 14 principal Monsanto representatives. 15 Q. They were both in the medical department? 16 A. No. In the research department. 17 Q. In the research department. Okay. 18 A. I am Borry. Mr. Wheeler is medical and 19 Dr. Tucker is research. 20 Q. He was basically in charge of the 21 analytical laboratories in the research 22 department? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Paragraph 5 goes on to refer in some more Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030079 452 1 detail to following the government lab work. 2 I take it that Hr. Wheeler and Dr. Tucker 3 would have been responsible for that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. As well. 6 And finally the numbered paragraph 6 7 refers to contacts with Bayer in Germany and 8 keeping track of the Japan incident through KKK? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: MMK. 10 MR. MC CONNELL: MMK. 11 Q. MMK is a Monsanto subsidiary in Japan, I 12 take it? 13 A. It is Monsanto/Mitsubishi joint venture 14 in Japan. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Let me ask you two different questions. 17 Was there contact with Bayer in Germany, 18 if you know? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who handled that? 21 A. Mr. Wheeler was the principal contact, 22 although three of us paid a personal visit to the 23 Bayer offices. 24 Q. You and Mr. Wheeler and who else? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030080 453 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ' 22 23 24 A. Dr. Keller. Robert Keller. Q. Okay. What did you find out in the context of that visit to Bayer? A. At that time they were aware of the findings of pcb's, now this is in 1970. Q. Okay. The visit was in 1970? A. Yes. Q. What month, if you if you recall? A. April-May, 1970. They had started some limited activities in their analytical laboratories. They sensed no paticular reason for having concerns and had no plans for conducting any toxicity studies. Q. By the time of that visit in April or May of 1970, Monsanto's toxicity studies at Industrial Bio-Test were already underway? A. Correct. Q. Who was responsible for the Japanese contact through the affiliate in Japan? A. That was Mr. Wheeler. Q. were? Do you know what the results of that LonMr'a & Goldstino 73 6 1 030 STLCOPCB4030081 454 1 L, 2 Let me ask the question a different way. Didn't we already talk about a memorandum 3 from somebody in Japan that said -- and I am 4 paraphrasing now -- that it was curtains for pcb 5 or the end was coming near? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: You were referring to one to 7 Mr. Benignus, much later in the game than any of 8 this discussion, as I recall. But it was not 9 during Mr. Papageorge's deposition. It was during 10 Mr. Benignus' deposition. 11 MR. MC CONNELL: You are probably right. It 12 all tends to run together in my brain. All right. 13 Q. Then tell me what your recollection is, 14 if any, of the results of the contact with Japan 15 as referred to in this December 1968 memo? 16 A. This refers to an accident that happened 17 where pcb's got into some rice brand oil. 18 Q. Is that the so-called Yu Sho incident? 19 A. This is the Yu Sho incident. 20 Q. And was Mr. Wheeler able to learn the 21 details of that incident in this follow up? 22 A. Our efforts through our MMK 23 representative were not productive. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030082 455 1 Were other efforts made? 2 A. Yes. 3 Our primary source of information came 4 from Japanese representatives who attended 5 meetings in the United States. 6 Q. Were these specific meetings related to 7 pcb's or were these other meetings in which you 8 were able to contact the Japanese representatives? 9 A. These were meetings only to discuss 10 pcb's. 11 Q. Okay. 12 Take a look at the two-page letter that 13 has been marked as Exhibit 223 dated December 20, 14 1968 to Dr. Calandra from Elmer Wheeler. 15 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 223 for identification.) 1 8 A. I have reviewed it. 19 Q. Were those studies that are referred to 20 in Exhibit 223 among the efforts that were 21 undertaken to determine whether in fact it was pcb 22 rather than DDT or some other substance that was 23 found in the Swedish tissue analysis? 24 A. That is a part of the purpose. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030083 Q. Okay. What is the rest of the purpose? A. To establish if pcb's themselves create any effects. Q. Would it be fair to characterize the studies described in Exhibit 223 as short-term? A. Yes. Q. The DDT and toxaphane and chlorinated napthalenes that are referred to in Exhibit 223, were those products that were produced by Monsanto? A. No. Q. So they had to be obtained from from some other source? A. Yes. Q. I will show a letter that has been marked as Exhibit 224 dated February 10, 1969 to Dr. Fancher from Elmer Wheeler. (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 224 for identification.) A. I have reviewed it. Q. It would be necessary I take it for Dr. Tucker and his lab analysts to have samples of the Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030084 457 1 starting material that was mixed with the feed in 2 order to compare with the analysis of the tissues 3 that were received at the end of the study, to see 4 what they are finding. Is that a fair statement? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Showing you what has been marked as 7 Exhibit 225, which is an Industrial Bio-Test memo 8 from Richard J. Palazzolo to A1 Wolvin dated 9 February 26, 1969 subject Monsanto J 7010, I will 10 ask you to take a look at that. 11 (The document above-referred to 12 was marked Bloomington Deposition 13 Exhibit No. 225 for identification.) 14 A. I have reviewed it. 15 Q. It is my understanding that according to 16 that memorandum, the way Monsanto wanted to 17 receive the tissues samples from sacrifice birds 1 8 was that the organs should be removed and packed 19 separately; that is, the individual organ from 20 each individual bird should come as a separate 21 sample. 22 Is that your understanding, with the 23 exception of fat? 24 A. I don't know that Monsanto asked for Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030085 45 8 1 that. This inter-office memorandum does not 2 indicate whose -3 Q. Whose idea that was? 4 A. Whose idea that was. 5 Q. In your understanding of the analysis 6 that Dr. Tucker was going to do on the tissue 7 samples from these studies, would it be important 8 to use individual samples rather than a pooled 9 sample? 10 A. This is dependent on the purpose of the 11 study. 12 And pooled samples sometimes do serve a 13 purpose to get a good first look. Then you can 14 zero in in more detail later to the specifics. 15 Q. The difficulty or the difference, I 16 guess, between a pooled sample and individual 17 samples is that all you get when you analyzed a 1 8 pooled sample is an average figure? 19 A. True. 20 Q. It won't tell you whether one of the 21 animals had a higher level and another one had a 22 lower level? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. So you would expect in the ordinary F. onaoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030086 459 1 sequence of events in a study of this nature that 2 the earlier studies might have involved pooled 3 samples and the later ones involved individual 4 samples, rather than the other way around? 5 A. That would be a normal approach. 6 Q. Exhibit 226 is a memo dated March 19, 7 1969 from J. Plank to MLK, subject Aroclor tissue 8 residue studies B7009 and J7010 - Monsanto. 9 I will ask you to look at that. 10 (The document above-referred to 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 226 for identification.) 13 A. I have reviewed it. 14 Q. Do you know why it was that Dr. Tucker 15 was particularly interested in getting the chicken 16 tissue samples? 17 A. No, I don't. 18 Q. What is Halowax 1014, if you know? 19 A. It is a paraffin that has been 20 chlorinated, I don't recall the company but they 21 sell it under the trademark Halowax. 22 Q. It is not Monsanto product? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Was the study that is referred to in Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030087 hr- 46 0 1 -- 2 3 4 5( 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Exhibit 226 then also part of the comparative analysis, that is, to see what the end products in animal tissues were of feeding various chlorinated organic compound? A. Yes. Q. Okay. That ultimately led to the conclusion that the Swedish researchers had in fact found pcb's rather than the residue of something else? A. That helped lead to that conclusion, yes. Q. What else went into leading to that conclusion, other than the results of these comparative studies? A. Discussions with government laboratories using -- the laboratories used the methodology that the Swedish investigators used. We concluded that using the methodologies developed by the Swedish investigators, one could detect pcb's in tissue and samples out of the environment. Q. Were the techniques that the Swedish investigators used different from the techniques that were then in effect at Monsanto's laboratory? A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030088 461 Q. Okay. 2 So Dr. Tucker was trying out something 3 that was new to him at that point? 4 A. Correct. 5 MR. MC CONNELL: Okay. Let's take a break. 6 7 8 9 (Whereupon a recess 10 was taken.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030089 46 2 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, ) 5) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs, ) Civ No. 7 ) IP 83-9-C ) 8 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, ) 10 ) _____________ ______________________________________,_1 11 12 13 The continued deposition of W. B. PAPAGEORGE, 14 called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant 15 to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United 17 States District Courts, pertaining to the taking 18 of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken 1 9 before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public and 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the 21 County of Cook and State of Illinois, at Three 22 First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, on 23 October 15, 1986, at the hour of one o'clock p.m. 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030090 463 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 Mr. James G. McConnell 4 Bell, Boyd & Lloyd Three First National Plaza 5 70 West Madison Street Suite 3200 6 Chicago, Illinois 60602 7 -and- 8 Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner Law Offices of Geoffrey M. Grodner 9 One City Centre Suite 100 10 Bloomington, Indiana 47401 11 appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; 12 13 14 Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald Barnes & Thornburg 15 1313 Merchants Bank Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 16 appeared on behalf of Defendant 17 Monsanto Company. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030091 46 4 1 I___ i 2 HR. HC CONNELL: Back on the record. WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 3 having been previously duly sworn, 4 was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED): 6 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 7 Q. Mr. Papageorge take a look at Exhibit 227 8 which is a letter to Dr. Calandra from Elmer 9 Wheeler dated April 15, 1969 and also includes a 10 one page attachment. 11 As of the date of that letter, the first 12 two studies listed on the attachment had already 13 been done; is that correct? 14 (The document above-referred to 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit No. 227 for identification.) 17 A. I cannot tell from reading the 18 attachment. 19 Q. Well, we have already talked in some 20 earlier exhibits about the bird studies that 21 compared - 22 A. I am sorry, there is an expression 23 completed, the same as above. So I have to infer 24 that that, too, you are right. Lonooria & CnldsH ne 236 1030 Chicaoo STLCOPCB4030092 46 5 1 Q. Okay. 2 The next two, numbers 3 and 4 are the 3 fish studies which you have already testified were 4 deferred; is that correct? 5 A. It is my understanding the fish studies 6 were deferred. 7 This document shows at least one of these 8 studies underway. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. I do not understand that. 11 Q. And the letter which is the first page of 12 the Exhibit authorizes studies 5 through 9 to be 13 initiated? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And to your knowledge, were all of those 16 studies 5 through 9 ultimately done? 17 A. Study number 9 with reference to calcium, 18 Ca and P content. That was not done. 19 Q. Okay. 20 That is under the chicken reproduction 21 study? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. There was a chicken reproduction study, 24 though, was there not? Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030093 466 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. With you it didn't involve calcium and? 3 A. Phosphorus. 4 Q. Phosphorus. 5 Q. And study number 9 was not done. 6 Q. The duck study wasn't done at all? 7 A. That's right. 8 Q. Why was that? 9 A. I am under the understanding that they 10 missed the egg laying season for Mallards and 11 could not get the young birds to conduct their 12 study. 13 Q. Ducks only have offspring once a year? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. As opposed to chickens which lay eggs 16 everyday, I guess. Okay. That makes sense to me. 17 Take a look at Exhibit 228, which is a 18 letter from Dr. Pancher to Mr. Wheeler dated May 19 23, 1969. 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 228 for identification.) 23 A. I have reviewed it. 24 Q. The first paragraph of that letter refers Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030094 467 1 to adding animals to various groups in the study. 2 Do you see that reference? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I take it that that letter is referring 5 to a change in the protocol before the study was 6 begun? 7 A Yes* 8 Q. Okay. 9 Rather than adding animals to the study 10 in the middle of the study? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. In your understanding of the way these 13 animal studies are done, would it ever be 14 appropriate to add animals, new animals, to a 15 study that had been underway for a period of time? 16 A. I don't know of any situation where it 17 would be appropriate. 18 Q. And as I understand Exhibit 228, the 19 reason for the suggested addition of additional 20 animals to the rat study was to allow for an 21 interim sacrifice? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 And still have an appropriate number of Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030095 468 1 animals left at the end of the study? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. Okay. 4 Take a look at 229, which is a memo dated 5 June 10, 1969 from Dr. Fancher to MLK, JP and CWB, 6 subject Monsanto Aroclor studies in rats. 7 I will ask you if that indicates to you 8 that the additions which were suggested in 228 9 were in fact made before the studies began? 10 A. This inter-office memo does suggest that, 11 yes. 12 Q. I show you a letter that has been marked 13 as Exhibit 230, which is dated June 12, 1969 to 12 14 Dr. Fancher from Elmer Wheeler. 15 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 229 for identification.) 18 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 230 for identification.) 21 - A. I have reviewed it. 22 Q. I take it that Exhibit 230 is the written 23 authorization for adding the extra rats that are 24 discussed in Exhibits 228 and 229; is that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030096 46 9 1~. correct? L- 2 A. Yes, that's correct. 3 Q. It also refers to the procedures for 4 Industrial Bio-Test to bill Monsanto for these 5 studies. 6 Is there anything about the billing 7 procedures that are described in Exhibit 230 that 8 was different from your understanding of the 9 ordinary arrangements between Industrial Bio-Test 10 and Monsanto? 11 A. No. In strikes me as being rather 12 typical. 13 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 231, which is a 14 one-page report from the Wisconsin Animal Health 15 Laboratories dated June 24, 1969 from G. S. 16 Jacobsen, that is s-e-n, poultry epidemiologist, 17 to Dr. D. H. Jenkins. 18 I will ask you to review that. 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 231 for identification.) 22 A. I have reviewed it. 23 Q. Have you ever seen that document before 24 today ? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030097 1 L. - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 23 24 470 A. No, sir. Q. Did anyone ever tell you at any time during the course of your involvement as pcb coordinator for Monsanto that the chickens which had been used in the Industrial Bio-Test study were infested with Marek's disease? A. No. Q. Have you ever seen at any time any report on any of the chicken studies done by Industrial Bio-Test which reflects the fact that the chickens used in the study were diseased? A. NO. Q. Did anyone ever tell you at any time that those Industrial Bio-Test chicken studies were perfomed with diseased birds? . A. No. Q. If you had known at the time you received, Monsanto received the report of the chicken studies that the study was performed with diseased birds, would that have been an acceptable study as far as you were concerned; as far as you were concerned, you individually? A. I would have to know more about the extent of the disease and what impact it would Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030098 471 1 have on a study, and I would have to rely on the 2 judgment of the -- those that are expert in this 3 field. 4 Q. Meaning the toxicologists at Monsanto; is 5 that right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. In any event, if in fact the study which 8 was reported to you was done on a colony of 9 diseased chickens, you would expect the report to 10 reflect that fact, would you not? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 232, which is 13 dated July 21, 1969 to Dr. Fancher from D. H. 14 Jenkins. 15 (The document above-referred to 16 - was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 232 for identification.) 18 A. I have reviewed it. 19 Q. Did any of the information that is 20 reflected on Exhibit 232 ever come to your 21 attention in the course of your work as the pcb 22 coordinator for Monsanto? 23 A. No. 24 Q. To your knowledge, was the information Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030099 47 2 1 known to anybody else at Monsanto? 2 A. Not that I know of. 3 Q. Who is Paul Wright? 4 A. Paul Wright is a tox i co 1 og i st,' a former 5 employee of Monsanto, and also former employee I 6 understand of Bio-Test Laboratories. 7 Q. Okay. 8 To your knowledge, did he work for 9 Monsanto before he went to work for Industrial 10 Bio-Test? 11 A. I know that he worked for both companies. 12 I don't know the sequence of which he 13 worked. 14 As best I recall, he was a Monsanto 15 employee, and then he joined the Bio-Test 16 Laboratories, and then returned to Monsanto in a 17 different position. That is the best of my 18 recollection. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Do you know how long he was with 21 Industrial Bio-Test? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you know whether he worked on any of 24 the Industrial Bio-Test studies on pcb's for Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030100 473 1 Monsanto? 2 A. I never saw his name associated with 3 those studies, no. 4 Q. Did you see all of the reports of studies 5 from Industrial Bio-Test? 6 A. I have no way of knowing what reports 7 were not shown to me. 8 I saw final reports for each of the 9 studies that I knew had been placed. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. But I don't know about all of those. 12 Q. Including all of those on the list that 13 we just looked at? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you don't recall seeing Mr. Wright's 16 name on any of those studies that you are 17 testifying about? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 233, which is a 20 memo dated July 25, 1969 from Otis Fancher to J. 21 C. Calandra and others. Subject visit by Elmer 22 Wheeler and others from Monsanto. 23 (The document above-referred to 24 was marked Bloomington Deposition Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago si STLCOPCB4030101 47 4 __ 1 J 1 Exhibit No. 233 for identification.) 2 A. I have reviewed it. 3 Q. That visit that is described in that memo 4 I take it was at a time before you became the pcb 5 coordinator for Monsanto; is that correct? 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. Were you one of the others who was 8 involved in that visit? 9 13 10 A. NO. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Benignus was? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Yes, he was, or yes, you know? 13 A. I am sorry. I thought you said Wheeler 14 was. 15 Q. Do you know whether he participated in 16 that visit? 17 A. No, I do not know. 13 Q, Did anyone who participated in that visit 1 9 ever discuss with you the subject of their 20 discussions with Industrial Bio-Test in July of 21 69? 22 A, I don't remember any discussions specific 23 to that visit. No. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030102 47 5 1 Do you remember discussing with anyone at 2 Monsanto problems in fish studies with the 3 material in the water -- material that was found 4 in the water by Monsanto analysts not being the 5 same as what the test material was supposed to be? 6 A. Not that specific comment. No. 7 Q. Okay. 8 Do you recall any comments in your 9 discussions with others at Monsanto about some 10 problems with fish studies initiated by Industrial 11 Bio-Test? 12 A. Yes. . 13 Q. What comments do you recall? 14 A. I recall that they were having 15 difficulties in keeping the pcb's evenly dispersed 16 in the water so that the test fish could be 17 exposed. And that the pcb's appeared to be 18 plating out on the surface of the aquariums. 19 Therefore, becoming unavailable to the test fish. 20 And there didn't seem to be any practical 21 way of solving that particular problem. To the 22 best of my memory, that is the essence of what I 23 was told. 24 Q. And was that the reason that extensive Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030103 ' 476 1 fish studies were not carried out by Industrial 2 Bio-Test ? 3 A. That was one of the reasons. 4 And the other, as I mentioned earlier, 5 was the government through several laboratories 6 was starting fish studies and they seemed to be 7 more capable than we were. 8 Q. Okay. 9 And their information, of course, would 10 be made available to you? 11 A. Certainly. 12 Q. Showing you Exhibit 234 which is a 13 one-page memo dated August 1, 1969 from CM to Otis 14 Fancher, copies to others, subject A7204 15 conference, Monsanto. 16 I will ask you if you have ever seen that 17 before? 18 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 234 for identification.) 21 A. I have not seen this before. 22 Q. Had the problems with the Industrial 23 Bio-Test fish studies been described to you along 24 the lines of what is contained in that memo? Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030104 477 1 A. Not in this kind of detail. No. 2 Q. Is the,detail that is included in Exhibit 3 234 consistent with the general understanding that 4 you received about the problems with the IBT fish 5 studies? 6 A. It is consistent. Yes. 7 Q. Do you know whether that kind of detail 8 was provided to Mr. Wheeler or Dr. Kelly or anyone 9 else at Monsanto? 10 A. I do not know, 11 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 235, which is a 12 letter dated September 4, 1969, no addressee, 13 signed by Ward R. Richter. And I will ask you if 14 you have ever seen that? 15 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 235 for identification.) 18 A. I have not seen this document. 19 Q. Who is Dr. Ward Richter, if you know? 20 A. I do not know. 21 Q. Do you know whether he was an employee of 22 Industrial Bio-Test or not? 23 A. I do not know. 24 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 236, which is a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030105 47 8 1 one-page memo dated September 18, 1969 from J. 2 Plank to R. J. McCormick, and R. Greco. 3 I will ask you if you have ever seen that 4 before? 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 236 for identification.) 8 A. I have not seen this document before. 9 Q. Do you have any idea why a request would 10 be made for an additional bleeding of rats in 11 connection with the pcb study? 12 A. I do not know. 13 Q. Do you know what SAP stands for? 14 A. No, I don 11. 15 Q. Have you ever heard of the term serum 16 alkaline phosphorylase? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. That is a liver enzyme, is it not? 19 A. That I don't know. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Was serum alkaline phosphorylase to your 22 knowledge one of the tests or things being studied 23 in the Industrial Bio-Test rat studies on pcb's? 24 A. I don't recall that, no. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030106 479 1 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 237, which is a 2 memo dated October 2, 1969 from Otis Fancher to 3 DHJ. 4 I will ask you if you have ever seen 5 that? 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 237 for identification.) 9 A. I have not seen this document. 10 Q. Does this memorandum suggest to you that 11 there were some changes being made in the protocol 12 of the chicken reproduction study? 13 A. I would have to see the protocol because 14 the protocol may have been written in such a way 15 to permit this kind of action at certain times. 16 Q. There would be a choice; in other words, 17 at this point we either will or will won't do X? 18 A. Yes. Some protocols are written that 19 way. So I cannot tell whether this is a change or 20 not. 21 Q. Okay. 22 Is it reasonable in your understanding to 23 not prolong the study until one hundred eggs have 24 been collected from groups showing obvious effects Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030107 4 80 1 of treatment? 2 A. I am not qualified to answer that. 3 Q. Okay. 4 According to this, the tissue samples 5 that were to be collected and sacrificed which is 6 referred to in paragraph 5 were composite samples; 7 is that correct? 8 A. That is what it says. 9 Q. Why, if you know, would it composite 10 samples taken in this study, when individual 11 samples were already taken from an earlier study? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. As we discussed before, if composite 14 samples are taken, it may conceal particularly 15 high levels in individual birds within a treatment 16 group, might it not? 17 A. That is is possible. 18 Q. Let's take a break for a second. 19 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 20 Calling your attention back to Exhibit 21 234, which I will hand you again, according to 22 this internal Industrial Bio-Test memo the key 23 issue is, and I quote, "establish safety of the 24 Aroclors in the environment." Loncoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030108 4 81 1 Is that something they came up with 2 themselves or was that a charge that was given to 3 Industrial Bio-Test by Monsanto? 4 A. I don't know. - 5 Q. As I understand the approach of 6 scientists to this sort of testing, the 7 appropriate type of question would be to 8 investigate whether Aroclors are safe in the 9 environment rather than to establish that they are 10 safe. 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am not sure this says what 12 you are saying. Establish safety can be whether 13 it is safe or not to me. Establish that there is 14 safety, if it is safe. 15 MR. MC CONNELL: That's not what it says, 16 though. 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is the way you are 18 reading it. That can be read either way in my 19 book. 20 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 21 Q. My question to you is would you expect to 22 see that kind of phraseology in a study protocol 23 or would you expect to see something that said 24 establish whether or determine whether a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030109 4 82 1 particular product is safe in the environment? 2 A. It is a matter of phraseology and 3 understanding, and I would interpret that as once 4 you conduct your studies, the answer may well be 5 no, it is not safe. Or the answer is yes, it is 6 safe. I cannot speak for the author of that 7 statement. 8 Q. Okay. 9 In any event, I take it from that 10 statement that the purpose of these studies was to 11 investigate safety of pcb's in the environment 12 rather than in the occupational setting? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. Take a look at the two-page memo that we 15 have marked as Exhibit 238, which is an internal 16 Industrial Bio-Test, I have it here, memo dated 17 October 8, 1969 to file from Otis Pancher. 18 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 238 for identification.) 21 A. I have reviewed it. 22 Q. One of the reasons for taking pooled 23 tissue samples, for example, in a chicken study is 24 that the size of the individual chicken liver or Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 C,hi. cago STLCOPCB4030110 4 83 1 heart or whatever organ is under study isn't large 2 enough for individual analysis at the levels that 3 you expect to find the material present in the 4 tissue. Is that a fair statement? - 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So you put four or five livers together 7 and you get a large enough sample to work up 8 appropriately and look for the pcb's; is that 9 correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In the case of dogs, do you know whether 12 that is a problem? 13 A. This is dependent on the amount of the 14 chemical that is present. 15 If it is in very, very low quantities, 16 you need a big enough sample to extract this 17 chemical. 18 Other than that, I don't know of any 19 other reason to pool, other than you are just 20 looking really for averages. And all these 21 studies are based, as you know, from averages of 22 groups rather than -- large enough groups so that 23 the average makes some sense. 24 Q. How do you determine whether the group is Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030111 4 84 1 large enough? 2 A. That is, again, you would have to go to a 3 toxicologist. But it is based on the state of the 4 art of that kind of test, and the experience of 5 the toxicologist regarding the numbers in a 6 particular population and the kinds of answers he 7 might expect, so on. 8 Q. But that is something that is taken into 9 consideration at the time the study is designed, 10 is it not? 11 A. Correct. 1 2 Q. And you plan for the appropriate number 13 of animals in each relevant group? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Do you know whether there was ever 16 individual tissue samples of organs from the dog 17 study analyzed for pcb content at Monsanto? 18 A. No. 19 Q. In the earlier chicken study that we 20 reviewed, where the samples were to be packaged 21 individually, did you ever learn that there was 22 any difficulty in the Monsanto laboratories with 23 Dr. Tucker and his people successfully analyzing 24 those individual tissue samples? Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Cbicaqo STLCOPCB4030112 4 85 1 A. I don't recall of any difficulty. 2 Q. Does it strike you as unusual that the 3 only tissue samples which were to be analyzed 4 according to this document 238 would come only 5 from the highest no-effect level groups? 6 MR. FRUEHWALDs Let me see the document. 7 I don't believe that's what the document 8 says. It says it is probable that Monsanto 9 analyzed, is that what you are referring to? 10 MR. MC CONNELL: Right. 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is different than 12 actually being done or that Monsanto actually did 13 that. This is somebody's guess as to what 14 Monsanto might do in the future. 15 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 16 Q. Let me ask. 17 Do you know whether other groups were 18 analyzed, had tissue samples analyzed, other than 19 the highest no-effect level group? 20 A. I don't remember the specifics of those 21 tests, those analytical tests. 22 Q. Do you have any idea why the highest 23 no-effect level would be singled out? 24 A. I don't. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^.':L STLCOPCB4030113 4 86 1 Q. Showing you Exhibit 239, which is a memo 2 dated October 20, 1969 from Otis Fancher to J. C. 3 Calandra, I will ask you if you have seen that 4 before? . 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No, 239 for identification.) 8 A, I have not seen this before. 9 Q. According to that memo, one of the 10 purposes of Dr. Kelly's visit to Industrial 11 Bio-Test on that occasion was to discuss 12 Monsanto's strategy with respect to saccharin. 13 Was Industrial Bio-Test conducting animal 14 tests on saccharin for Monsanto in 1969? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Was saccharin a product that Monsanto 17 manufactured? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. To your knowledge, was there a Monsanto 20 strategy with respect to saccharin in 1969? 21 A. I was not aware of any, and am not. 22 Q. Ultimately products, food products with 23 saccharin content were required by the FDA to have 24 some kind of warning about the possibility of n g o r i a & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030114 -4 87 1 cancer? is that correct? 2 A. I don't know if that is an FDA or a 3 Congressional act. FDA wanted to ban saccharin 4 and Congress overruled them. " 5 Q. They said it is okay if you put it on 6 with a warning? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you know when that took place? 9 A. About roughly '77. 10 Q. Okay. 11 To your knowledge, in 1969 did Monsanto 12 have a strategy with respect to pcb's? 13 A. There obviously were business strategies, 14 commercial strategies. 15 I am not aware of any other strategies 16 related to pcb's in 1969, other .than this 17 additional need to study them. 18 Q. Okay. 19 That would be the strategy that would 20 impact Industrial Bio-Test, would it not? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Exhibit 239 refers to all other ongoing 24 projects. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030115 4 88 1 Other than pcb's and saccharin, do you 2 know what other product testing was going on in 3 1969 at Industrial Bio-Test for Monsanto? 4 A. I do not know. 5 Q. Have you ever heard of a Monsanto product 6 called Naprisin? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Have you ever heard of a Monsanto product 9 called TCC? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. That is used in deodorant soaps? 12 A Yes. 13 Q. Was that being tested by Industrial 14 Bio-Test in 1969 and 1970? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Earlier in your testimony you described 17 Paul Wright as a former Monsanto employee. When 18 did he leave the company? 19 A. I don't know that I can come close to the 20 first time he left Monsanto, because I didn't know 21 the man then. 22 Q. Okay. 23 I am looking for the last time. 24 A. The last time around, about 1980, '81. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030116 Q Do you know where he is now? A. No. Q. You are aware, I take it, that he was indicted in connection with some animal studies that were done on Monsanto products in other products at Industrial Bio-Test? A. Yes. Q. That he was ultimately convicted of mail fraud in connection with some of those studies? A. I know he was convicted on some counts, but I don't know what. Q. And he was sentenced to prison? A. I had heard that. Q. Okay. Did he leave Monsanto before or after he was indicted, the last time he left? A. I don't know. Q. Have you ever discussed the pcb animal studies with Paul Wright? A. No. Q. Have you ever discussed Paul Wright's role in the pcb animal studies with anyone at Monsanto other than company attorneys? A. NO. i a fnlrlefinn 1 HI H ^ \ r>. Cl C1 STLCOPCB4030117 4 90 3*. Q. Did you know Dr. Calandra of Industrial 2 Bio-Test ? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you know Dr. Fancher of Industrial 5 Bio-Test? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Who else at Industrial Bio-Test did you 8 ever meet or deal with? 9 A. Dr. Keplinger. Doctor -- starts with a 10 B, a black man. Doctor -- it escapes me at the 11 moment. 12 Q. You got me. I missed that one. 13 A. I don't recall the others. 14 Q. Maybe well run across it here. 15 Showing you what has been marked as 16 Exhibit 240, which is a one-page memo dated 17 December 3, 1969 from G. Kennedy to Otis Fancher 18 and M. Keplinger, I will ask you if you have ever 19 seen that? 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 240 for identification.) 23 A. I have never seen this. 24 Q. There is a reference in that memo to the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030118 phrase "Monsanto still has hopes of maintaining these products on the market." I take it the products that are referred to is pcb's, is that your understanding? A. From this paragraph I can only infer he is referring to the previously mentioned Aroclor products and two triphenyls. I can only assume that that is what the author here had in mind. Q. Okay. In December of 1969, did Monsanto still have hopes of maintaining Aroclors on the market? A. Yes. Q. And the animal studies that are done at Industrial Bio-Test, were in pursuit of that hope, at least in part? A. Yes. Q. In other words, if the company didn't do anything in an effort to demonstrate the safety of pcb's, it faced the possibility that they would be banned? A. True. But if, in turn, the results are unfavorable, you withdraw. Q. Industrial Bio-Test knew that when they Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030119 492 1 undertook these studies; is that right? 1___ , 2 A. Knew what? 3 Q. That if the results were unfavorable, 4 Monsanto would withdraw the product from the 5 market? 6 A. I don't know if Bio-Test was in a 7 position to know Monsanto's business decisions. 8 They could only speculate. 9 Q. It wouldn't be terribly speculative to 10 conclude that if the studies showed it to be a 11 terribly poisonous substance in the environment, 12 that the company wouldn't have much choice but to 13 stop making it? 14 A. That is still speculation. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Take a look at Exhibit 241, which is 17 dated December 4, 1969 from Otis Fancher to Moreno 18 Keplinger and others. I will ask you if you have 19 ever seen that before? 20 (The document above-referred to 21 . 22 was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 241 for identification.) 23 A. I have not seen this document. 24 Q. Was there in fact as the document states Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030120 4 93 1 in December of 1969 some anxiety on Monsanto's 2 part about the continued viability of its pcb 3 products? 4 A. There was concern at that time and the 5 concern centered around the effects on the 6 environment by the pcb's. 7 I don't know that that concern as yet had 8 translated into viability of the entire product 9 line. 10 Q. Did it eventually? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. When in your estimation was that line 13 crossed, from concern about environmental effects 14 over to anxiety about the viability of the product 15 line? 16 A. It is hard to pick any particular date. 17 I would suggest that it occurred about the time 18 our vice president spoke before an audience in 19 Washington, at which he said Monsanto is ready to 20 stop production when our customers have indicated 21 they have found alternative materials. 22 And this was 1975, as best as I recall. 23 Q. The man to whom you refer is John Mason? 24 A. No. This was F. J. Fitzgerald. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030121 1 I___ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 94 Q. Okay. Would you characterize the phraseology used by Dr. Fancher where he says great anxiety at Monsanto about the whole Arocior situation as being stronger than what in fact Monsanto was experiencing at the time of this memo in December of 1969? A. I have trouble with the definition of anxiety, since it is a subjective-type word. There was a growing awareness on Monsanto's part that the evidence was mounting against pcb's presence in the environment and potential harm. And at about that time, December '69, there was the recommendation made that the job I eventually was given be created. So if those are symptoms of anxiety, yes, there was a growing anxiety. Q. But the diagnosis of anxiety is Dr. Fancher's and not necessarily shared by you at that time? A. That is accurate. Yes. Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 242, which is a T.nnoriris fc nnlrtfi'Mnp 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030122 495 1 single-page memo dated January 13, 1970 from Dr. 2 Fancher to Moreno Keplinger, subject Monsanto 3 Aroclor studies. 4 (The document above-referred to 5 was marked Bloomington Deposition 6 Exhibit No. 242 for identification.) 7 A. I have reviewed it. 8 Q. Was that after you became pcb 9 coordinator ? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. 12 Who was Dr. Fitzhugh, who is referred to 13 in that memo? 14 A. Dr. Fitzhugh was at that time a member of 15 the Food and Drug Administration, located in 16 Washington, D. C. 17 Q. Did he subsequently join the staff of the 18 Environmental Protection Agency after that agency 19 was created? 20 A. No, no. Dr. Fitzhugh retired as I recall 21 in 1970, shortly after we visited with him in 22 early 1970. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Why was Dr. Fitzhugh following the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030123 Industrial Bio-Test animal studies on pcb's? A. As I recall. Hr. Wheeler had known Dr. Fitzhugh from previous chemical discussions on food additives and all, and Mr. Wheeler had contacted Dr. Fitzhugh to determine if FDA had any programs or interest in pcb's. And from that contact. Dr. Fitzhugh developed a personal interest, as well as a professional interest, in pcb's and was attempting to keep abreast of developments through Mr. Wheeler. Q. Okay. The FDA's interest, I take it, would have been sparked by its learning of the Yu Sho incident among other things? A. .That is true. But that didn't happen until to the best of my knowledge -- FDA was aware of the Yu Sho incident in about the third quarter 1970, summer, fall of 1970. Q. But Monsanto knew about it before that, did they not? A. Yes. Yes. Monsanto heard about it in, as I recall, about 1969. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaoo STLCOPCB4030124 If I remember correctly, it appeared in a San Francisco newspaper at about that time. Q. Which time now, 1969? A. '69. Q. But the FDA didn't pick up on it for almost a year after that? A. They didn't pick up on it officially. I don't know if individuals saw it or not. Q. When Monsanto became aware of the Yu Sho incident in 1969, it knew, it being Monsanto, knew that it had customers in the United States who were using its pcb fluids in heat exchange applications in food processing? A. Yes. Q. Why was it that Monsanto didn't bring the Yu Sho incident, which arose out of the same application of pcb's in heat transfer in food processing, to the attention of the FDA, when Monsanto learned about it in 1969? A. We, it is my understanding, we didn't know -- we didn't know enough about the incident to be able to determine that the health effects noted among the consumers of this oil were due to pcb's or to some other chemicals. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030125 498 And that was the reason Monsanto 2 attempted to get more information and failed. 3 Q. Those other chemicals you are referring 4 to are dioxin and furans? 5 A. Later they were demonstrated to be the 6 dioxin, furans, yes. At that time -7 Q. Nobody knew? 8 A. Nobody knew. 9 Q. Dioxins and furans are contaminants that 10 can be created by heat applied to the pcb liquids; 11 is that correct? 12 A. That is one source, yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 So it could be, rather than something 15 that was originally in the pcb, it could result 16 from its use or abuse in that heat transfer 17 process? 1 8 A. In the presence of oxygen, yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Q. If it is not air-tight? 21 A. Yes. 22' Q. Okay. 23 And as I understand it, the current 24 thinking in 1986 on Yu Sho is that that is Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030126 499 J. probably how those materials came to be in the pcb 2 that was involved in that incident; is that 3 correct? 4 A. I don't know that I understood it quite 5 that way. The oil itself played, had a 6 contributory role. There is -- some of these 7 oils, some oxygen tied up chemically, and I don't 8 profess to know all the chemistry. But I have 9 learned from the Dr. Blumenthal of FDA who went to 10 Japan personally to investigate, he told me that 11 it is a combination of heat, stressed fluid, plus 12 the oil that created the right atmosphere to 13 create not only the dioxins and furans, but they 14 don't know what else. 15 They are suspicions that there are still 16 other toxic chemicals in addition. That is my 17 understanding. 18 Q. Okay. 19 When you say stressed fluid, you are 20 referring to the fact that the pcb liquid is under 21 pressure? 22 A. It is more a thermal stress. It is 23 heated to its upper limit, where it becomes 24 unstable. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030127 500 1~- Q. Okay. 2 A. In other words, it is not properly used 3 as prescribed. 4 5 6 '7 18 8 9 10 Q. The actual operation of the heat transfer application was not according to the prescribed process, in other words? A. Correct. . Q. All right. Whatever. The reason that Monsanto didn't communicate immediately with the FDA was you 11 couldn't find out any of the details about what 12 happened? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. 15 Take a look at the exhibit that has been 16 marked as 243, let me back up. I don't know if I 17 ever asked you last question which I really 1 8 intended to about 242; which was, in January of 1 9 1970, was Dr. Fitzhugh in fact pressing Monsanto 20 for reports on the studies underway? 21 . A. I would not use the word pressing. The . 22 man contacted Mr. Wheeler and asked what is the 23 status. 24 Q. Do you know of any circumstances at Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030128 501 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Industrial Bio-Test in January of 1970 which would have made Industrial Bio-Test feel pressed when Mr. Wheeler turned around and said can we have a status report for the FDA? A. I don't know of any reason. Q. Looking at Exhibit 243, which is a letter dated January 15, 1970 to Elmer Wheeler from Otis Fancher, I will ask you if you have seen that before? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 243 for identification.) A. I have not seen this before. Q. Once you became the pcb coordinator, was it Mr. Wheeler's practice or Dr. Kelly's practice to provide you with copies of Industrial Bio-Test progress reports as they were received? A. I got some copies of progress reports. I don't know that I got all copies. Q. Did you at the time in January of 1970 and during 1970 have any reason to believe or understand that you were being selectively copied on these reports, rather than included in all of the exchange? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030129 50 2 1 A. I had no reason to believe that. No. 2 Q. Okay. 3 As far as you knew, you were getting 4 everything? 5 A. True. 6 Q. Was it the practice ordinarily that 7 reports from Industrial Bio-Test to Monsanto would 8 be transmitted by mail? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And to the extent that Monsanto passed 11 those reports along to the FDA or other government 12 agencies, would that routinely have been done by 13 mail as well? 14 A. The answer to by mail is yes. 15 But I don't know whether Mr. Wheeler sent 16 the agencies the Bio-Test reports. 17 I do know that Mr. Wheeler made Monsanto 1 8 summaries of these status reports, that he would 19 share with the agencies, as well as provide me 20 with a copy. 21 Those reports did not come out at 22 three-month intervals. They came out at roughly 23 six-month intervals. Sometimes six- to nine-month 24 periods, depending on what new information might Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030130 be included Q. So when you would receive a report or one of these summaries from Mr. Wheeler, you would also at that time have already received the Industrial Bio-Test reports that were the basis of that summary? A. Yes. Q. But you are saying you don't know whether the underlying Bio-Test reports went to the government agencies or not? A. I do not know that. Q. Presumably if the government agencies felt a compelling need to see the underlying Industrial Bio-Test reports, they had the power to subpoena those reports? A. That I don't know. Q. Was the reason for the preparation by Mr. Wheeler of these progress summaries on a periodic basis to avoid submitting the actual Industrial Bio-Test status reports to the government agencies? A. I have no reason to believe that. It is just that Monsanto's summary reports, as I remember, were more concise. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030131 50 4 1 L. Let me back up. The few Industrial 2 Bio-Test summary reports I saw were fragmented in 3 terms of the rat studies would appear in a sheet 4 for, say, reproduction study, another sheet for 5 1254, another one for 1260. 6 Mr. Wheeler combined all that in rat 7 studies. Then he would summarize. 8 Then another sheet, chicken studies, and 9 he would summarize. So the format was rearranged. 10 and we found that to be easier to communicate with 11 and it didn't confuse the customers and the 12 agencies with too many pieces of paper, too many 13 reports. 14 Q. Better organized, in other words? 15 A. We thought so. Yes. 16 Q. At least from the point of view of 17 someone who wasn't dealing with the ongoing 18 studies on a regular basis? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. And these summaries that Mr. Wheeler 21 - prepared, I understand from your last answer were 22 also shared with some of your customers? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was Westinghouse one of those customers? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030132 50 5 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And when the information in these 3 summaries prepared by Mr. Wheeler were shared with 4 customers, would that ordinarily be done through 5 the mail? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 244, which is a 8 two-page letter to Otis Fancher from Elmer Wheeler 9 dated March 4, 1970. 10 I will ask you if you have ever seen 11 that? 12 (The document above-referred to 13 was marked Bloomington Deposition 14 Exhibit No. 244 for identification.) 15 A. I don't recall seeing this. 16 Q. Do you know whether the fish studies 17 referred to in Exhibit 244 were actually 18 completed? 19 A. I am not aware of any fish studies 20 completed by Bio-Test Laboratories for Monsanto. 21 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 245, if you would, 22 which is a memo dated March 19, 1970 from C. 23 Mastri, M-a-s-t-r-i, to Moreno Keplinger. 24 (The document above-referred to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ' 22 23 24 506 was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 245 for identification.) A. All right. Q. Does that refer to the same fish studies that are mentioned in Exhibit 244, if you can tell? A. It seems to. Q. Take a look at Exhibit 246, which is a letter dated March 31, 1970 in Otis Pancher to Elmer Wheeler. (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 246 for identification.) A. I have reviewed it. Q. Exhibit 246 refers to the cost estimates of the additional fish toxicity studies. Is that the same as the studies as referred to in 244 and 245, to the best of your knowledge? A. The numbers are the same. Q. Okay. There is also reference in the second paragraph of 246 to a chick edema study. Do you know whether such a study was ever done with Lonqoria 6 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaqo STLCOPCB4030134 50 7 1 Aroclor ? 2 A. Yes. In fact, some previous documents 3 talked about withdrawing the fluid from the 4 chicken, so on. The timing doesn't seem to fit. 5 Q. That was before this letter? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Do you know whether any additional chick 8 edema studies were done after March of 1970? 9 A. I am not aware of any additional ones, 10 no. 11 Q. Okay. 12 That study what they are looking for is 13 the change in the volume of fluid in the sack 14 around the heart of the chicken? 15 A. I don't know if it is the heart, per se. 16 It is the chest cavity. 17 Q. Okay. 1 8 There is an estimate in the third 19 paragraph for the cost of repeating the chicken 20 study with Aroclor 1242. 21 Do you know whether that was ever done? 22 A. I don't know which study they are talking 23 about here. I don't know if it is the edema study 24 or the reproduction study or the long-term feeding Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030135 50 8 I-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 study. Q. Okay. So it makes it kind of hard to answer the question, doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. All right. The next paragraph refers to mutagenic studies using the chick embryo technique. Were those studies ever done, to your knowledge? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. And the last paragraph refers to inhilation study with the thermal decompo sition products of Skydrol. Do you know if that was ever done? A. No, I don ' t. Q. I take it that was one of the hydraulic fluid products? A. It is a hydraulic fluid, but not a pcb. Q. Okay. Was that something that was to replace the pcb hydraulic fluids? A. No, this is the airliner , Skydrol. Q. I should have been able to figure that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030136 1 1___ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 509 out. A. This is what your airplanes are using. Jet planes. Q. Take a look at Exhibit 247, which is a letter dated March 31, 1970 from Elmer Wheeler to Dr. Keplinger with an attachment. I will ask you if you have ever seen either the letter or the attachment? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 247 for identification.) A. I believe I remember both the attachment and the letter. Q. Other than mutual professional interest, was there any particular reason why Mr. Wheeler was sharing that data with Dr. Keplinger at Industrial Bio-Test? A. I don't know of any other reason. Q. The attachment is some of the fish studies that were done by government laboratories as you discussed in your earlier testimony; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did Monsanto ever assist, either in Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030137 510 1~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 actual tissue analysis or in sharing analytical techniques, in the government fish studies? A. We provided material for their studies. We shared analytical methodologies. We discussed sharing tissue samples, but I don't recall if we implemented that part. Q. Was that discussion limited to fish tissue or were you going to trade them some chicken and dog and rat tissue for some of their fish tissue? A. It was limited to fish. Q. Okay. So if Monsanto never -- if Industrial Bio-Test never completed fish studies, then there wouldn't have been any fish tissue to share. Is that a correct statement or is that not correct? A. No. We would have shared fish tissue from the government laboratory by sharing, they would send us a split sample. Our laboratory would analyze, their laboratory would analyze and compare the ) answer s. Q. So what you are giving them in return for Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030138 511 1 the split sample is your results? !___ _ 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Not a sample of some fish that you fed 4 pcb's to? 5 A. I didn't mean to imply the other. 6 Q. I am not sure that you did. 7 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 8 You don't know whether that ever actually 9 took place or not? 10 A. I don't recall. 11 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 248, which is a 12 letter dated April 8, 1970 to Herbert Blumenthal, 13 Food and Drug Administration, from Dr. Kelly, and 14 I will ask you if you you have ever seen that 15 letter before? 16 (The document above-referred to 17 was marked Bloomington Deposition 1 8 Exhibit No. 248 for identification.) 19 A. I believe I recall this letter. There 20 were attachments, those summaries we have talked 21 22 23 about. Q. Those were the summaries that Hr. Wheeler prepared rather than the Industrial Bio-Test 24 summaries? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030139 512 1~. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Yes. Q. Who was it, if you know, at Monsanto that determined that the three products to be tested should be 1242, 1254 and 1260? A. I believe that was a consensus opinion, not any one person. That was based on the amount of the material in commerce. This represented the most popular types. Q. You sold more of those three than the other ? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. According to this letter, 300 rats were added to the chronic studies after the original 2-year project had gotten underway. Do you know how long after? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Is that a reference back to the earlier documents we discussed about adding 15 and 15 to each group? A. Could be. Q. Do the numbers work out, if there is a control group and three test groups that's four Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030140 1 -J 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 513 times 30, times 3, comes out to a little more than 300 X guess? A. That is rounded off. Q. Roughly. match up? In other words, the numbers . A. Pretty much. Pretty well. We all know, and I don't recall how soon after the start up these were added, what we don't know is whether they added to the group before the exposure started. Many times they will bring in these animals and acclimate them to the laboratory. Q. For a period of a couple of weeks? A. Several years. Then they start exposing. Whereas, these additions might have been brought in during an acclimation period. So we are missing some details here. Q. So to your knowledge was there any effort made at Industrial Bio-Test to distinguish either by markings or some other method of identification the later-added animals from the original animals on this study? A. I don't know the details. Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030141 514 1~- L.. As I understand it, one common technique 2 of identifying the animals in a rat study is by 3 punching a code on their ears? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you know whether that was done in the 6 Industrial Bio-Test rat studies or not? 7 A. Yes, they had some kind of code that was 8 picked up by computer wands that identified the 9 animal. 10 Q. The last sentence on the first page of 11 Exhibit 248 says: 12 "Histopathology has 13 been completed on the 14 sacrificed animals and Dr. 15 Calandra has reported verbally 16 that there are no positive 17 pathological findings." 1 8 Do you know as of the date of the letter 19 whether Dr. Kelly himself had reviewed any of the 20 pathology slides from the study that is discussed 21 in the letter? 22 A. I am not aware of Dr. Kelly ever 23 reviewing slides pathologically. 24 Q. So, although he had access to the raw Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030142 515 I___ i 1 data, either by means of copies or by actually 2 going to Industrial Bio-Test and looking at them, 3 to your knowledge he never actually read any of 4 the slides himself? 5 A. No. 6 Q. He just relied on the written report from 7 the pathologist? 8 A. Right. The experts. 9 Q. Either the Industrial Bio-Test employee 10 or an outside pathologist when they brought one 11 in? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Dr. Kelly I take it is a people doctor as 14 oppo sed to an animal doctor? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Do you know whether he would have 17 considered himself qualified to read animal tissue 1 8 slides? 19 ' A. I would be surprised if he would have. 20 Q. The last, the next to the last paragraph 21 ' of the letter says: 22 "If you have any 23 specific questions after 24 reviewing the enclosed status Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030143 V 1_ _ - - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 516 summaries, please feel free to call Dr. Calandra or Dr. Fancher directly." Do you know whether there was in fact at any time direct communication between Dr. Blumenthal and anybody at Industrial Bio-Test concerning the pcb studies for Monsanto? A. Yes. Q. When did that first come to your attention? A. I first was made aware of that informal correspondence between Dr. Blumenthal and the Bio-Test people in I think near the end of 1970, December of 1970, when we had a pcb conference in North Carolina. Q. Who are we? A. Perhaps the wrong use of the word. Monsanto was invited. It was called by the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, Dr. Rahl, and he had FDA people there and EPA and USDA and the Japanese and the university people. Q. And Monsanto people? A. Yes . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030144 517 1"" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Did you go to that? A. Yes. Q. What is or was the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences? A. It is one of the governmental scientific agencies or groups, NIEHS. Q. Part of Health, Education and Welfare? A. Yes. Q. Or what is now Health and Human Services, I guess? A. Yes. Q. And they were the sponsor of this conference? A, Yes. Q. Was anybody from Industrial Bio-Test at the conference, to your knowledge? A. Yes. Dr. Keplinger attended. And there was another individual, but I don't recall his name at the moment. Q. Did they discuss what they were doing by way of these Monsanto animal studies? A. Yes. They were on the program. Q. And that was with Monsanto's permission, I take it? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030145 518 1 A. Yes. In fact it was at our request that 2 they be invited and participate. 3 Q. I take it studies of this type that 4 Monsanto was paying for were deemed by Monsanto to 5 be proprietary? 6 A. Well, proprietary in the sense it is 7 Monsanto's property. But not in the sense that we 8 would not share that information freely. 9 Q. But it is up to Monsanto and not 10 Industrial Bio-Test to determine in any particular 11 instance whether to share it and with whom? 12 A. Right. Correct. That is normal. 13 Q. In other words, you might give things to 14 the government that you wouldn't give to your 15 competitors in Japan, for example? 16 A. That is an example. Yes. 17 Q. So, presumably, if a direct request for 1 8 information was received at Industrial Bio-Test, 19 they would check with someone at Monsanto before 20 giving out the details of the study? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 249, which is a 23 memo dated April 16, 1970, to Moreno Keplinger 24 from Otis Fancher, and I will ask you if you have Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030146 519 1 ever seen that before? 2 (The document above-referred to 3 was marked Bloomington Deposition 4 Exhibit No. 249 for identification.) 5 A. I have not seen this before. No. 6 Q. To your knowledge, was there a repeat 7 chicken study done with Aroclor 1242? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And was that at lower dosage levels than 10 had been included in the original study? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Why was it that 1242 was selected as the 13 material for the repeat study? 14 A. Of the three Aroclors tested, the 1242 15 version, somewhere between 1 and 10 parts per 16 million was affecting chicken reproduction. And 17 we wanted to establish is it 1 or is it 10, and we 18 repeated. 19 Q. You would use dosages between one and 20 ten? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Rather than 110 and 100? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. And was 1242 of the three products that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030147 520 1 were studied the one that showed an affect in the 2 first study at the lowest level? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Do you recall whether the repeat study 6 successfully established a low-effect level for 7 1242 on chicken reproduction? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did it? 10 A. It did establish or help us understand 11 what level the effect would be noted at. 12 Q. And what level was that? 13 A. That was 3 parts per million or higher. 14 Q. So at 1 part per million there was no 15 effect; is that correct? 16 A. Correct. At 2 there was no effect. 17 Q. So the threshold presumably is somewhere 1 8 between 2 and 3? 19 A. Somewhere in there. 20 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 250, which is a 21 memo dated April 21, 1970 from Otis Fancher to 22 Moreno Keplinger, subject visit by Elmer Wheeler. 23 (The document above-referred to 24 was marked Bloomington Deposition Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030148 521 1 Exhibit No. 250 for identification.) 2 To your knowledge, were there any 3 biochemical or metabolic studies done in 4 connection with the repeat 1242 chicken study? 5 A. I don't remember any. 6 Q. Do you know why they weren't done? 7 A. I don't remember whether they were or 8 not. I just don't recall. 9 Q. Do you know what it was that they were 10 considering looking for in biochemical or 11 metabolic studies? 12 A. The intent was to establish the mechanism 13 that resulted in thinner egg shells and why these 14 eggs, some of them, would not hatch. 15 Q. In other words, the idea was to go beyond 16 observing what happened and try and find out why? 17 A. That's right. 1 8 Q. Okay. 19 To your knowledge was there ever an 20 answer established with respect to the why part? 21 A, No. I don't remember. 22 Q. Without regard to whether the studies 23 were carried out or not? 24 A. No. Longoria & Ooldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030149 522 1 Q. There was never an answer established? 2 A. That's right. 3 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 251, which is a 4 memo dated April 30, 1970 from D. Arnold, to 5 Moreno Keplinger, copy to Fancher and Calandra. 6 Do you recall ever being informed of the 7 difficulties with the rat study that are mentioned 8 in Exhibit 251? 9 (The document above-referred to 10 was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 251 for identification.) 12 A. NO. 13 Q. Did you ever learn during the time you 14 were pcb coordinator at Monsanto that there had 15 been problems at Industrial Bio-Test in the animal 16 watering room with respect to the environment in 17 which the rats were living? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did it ever come to your attention during 20 the time you were the pcb coordinator at Monsanto 21 that the Industrial Bio-Test rat studies on pcb's 22 as well as other materials for Monsanto and other 23 Bio-Test clients were plagued by a high rate of 24 animal deaths, both in the study groups and in the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030150 523 control groups? A. No. Q. Did it ever come to your attention during 4 the time you were pcb coordinator at Monsanto that 5 the rats who died during the course of the pcb 6 studies decomposed so rapidly that their bodies 7 couldn't be recovered for purposes of disection or 8 autopsy? 9 A. No. 10 Q. After you left the role of pcb 11 coordinator at Monsanto, did you ever become aware 12 of any of those things? _ 13 A. Not as it relates to pcb's. 14 Q. As it relates to other Industrial 15 Bio-Test studies? 16 A. I have heard allegations that they 17 related to other studies, yes. 1 8 Q. Other studies that were done around this 19 time period, '70, '69, *71? 20 A. There were other studies that were either 21 in place or just completed in about 1975 or 22 thereabouts. 23 Q. Was the reason that Paul Wright left 24 Monsanto, did it have anything to do with his Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030151 524 ' 1- indictment in connection with his role at IBT? 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. When did the Industrial Bio-Test criminal 4 indictments of Paul Wright, Marino Keplinger and 5 Dr. Calandra and whoever the fourth guy was first 6 come to your attention? 7 A. I don't recall the specific year. It 8 seems to me early eighties. 1980 or '81. That is 9 as close as my memory will help me here. 10 Q. When you learned about that, did it raise 11 any questions in your mind about the validity of 12 the pcb studies that Bio-Test had done for 13 Monsanto? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did you pursue that at all? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What did you do in connection with that 18 inquiry? 19 . A. I went to the toxicology department and 20 asked if the pcb studies were part of that group 21 of studies. . 22 23 24 Q. What did they tell you? A. They told me that they were not. Q. Did you ask whether any inquiry as of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030152 198d or '81 was being made into the supporting data of the pcb studies to determine whether the same sort of problems existed in those studies? A. Yes. We had an auditing team looking at all of Monsanto's studies conducted by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories and the pcb studies were in that group. Q. Did you ever see a copy of that auditing team report? A. NO. Q. Was there a written report? A. I don't know. Q. Did anyone at Monsanto ever tell you that the auditing team concluded the pcb studies were free of these problems, or did they just tell you that the pcb studies were not part of the indictments? A. It was -- neither of those expressions fit my understanding. The impression I got, and this was a verbal discussion, oral discussion, is that the pcb studies, they audited the study, did not reveal any gross discrepancies which would have Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030153 526 1 caused any concern for the validity of the test 2 results, the conclusions, 3 Q. Who was on the auditing team? 4 A, I don't know the individuals. As I 5 recall this was conducted by Booz, Allen & 6 Hamilton, consultants. 7 Q. Do you know if they are ordinarily in the 8 animal study business? 9 A. They have many areas of expertise. I am 10 not familiar with all of them. No. 11 Q. It wasn't Monsanto's own toxicologists in 12 that work , in that audit? 13 A. No. This was an outside consultant. 14 Q. Okay. 15 At that time that the IBT indictments. 16 Industrial Bio-Test indictments, came to your 17 attention , pcb's had already been banned; is that 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And Monsanto some years prior ceased 21 manufacturing pcb's? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So in terms of the priority of Monsanto 24 products that could or might be affected by audit Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030154 of Industrial Bio-Test studies, pcb's were kind of at the bottom of that list? A. As far as affecting the product. It was nonexistent any longer, therefore, yes, they were low on the priority. Yes. Q. Others of the studies of concern in the audit involved products that were still being produced by Monsanto at that time? A. Yes. ' Q. Was Monsanto ever required by the FDA or the EPA or any other government agency to repeat studies that had been done by Industrial Bio-Test as a result of the investigation that led to the indictments? A. Yes. Q. And which products were involved in those repeat studies, if you can recall? MR. FROEHWALD: Let me interpose an objection here and instruct the witness not to answer. I don't see the relevance of this. And this may be getting into proprietary information that is really irrelevant to the pcb issues. And I don't know the background to it. But I think it is an area which maybe Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030155 528 Monsanto has some regulatory concerns about, that 2 doesn't need to be explored in this litigation. 3 Unless you can tell me some reason why an 4 inquiry into other products would be of relevance 5 to this issue. I don't understand the relevance 6 of it. Because this may be confidential for 7 Monsanto. 8 I would just as soon raise an objection 9 here and instruct the witness not to answer. 10 MR. MC CONNELL: It is only relevant to the 11 extent that it reflects the magnitude of the 12 problem that was presented by this whole thing to 13 Monsanto. 14 And I think that fits into the issue of 15 whether I am right or you are right about what it 16 was that was going on here. 17 Obviously, at the time of the indictments 18 pcb's had already been banned and neither Monsanto 19 nor the government was interested in repeating 20 those studies. They would have accomplished 21 nothing for anybody at that point. The ban was in 22 effect. Monsanto had stopped production. 23 Just to put that fact into perspective, I wanted a list of the other products. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030156 529 _1 . If you have a proprietary objection to 2 that or want some kind of protective order or 3 something, we can discuss it and we could cover 4 that by an interrogatory, rather than have the 5 witness answer the question. 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: I prefer to go that route 7 because I have not consulted with Monsanto on 8 their position on other products and this sounds 9 to me like it could be a sensitive area that I 10 wouldn't like to have explored without 11 consultation. 12 MR. MC CONNELL: I appreciate your concern and 13 your objection is noted and we will talk about it. 14 you and I. Certainly not a critical item to my 15 case in this lawsuit. 16 Q. Okay. 17 Take a look at 252 -- it just occurred to 18 me as a follow-up question, that is all -- which 1 9 is a memo from Otis Fancher to Marino Keplinger 20 dated May 5, 1970. And I will ask you if you were 21 aware that the study that is referred to in 22 * 23 Exhibit 252 was to be postponed? (The document above-referred to 24 was marked Bloomington Deposition Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030157 530 1^_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Exhibit No. 252 for identification.) A. This is the first I have seen of this. I was not aware of any request for delaying Q. Do you know why Mr. Wheeler wanted to be back from Europe before the study was started? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Could it have had anything to do with the problems which we discussed earlier about Marek's disease in the chicken colony at Industrial Bio-Test r A. I don't know. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Wheeler was aware in May of 1970 of the problems with disease in the chicken colony? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know. Okay. Exhibit 253 is a letter dated May 12, 1970 to Dr. Kelly from Dr. Keplinger. I will ask you if you have seen that? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 253 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030158 A I had not seen this Q. Do you remember being advised of the conclusion that there was no effect observed at the 1 part per million level in the dog studies? A. Ido. Q. This Exhibit 253, was that before the final report of the study was issued? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever see the original body weight data that is referred to as having been enclosed? A. No. Q. Would it have meant anything to you if you did see it? A, It all depends on how it is displayed. Q. Exhibit 254 is a letter dated May 25, 1970 to Dr. Pancher from Elmer Wheeler. I will ask you if you have ever seen that? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 254 for identification.) A. I remember the substance of this letter. But I don't recall the letter itself. Q. How was the substance conveyed to you? Lonaoria f< Goldstine 236 1030 Chn'caao STLCOPCB4030159 532 1 A. Discussions with Mr. Wheeler. 2 Q. Was that personal, face-to-face or by 3 phone ? 4 A. This subject came up when we returned 5 from Europe and had a meeting of the Monsanto 6 individuals during which we reported on our trip 7 to Europe and then we covered the toxicity studies 8 and this repeat study. 9 Q. When you returned from Europe, was that 10 the trip to Bayer that we discussed earlier? 11 A. That was one of the customers we talked 12 to. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. Not customer. Competitor. 15 Q. They are a European manufacturer of 16 pcb ' s? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did the other business on that trip 19 . . relate toi pcb's as well? 20 A. It was all pcb's. 21 Q. Okay. 22 ' Who else did you visit besides Bayer? 23 A. We visited the laboratory in Stockholm, 24 in which these analytical studies were first Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030160 53 3 1 started. 2 Q. Dr. Jensen's laboratory? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. All right? 5 A. We saw his supervisor, Dr. Whitman. Mr. 6 Jensen was vacationing. We went to the University 7 of Utrecht in Holland. Spoke with representatives 8 of the other European competitors, the Italian and 9 the French, as well as Bayer representing the 10 German. 11 We went then to the Ministry of, I 12 believe it is. Wildlife, but I am not certain, in 13 the United Kingdom. They had to do with interest 14 in birds, wild birds. 15 We visited the government chemist in the 16 United Kingdom. That is the top analytical 17 laboratory in the UK. I believe that covers them 18 all. 1 9 Q. Okay. 20 When you returned and had this discussion 21 with others at Monsanto, did you specifically 22 discuss the clean up of impurities that is 23 referred to in Exhibit 254? 24 A. I don't know that that was the topic at Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030161 534 that' particular meeting. This came up at sessions 2 of that group at previous times. 3 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 4 BY HR. MC CONNELL: 5 Q. With respect to 254, it refers to a clean 6 up of impurities. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: It doesn't refer to that. It 8 says some clean up. 9 MR. MC CONNELL: Some clean up. 10 Q. I assume that means that the material 11 that was used in the repeat study was purer 12 material than what had been used in the earlier 13 study. Is that a fair assumption? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. What was it that was cleaned up, if you 16 recall? 17 A. In the production process, the refining 18 step, which is a distillation, can be controlled 19 to make at that time two kinds of 1242. There is 20 the run-of-the-mill 1242, which was sold primarily 21 to heat transfer and the so-called plasticizer 22 applications. 23 They could fine tune the refining step 24 and produce a cleaner 1242 for the dielectric Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030162 535 1 application, which was a tighter specification. 2 This letter tells me that it was the electrical 3 grade 1242 that was sent the second time instead 4 of the typical 1242. - 5 Q. Okay. 6 Before the time when Monsanto made the 7 decision to eliminate all of the nonelectrical 8 uses of pcb's, what was the relative proportion of 9 electrical versus nonelectrical grade of 1242 that 10 was sold? 11 A. You asked me what proportion of the 1242 12 was the dielectric grade. I honestly don't 13 remember. 14 Q. Was it more or less than half? 15 A. I think it was less than half of the 1242 16 on the dielectric, but I am not certain of that. 17 Q. I take it that the type that was sold to 18 Westinghouse-Bloomington was the electrical grade 19 or the dielectric grade? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In any event, was this exhibit dated 22 before that decision was taken to eliminate the 23 nonelectrical uses of pcb's or was it at about the 24 time that was under consideration? Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030163 536 1 A. This was right -- let me think of it. 2 This was at about the time that the decision had 3 been approved to withdraw from the other 4 applications. - 5 Q. So in light of the decision not to sell 6 what you described as run-of-the-mill 1242 7 anymore, the substitution of the electrical grade 8 in the context of the experiment was not an 9 unreasonable thing to do? 10 A. That is what we thought. 11 Q. Okay. 12 I take it, then, that the statement 13 involves some clean up merely reflects the change, 14 the difference in the production quality; it 15 doesn't represent anything that was done to the 16 sample after it was taken to clean it up for the 17 purposes of the animal study? 18 A. No. This is the sample right out of the 19 production unit. 20 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 255, which is a 21 memo dated Hay 25, 1970, from Otis Fancher to 22 Moreno Keplinger. 23 I take it that reflects a telephone 24 authorization to proceed with the repeat chicken r.rnn Ar ^ a f. ^ a 1 ? 7 G imn rhirano STLCOPCB4030164 537 1 study on 1242; is that correct? 2 (The document above-referred to 3 was marked Bloomington Deposition 4 Exhibit No. 255 for identification.) 5 A. Yes. This is the same date that the 6 letter was dictated so the letter confirmed the 7 telephone. 8 Q. They could go ahead without waiting for 9 the actual post office to deliver the letter? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 256, which is a 12 single-page memo dated May 25, 1970, no indication 13 of who it is to or who it is from. It is on 14 Industrial Bio-Test letterhead, subject is IBT 15 number P 7297, client Monsanto, test materials 16 Aroclor 1242, 1254 and 1260. 17 It appears to me that that exhibit refers 18 to the chicken reproduction study. 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 256 for identification.) 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: The number on the test matches 23 up to the number assigned to the three generation 24 rat study. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030165 53 8 1 MR. MC CONNELL: Okay.. 2 Q. That is the rat study? 3 A. That would indicate a mammal. 4 Q. You are right. Chickens don't do that as 5 far as I know. 6 Do you know, there is an indication on 7 there, did you ever see that, by the way? 8 A. No, I have not. 9 Q. There is an indication on there under the 10 1242 material at the 100 parts per million level, 11 that only 2 males survived, fill rest of level 12 with 1 and 10 part per million offspring. 13 Do you see where I am reading, right 14 here. Then that appears to be scratched out and 15 the word "discontinued" penned in there. 16 Do you know what that refers to? 17 A. No, I don't. 18 Q. Were you ever advised that animals from 19 the 1 and 10 part per million offspring were 20 substituted into the 100 part per million group in 21 the rat reproduction study? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Under the 1254 product, by the 100 parts 24 per million, it says 2 males and 7 females saved Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030166 53 9 1 from "a" litters to be replaced by "b" pups if 2 possible. 3 Do you know what that refers to? 4 A. No, I don't. 5 Q. Why would they want to replace pups from 6 one litter to another? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Any valid reason that you can think of in 9 the context of this? 10 A. NO. 11 Q. As I understand the way that two 12 generation or three generation study was done, 13 there were two mates at each generational level, 14 an "a" and a "b"; is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And I guess that is designed to tell 17 whether the effects, if any, that are observed are 18 enhanced in the second mating? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. The same parents. 22 Q. The same parents. It is like your first 23 child and your second child, only in the case of 24 rats they usually have more than one at a time, to Lonqoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030167 540 1 see if there is a greater effect on the second 2 mating at each level; is that correct? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. So a substitution of "a" for "b" would 5 make it difficult to interpret what the results 6 were? 7 A. It would seem to me it would complicate 8 it. 9 Q. Do you know whether that was in fact 10 done ? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Okay. 13 Did the low number of surviving males at 14 the 100 parts per million level in the 1242 affect 15 the validity of the results of the study, if you 16 k now? 17 A. No. I don't. 18 Q. Okay. 19 Do you know if the fact that only two 20 males survived at the 100 parts per million level 21 of 1242 was due to the effects of the Aroclor in 22 the feed or to some other problem in the study? 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. Was there anything in the report of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030168 541 1 three generation rat study that you recall that 2 would answer that question? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Was there a comment on the low survival 5 rate? 6 A. I don't recall any. 7 Q. Does the information that is contained in 8 Exhibit 256, was that brought to your attention at 9 any time before today? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you have occasion at any time to 12 discuss with anybody else at Monsanto the 13 existence of any problems with animal survival 14 rates in the three generation rat reproduction 15 study ? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you ever have such discussion with 18 anybody at Industrial Bio-Test? 19 A. No. 20 Q. So as far as you knew, before I showed 21 you this document, there was nothing out of the 22 ordinary about that three generation rate study? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 257, which is Lonaoria ft RnldsH np 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030169 542 1 dated June 11, 1970. Subject new study for 2 Monsanto Aroclors from Dr. Keplinger to DHJ. 3 Does this refer to the repeat chicken 4 study on 1242 that we have been discussing? 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 257 for identification.) 8 A. It appears to be, it implies that. It is 9 not specific. 10 Q. So the only thing about that study that 11 was changed from the previous study was the dosage 12 levels were reduced in order to refine knowledge 13 about where the no-effect level fell? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Was 1242 selected for that study because 17 it was the product that had the greatest effect on 1 8 the chicken reproduction? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 258 which is dated 21 July 8, 1970, from Otis Fancher to Moreno 22 Keplinger, subject Monsanto chicken study with 23 rogue metabolites. 24 Do you have any idea what that refers to? Longoria ft coldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030170 543 1 A. Rogue is a trademark for one of 2 Monsanto's agricultural chemicals. 3 Q. So this has nothing to do with pcb's 4 then? 5 A. That is correct. 6 Q. I was looking around for some unexpected 7 pcb metabolite. Thank you. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: The number of the job doesn't 9 match up with any of the numbers here. 10 MR. MC CONNELL; No. And I didn't see any 11 report in these files on such a study either, but 12 now I understand why. This apparently, this memo 13 was misfiled in the pcb chicken file where it 14 didn't belong. 15 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 258 for identification.) 18 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 259 for identification.) 21 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 259. 22 Take a look at Exhibit 259 which is a 23 two-page letter from Kent Davis to Walter Hanson 24 subject histological examination of livers from Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030171 544 1 rats fed Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 for ninety 2 day s . 3 I will ask you if you have ever seen that 4 before? 5 A. I have not seen this before. 6 Q. To your knowledge, does that refer to a 7 study that was done by the government rather than 8 by Industrial Bio-Test? 9 A. It was not done by Industrial Bio-Test. 10 I don't know who performed it. 11 Q. Did you become aware at some point during 12 the time that you were the pcb coordinator at 13 Monsanto of a controversy among animal 14 pathologists about how to interpret certain things 15 that were seen on rat liver slides? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. From rats that were fed pcb's? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you know if this Exhibit 259 relates 20 to that controversy? 21 A. Yes, I have read it and it seems to. 22 Q. Okay. 23 It has to do with interpretation and 24 possible use of electron microscopy to review Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030172 5 45 1 sections of the rat livers? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In the design of the two-year chronic 4 oral feeding study in rats with Aroclors, was the 5 purpose of the study to look for cancer? 6 The Industrial Bio-Test study test that 7 was done for Monsanto, as you understood it, was 8 the purpose of it to look for cancer in the rat 9 livers or was the purpose to look for any 10 pathological change in the rat livers? 11 A. Look for any pathological change, not 12 only in livers, but the whole animal. 13 Q. Can you tell how Industrial Bio-Test came 14 to be in possession of a copy of that government 15 memo that is Exhibit 259? 16 A. No, I cannot. 17 Q. Did I ask you if you had ever seen that 18 before? 19 A. Yes, I answered I have not seen it 20 before. 21 Q. You have not. Okay. 22 Take a look at exhibit - 23 Let me ask you, in the course of the 24 Industrial Bio-Test rat studies, to your knowledge Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030173 546 1 did they ever use electron mycroscopy to review 2 their rat liver sides? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Do you know why? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. Do you know whether the controversy 7 surrounding interpretation or reading of the rat 8 liver slides was ever resolved to the satisfaction 9 of Monsanto and Industrial Bio-Test pathologists? 10 A. No. It has not been resolved. 11 Q. As of 1986, it still hasn't been 12 resolved? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 260, which is a 15 one-page memo dated August 24, 1970 from C. Mastri 16 to Marino Keplinger, and calling your attention 17 particularly to the line that is marked A 8570, 18 Monsanto Aroclor fish. 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 260 for identification.) 22 The memo indicates the change in the 23 expected release date of that study. 24 To your knowledge, was that study in fact Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago 4* . . STLCOPCB4030174 5 47 1 ever completed and reported on? 2 A. The fish study referred to in the 3 document to my knowledge was never completed and I 4 have never seen it reported. _ 5 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 261, which is a 6 memo dated August 23, 1970 from Otis Fancher to 7 Mareno Keplinger and others. 8 (The document above-referred to 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit No. 261 for identification.) 11 Do you know why it was that there was a 12 need to get status reports on all the Aroclor 13 studies for Dr. Hunt by August 27, 1970? 14 A, I had asked Mr. Wheeler to provide me 1 5 with status reports on the studies that I could 16 share with customers and anyone else who 17 requested, researchers, government agencies and 18 the like. 19 This reflects the way that data was 20 accumulated, from the laboratory to Dr. Hunt to 21 Mr. Wheeler. 22 Q. To you? 23 A. To me eventually. 24 Q. So there is nothingparticularly Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030175 548 1 significant that you can recall about the date of 2 August 1970? 3 A. No. But it seems to fit this six-month 4 or so intervals that I asked for. 5 Q. Did you have a specific request from 6 Westinghouse-Bloomington for updates on these 7 animal studies? 8 A. Not a specific request. But I had 9 committed to supplying updates when 1 got them. 10 So a request wasn't necessary. 11 Q. Who did you provide that information to 12 at Westinghouse? 13 A. A remember a Mr. T K Sloat, and Don, it 14 was an individual at the Bloomington in the 15 Indiana plant. 16 Q. McLain? 17 A. Don McLain. 18 Q. Where was Mr. Sloat? 19 A. Mr. Sloat was at the transformer plants, 20 I forget whether it is South Boston or Sharon. 21 Then there was an individual in Pittsburgh in the 22 research center for Westinghouse. His name 23 escapes me at the moment. 24 Q. But you do specifically recall providing Longoria SGoldstine 2361030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030176 these periodic reports on the Industrial Bio-Test studies to Don McLain at Bloomington? A. Yes. Q. Do you know about how many such reports you supplied over the years? A. Twice a year? A. At least four, maybe six. Q. All together or per year? A. No, no. All together. Q. All together. A. Every six or eight months I would have a revision. Most of them were distributed at meetings of users of pcb's. Q. Called for that purpose or perhaps for some other purpose? A. The general purpose of pcb update. Q. Once again, these would be the reports or the summaries of the reports that Mr. Wheeler had prepared? A. Yes. Monsanto letterhead. Q. Take a look at Exhibit 262, which is a memo dated September 17, 1970 from J. F. Vanruska to J. C. Calandra and others, subject Monsanto Aroclor dog studies. Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030177 I will ask if you ever saw that document before today? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 262 for identification.) A. I have not seen this before. Q. Did you become aware at or about the date of that memo in September of 1970 that four dogs on the pcb study had died? A. No. Q. Did you ever become aware that four of the dogs had died during the course of that study? A. I became aware of dogs dying but I don't recall the number four. Q. Okay. When did you first become aware that any of the dogs had died? A. At a meeting in Chicago called by EPA on pcb's in November 1975. Q. And how did you learn of that at the meeting? A. I was in the audience and Dr. Calandra was describing the status of the pcb studies and he divulged that information during his Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^ STLCOPCB4030178 551 1 presentation. 2 Q. Did he say whether the deaths were 3 related to the fact of pcb treatment? 4 A. Not at that, no. 5 Q. He didn't say one way or the other? 6 A. No. He just reported that these effects 7 were noted. 8 Q. Before that November of 1975 meeting, had 9 you received periodic progress reports through Mr. 10 Wheeler on the Beagle dog study? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. None of those reports had reflected any 13 deaths among the dogs; is that correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. So for a period of a little over five 16 years, after the dogs had died, nobody told you 17 about it? 18 A. That's right, 19 Q. How many dogs were in each of the 20 treatment groups in that Beagle study; was that a 21 three-year study? 22 A. Yes. 23 I don't remember the numbers. 24 Q. Less than ten was it not, if you recall? I.nnnAr i a t (Tnl ^ct' f no 2 7 1(170 fh t ('snn STLCOPCB4030179 552 1 A. I just don't recall. 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Jim, don't you have the 3 reports of these final reports? 4 I don't think Mr. Papageorge has reviewed 5 these things for years and you are asking about 6 various matters which should be disclosed in 7 subsequent reports. 8 That is why I am noting in terms of some of 9 these questions as to what he recalls being told, 10 the reports will say certain things and they 11 haven't been reviewed prior to this deposition. 12 So there may be some inaccuracies in there. 13 MR. MC CONNELL: I will tell what you my 14 problem is with that, and I don't mean to belabor 15 it. Although I am entitled to test his 16 independent recollection before I show him the 17 documents. 18 The reports that I have, that I got from 19 Industrial Bio-Test, are the Industrial Bio-Test 20 reports. I do not have, or at least if I have 21 them, I haven't seen the Monsanto summaries that 22 he has mentioned which is what he saw as well as 23 the Bio-Test reports. 24 And so the only way I can get at what he Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030180 5 53 1 recalls being in those is by asking him. 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: For example, a question about 3 how many dogs were in the study. That should be 4 indicated in the report that you are going to have 5 later on. 6 Some of these questions about whether 7 deaths are reported, I mean this study may report 8 them or may not. If he hasn't read them for years 9 he may not recall that. So his recollection of 10 what the report says is probably not as good 11 evidence as the report itself, that you have 12 presently got somewhere it the pack. 13 Questions like that seem to me to be not 14 very productive, given that we have got a report 15 which presumably specifies that type of 16 information, and his recollection is a poor second 17 to that. But carry on. 18 MR. MC CONNELL: It seems pretty clear to me 19 Mr. Papageorge is fairly certain he didn't hear 20 about any dog deaths until November of '75. 21 Although they occurred sometime before September 22 of 1970. So, that is the point. 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: That's right, he doesn't 24 recall hearing about it. Perhaps it is in the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030181 554 1 report. I just don't know. 2 The report is very lengthy and perhaps at 3 the back of the report or somewhere in the report 4 they have got a report of some decrease in the 5 populations which would be deaths. That is my 6 point. 7 These reports are coming up and they are 8 in most cases very lengthy. There may be some 9 information in them which is not currently 10 recalled but is, nonetheless, reported. 11 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 12 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 263, which is a 13 letter from Dr. Keplinger to Mr. Wheeler dated 14 September 17, 1970. 15 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 263 for identification.) 18 Do you recall seeing that letter? 1 9 A. I do not recall seeing this. 20 Q. The last paragraph of the letter refers 21 to a teratology study or studies. What animal was 22 that done on? 23 A. I don't know what animal. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030182 555 1 Do you recall there being a rat 2 teratology study in connection with pcb's at some 3 point? 4 A. No. _ 5 Q. Teratology refers to the study of birth 6 defects; is that correct? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And that is different from the 9 reproduction study that we have seen already? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Do you know what the recommendation of 12 Dr. Fitzhugh was as referred to in the last 13 paragraph of that letter? 14 A. I do not. 15 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 264, which is a 16 letter dated November 5, 1970 from Dr. Keplinger 17 to Elmer Wheeler. 1 8 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 264 for identification.) 21 Does that refresh your recollection about 22 the possibility of rat teratology studies on 23 Aroclor ? 24 A. NO. r.AnrtAr ^ a (Ini rlef i no 9 7 10^0 r hi r a a n STLCOPCB4030183 556 1 I just don't have any vivid recollection 2 of teratology studies. This letter does not help 3 refresh that recollection. 4 Q. It does refer to specific studies with 5 Aroclor 1242, 1254 and 1260, does it not? 6 A. Yes, it does. 7 Q. I show you what has been marked as 265, 8 which is a memo dated November 13, 1970 from Otis 9 Fancher to Mareno Keplinger. 10 (The document above-referred to 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 265 for identification.) 13 Does that reflect a phone authorization 14 to proceed with the rat teratology studies that 15 are described in Exhibit 264? 16 A. That is what it says. 17 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 266, which is a 18 memo dated November 13, 1970 from Dr. Fancher to w 19 it looks like WCK, subject Monsanto billing. 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 266 for identification.) 23 Q. Do you recall that instance of an extra 24 or special out of the ordinary payment to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030184 557 1 Industrial Bio-Test by Monsanto? 2 A. no . 3 Q. Do you know any reason why an extra 50 to 4 $60,000 would have been paid in November of 1970? 5 A. I do not. 6 Q. Who would know that? 7 A. Mr. Wheeler. 8 Q. Was he the one who authorized 9 disbursements to Industrial Bio-Test for Monsanto? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Take a look at 267, which is a letter 12 dated November 17, 1970 from Elmer Wheeler to Dr. 13 Kepiinger. 14 (The document above-referred to 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit No. 267 for identification.) 17 I will ask you if that appears to you to 18 be a written authorization to proceed with the rat 19 teratology studies on the Aroclors? 20 A. It appears to be an authorization to 21 start those studies, yes. 22 Q. Exhibit 268 is a memo dated November 20, 23 1970 from D. H. Jenkins to Moreno Keplinger, 24 subject J 8746 Monsanto Aroclor. Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030185 558 1 I will ask you if you have ever seen that 2 before today? 3 (The document above-referred to 4 was marked Bloomington Deposition 5 Exhibit No. 268 for identification.) 6 A. I have not seen this document before. 7 Q. Do you recall learning at or about the 8 time of that document, November of 1970, that 9 there was a delay in the schedule of the chicken 10 reproduction study as a result of the inability to 11 get the egg size up to the desired weight? 12 A. I do not recall that at all. 13 Q. Do you recall ever discussing with anyone 14 at Monsanto or at Industrial Bio-Test a change in 15 the protocol of the chicken study as a result of a 16 delay in reaching the desired egg size before 17 collecting eggs for sitting? 18 A. I do not recall that. 19 Q. Do you know what the protocol specified 20 initially before the change as to what the eggs 21 size was before collection was to begin? 22 A. No, I do not. 23 Q. Would you expect the survivability or 24 hatchability of the -- that is two different Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030186 559 1 things. Strike that. 2 Would you expect the hatchability of the 3 eggs to be affected by the fact that collection 4 for sitting began at a lower average weight? 5 A. I don't know personally the relationship 6 between weight of the egg and ability to hatch. 7 Q. Do you know whether there was ever in any 8 of the reports you saw on the chicken reproduction 9 study, whether the issue of -- strike that. 10 Do you recall whether any of the reports 11 you saw on the chicken study ever addressed the 12 issue of whether this delay in reaching the 13 desired egg size was attributable to the fact that 14 the chickens were being fed pcb's? 1 5 A. I do not recall any reference to egg 16 weight, and relating it to any exposure levels of 17 chemicals. 18 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 269, which is a 19 letter dated December 8, 1970, two-page letter 20 from Dr. Keplinger to Elmer Wheeler. 21 I will ask you if you recall ever seeing 22 that letter? 23 24 (The document above-referred to f.nnnriri a c. C/> 1 no 9 7 1 fl 7 fl STLCOPCB4030187 - 56 0 1 was marked Bloomington Deposition 2 Exhibit No. 269 for identification.) 3 A. I do not recall seeing this document. 4 Q. Do you recall ever discussing-with anyone 5 at Monsanto the suggestion that money could be 6 saved by using common control animals or groups of 7 common control animals in the various studies? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. When did that first come to your 10 attention? 11 A. I think I recall this approach being 12 discussed sometime in the middle of 1970 as a 13 possibility. 14 Q. And that was ultimately put into effect, 15 was it not? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you recall ever talking with anybody 18 at Monsanto or Industrial Bio-Test about the 19 suggestion that the histology study and blood 20 chemistry study on animals in the lower feeding 21 levels could be eliminated from the animal 22 studies? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you know if that was ever done?7 7 in w a a ^ ^ f r* 1 ^ ^ ^ n o & 1 O 7 fl Phi f O O STLCOPCB4030188 56 1 1 A. I do not know. 2 Q. If you only check the blood chemistry and 3 the pathology of the controls in the highest feed 4 level, how could you determine where the no-effect 5 level lies within the range of test groups? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: Would you read that question 7 back, please. 8 (The record was read.) 9 Are you talking about the effect level on 10 blood chemistry? 11 MR. MC CONNELL: Or pathology. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: It seems like that it would be 13 independent of blood chemistry being checked. 14 MR. MC CONNELL: Well, the letter suggests 15 that blood chemistry and pathology test be 16 eliminated on animals in the lower feed levels. 17 Q. My question is if you do that, how can 18 you tell whether there is an effect or not at 19 those lower levels? 20 You don't know whether that was ever put 21 into effect or not? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 270, which is a 24 letter dated December 16, 1970 from Kathryn Lesiak Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030189 56 2 1 to Elmer Wheeler. 2 (The document above-referred to 3 was marked Bloomington Deposition 4 Exhibit No. 270 for identification.) 5 Do you recall ever seeing that letter? 6 A. I do not recall seeing this. 7 Q. Does that letter suggest that the rat 8 teratology study was in fact undertaken by 9 Industrial Bio-Test? 10 A. That is what it suggests. 11 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 271, which is a 12 letter dated January 26, 1971 from Dr. Keplinger 13 to Elmer Wheeler. 14 (The document above-referred to 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit No. 271 for identification.) 17 Do you recall seeing that letter? 1 8 A. I do not recall seeing this letter. 19 Q. Do you recall any discussion at Monsanto 20 about whether or not 10 parts per million was in 21 fact a no-effect level for 1242? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. When were you first involved in. any of 24 those discussions? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030190 56 3 1 A. In about the early part of '71. As I 2 remember I was first aware of it when I received 3 one of those status reports. 4 Q. If the first paragraph of Exhibit 271, 5 Dr. Keplinger writes the 1 and 10 parts per 6 million levels of 1242 show no significant effect, 7 and in the last paragraph he writes that Dr. 8 Fitzhugh, he said he just wanted to make sure that 9 the 10 parts per million level of 1242 is a 10 no-effect level. 11 In your mind, is there a difference 12 between no significant effect and no effect? 13 A. No. There is no difference. 14 Q. This letter, Exhibit 271, does it suggest 1 5 to you that Dr. Keplinger had any doubt in his 16 mind whether 10 parts per million was a no-effect 17 level for 1242 in this particular study? 18 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. Yes, he did have doubt or no, he didn't 20 have doubt? 21 A. No. Your question said does this suggest 22 that Dr. Keplinger had no doubts. I agree, he had 23 no doubts. 24 Q. He had no doubts. Lonooris & Coldst-ine 236 1030 Chi caoo ^ STLCOPCB4030191 56 4 1 What was the particular significance, if 2 you know, to Dr. Fitzhugh, whether 10 parts per 3 million was a no-effect level? 4 A. I do not know. 5 Q. When you read the first paragraph where 6 it refers to a significant effect, do you take 7 that to refer to the concept of statistical 8 significance? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. 11 So it is not the vernacular use but the 12 scientific use of the term significant? 13 A. That is my understanding. Yes. 14 Q. And Exhibit 271 refers to the 15 reproduction study; is that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you recall a trip to Industrial 18 Bio-Test on February 16, 1971 in the company of 19 Mr. Wheeler? 20 A. I recall several trips. I don't know the 21 specific dates. I don't recall the specific 22 dates. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Let me show you Exhibit 272, which is a Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030192 56 5 1 memo dated February 15, 1971 from Dr. Fancher to 2 Dr. Kepiinger. 3 I will ask if that refreshes your 4 recollection about a February 16, '71 visit by you 5 and Mr. Wheeler to Industrial Bio-Test? 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 272 for identification.) 9 A. I have a hard time recalling the specific 10 dates. 11 Q. Do you recall what the subject was of 12 that meeting? 13 A. Yes. This was a tour of the 14 laboratories. And a series of presentations by 15 Industrial Bio-Test people describing the status 16 of pcb studies being conducted at that laboratory. 17 Q. Okay. 1 8 Do you recall who in particular from 19 Industrial Bio-Test made those presentations? 20 A. I recall some of the people. Dr. 21 Calandra and Dr. Keplinger and Dr. Fancher and 22 there were two or three others whose names I don't 23 recall. 24 Q. Okay. T r Osil A i ****. o^c i mn P V> i n ts n r\ STLCOPCB4030193 566 1 And did they cover the chicken studies 2 and the rat studies and the dog studies? 3 A. Dog studies and the problems with the 4 fish studies. - 5 Q. Okay. 6 Anything else? 7 A. That covers it. I don't recall anything 8 else. 9 Q. At that meeting other than the ongoing 10 difficulties in getting a fish study successfully 11 completed, was there any indication to you from 12 any of the Industrial Bio-Test presenters that 13 there were any difficulties in successfully 14 completing any of the other ongoing studies? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Nobody said anything about Marek's 17 disease in the chickens? 1 8 A. Not in my presence. 19 Q. Nobody said anything about the fact that 20 four dogs had died? 21 A. No. 22 Q. In the dog study? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Nobody said anything about a high death T r r> r' a i rs r f?. a1 no 0 ^ 1 fl **1 fi Phi f1? H H STLCOPCB4030194 567 1 rate in the rats either in the two-year study or 2 the reproduction study? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. 5 As far as you knew at the time of the 6 meeting that is referred to in Exhibit 272, in 7 February of 1971, were the studies with the dogs, 8 the rats and the chickens on schedule? 9 A. Yes. ' 10 Q. Was there any discussion of a teratology 11 study at that meeting that you recall? 12 A. I just don't recall teratology studies. 13 Q. To your knowledge, well, that is poor 14 form, strike that. 15 At any time during the period when you 16 were the pcb coordinator at Monsanto, was it ever 17 brought to your attention that there was a concern 18 about a connection between birth defects and 19 pcb's ? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Okay. 22 Has such a concern come to your attention 23 since the time you were pcb coordinator? 24 A. I don't recall any. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030195 u 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 56 8 Q. Well, this looks to me, 273 looks to me to be exactly the same as 272. So we will just pass over that, except for the numbers that are stamped on it. (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 273 for identification.) (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 274 for identification.) Take a look at a memo dated March 17, 1971 from J. Plank to JFV, whoever that is, subject Monsanto Company IBT numbers P 7297 and B 7298. I will ask if you have ever seen that before? A. I had not seen this document hefore. Q. Do you know who Dr. Suckow, S-u-c-k-o-w, is? A. NO. Q. Do you have any idea why in March of 1971 there would be a second pathologist reading the slides from the rat reproduction study? A. No, I do not. _,, Q. Do you recall in about March 1971 a r M ^ 4 . * /- i j.l J M A O *5 1 OIO PKi rann STLCOPCB4030196 56 9 1 concern being raised about urinary bladder tumors 2 in connection with the pcb's in the rats? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Do you recall ever learning that that was 5 an item of concern? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. 8 Q. Do you recall in any of the rat study 9 reports that you saw there being any mention one 10 way or the other of findings in the urinary 11 bladder ? 12 A. No. 13 Q. In the last line of that memo, Exhibit 14 274, the word autolysis appears, do you know what 15 that means? 16 A. No, I do not. 17 Q. Did you ever become aware at any time 18 before today that in the course of the rat study 19 on pcb's, that Industrial Bio-Test did for 20 Monsanto, that animals would die and decompose 21 before their bodies could be recovered by the 22 technicians? 23 A. I had not heard that, no. 24 Q. Okay. r.onoor-ia & CnlrfsHnp 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030197 570 1 In your mind, would the fact that that 2 happened on numerous occasions raise doubts about 3 the validity of the overall results of the study? 4 A. If that did occur, would it raise doubts? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Yes, in my mind, yes. 7 Q. And that is because there is no way to 8 tell what findings might have existed in the 9 tissues of those rates that died and decomposed 10 before they could be examined? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Would you have expected Industrial 13 Bio-Test to report the fact to Monsanto if it was 14 a fact that there was a number of rats who d-ied, 15 which died and decomposed before they could be 16 examined during the course of a rat study on 17 pcb1s? 18 A. Would I expect them to? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. If that were a true happening, I would 21 expect that. Yes. 22 Q. Do you recall ever hearing or seeing the 23 term autolysis used in connection with any of 24 these IBT studies? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030198 571 1 A. No . 2 Q. When you toured the Industrial Bio-Test 3 Laboratories, did they take you into the rooms 4 where the test animals were kept? - 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. The rats as I understand it were kept 7 together in groups, in group cages; is that 8 correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And each dosage level would have one or 11 more group cages? 1 2 A. Yes. 13 Q. That is, there weren't any 10 parts per 14 million rats in with 100 parts per million rats? 15 A. No, they are segregated. 16 Q. So even if an animal died during the 17 night and was found by the technician in the 18 morning, you could tell what group it was from by 19 what cage the body was in? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Beyond that, you might not be able to 22 identify the individual animal depending upon the 23 state of his decomposition? 24 A. I don't understand the question. I.onnnria finl rlet- i ne 236 1030 ChicaQO STLCOPCB4030199 57 2 1 Q. You mentioned the ear punching and this 2 wand phenomenon. I assume that when the animal 3 was decomposed - 4 A. The tags, or the clips, the hardware that 5 as I understood you could still identify the 6 corpse. 7 Q. Okay. 8 So the tag would be there even though 9 the - 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. 12 Take a look at Exhibit 275. We did it 13 again here. 14 Will you look at 275 and I will look at 15 276, which is the same document, which is a letter 16 or a memo dated April 23, 1971 from Otis Fancher 17 to Moreno Keplinger, subject Aroclor tissues. 18 And I will ask you if you have seen that 19 before? 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 275 for identification.) 23 24 (The document above-referred to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030200 573 1 was marked Bloomington Deposition 2 Exhibit No. 276 for identification.) 3 A. I have not seen this memorandum before. 4 Q., Do you recall in April or about April of 5 1971 questions arising about missing tissue 6 samples from the twelve-month collection in the 7 rat studies, B 7298? 8 A. I recall missing tissues. I don't recall 9 which study these tissues came from. And the 10 timing is about on or about the early part of '71. 11 Q. Do you know why as the exhibit describes 12 these are considered to be of critical importance, 13 that is, the missing tissues from B 7298? 14 A. No. I do not. 15 Q. The paragraph immediately under the one 16 that is identified as J 7300 says: 17 "In the case of all 18 studies were any tissues 19 saved from animals which died?" 20 Up until the date of this document, April 21 23, 1971, were you aware of any animals that had 22 died in any of the studies? 23 A. Yes. I was aware of what I was led to 24 believe was a normal amount of death in this Lonaoria & Ooldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030201 575 1~.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 in the animals in these studies? A. No. He is an analytical chemist. Q. So his concern was to get the appropriate tissue samples for his analysts to work on; is that correct? A. yes. Yes, for Dr. Tucker's group to work on, Q. Was he above Tucker? A. Yes. Q. So this inquiry generally is directed to find out what he can expect'to be coming in for the analysts to work on in the foreseeable future, is that the gist of it? A. Could be one of the reasons. The other is to perhaps expedite, where are these samples. Q. The ones that are unaccounted for? A. Yes. Q. Where are they and when can we get them so we can finish up? A. Right. (Discussion had off the record.) Q. Take a look at Exhibit 277, which is a copy of what appears to me to be a page from a laboratory notebook at Industrial Bio-Test. Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaoo STLCOPCB4030202 576 Although, given the way they provided things to us, I can't be sure that that is what it is, dated 3 April 30, 1971. And I will ask if you recall ever 4 seeing that? 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 277 for identification.) 8 A. I have never seen this document before. 9 Q. Do you recall ever being advised, through 10 a study report or otherwise, that some of the rats 11 in the study number P 7297 had histology, positive 12 histology findings in the urinary bladders? 13 A. I do not. 14 Q. You do recall that that question was of 15 concern during the course of that study? 16 A. No. I don't believe urinary problems 17 related to pcb studies. 18 Q. It was your understanding, though, that 19 if such a finding were observed during the course 20 of the pcb rat studies, that it would be reported? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 They weren't just focusing on the liver 24 exclusively? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030203 A. No, no. Any positive findings. Q. Look at Exhibit 278, which is a memo dated May 3, 1971 from Dr. Pancher to Dr. Keplinger subject visit to Monsanto. Is the visit that is referred to in that memo, one of the regular back and forth exchanges during the course of these studies? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 278 for identification.) A. Yes. Q. The only difference being on this particular occasion Dr. Pancher came to Monsanto in St. Louis rather than somebody from Monsanto traveling to Industrial Bio-Test? A. That is correct. Q. Do you recall being a participant in that meeting in May of '71 in St. Louis? A. I recall being a participant in meetings in which Dr. Fancher made presentations. I do not recall the specific dates. Q. Okay. . Do you recall one or more than one of those being in St. Louis rather than at Industrial T.onaoria s 236 7 0 3 n C h i c a it <> STLCOPCB4030204 L_i 13 > 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 578 Bio-Test? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 279, which is a memo dated May 13, 1971 from Dr. Fancher to Dr. Keplinger and others, which purports to be a summary of the meeting that is referred to in 278. (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 279 for identification.) A. I do not recall seeing this document before. Q. Do you recall being at a meeting at which those subjects that are described in the documents werei discussed? A. Yes. Q. The first paragraph numbered 1 refers to the rat tissues from the two-year study and that the samples should be pooled; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you know at any point in that two-year study whether there were individual, not-pooled samples that were sent to Monsanto for analysis? A. I do not recall. Y*\ r*. sv % a C. i flfl . 9*^6 10^0 Phi STLCOPCB4030205 57 9 1 --2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. The second paragraph refers to maintaining some of the animals from the three generation rat study on Aroclor-free diets for thirty days. I presume that means after the end of the study? A. Correct. Q. And then submitting the tissues for analysis to be compared with tissues from animals who were sacrificed without a thirty -day clearing period. Is that the gist of what is described in paragraph 2? A. Yes. Q. And what is the purpose of that comparison? A. This is to determine if the animal can clear itself of the pcb's or to what extent it can clear itself of pcb's. Q. To determine a half life or something of that nature? A. - That term was used. It is to determine how long the pcb's stay within the animal after the exposure is stopped. Q. Okay. Do you recall what the results of that Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030206 580 L-J 1~.- comparison were? 2 A. No, I don't. 3 Q. Paragraph 3 refers to the same sort of 4 clearing period of thirty days in connection with 5 the dog study. And was the same kind of 6 comparison done? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In connection with the dog study? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. The samples, the tissue samples from the 11 dog study, were also to be pooled? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Paragraph 4 refers to an effort to 14 determine whether the pcb material was transferred 15 across the placenta in connection with the rat 16 study. 17 Was an attempt made to do that? 18 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. Were you able to determine whether or not 20 that took place? 21 A. I don't remember that. I don't recall 22 the results of those analyses. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Why is that of interest, if you know? Lonaoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Cbicaoo STLCOPCB4030207 5 81 A. Whether the substance transfers across 2 the placenta? 3 There is always a general interest in the 4 transfer of chemicals through the placenta, 5 whether they be pcb's or any other. This could 6 explain in some instances the reproduction or 7 teratology or mutagenic changes that are noted. 8 It is just part of the information gathering, that 9 is important. 10 Q. One thing that might be helpful to know? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 280, which is a 13 letter dated May 17, 1971 to Elmer Wheeler from 14 Dennis Lindberg. Do you recall seeing that 15 letter ? 16 (The document above-referred to 17 was marked Bloomington Deposition 18 Exhibit No. 280 for identification.) 1 9 A. No. I do not recall seeing this. 20 Q. At this date, May of 1971, do you know 21 why a 90-day subacute dog study was being 22 scheduled? 23 A. This material was a modification of the 24 previous Aroclor 1242. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030208 Q. So you are beginning the same process with a substitute material that you had earlier done with the 1242? A. Yes. Q. That is, the 90-day study helps you home in on the appropriate dosage levels for a long-term study? A. And it also helps to determine if this material is significantly different than the predecessor material from which it was derived. Q. Okay. Was there a significant difference that you recall between 1242 and 1016? A. No. Q. Was that true throughout all of the studies that were done on 1016? A. I believe this was the study. Since there was no difference, no further studies were planned. Q. So there were never any rat or chicken studies with 1016 to your recollection? A. I don't recall any. No. Q. Take a look at Exhibit 281, which is dated May 18, 1971 from Otis Fancher to Dr. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030209 583 Kepl'inger. 2 To your knowledge, is the request in that 3 memo a request for additional tissues from the 4 chicken study or that there hadn't been early 5 tissues supplied before May of '71? 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 281 for identification.) 9 A. I would interpret this as a request for 10 tissues from studies made before the studies we 11 recently talked about, the chicken reproduction. 12 There were preliminary studies early on. 13 Q. So they are going back to the early 14 studies to look at those tissues? 15 A. To early '68, '69 era. 16 Q. Do you know if samples had been retained 17 so that that request could become applied with? 18 A. I understand, yes, I understand they 19 were. They were made available. 20 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 282, which is 21 dated May 3, 1971 from Dr. Keplinger to DHJ, 22 whoever that may be, subject Monsanto Aroclor 23 studies, IBT numbers J 8746 and J 9834, I guess. 24 This is a request for what would be a routine Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030210 interim report to be submitted to Monsanto, I take it? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 282 for identification.) A. Yes . Q. Take a look at 283, which is a memo dated June 3, 1971, from Dr. Fancher to Dr. Keplinger and others, subject visit by Mr. Wheeler, Dr. Hunt of Monsanto. Again I will ask you if you that meeting that is referred to is one of the regular periodic meetings to review the progress of these pcb studies? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 283 for identification.) A. Yes . Q. Exhibit 284 is a memo dated June 11, 1971 from Dr,, Keplinger to DHJ re Monsanto study J 9884 , Aroclor 5432. That 5432, is that a pcb product? (The document above-referred to Lonqoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030211 5 85 1 ' was marked Bloomington Deposition 2 Exhibit No. 284 for identification.) 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. 5 What kind of material is that, just for 6 curiousity sake? 7 A. It is a chlorinated triphenyl. 8 Q. Exhibit 285 is a memo dated June 11, 1971 9 from Dr. Keplinger to Paul Wright, subject 10 Monsanto 90-day studies on Aroclor 1221, 1016, 11 5432 and 5442, and I will ask you if you have seen 12 tha t ? 13 (The document above-referred to 14 was marked Bloomington Deposition 15 Exhibit No. 285 for identification.) 16 A. No, I have not. 17 Q. According to that memo, dosage levels 18 were to be changed in each of the studies 19 described on there. 20 The 1 part per million group was changed 21 to 30 parts per million, the 10 part per million 22 group was changed to 300 parts per million and the 23 100 parts per million group no change. 24 Do you recall ever discussing dosage Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030212 586 changes of that nature with anybody? 2 A. NO. 3 Q. Do you have any idea why such a change 4 would be made in a 90-day study? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Is it possible because there is no effect 7 being seen at the 100 parts per million level? 8 A. Yes. It is possible. 9 Q. But the better practice would be to start 10 over with those different dosage levels? 11 A. You can't call it a 90-day study at 1 12 part per million, if you are going to change the 13 dose to 300. 14 Q. But if you change the dose to 300 and 15 feed for 90 days after having fed at 1 part per 16 million for some period every time, can you call 17 it a 90-day study at 300 parts per million? 18 A. It is made less clear because of the 19 initial exposure. 20 Q. Would it be correct that the better 21 practice would be to start a new group of animals 22 at the second set of dosage levels? 23 A. That would be my opinion, yes. 2 4 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030213 286 is a memo from Dr. Keplinger to jwg dated June 16, 1971, subject Monsanto Aroclor dynamic fish studies. And it refers to a visit that you were going to make to some researchers in Missourri. Do you recall that visit? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition . Exhibit No. 286 for identification.) A. I recall the visit. But they are mistaken in associating the University of Missouri It is a federal laboratory located in the same city that the university is located. Q. Okay. What is involved in what is described in Exhibit 286 as a dynamic fish study? A. These are test facilities in which the test water flows through troughs and the fish are exposed to that water that flows through, and the water contains the material being tested. As distinguished from aquarium, where the water is stagnant and the chemicals are introduced into this pool of water and it doesn't move. Q. Okay. rnnno>* i n 7 *3 6 10*30 PM o g oc STLCOPCB4030214 588 1 One of the things that that might 2 accomplish is to overcome this problem of the 3 pcb's sticking to the sides of the tank and not 4 exposing the fish? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. 7 To your knowledge, the dynamic fish 8 studies that are described as being put off in . 9 that memorandum never were completed by Industrial 10 Bio-Test? 11 A. That's right. 12 Q. Okay. 13 Was that the type of study that had been 14 done at the federal laboratory in Missouri, the 15 dynamic type? 16 A. Yes. Either had been done or was 17 scheduled to be performed. 18 Q. Okay. 19 Exhibit 287 is a letter dated June 28, 20 1971 from Dr. Keplinger to Mr. Wheeler. 21 I will ask you if you have seen that 22 letter ? 23 24 (The document above-referred to Lonqoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030215 was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 287 for identification.) A. I have not seen this letter. Q. Do the dosage changes that are referred to in 287 match up with the levels that were described in the memo that we marked as 285? A. They do match. Q. So as of the date that that letter was . received by Dr. Wheeler, sometime after June 28, he was aware that the doses were changed rather than new studies being initiated at different doses? A. He received notice. Yes. Q. Right. He may have known about it before he received the letter, I take it? A. Yes. HR. FRUEHWALD: We are assuming in this question that this feeding had started. I am not sure that is clear from these documents that they actually started this feeding before this change of dosage. But -HR. HC CONNELL: . I don't know the answer to that. I.nnciftr i t. Col i np 276 1030 fh i no STLCOPCB4030216 590 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: Document 280 indicates that 2 the feeding should start in May. 3 MR. MC CONNELL: The sequence of the documents 4 suggest to me that at least for a period of days 5 or a week or two the feeding had started, but it 6 doesn't really come right out and say that. 7 Q. You don't know the answer to that one way 8 or the other, do you, Mr. Papageorge? 9 A. Only from what is inferred here. 10 Q. You didn't participate in whatever 11 discussions were had around that time? 12 A. Not until I saw these documents, I was 13 not aware of a change in the dosage. 14 Q. Okay. 15 Exhibit 288 is a letter dated June 28, 16 1971 from Dr, Keplinger to Mr. Wheeler. 17 I will ask you if you have ever seen 18 that? 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 288 for identification.) 22 A. This is a duplicate of the previous 23 exhibit? No. 24 Q. I don't think so. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030217 591 1 -A. NO. No. 2 Q. It is the samedate, but I think it 3 refers to chickens, whereasthe other one is about 4 the dogs. 5 A. It is not specific, except byreference 6 to a previous study thechickens are involved. 7 Q. Right. 8 The reference to hatchability and 9 survival of chicks? 10 A. Refers to another study . The implication 11 is that these studies were also referring to 12 chicks. I had not seen this before. 13 Q. Okay. 14 And 287, going back to that for a minute, 15 the reference in the last paragraph, the dog study 16 which was 5432, will need to be extended to allow 17 a full ninety days of feeding at 300 parts per 18 million , suggests that at least with respect to 19 that compound, feeding at some other level had 20 already started? 21 A. Yes. 22' Q. Okay. 23 The studies that are referred to in 24 Exhibit 288, which we take from the context to be Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030218 chicken studies, again is a refinement of the earlier studies by reducing the dosage levels, to try and home in on exactly where the no-effect level would occur? is that correct? A. It appears to be, yes. Q. Okay. Exhibit 289 is a four-page document dated July 31, 1971 entitled memorandum for the record to Dr. Leo Friedman from H. Blumenthal. And I will ask you if you have seen that document before today? (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 289 for identification.) A. I have reviewed the exhibit. Q. Have you ever seen it before today? A. I have not. Q. Were you were you aware of the Food and Drug Administration's interest in the question of pcb's around this time, 1971? A. Yes. Q. And the reason for that was, among other things, that they were concerned about pcb contamination of various types of food? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030219 5 93 1. A. Yes. 2 Q. And were you aware that the FDA was 3 considering establishing acceptable levels of the 4 presence of pcb in various types of food? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What was your understanding of the 7 various mechanisms by which there might come to be 8 pcb in food? 9 We have already talked about one in 10 connection with Yu Sho. 11 A. It was found in dairy products, milk. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. It was found in cereals. Because of the 14 package, the paperboard, the ink on the package. 15 And about this time I believe it showed up in 16 poultry. I believe that is about when it 17 happened. Where a poultry feed ingredient was 18 contaminated with pcb's. 19 I don't recall any other known 20 contaminations to FDA in the middle of 1971. 21 Q. Do you recall whether it was ever determined what the source was in the milk? A. Yes. There was a coating applied to concrete silos to inhibit the degradation of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030220 concrete by the acid formed in the sillage Q. And that had pcb's in it? A. And the coating had pcb's as an ingredient and found its way into the sillage and into the cattle and into the milk. Q. All of the uses that you have described that led to these various food contamination episodes either had been or were in the process of being discontinued by Monsanto at the time of this memo; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever determine what the source of the contamination in.the poultry feed was? Was that some kind of a heat-transfer problem? A. This was the heat transfer of this ingredient that was used in preparing poultry feed. Q. Having reviewed Exhibit 289, as you sit here today is your understanding of the results as they existed in July of 1971 of the various Industrial Bio-Test studies the same as the understanding that is reflected in this exhibit? A. Yes. This information is very similar to Lonooria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaqo STLCOPCB4030221 595 I___ I 1-- the 'summaries that I was receiving. It reflects 2 the summaries. 3 Q. So the information the FDA had was the 4 same, essentially/ as the information you had, as 5 of July 1971? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. It says on page 3 at the bottom of this 8 memo, quoting now from the memo: . 9 "Our conclusions at 10 this time are that pending 11 completion of studies in 12 progress 13 I take it this refers at least in part t< 14 the Industrial Bio-Test studies? 1 5 A. Yes. 16 Q. Continuing: 17 we are in a poor 18 position to recommend 1 9 guideline levels for 20 contamination. This lack of 21 complete toxicologic data when 22 coupled with our essential 23 lack of information about 24 "background levels of cr is Caldstins 23fi 1 (12 0 STLCOPCB4030222 5 96 1 contamination in foodstuffs in 2 general, makes it all the more 3 imperative that we resist 4 setting guidelines on anything 5 more than a case-by-case basis 6 at this time." 7 Did the PDA or any individual at the FDA 8 ever convey the essence of the conclusion of this 9 memo that I just read to you? 10 A. Yes. Dr. Blumenthal conveyed those 11 thoughts to Dr. Kelly and Hr. Wheeler. 12 Q. Okay. 13 And they conveyed that back to you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was that at or about the July 30, 1971 16 date of that memo? 17 A. Yes. 18 MR. MC CONNELL; It is a quarter of. 19 (Whereupon, the deposition was 20 continued to October 16, 1986 21 at 8:30 o'clock a.m.) 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030223 5 97 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, 5 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs. 7 ) Civ No. ) IP 83-9-C ) 8 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, ) 10 ) DsisDdantSj.1 11 12 13 The continued deposition of W. B. PAPAGEORGE, 14 called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant 1 5 to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United 17 States District Courts, pertaining to the taking 18 of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken 19 before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public ana 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the 21 County of Cook and State of Illinois, at Three 22 First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, on 23 October 16, 1986, at the hour of 8:30 o'clock a.n. 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030224 1 1___ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 98 APPEARANCES : Mr. Joseph V. Karaganis and Mr. James G. McConnell Bell, Boyd & Lloyd Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 . -and- Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner Law Offices of Geoffrey M. One City Centre Suite 100 Bloomington, Indiana 47401 Grodner appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; Mr. Michael R, Fruehwald Barnes & Thornburg 1313 Merchants Bank Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 appeared on behalf of Defendant Monsanto Company. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030225 599 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: 3 W. B. PAPAGEORGE 4 Direct Examination 5 By Mr. Me Connell 601 By Mr. Karaganis 632 6 By Mr. Me Connell 701 -747 7 exhibits 8 9 BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. 10 11 290 12 291 292 13 293 294 14 295 296 1 5 297 298 16 299 300 17 301 302 18 303 304 19 305 306 20 308 309 and 310 21 311 312 22 313 314 23 315 316 24 P33S 601 602 603 605 609 610 612 614 616 616 617 619 622 624 6 27 703 707 711 716 717 718 725 726 728 730 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030226 600 1 exhibits 2 BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. (Continued) 3 317 318 4 319 320 5 321 322 through 328 6 329 330 7 331 332 8 333 334 9 335 336 10 337 33 8 11 339 340 12 3 41 342 13 343 3 44 14 731 73 2 733 73 4 736 737 776 77 8 77 8 7 81 7 86 800 804 80 5 80 8 811 812 820 846 854 855 856 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030227 601 1 MR. MC CONNELL: Back on the record. 2 Let the record show this is once again 3 the continuation of the deposition of Mr. 4 Papageorge. 5 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 6 having been previously duly sworn, 7 was examined and testified as follows: 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 9 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 10 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I am going to show you a 11 one-page memo that has been marked as Exhibit 290 12 which is dated September 22, 1971 from K. 13 Mastalski to Moreno Keplinger, subject J 9884, 14 Monsanto Aroclor, 5432 final report, which appears 15 to me to be an animal study involving the product 16 5432, which I guess as we discussed before is not 17 a pcb product; is that correct? 1 8 (The document above-referred to 1 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 290 for identification.) 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Exhibit 291 is a one-page report dated 24 September 29, 1971, unsigned, subject IBT number r - Longoria & Go Ids tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030228 502 1 7298, Monsanto. 2 I will ask you if you recall ever having 3 seen that document? 4 (The document a bove-referred to 5 was marked Bloomington Deposition 6 Exhibit No. 291 for identification.) 7 A. No. This is the first time I have seen 8 this. 9 Q. While you read that, let me see the 10 number on the bottom. It occurs to me that there 11 may be a second page, 8267. While you are reading 12 it, I am going to go look. 13 (Discussion had off the record.) 14 It appears that there may be in fact two 1 5 more pages, so let's withdraw this for the time 16 being because I can't find 68 or 69. I think they 17 will be page 2 and 3 of this report. So we will 18 put it on hold for the time being. 19 Exhibit 292 is a letter dated September 20 30, 1971 from Paul Wright who was then at 21 Industrial Bio-Test to George Levinskas at 22 Monsanto. And I will ask if you have seen that 23 before? 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030229 60 3 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 292 for identification.) 4 A. I have not seen this before. 5 Q. Were you ever advised either verbally or 6 by means of the summary reports that you received 7 from time to time either from Industrial Bio-Test 8 or from Mr. Wheeler of the findings of renal 9 caudal ectopia in the rat teratology study? 10 A. No, I was not. 11 Q. In fact, you testified yesterday you 12 didn't have any specific recollection of the rat 13 teratology study? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. Okay. 16 In that letter, there is apparently a 17 distinction made between what the author, Mr. 1 8 Wright, refers to as specific birth defects and 19 what he refers to as manifestation of general 20 toxicity. 21 Do you understand what the difference is 22 between those two things? 23 A. I think I do. 24 Q. 0 k a y, ___ Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030230 604 1 In the animal studies that were done on 2 pcb's, were you interested in both kinds of 3 effects, general toxicity and specific birth 4 defects, if any? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. 7 So whether renal caudal ectopia falls 8 into one category or the other, it is a 9 significant finding as far as you are concerned? 10 A. I would have to rely on the experts to 11 determine significance. 12 Q. Let me -- as soon as that passed my lips, 13 I realized I should have phrased it differently. 14 It was a finding of concern, whether it 15 was statistically significant or not would depend 16 on the analysis by the experts? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. 19 Do you recall whether that particular 20 finding was ever passed on by you to customers or 21 the government; by you, I mean by Mr. Papageorge? 22 A. No. I was not aware of this finding and, 23 therefore, I did not discuss it with anyone. 24 0. Okay. Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030231 605 1 Exhibit 293 is a report by a Dr. Ward 2 Richter, R-i-c-h-t-e-r, dated October 10, 1971 3 consisting of one page, subject IBT 7298 Monsanto. 4 I will ask you if you have ever seen that 5 before? 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 293 for identification.) 9 A. I have not seen this before. 10 Q. Were you aware that the original 11 pathological conclusions in the Industrial 12 Bio-Test studies on the rat tissues were subject 13 to later review by different pathologists? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. 16 And that was part of the general 17 controversy that we discussed yesterday about how 1 8 to interpret the pathological findings that were 19 being seen on the slides? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was Dr. Richter to your knowledge one of 22 those pathologists that participated in reviewing 23 the slides at some point in the course of that 24 review? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030232 606 1 A. I don't recall Dr. Richter. He could 2 well have been, but I just don't recall. 3 Q. The letter refers, or the report. Exhibit 4 293, refers to lesions in the liver that Dr. 5 Richter says some other pathologist might call, 6 might label them hepatoma. 7 Do you see that reference, another 8 pathologist might label them hepatoma? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is that the subject or was that one of 11 the principal subjects of the controversy we 12 discussed in a general way yesterday? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Whether the liver lesions that were there 15 were cancerous or not cancerous? 16 A. Yes. 17 ^ Q. Okay. 1 8 And I believe your testimony yesterday 19 was that that to this day has never been resolved 20 in the community of pathologists? 21 A. To my knowledge it hasn't, yes. 22 Q. To your knowledge, okay. 23 As I understand your earlier testimony, 24 however, the studies were designed to -- the rat Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030233 507 1 studies, in particular, were designed to find any 2 effects on the animals that were related to the 3 pcb's, whether or not it was a cancer-producing 4 effect ? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So the significant liver lesions that are 9 described in Exhibit 293 should be reported in the 10 report of the study even though the pathologist 11 concludes that they are not cancerous? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 In the reports from Monsanto that you 15 passed along to pcb customers, did those reports 16 disclose the pathological findings of liver 17 lesions related to the feeding of pcb's in the 1 8 r a ts ? 19 A. I don't recall the exact words. But they 20 did disclose, as best I recall, that at the higher 21 levels of exposure, there was and effect noted on 22 the livers. I recall the words enlarged livers 23 and cell changes. These kinds of words. The 24 exact words I do not recall. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030234 5oa 1 Q. Did Monsanto's reports to its customers 2 go on to conclude that the lesions were not 3 cancerous ? 4 A. I don't believe that conclusion was 5 expressed. I don't recall it. 6 Q. Did you ever see an Industrial Bio-Test 7 report on the rat studies that concluded that the 8 Aroclors studied were not carcinogenic? 9 A. I believe I recall a summary report in 10 about 1975 that concluded that. 11 Q. Okay. 12 By the way. Exhibit 293 concludes that 13 whatever else Dr. Richter saw in the rats outside 1 4 the liver was not the result of the pcb exposure; 15 is that a fair paraphrase of the last portion of 16 that report? 17 A. There is no -1 8 Q. I think you misunderstood my question. 19 His conclusion is that the other disease 20 processes that he saw outside the liver in the 21 rats were the result of spontaneous disease rather 22 than pcb exposure? 23 A. That is what it says, yes. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030235 60 9 1 Exhibit 294 is a letter dated October 13, 2 1971 from Mr. Wheeler to Dr. Calandra. And I will 3 ask you if you have seen that? 4 (The document above-referred to 5 v/as marked Bloomington Deposition 6 Exhibit No. 294 for identification.) 7 A. I have not -- yes, I am shown as 8 receiving a copy. I don't recall it. 9 Q. Okay. 10 Do you recall the dominant lethal mouse 11 studies which are referred to in that letter. 12 Exhibit 294? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What is the purpose of a dominant lethal 15 mouse study as you understand? 16 A. It's my understanding it has something 17 some do with mutagenicity. 1 8 Q. Whether the Aroclors studied caused 19 mutations in the mouse chains? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Were those dominant lethal mouse studies 22 completed to your knowledge? 23 A. To my knowledge, they were, yes. 24 Q. Do you recall what the results were? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030236 610 1 A. I believe the results indicated no 2 mutagenic activity. 3 Q. Exhibit 295 is a two-page memo daced 4 October 13, 1971 to the file from Dr. Levinskas, 5 subject of phone conversation with Dr. Renate 6 Kimbrough. 7 I will ask you if you have seen that memo 8 before? 9 (The document above-referred to 10 was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 295 for identification.) 12 A. I do not recall seeing this memorandum. 13 Q. Do you recall ever discussing with anyone 14 in the Monsanto medical department the question of 15 bladder tumors in the rats in the Industrial 16 Bio-Test study? 17 A. No. 1 8 Q. In the course of following what other 19 researchers were finding in their studies of 20 pcb's, did you run across this possible finding of 21 bladder tumors by Dr. Kimbrough? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you know how that came to Monsanto's 24 attention? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030237 6 11 1 A. Only from inferring from what I read 2 here. 3 Q. This is the first you have heard about 4 the bladder tumor -- I would tend to characterize 5 it as a controversy, but maybe bladder tumor 6 discussions -- is your reading this document? 7 A. That is the first. 8 Q. Okay. 9 You were aware, were you not, during this 10 period of time, 1970 and '71, that Dr. Kimbrough 11 was also studying the effects of pcb's on various 12 animal species? 13 A. I was aware she was conducting studies 14 with rats. I don't know about other species. 1 5 Q. And you were aware that she reported a 16 finding of cancer in her female rats as a result 17 of exposure to Aroclors? 18 A. Cancer in the liver. Yes. 19 Q. Was that at this time in 1970, 1971, was 20 the liver cancer the only positive finding by Dr. 21 Kimbrough that you were aware of? 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me interpose. You didn't 23 establish a foundation that this liver cancer 24 finding was in ' 71. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030238 612 1 My recollection is it is much later than 2 '71. Your question assumes that the liver cancer 3 findings were back in '71. 4 MR, MC CONNELL: Okay. Let me ask a question 5 a different way. 6 Q. Have you ever before you saw this Exhibit 7 295 today been aware of any other positive 8 findings reported by Dr. Kimbrough other than the 9 liver cancer? 10 A. I was aware she was finding cell changes 11 in liver. 12 Q. Were you aware that she was finding any 13 changes in any organs other than the liver? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Exhibit 296 is a memo dated October 19, 17 1971 from Dr. Keplinger to DHJ. I will ask you to 1 8 take a look at that. 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 296 for identification.) 22 The last part of Exhibit 296 refers to 23 demyelination studies to be done by Industrial 24 Bio-Test on pcb's. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030239 613 1 Do you know whether that was ever done? 2 A. I am aware of demye1ination studies. I 3 don't vividly recall them associated with this 4 specific group of materials. 5 Q. Okay. 6 What materials do you recall them being 7 associated with, if any? 8 A. Nothing specific. Aroclors as a broad 9 category. But I don't recall just which Aroclors. 10 Q. Pcb Aroclors? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. As well as some of the terpheny1-type 14 Aroclors, yes. 15 Q. Demye1ination is a phenomenon that 16 involves the nervous system, is it not? 17 A. That is my understanding. 1 8 Q. Do you know what the results of those 1 9 demyelination studies were? 20 A. I have the overall understanding that 21 nothing of significance was observed. 22 Q. What sort of animals were those performed 23 on, if you recall? 24 A. Chickens. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030240 6 14 1 Q. Okay. 2 Exhibit 297 is a Monsanto memorandum to 3 R. E. Keller from E. S. Tucker dated October 25, 4 1971, consisting of five pages. 5 I will ask you if you have seen that 6 before? 7 (The document above-referred to 8 was marked Bloomington Deposition 9 Exhibit No. 297 for identification.) 10 A. I recall this memo, yes. 11 Q. Is this an example of the missing or 12 unaccounted for sample situation that we talked 13 about in a general way yesterday? 14 A. There is a reference to missing samples 1 5 in this document. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. 17 Do you know if the situation concerning 18 the missing samples reflected in 297 was ever 19 resolved to Dr. Tucker's satisfaction? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was it resolved? 22 A. The best I can tell, there was -- I don't 23 recall if the samples were found or if alternate 24 samples were obtained. But the need for Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030241 515 1 information was satisfied somehow. 2 Q. Did the question of missing samples 3 raise -- did the fact of missing samples, at least 4 as of the date of that memo, raise questions in 5 your mind as to the compentency of the researchers 6 at Industrial Bio-Test? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did anyone else at Monsanto discuss such 9 questions they had in their minds with you as a 10 result of the missing samples? 11 A. No. . 12 Q. Did anyone at Monsanto discuss such 13 questions they had with you as a result of any 14 other thing that occurred in the course of dealing 15 with Industrial Bio-Test over the years? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. 1 8 Were you part of any meetings that took 19 place with Industrial Bio-Test to discuss the 20 samples that are referred to as missing in Exhibit 21 297? 22 A. I don't recall attending such a meeting. 23 Q. Okay. 24 How were the samples shipped to your Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030242 5 16 1 knowledge from Industrial Bio-Test to Dr. Tucker? 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. Exhibit 298 is a letter from Elmer 4 Wheeler to Dr. Keplinger dated October 28, 1971. 5 And I will ask you if you recall ever seeing a 6 copy of that? 7 (The document above-referred to 8 was marked Bloomington Deposition 9 Exhibit No. 298 for identification.) 10 A, No, I do not recall ever seeing this. 11 Q. Do you know whether Exhibit 297 is the 12 memo that is referred to in 298 as being attached? 13 A. No, I do not. 14 Q. Exhibit 299 is a letter dated November 15 12, 1971 from J. C. Calandra to Elmer Wheeler. I 16 will ask you if you have ever seen that document 17 before? 1 8 (The document above-referred to 19 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 299 for identification.) 21 A. I don't recall seeing this document. 22 Q. Does Exhibit 299 suggest to you that the 23 report of the two-year chronic oral toxicity study 24 in rats was mailed from Industrial Bio-Test to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030243 6 17 1 Monsanto? 2 A. I don't know if it is mailed or 3 personally delivered. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Was it customary in Monsanto's dealings 6 with Industrial Bio-Test for them to mail reports 7 to Monsanto? 8 A. That is the more frequent method, yes. 9 Q. Okay. 10 Personal delivery would take place if the 11 report was issued at or near a time when there was 12 a meeting scheduled for some other purpose? 13 A. Y e s . 14 Q. Okay. 15 To your knowledge, there was never a 16 meeting scheduled for the sole purpose of handing 17 over a report? 18 A. No. 1 9 Q. Exhibit 300 is a correction sheet dated 20 January 31, 1972 subject IBT C 9887 for Monsanto. 21 Do you know which study was C 9887? 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 300 for identification.) - Longoria SOoldstine 2361030 Chicane ,, 'ic.L STLCOPCB4030244 6 13 1 A. No, I don't recall. 2 Mr. FRUEHWALD: I believe this document 3 indicates that was a 90-day doing study on 10/15, 4 as the previous exhibits assign that number to 5 thatstudy. ' 6 MR. MC CONNELL: Okay. 7 Q. Do you know whether such correction 8 sheets were transmitted to Monsanto as part of the 9 documentation in connection with the Industrial 10 Bio-Test studies? 11 A. No, I do not. 12 Q. Did Monsanto keep a similar type of 13 correction sheet or record of revisions that were 14 made from one version of its reports on these 15 studies to the next? 16 A. I do not know. 17 Q. Exhibit 301 is a two-page handwritten 1 8 letter from Otis Fancher to Moreno Keplinger. The 19 handwritten part of the letter bears no date, but 20 there is a date stamp received at the top, 21 December 6, 1971, IBT. 22 I will ask you if you have ever seen that 23 document ? 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030245 61 9 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 301 for identification.) 4 A. I have not seen this document. 5 Q. Dr. Fancher was one of the principals of 6 Industrial Bio-Test, was he not? 7 A. I don't know how the use of the word 8 principal applies. He was a key employee, to my 9 k nowledge. 10 Q. Wasn't he also a director of the company? 11 A. That I don't know. 12 Q. Okay. 13 He was one of the researchers who was 14 involved in the performance of the pcb animal 15 studies for Monsanto? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And Dr. Keplinger was another? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Do you know whether what Dr. Fancher 21 describes as discrepancies in the summary in the 22 first paragraph of his letter were ever corrected? 23 A. I do not know. 24 Q. 7300 refers to the chicken study, does it Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic^ao STLCOPCB4030246 5 20 1 not ? 2 A. I don't remember. 3 Q. If you recall. 4 MR . FRUEHWALD: It appears to be a chicken 5 reproduction study. 6 MR. MC CONNELL: Okay. 7 Q. On the second page of Exhibit 301 there 8 is a reference to lymphomatasia, which as I 9 understand it is another name for the Marek's 10 disease that we talked about yesterday, do you 11 recall that? 1 2 A. No, I don't. 13 Q. Okay. 14 Did you ever have occasion to discuss 15 with Dr . Fancher the statement and I will read it 16 into the record from the bottom of the first page 17 and the top of the second page of Exhibit 301 and 18 I quote 19 "This whole study 20 mortality, and anarexia organ 21 changes, et cetera, was 22 undoubtedly complicated by the 23 lymphomatasia which was 24 rampant throughout the colony Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030247 6 21 1 "during this study. This fact 2 is not mentioned in the 3 report. Perhaps it should be 4 mentioned in the paper but I 5. don't know how to do it 6 without stating that the study 7 was conducted using sick 8 animals." 9 Did you ever discuss that with Dr. 10 Fancher? 11 A. No. 12 Q. To your knowledge, was there ever a 13 version of any report on the chicken reproduction 14 study issued either by Industrial Bio-Test or by 15 Monsanto that reflected the fact that the chickens 16 were sick with this lymphmatasia or Marek's 17 disease? 1 8 A. Not any report that I recall seeing. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Or reading. 21 Q. And I believe you testified yesterday 22 that you were not aware of that problem until I 23 showed you the memos on the Marek's disease? 24 A. That is correct. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030248 522 1 Q. If you had been aware of it in 1971, 2 would you have shared that information with your 3 customers who were receiving these progress 4 reports on these studies? 5 A. Very likely. Yes. 6 Q. I take it that is because you feel it 7 might have affected the weight they gave to the 8 conclusions of the study as it was reported? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Exhibit 302 is a letter from Dr. 11 Levinskas to Dr. Keplinger dated December 6, 1971. 12 I will ask if you recall seeing that 13 letter? 14 (The document above-referred to 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit No. 302 for identification.) 17 A. I do not recall seeing this letter. 1 8 Q. Were you aware in 1971 that Dr. Levinskas 19 and others from Monsanto were going to meet with 20 Dr. Kimbrough to discuss her rat research on 21 pcb's ? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 But you weren't aware that one of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030249 5 23 1 specific subjects was bladder tumors in the rats? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. What was your understanding of the 4 subject of this discussion? 5 A. Liver damage was the subject. 6 Q. Did Dr. Levinskas discuss with you or did 7 you become aware in late 1971 or e*arly 1 97 2 that 8 Dr. Kimbrough had concluded in her own mind that 9 pcb's were carcinogenic in the rats? 10 A. I don't know that she concluded. I 11 sensed that she was suspicious. 12 Q. Was it Dr. Levinskas' job on the basis of 13 the Industrial Bio-Test studies to talk her out of 14 that suspicion? 15 A. No. That is not my understanding. No. 16 Q. What was the purpose of those meetings? 17 A. To arrive at a consensus, if possible, 18 regarding the interpretation of the observations. 19 Q. Okay. 20 And to your knowledge, that consensus was 21 never reached up to today? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. Exhibit 303 is a two-page handwritten 24 note from Dr. Fancher to Dr. Keplinger, it is date Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030250 6 24 1 stamped December 9, 1971, subject IBT, B 7 298 , 2 which I believe is one of the rat studies. 3 I will ask you if you have ever seen that 4 document before? 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 303 for identification.) 8 A. I had not seen this document before. 9 Q. I believe you testified yesterday that as 10 far as you understood the survival rates of the 11 rats in all of the pcb studies at Industrial 12 Bio-Test were adequate for the purposes of the 13 studies? 14 A. That is my understanding, yes. 15 Q. Dr. Fancher never made you aware of his 16 disagreement with that, with the fact that the 17 survival rate was adequate? 1 8 A. That is correct. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Did he ever express to you, or did anyone 21 at Industrial Bio-Test ever express to you a 22 concern that all of the rat carcinogenic studies 23 would be judged inadequate because survival rates 24 were so low? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030251 1 A. No . 2 Q. Did anyone at Monsanto ever discus' 3 a concern with you? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did Dr. Fancher ever discuss with you his 6 statement on page 2 of Exhibit 303 that the tumor 7 incidence in females with 1254 is bothersome? 8 A. No. 9 Q. He goes on to say in the letter: 10 "If one tabulated and 11 reported these data it would 12 probably raise questions even 13 though most of these are 14 benign. " 1 5 Did you ever discuss that fact with Dr. 16 Fancher ? 17 A. No. 1 8 Q. Do you know whether in fact the tumor 19 incidence in females with 1254 was ever separately 20 tabulated and reported? 21 A. No. 22 Q. You don't know or it wasn't? 23 A. I do not know. 24 Q. Okay . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030252 5 26 1 Did Dr. Fancher ever discuss with you any 2 questions he had in his mind about the conclusion 3 reported by Industrial Bio-Test that these tumors 4 are considered normal for a random population of 5 rats this age? ' 6 A. He did not. 7 Q. Did anyone at Monsanto ever discuss with 8 you any questions they might have had about 9 whether that was a valid conclusion? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you know whether copies of these 12 handwritten letters from Dr. Fancher to Dr. 13 Keplinger would have ordinarily been supplied to 14 Monsanto with the back-up materials supporting the 15 Bio-Test reports on these studies? 16 A. I do not know. 17 Q. Do you know whether they would have been 18 available to the Monsanto personnel during their 1 9 inspections or reviews of the files at Industrial 20 Bio-Test? 21 A. I do not know. 22 Q. Did Dr. Fancher retire at some time 23 during the course of your work as the pcb 24 coordinator at Monsanto? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030253 6 27 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you recall about when that was? 3 A. No. Not really. Sometime between '71 4 and '75 is as close as I can recall. 5 Q. Exhibit 304 is a one-page letter dated 6 December 15, 1971 from Dr. Fancher to somebody 7 named Don. 8 Do you know anybody named Don at 9 Industrial Bio-Test? 10 (The document above-referred to 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 304 for identification.) 13 A. Yes. I was reminded that Don Gordon is 14 listed on Exhibit 302. 15 Q. That would be Dr. Donovan Gordon? 16 A. I have never heard Donovan Gordon before. 17 Q. Was he an animal pathologist of some 1 8 sort, do you recall? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I will ask you if you have ever seen 21 Exhibit 304 before today? 22 A. I have not seen this document before. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Were you aware of the general practice :: ,, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 C hic a -c STLCOPCB4030254 623 1 Industrial Bio-Test for Dr. Fancher to review the 2 reports of these studies before they were 3 released? 4 A. No. I was not aware. 5 Q. Did Dr. Fancher sign some or all of the 6 Industrial Bio-Test reports that you saw? 7 A. I don't recall. 8 Q. Presumably the senior research scientist 9 at Industrial Bio-Test who signed those reports 10 would review not only the reports but the back-up 11 raw data before signing the reports. 12 Do you know whether that was their 13 practice? 14 A. I do not know. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Would you have expected that they did 17 that before signing the reports? 18 A. Not necessarily. 19 Q. Would you have expected that Mr. Wheeler, 20 before he signed the summaries of the Industrial 21 Bio-Test reports that were sent out on Monsanto 22 letterhead, reviewed not only the Industrial 23 Bio-Test report but at least spot checked the 24 underlying data? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030255 6 29 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. 3 And was that your understanding based on 4 the fact that he told you that? 5 A. I don't recall him specifically telling 6 me this. 7 It is the impression I had from the 8 numerous discussions regarding summaries, status. 9 I was of the impression that he had opportunity to 10 see some of the data as these summaries were 11 prepared. 1 2 Q. On occasion when he would come to 13 Industrial Bio-Test for meetings, he would at 14 least have the opportunity to go through the raw 15 data that was the subject of those studies under 16 discussion at those meetings? 17 A. Yes. * 1 8 MR. MC CONNELL: All right, I am going to let 19 Mr. Karaganis cover what he wants to do and when I 20 get back from court, we will go back to the 21 Industrial Bio-Test documents. 22 This is a good time to take a five minute 23 break, if you need to do that. 24 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030256 630 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Okay. " 2 Let the record show that while Mr. 3 McConnell had to attend a motion before Judge 4 Parsons in the Federal District Court in Chicago, 5 I am going to resume my questioning in the areas 6 that I was examining Mr. Papageorge on, and that 7 Mr. McConnell will restart his examination with 8 respect to the Industrial Bio-Test materials upon 9 his return. 10 As a preliminary matter, Mike, we had 11 asked for several items during the course of Mr. 12 Papageorge's deposition and we haven't received 13 them. 14 We asked for all editions of Monsanto 15 documents entitled, "Proper handling of Aroclors 16 and their mixtures in the electrical industry;" 17 all editions of a document called, "The Aroclors 18 physical properties." I will not go through the 19 entire list, other than to say that the various 20 requests are listed in the deposition as we made 21 those requests. 22 I am wondering when we can expect copies 23 of those materials? 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: Those have a arrived at our Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030257 531 1 office. It is about a foot and a-half stack of 2 documents. I have looked through them last week. 3 There appear to be several editions of 4 each of those documents which, from all 5 appearances that I can tell, appear to be a 6 complete set of multiple revisions. Those have 7 now arrived at our offices and will be available 8 for your examination, or we can make a copy, 9 whatever you want to do. 10 MR. KARAGANIS: We specifically wanted, so 11 that we can use them for exhibit purposes, the 12 originals. 13 MR. PRUEHWALD: I know you did that. But what 14 we have is copies. 15 MR. KARAGANIS: You have copies. You don't 16 have originals? 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: That's right. I don't know 18 how many originals there are in this day and age, 1 9 Joe, but we have got have legible, clean copies 20 that have multiple editions, multiple revisions of 21 those documents. They are now available. They 22 arrived in our office last week. 23 MR. KARAGANIS: And you indicated that there 24 are also some additional documents in your office Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030258 63 2 1 that were not examined under a prior document 2 request; is that right? 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is true. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: We will schedule a day next 5 week to go down and see them. 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: Fine. 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge, during the course of your 10 earlier deposition testimony, we did not have a 11 available to us what has been now marked as 12 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 174, which is a 13 memorandum dated April 7, 1970. I note that 14 counsel, your counsel, has shown you a copy of the 15 memorandum and the attachments. 16 Are you familiar with that document? 17 A. Yes. - 1 8 I don't see -- oh, the attachment to the 19 cover letter. 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Yes, I have that. 22 Q. Now, can you tell me who delivered this 23 plan, Exhibit No. 174 is referred to as a plan for 24 managing the pcb problem; who developed it? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030259 633 1 A. It was developed by a group of Monsanto 2 individuals, and I was the author of the document. 3 Q. Who were the individuals that developed 4 the plan? 5 A. There was, as best I recall, D'r. Richard, 6 Mr. Wheeler, Dr. Keller, Mr. John. 7 1 Q. Mr. John, what is his first name? 8 A. Ed. 9 Q. J-o-h-n? 10 A. J-o-h-n. 11 Q. All right. 1 2 A. Mr. Park, attorney. 13 Q. What is Mr. Park's first name? 14 A. P-h-o-c-i-a-n, Phocian. 15 Q. P-h-o? 16 A. P-h-o-c-i-a-n. 17 Q. And his last name is Park? 1 8 A. Park. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Mr. Olson. 21 Q. Mr. Olson. 22 A. Mr. Schalk, S-c-h-a-l-k. I can't recall 23 any others. 24 Q. Now, just for purposes of recollection, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030260 634 1 Dr. Richard was with what group? 2 A. Research. 3 Q. Research. 4 Mr. Wheeler was with medical? 5 A. Medical. 6 Q. Dr. Keller was with medical? 7 A. Analytical research. 8 Q. Dr. Keller was with analytical research. 9 I am sorry, it was Kelly who was in 10 medical? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Mr. Ed John? 13 A. Public relations. 14 Q. Mr. Park was the attorney. Mr. Olson? 15 A. Marketing director. 16 Q. And Mr. Schalk? 17 A. Another marketing director. 1 8 Q. Now, what marketing director or what 19 product did Mr. Schalk market? 20 A. He had the plasticizer application of 21 pcb's. 22 Q. Now, document 174, were there meetings of 23 this group that you have identified in preparation 24 of the plan for managing the pcb problem? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030261 535 A. Yes. Q. Were there either minutes or memoranda 3 reflecting the deliberations that took place or 4 the communications that took place? 5 A. No. 6 Q. None at all? 7 A. NO. 8 Q. Was there a policy statement that said 9 don't prepare any memoranda as to what was said? 10 A. No. It is a practice. 11 Q. Just no notes were kept? 12 A. It is the option of the chairman. 13 Q. And who was the chairman of this group? 1 4 A. I was. 1 5 Q. You were the chairman of the group. 16 And you directed that no notes be kept? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you - 19 A. They all kept notes. 20 Q. They all did keep notes? 21 A. Some of them. 22 Q. Well, as you were discussing items that 23 needed to be addressed, they took notes, didn't 24 they? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030262 635 1 2-- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Some of them. Yes. MR. KARAGANIS: I would at this time specifically ask -- although I believe it is included within the prior document request -- all notes, memoranda or other documents relating to the meetings of the working group that Mr. Papageorge has described leading to the preparation of the management plan for the polychlorinated biphenyl environmental problem referenced in or contained in Bloomington Exhibit 174 . Q. When did the group first meet? A. I don't know. I wasn't assigned the coordinator job when they first started meeting. Q. Well, to your knowledge, when did they first start meeting? A. Sometime in the late sixties. '68, '69. Q. Who was the coordinator prior to you ? A. I don't know. They didn't have one. Q. Did they have a chair at all? A. No. 0. In '69, from the period '69 until the time you became a member of this committee , were Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030263 637 1 the members the same? 2 A. Pretty much so. Yes. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: My request for documents would 4 extend to from the inception of this group. 5 Q. Was there a name to the group? 6 A. No. 7 It was an informal discussion group. 8 Q. A discussion group that had as its focus 9 the management of the pcb problem; is that right? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. What specific events precipitated your 12 coming up with a management plan for the pcb 13 problem? 14 A. I don't know of any specific event that 15 precipitated the management plan. All I know is 16 that I was requested by my immediate supervisor to 17 develop such a plan. 1 8 Q. Who was your immediate supervisor? 19 A. Mr. Bergen. 20 Q. And when did he make that request? 21 A. Oh, sometime in February, March of 1970. 22 Q. Was that request made in writing? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did he provide you with any materials at Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030264 633 1 the time he asked you to develop the plan? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Specifically to the best of your 4 recollection, what did he say to you at the time 5 he made the request? 6 A. Something along the lines that now that 7 you're in your assignment, you ought to prepare a 8 plan that the two business groups involved can 9 agree to and follow in its implementation. 10 Q. Now, the two business groups being the 11 plasticizer division and the organic chemical 12 division? 13 A. No. Plasticizers business group and the 14 functional fluids business group, both in the 15 organic division. 16 Q. Now, with respect to the content of the 17 management plan, were documents, memoranda, any 18 piece of paper given to you to use in your 19 drafting of the management plan? 20 A. Yes. There were contributions from 21 virtually everybody on that panel. 22 Q. Written contributions? 23 A. Written. Some were typed, some were 24 handwritten. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030265 639 1 Q. All right. 2 A. That I used in putting together, as I 3 recall, several drafts of this document, before we 4 arrived at this final draft. 5 Q. Several drafts of what has been marked as 6 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 174? 7 A. Yes. 8 MR. KARAGANIS: Again, I would request that 9 all drafts of Exhibit 174 as well as all 10 contributions by members of the working group be 11 produced. 12 Q. Now, this working group that had been 13 meeting since '69 and was obviously meeting in the 14 spring of 1970 to prepare Bloomington Deposition 15 Exhibit 174, how long did that group continue? 16 A. That group was never officially formed or 17 officially discontinued. The members were always 1 8 available to meet as appropriate, called for by 19 any participant. 20 Through the years, some members were 21 replaced by others. For example, Mr. Olson was 22 replaced by Mr. Gossage. 23 Q. When was that? 24 A. Oh, about 1971, '72. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030266 'J \j 1 Q. Well, to your recollection, how lone, did 2 the group meet? In other words, what year did 3 they disband or no longer meet? 4 A. They never did disband. It is just that 5 the need for meetings became less frequent. 6 I can't recall when the group met as a 7 group last. It was somewhere about 1973, '72, 8 ' 73 . 9 Q. Was there any group of Monsanto employees 10 after 1972, 1973 that had a responsibility for 11 addressing the peb problems and met as a group 12 following 1973? . 13 A. There are individuals still involved with 14 the peb situation in that period '73 and on. 15 Some of those individuals would meet on 16 occasion to address specific matters that would 17 come up. I don't recall that all of them met as a 1 8 group from that point on. 19 Q. During the period that you are aware of, 20 which is from 1970 on, other than the earlier 21 drafts and contributions to Bloomington Exhibit 22 No. 174, did the group produce either drafts or 23 suggestions or final documents other than 174? 24 A. At what point in time? Longoria & Goldstine 23 6' 10 3 0 Chicago STLCOPCB4030267 641 1 Q. After 174. 2 A. I am trying to recall. I just can't 3 recall at the moment. 4 Q. Now, 174 indicates that the management 5 plan was submitted to the corporate management 6 committee, is that what it was called? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When did the corporatemanagement 9 committee approve the plan? 10 A. They did not approve this plan. 11 Q. They did not. 12 They did not approve the plan that is 13 listed in 174? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. What plan did they approve? 16 A. They approved a modification of this plan 17 which was presented at a subsequent meeting. 18 MR. KARAGANIS: Mike, can I get - 1 9 MR. PRUEHWALD: You got it. That is the next 20 meeting. You have got both the April meeting and 21 the May meeting in your documents. 22 MR. KARAGANIS: The document that I have here 23 references a May 11 - 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: Exhibit 175 is the minutes of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030268 6 42 1 April 20, 1970. 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. * 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: Which was the meeting relating 4 to Mr. Papageorge's Exhibit 174. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: Right. ' 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: Exhibit 176 is Mr. Mason's 7 presentation of the modification to the next 8 meeting, and Exhibit 177 is the CMC's approval of 9 that plan. 10 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 11 Q. Maybe we can clarify these here. 12 Exhibit 174 is a textual document 13 indicating a series of program items that would 14 lead to the accomplishment of suggested 15 objectives, isn't that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right. 18 Now, in the documents that have been 19 referred to by Mr. Fruehwald, I don't see any 20 other drafts of a written presentation. I see 21 some charts, which are -- I will just go through 22 the package. I have the entire package that was 23 given to us. 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: They have all been marked as Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030269 6 43 1 exhibits in the prior deposition. 2 MR. KARAGANIS: The 4/20 minutes, April 20 3 minutes are 175. 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: Right. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: The John Masonmemorandum of 6 May 1 is 176. And the minutes of the corporate 7 management committee of May 11 are 177. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: Correct. 9 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 10 Q. Now what I am asking is, is there a later 11 version of 174, which is a written document? 12 ' A. No. 13 Q. Did this written document 174 go to the 14 corporate management committee in any form? 1 5 A. Yes . 16 Q. In what form did it go to the corporate 17 management committee? 1 8 A. The form you see there in front of you. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Now, I continue to be confused. The 21 written document, 174 - 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- was transmitted to the corporate 24 management committee? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030270 6 44 1 A. There were copies handed out at the 2 meeting. 3 Q. At which meeting? 4 A. The April 20 meeting. 5 Q. And what occurred at the April 20 6 meeting? 7 A. The members of the CMC accepted parts of 8 that proposed plan and wanted modifications made 9 to other parts. And asked that we go back and 10 review our plan and speed up some -- particularly 11 speeding up some of the target dates that we had 12 established, to accomplish some of those things 13 that we had suggested sooner. 14 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 175, 1 5 which is the minutes of the corporate management 16 committee meeting of April 20, 1970. 17 Can you tell me where they rejected parts 1 8 of the plan? 1 9 A. Under conclusions. 20 Q. Yes. 21 A, There is reference to the committee felt 22 the division had taken major steps to resolve the 23 problem, more affirmative action must be taken. 24 Q. So that would it be fair to say that the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030271 645 1 committee felt what was outlined in Exhibit 174, 2 while being steps towards resolving the problem, 3 that additional action had to be taken? 4 A. That's right. And that is reflected 5 under conclusions of the minutes of that meeting. 6 Q. And what additional affirmative action 7 was required? 8 A. I don't know. The gist of your question, 9 it is just a more proactive stance on Monsanto's 10 part, seeking out audiences, sharing data. 11 Q. Can you tell me in the April 20 meeting, 12 did the corporate management committee approve the 13 actions that had been taken thus far? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is that reflected in the minutes? 16 A. I see that implied in the first sentence 17 under conclusions. 1 8 Q. The fact that the committee expressed the 19 opinion that the division had taken major steps 20 was a statement of approval? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And would it be fair to say that the 23 minutes reflect the opinion and judgment of the 24 management committee? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030272 6 46 1 A. Yes . 2 Q. Now, can you tell me, looking at these 3 minutes, it indicates that Mr. Springga te also 4 participated in the report. Did all of the 5 individuals shown under Exhibit 175, organic 6 division report on pcb status, were all those 7 individuals present at the meeting? 8 A. Yes. ' 9 Q. And who was Mr. Springgate? 10 A. He is the business director of the 11 plasticizers group. 12 Q. Now, was Mr. Putzel present at the 13 meeting? 14 A. He is a member of the committee. 15 Q. And Mr. Putzel was the general counsel? 16 A. Corporate general counsel. 17 Q. Corporate general counsel. And in 1 8 approving this, he was sitting in a capacity as a 19 member of the management committee, though, was he 20 not? 21 A. Yes. That is correct. 22 Q. So that the decision that was being made 23 was a management decision, was it not? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030273 1 I___ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 47 Q. Is Mr. Putzel still with the company? A. No. MR. KARAGANIS: We would make a request for the notes and records and other documents of all members of the management committee as they relate to consideration of pcb's, either at the April 20 or May meetings of the corporate management committee, or any prior or subsequent meetings. Q. Who is Mr. Eck? A. At that time Mr. Eck was the president of Monsanto and chief executive officer. Q. And Mr. Eck was also obviously a member of the management committee, was he not? A. Yes. Q. Who was Mr. Gillis? A. At that time Mr. Gillis was a vice president of the corporation. Q. With what responsibility? A. Marketing, administration. Q. Given the structure that you described in your earlier testimony, Mr. Gillis would have been one of the vice presidents responsible for a certain function. You had indicated that the divisions were below corporate management and then " Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc ^ STLCOPCB4030274 64 3 1 at the corporate management level there were vice 2 presidents in charge of given functions, isn't 3 that correct? 4 A. Yes, that's right. 5 Q. And the function of marketing would be 6 Mr. Gillis' responsibility? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And he reported directly to Mr. Eck? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. To your knowledge did Messrs. Eck, Putzel 11 or Gillis recommend actions to demonstrate the 12 affirmative program being taken? 13 I am referring to page 2 of the minutes. 14 A. I am led to believe so. I was never 15 personally told so. 16 Q. Well, who led you to believe that they 17 had made such a recommendation? 1 8 A. My supervisor, Mr. Bergen, indicated to 19 me. 20 Q. And what specifically did they recommend? 21 A. Specifically, I just don't recall the 22 specifics. 23 Q. Now, how often did the corporate 24 management committee meet? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030275 649 1 A. Monthly. 2 Q. What criteria, if any, formal or 3 informal, determined whether a given item of 4 business would be on the agenda for the corporate 5 management committee? 6 A. I do not know. 7 Q. Had you or anybody else involved with 8 pcb's to your knowledge reported to the corporate 9 management committee prior to April 20 of 1970 on 10 the pcb problem? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Who had done so? 13 A. I don't recall the individual. Someone 14 from the organic division management. 15 Q. And the nature of the reports in any 16 documents submitted would be reflected in the 17 prior minutes of the corporate management 18 committee, is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. KARAGANIS: Again, I believe we have 21 already requested it, but to the extent of any 22 additional clarification, we would like all prior 23 minutes of the corporate management committee 24 relating to pcb's and any documents prepared or Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030276 6 50 1 submitted in relationship to the corporate 2 management committee, either by persons providing 3 information to the committee or by members of the 4 committee themselves. 5 ' Q. Directing your attention to 176, Exhibit 6 176, why was Mr. Mason the person selected to make 7 the presentation on May 11? 8 A. He was selected by his supervisor, Mr. 9 Minckler. I do not know why Mr. Minckler selected 10 Mr. Mason. 11 Q. Now, neither Mr. Minckler nor Mr. Mason 12 were part of the working group on pcb's, is that 13 correct? 14 A. That is true. 1 5 Q. Then how is it that Mr. Mason and Mr. 16 Minckler were involved in making the presentation? 17 A. Three of us from the working group had 18 made arrangements to travel to Europe and we were 19 out of the country when this second meeting took 20 place. Mr. Minckler then chose Mr. Mason to make 21 the presentation. 22 Q. Now, just for the record, excuse my 23 confusion on people's roles. Mr. Minckler and Mr. 24 Mason, what were their respective roles? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030277 6 51 1 A. Mr. Minckler was the -- I don't know the 2 exact titles, but he was the managing director or 3 general manager of the organic division. 4 Reporting to him were two assistant general 5 managers, one of them was John Mason. ` 6 And reporting in to John Mason was Mr. 7 Bergen, who headed up the functional fluids 8 business group. 9 Q. Now, who briefed Mr. Mason to enable him 10 to make his presentation? 11 A. Well, I met with him just before we left 12 for Europe, but I do not know who else he talked 13 to following that discussion with me. 14 Q. Who prepared the charts that are attached 15 to Exhibit 176? 16 A. I do not know. 17 Q. Did you have any hand in preparing them? 18 A. Did I. No. 1 9 Q. Did any member of the working group have 20 any hand in preparing them? 21 A. I do not know. _ 22 Q. There is a reference in 176, there is a 23 statement, quote: 24 "The CMC gave its a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030278 O J 1 approval for us to implement 2 the plan as outlined on the 3 tv/o sheets marked present 4 plan. " 5 Can you tell me which sheets of Exhibit 6 176 are the present plan? ' 7 A. There are two sheets with the numbers at 8 the lower righthand corner, the last 4 digits 9 appear to be on one of them, 0560, and the second 10 one 0561. 11 Q. Now, 176 references the fact that a 12 progress report was required to be made around the 13 1st of August. 14 To your recollection, were there progress 15 reports made to the corporate management 16 committee? 17 A. I don't recall any reports with 18 specific -- in that area. I just don't recall. 1 9 Q. Well, was the subject of pcb's ever 20 raised with the corporate management committee 21 again? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. To your knowledge, you have no knowledge 24 as to whether the corporate management committee Longoria & Goldstine 236-1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030279 1 i___ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 53 was ever advised as to any further pcb actions? A. That is correct. Q. No one ever told you whether they had been advised or not? A. That is correct. Mr. KARAGANIS: To the extent we haven't requested them again -- and we have -- we would like any minutes of board of directors meetings, the board of directors of Monsanto, the parent company; or any meetings. I would assume the parent company would cover that. But, to the extent that pcb's were discussed at either subsidiaries or division level, where boards of directors might meet, we would ask for all minutes. Q. Just as an aside, you had indicated in the post *71 reorganization, that the divisions became named companies? A. Yes. Q. Did those companies have formal boards of directors and officers? A. No. Q. So the boards of directors of the companies would be the boards of directors of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030280 554 1 parent? '' 2 A. I'm not -- 3 Q. Were there any boards of directors of any 4 of the units of organization of Monsanto as 5 opposed to Monsanto Company? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. 8 When we speak of board of directors, we 9 are talking about Monsanto Company; is that 10 correct? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Now, as of this time, at the time of 13 April 1970, you were in charge of the pcb problem 14 for the company, were you not? 15 A. I don't know that I was in charge of the 16 problem. I was coordinating the information 17 relating to the problem. 1 8 Q. ^And coordinating the activities with 19 respect to the company, were you not? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You had a title manager of environmental 22 control and your assignment was addressing your 23 total time to the then evolving pcb issue, was it 24 not ? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030281 1 A. Correct 2 Q. Who prepared the charts that are in 3 Exhibit 176? 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. Who prepared the back-up material for the 6 charts, in terms of what the control program was 7 going to be? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. You had no hand in providing Mr. Mason or 10 Mr. Minckler any of the information used in these 11 charts? 12 A. Some of the information, for example, 13 that appears under the present plan documents we 14 just referred to came out of that report that I 15 used to make a presentation to the CMC on April 16 20, 1970. 17 Q. Now, directing your attention to the 18 Exhibit 176, slide 3, which is on page number 1 9 0543, it indicates that one of the objectives was 20 marketing biphenyls only for closed-system 21 applications where control was possible, isn't 22 that correct? 23 A. Cor rect. 24 Q. And where by control you meant control of. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaoo STLCOPCB4030282 6 56 1 release to the environment, did you not? . _ 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: You are speaking again of 4 using the term you there. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: As the corporation. 6 Q. When you said you didn't write this 7 chart. 8 But I am asking you now the question 9 where the term control is mentioned, you as a 10 representative of Monsanto are saying that 11 Monsanto meant controlling release to the 12 environment ? 13 A. You mean controlled by us, the trucking 14 firms, the railroad delivery? 15 Q. Controlled by everybody. 16 A. Everybody involved with the material can 17 control it. 18 Q. Right. 19 To prevent its release into the 20 environment; isn't that right? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Now, are you familiar with the term 23 closing the loop or closed loop? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030283 6 57 1 Q. Was it used i n your discussion? 2 A. I didn'' t use it 3 Q. Was it used i n the discussions of the 4 wor king group? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Someone other than the working group came 7 up with the term a closed loop? 8 A. It was Mr. Mason's description of the 9 system that he visualized. 10 Q. He visualized a system, did he not, where 11 pcb's would not be released into the environment 12 from manufacture,, to transportation, to use in 13 production, to recycled back to Monsanto; isn't 14 that right? - 1 5 A. When you put it that way, you are talking 16 about down to a molecule. 17 At no time in an industrial setting can 18 you say none will escape. You control the escape 19 to a level where the harm is acceptable. 20 Q. All right. 21 Controlling the escape to a minimum 22 number; isn't that right? 23 A. Some acceptable number. 24 Q. To some acceptable minimum. Would that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030284 65S 1 be fair to statement? 2 A. That would be correct. 3 Q. Well, controlling the release through 4 some kind of mechanism that closed the loop. He 5 was talking about a loop, was he not, closing the 6 loop? 7 A. Describing loop as avoiding 8 indiscriminate discharges. 9 Q. But the loop included the elements of 10 production, usage? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Discharge? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Landfilling and incineration, did it not? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And recycle back to Monsanto, did it not? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So when we talk about the loop, we are 19 talking about the entire process of manufacture, 20 distribution, use? 21 A. Use. 22 Q. Disposal and recycle, isn't that correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, there is a reference here to a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030285 659 1 target limit of 10 parts per billion, and I am now 2 referring to page 0553 of this exhibit that you 3 have it in front of you, the bar chart. 4 Who set the 10 parts per billion target 5 limit, how was that established? - 6 A. That was established be consensus opinion 7 from the research representative, the 8 manufacturing representative and the analytical 9 chemist. 10 Q. Now, representatives on your committee? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So the 10 ppb was a consensus of which 13 individuals? 14 A. Let's see, that would be I didn't mention 15 previously a Mr. Savage would have been on that 16 group. And he would represented the manufacturing 17 function. 1 8 Q. All right. 1 9 A. And Dr. Keller would represent the 20 analytical. 21 Q. There was a third? 22 A. The third would be an engineering 23 representative. At that time it was Mr. Kuntz, 24 K-u-n-t-z. Robert Kuntz. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030286 560 1 Q. And to your recollection, what was the 2 basic technology for achieving a 10 parts per 3 billion discharge limit? 4 A. Basic technology is avoidance of loss or 5 spillage. 6 Q. If you you had a stream, an effluent 7 stream in excess of 10 parts per billion, what 8 technology was suggested to achieve 10 parts per 9 billion as an effluent level? 10 A. I need a clarification of your question. 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. Does this mean that I have already 13 contaminated a waterstream? 1 4 Q. Yes. 15 A. To exceed that level? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. What technology do I use to avoid it 18 happening again or do I clean up? 19 Q. To clean up. 20 A. To clean up. Several technologies were 21 tried. Entrapment in sand beds. Adsorption on 22 carbon beds, centrifuging. Each of those helped 23 to some degree. 24 Q. Would you describe what centrifuging is? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030287 66 1 1 A. This is the exposure of a liquid to 2 high-speed rotating forces that separate the 3 heavier particles from the lighter particles. 4 Q. And the heavier particles are what, 5 settled, how do you get the heavier particles out 6 of the water stream? 7 A. They, the heavier settle and the lighter 8 float, brought about by this spinning action. 9 Q. How did you get the lighter particles out 10 of the stream? 11 A. You draw off the top of the unit where 12 the lighter particles find themselves and the 13 heavier particles are drawn off from the bottom. 14 Q. How do you dewater the liquid-phase 15 portion of the material that you draw off? 16 A. It is already -- in the case of pcb's, 17 they are heavier and they are obviously distinct 18 and different from the water layer. 1 9 Q. Were you able to get down to 10 parts per 20 billion with a centrifuge? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What additional equipment did you need tc 23 get down to 10 parts per billion? 24 A. You are assuming we got to 10 parts per Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030288 65 2 1 billion. 2 I don't know of any situation where we 3 actually reached 10 parts per billion. That was 4 the target. 5 Q. At the three plants that are mentioned 6 here, what treatment technology was ultimately 7 used? 8 A. Gravity separation. Sumps to capture 9 material that didn't leak. And that is it. 10 Q. Flow filtration? 11 A. flow filtration. 12 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 176, 13 page marked 0554. Can you tell me, are you 1 4 familiar with that chart? 15 A. I have seen it. Yes. 16 Q. Had you seen any of the charts or any of 17 the materials in Exhibits 174 through 176 at the 18 time of your prior deposition with me? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. They had been shown to you? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Directing your attention to page 0554 of 23 176, talking about the closed-loop strategy, 24 closing the loop as, Mr. Mason had referred to it. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030289 63 1 This was talking about closing the loop for 2 various customer businesses, was it not? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. It wasn't talking about closing the loop 5 for Monsanto plants; it was talking about closing 6 the loop for the various markets that you dealt 7 with; isn't that right? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Directing your attention to the hydraulic 10 fluids business, which is on 0557. 11 A. I see it. 12 Q. That was a recognition that since you 13 couldn't control the hydraulic fluids loop, that 14 you are going to phase out of the business; isn't 15 that right? 16 A. That is correct. 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: The you there, are you talking 18 about -- you said since you couldn't control it, 19 are you referring to Monsanto or are you referring 20 to the customers? 21 MR. KARAGANIS: No, I am referring to 22 Monsanto. 23 A. We had no control on any uses once it 24 leaves our plant gates. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030290 BY MR. KARAGANIS: Q. Excuse me. The recognition here was that you were getting out of -- you, Monsanto, when I use the word you, I am talking about Monsanto'-- that you were getting out of the hydraulic fluids business because you could not control its release; isn't that right? A. No. None of us involved with hydraulic fluids believed that that application could be controlled adequately, the user as well as the supplier. Q. Neither the supplier nor the user could contr ol the release, is that correct? A. That's right. Q. And that with respect to NCR, the sales to NCR, what was the decision with respect to the ability of the supplier and/or the user to control? A. There again, it was quite obvious that we could not control the ultimate disposal of the product and keep it out of the environment. Q. So, when you say we there, this is a combination of the supplier and the user? isn't - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030291 655 1 that right? 2 A. There is two types of users. There is 3 the person that makes the paper and then there is 4 the ultimate user like the bank teller. 5 Q. Yes. . 6 A. So no one involved with that material. 7 Q. No one in the loop could control the 8 disposal; isn't that right? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And as a matter of fact, as part of the 11 loop, you , being Monsanto, had a program where 12 you, Monsanto, could along with the user control 13 disposal; one of the elements was a recycle back 14 to Monsanto, was it not? 15 A. That is one of the options. But recycle 16 also implies Monsanto's customer has a recycling 17 system. 18 Q. There could be a customer recycle system 19 A. Or Monsanto 20 Q. Or Monsanto recycle system? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. All right. 23 But part of controlling the loop o r 24 closing the loop in some instances involved Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030292 666 1 Monsanto controlling the disposal and return to 2 Monsanto; isn't that right? 3 A. For a minor part of it. 4 Q. Now, as to plasticizers, your decision 5 there was that you, along with your customers, 6 could not control the disposal or release of pcb's 7 from the plasticizer market; isn't that right? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. Now, as to heat-transfer fluids and 10 transformer and capacitor dielectrics, the 11 decision there was to continue sales on the 1 2 premise that the loop could be controlled; isn't 13 that right? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. And when we say the loop could be 16 controlled, it could be controlled by a 17 combination of the seller and the manufacturer and 1 8 the user; isn't that right? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, the deadlines that are contained in 21 the program, I am looking at the second page of 22 the two pages called the present plan, that is 560 23 and 561, you established a December 31, 1970 24 deadline on the capacitor industry, did you not? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030293 6 67 1 A. Yes. That is shown. 2 Q. That deadline was to close the loop as 3 far as possible by December 31, 1970; isn't that 4 right? 5 A. That is one part of that sentence. 6 Q. As far as closing the loop goes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. The deadline was to close it as far as 9 possible by the end of 1970; is that right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And you also had another program to 12 replace 1242 with what ultimately was called 1016; 13 isn't that right? 14 A. Right. 1 5 Q. So, would it be fair to say, directing 16 your attention back to the diagram that says the 17 closed loop, that for the capacitor industry by 18 the end of 1970, you hoped to -- you being 19 Monsanto -- hoped to close the loop as far as 20 possible from the standpoint of production, usage, 21 disposal and recycle; isn't that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Now, directing your attention to the 24 period, this is now May of 1970 is when this Longoria & C-oldstine 236 1030 Chicaoo STLCOPCB4030294 66 8 1 decision was made; is that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What specifically did you do to close the 4 loop for the capacitor industry by the end of 5 1970, you being Monsanto? ' 6 A. Communication was the big activity. 7 Sharing Monsanto experiences with control with 8 customers. Offering an opportunity to our 9 customers to return unusable material to Monsanto, 10 where we would store it until the incinerator was 11 placed in service. That is all I can remember at 12 the moment. 13 Q. I am sorry. Let's go back over those. 14 One was information to customers. Two 1 5 was what? 16 A. I don't know what order I described them. 17 But another feature was offering our 1 8 customers the opportunity to ship to Monsanto 19 unusable pcb material, liquid material, for future 20 incineration. 21 Q. Well, as a matter of fact, as we 22 described the last time, sometimes it was 23 incinerated and sometimes you, Monsanto, 24 landfilled it; did you not? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030295 669 1 A. We never landfilled liquid pcb's. 2 Q. Sometimes you landfilled materials that 3 weren't suitable for incineration? isn't that 4 right? 5 A. Solid material. 6 Q. From your customers? 7 A. Not from customers, no. 8 Q. For a while you had material that you 9 took back for distillation, did you not, before 10 you had it incinerated? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. And is it your testimony that where that 13 material was not suitable for distillation, it was 14 never landfilled? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. It was stored? 17 A. That1s right. 1 8 Q. Because it was your feeling that putting 19 liquid in landfills was not an appropriate 20 disposal mechanism; is that right? 21 A. That's right. 22 MR. KARAGANIS: Off the record. 23 (Discussion had off the record.) 24 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 77. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030296 67 0 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: Those were in the first 2 deposition. I don't think I brought that. 3 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 4 MR. KARAGANIS: Let's go back on the record. 5 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 6 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 77, 7 which is a sales contract with an acceptance date 8 of June 22 , 1 970 . 9 Are you familiar with that document? 10 A. I have seen it before. 11 Q. Now, as part of the closing the loop 12 program, the contract term that is set forth 13 there, was that part of closing the loop, making 14 sure that there was a minimization of the release 15 of pcb's into the environment? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And who developed that strategy? 18 A. Which strategy are you talking about, 1 9 the --? 20 Q. The strategy of the contract terms that 21 would enable Monsanto to exercise some degree of 22 contract authority over the client's activities. 23 A. I don't know. 2 4 Q. It was somebody at Monsanto, was it not? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030297 67 1 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was it ever discussed with you? 3 A . No. 4 Q. Was it ever discussed among this working 5 group, the people addressing the pcb problem? 6 A. Always. Many times, yes. 7 Q. The use of the contract, the use of the 8 contract term? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Directing your attention specifically to 11 the language that says that Monsanto can terminate 12 the contract. I am referring now to the language, 13 quote: 14 "Buyer agrees to use 15 its best efforts to prevent 16 such products from entering 17 into the environment through 1 8 spills, leakage, use, 19 disposal, vaporization or 20 otherwise. In the event 21 seller determines that, in 22 "order to prevent 23 contamination of the 24 environment, it is necessary Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030298 67 2 1 to discontinue the sale to 2 buyer of polychlorinated 3 biphenyls for the applications 4 contemplated by buyer, seller 5 may terminate this agreement 6 at any time by giving buyer at 7 least ninety days prior 8 written notice." 9 Now, was that language ever discussed in 10 your presence? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Was that concept ever discussed in your 13 presence, the idea of the seller terminating? 14 A. No. 15 Q. This contract clause just came from 16 somebody at Monsanto, and you don't know from 17 whom? 1 8 A. That is correct. 19 MR. FRUEHWALD: As was his prior testimony 20 when you asked him those questions a couple months 21 ago. 22 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 23 Q. You are saying that the June '70 contract 24 clause was not part of the program that was Longoria & Goldstine ' 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030299 67 3 1 reflected and approved by the corporate management 2 committee? 3 A. I am not saying that. 4 Q. Was it part of the program that was 5 approved by the corporate management committee in 6 May of 1970? 7 In May of 1970, you testified that the 8 corporate management committee adopted a program 9 for controlling pcb's. Isn't that correct? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Now, was the contract clause that I have 12 shown you in Exhibit 77 part of that program? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. 15 Now, had that contract clause concept 16 ever been presented to the management committee? 17 A. No. 1 8 Q. So it was a decision by someone below the 19 management, the specific use of a contract clause? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. All right. 22 Who would that person have been? 23 A. Well, it could be any one of several 24 people. It could be Mr. Minckler, general manager Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030300 57 4 1 of the division. It could be Mr. Bergen, the 2 director of the business group, or it could be 3 let's see in 1970, it could have been Mr. Olson, 4 the director of marketing. 5 Q. Was there ever any discussion with you 6 regarding procedures for making the determination 7 as to whether the customer was preventing the 8 release of pcb's into the environment? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Directing your attention badge to 174, 11 Mr. Papageorge, in the last sentence of the last 1 2 full paragraph on page 0531 of that exhibit you, 13 Monsanto, and you as the author of this document 14 state, and I quote: 15 ' "We are deliberately 16 assuming an aggressive posture 17 and working closely with 1 8 customers, co-producers and 19 regulatory agencies to prevent 20 precipitous action." 21 What do you mean by "precipitous action"? 22 A. I am referring to action that reflects an 23 overreaction to misunderstandings, emotions and is 24 unwarranted, if compared to the facts that are Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030301 67 5 1 available. 2 Q. Was the precipitous action you were 3 concerned about a ban on the sale or use of pcb's? 4 A. The precipitous action varies with the 5 groups addressed. If a ban is considered, that, 6 of course, would affect the regulatory agencies 7 and their ability to create bans. 8 Q. Let's take the term ban. In effect, in 9 the plasticizer industry, you banned the use of 10 pcb's by refusing to sell it to the plasticizer 11 industry; isn't that right? 12 A. That is a definition of the word ban, 13 yes. 14 Q. And it is correct that you, by your 15 unilateral action, you being Monsanto, you 16 prevented the use or banned the use of pcb's in 17 the plasticizer industry by cutting off sales; 1 8 isn't that right? 1 9 A. Not really. They could still get it 20 imported or another company could start making it. 21 So it is not a true ban in that sense. 22 Q. It was a ban in the sense that nobody was 23 going to get Monsanto pcb's anymore; isn't that 24 right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030302 57 6 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Now, directing your attention to page 2 3 of the memorandum, you state, and I am 4 paraphrasing the sentence, quote, "In those uses 5 where control of spillage and disposal can be 6 rigidly exercised," the manufacture of pcb's 7 should be continued. 8 I am directing your attention to the 9 third sentence on that page. 1 0 A. I see it. 11 Q. And directing your attention to the 12 second to the last sentence, quote, "Uses of 13 Aroclors which lead to environmental contamination 14 and cannot be controlled will be discontinued." 15 Do you see that sentence? 16 A. Yes, Ido. 17 Q. So again, and you have described this 18 before, basically where the control of the 1 9 spillage and disposal can be, where it can be 20 controlled, you were going to continue the sale; 21 but where you couldn't control it, it was going to 22 be discontinued? isn't that right? 23 A. If you is a generic, applies to anybody 24 involved. That is your question, you used the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030303 67 7 1 word you. 2 Q. How would Monsanto control the disposal 3 of pcb's in the capacitor industry for a customer 4 who was engaged in independent discriminate 5 dumping of pcb's? 6 A. Monsanto can't control it. 7 Q. Would Monsanto continue sale to such a 8 person? 9 A. Yes. Under certain conditions. 10 Q. If they were dumping all their waste pcb 11 down a sewer, without taking care to collect it 12 and send it back, the liquid pcb was going down a 13 sewer, would you continue sale under those 14 circumstances? 15 A. Yes. We would be forced to, I think. I 16 am not a lawyer, so I can't tell you all the 17 ramifications of indiscriminate discontinuation of 18 sales. 19 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, I am going to ask 20 you a hypothetical question. 21 If you found that a customer of 22 dielectric pcb's instead of sending liquid pcb's 23 off for storage and/or incineration was depositing 24 those liquid pcb's into a landfill containing sink Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030304 67 8 1 holes or a gravel pit, would you continue to sell 2 pcb's to that customer under the terms of the 3 contract identified as Exhibit 77? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Even though that customer had available 6 to it storage and/or incineration? 7 A. I find it difficult to answer your 8 question because I did not have the authority 9 to -- 10 Q. I am asking you now as the official 11 corporate representative of Monsanto, Mr. 12 Papageorge, would Monsanto continue - 13 A. Representing Monsanto in what matter, 14 sir? 15 Q. In this deposition, on all matters 16 covered in this deposition. 17 Would Monsanto continue to sell to a 18 customer pcb's under the terms of Deposition 19 Exhibit 77? 20 A. I don't know. I honestly don't know the 21 answer to that. 22 Q. You don't know the answer to that? 23 A. No. I don't. 24 Q. All right. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030305 67 9 1 Mr. Papageorge, I am going to ask you to 2 assume that you have the decision-making 3 authority, whether to continue to sell to a 4 customer that you know is dumping liquid pcb's 5 into a landfill containing sink holes, instead of 6 sending them off for storage and disposal. 7 Would you continue to sell to that 8 customer under the terms of Exhibit 77? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: This is a hypothetical? 10 MR. KARAGANIS: This is a hypothetical 11 question. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: It doesn't follow the facts in 13 this case, but it is a hypothetical. Right. 14 A. I would need much more information than 15 you are able to give me in a short sentence. 16 I would need to know the true conditions 17 of that disposal site. Whether there would be any 18 migration of material. 19 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 20 Q. I am going to ask you to assume migration 21 of material. 22 A. Assume migration. 23 Then I would have to know what harm would 24 that migration create. Would it be contaminating .. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030306 5 30 1 fish? Would it be contaminating drinking water? 2 I would have to know the effects of that 3 migration. 4 Q. So, Mr. Papageorge, if you were asked to 5 testify in this case, and again I am asking, let's 6 just take Monsanto, let's forget the customers for 7 a minute; would you as manager of environmental 8 control at Monsanto continue to dispose of liquid 9 pcb's in a landfilling containing sink holes in 10 lieu of the option of storage and incineration? 11 A. . Monsanto would store and incinerate. 12 Q. It would not put it in sink holes, would 13 it, or put it in landfills containing sink holes, 14 isn't that right? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. It would not do so because that was 17 considered a risk to the environment; isn't that 18 right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, as the official representative of 21 Monsanto in this deposition, you have testified 22 you don't know what Monsanto would do if a 23 customer were dumping in a landfill with sink 24 holes; isn't that right? . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030307 6 31 1 A That is correct. 2 Q. And you personally, if you had the 3 authority to cut off a contract, cut off sales, do 4 not know whether you would cut off a contract with 5 a customer who was dumping liquid pcb's into a 6 landfill with sink holes? 7 A. It depends on the kinds of information I 8 am able to gather in a broad, very broad context 9 before I would take the action no more sales. 10 Q. All right. 11 Let me put the following hypothetical to 12 you, then. 13 Let's assume that the landfill contains 14 sink holes, is underlain by fractured limestone 15 geology, and that it is known to be leaking pcb's 16 into the groundwater. 17 Under those circumstances, would you 18 require the customer as a condition of sale to use 1 9 either storage and/or incineration in lieu of 20 dumping liquids? 21 A. I would strongly recommend that. I would 22 also I need to know is this groundwater brackish 23 water or does it have potential for use as potable 24 water. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030308 6 82 1 Q. Assume that it has potential for use as 2 potable water. Would you still continue to allow 3 the customer to take pcb's from you and dispose of 4 them in such a landfill? 5 A. Only until I have exhausted all appeals 6 to the higher management of that company. 7 Q. And after you have exhausted all appeals 8 and higher management says we are going to 9 continue dumping there, what would you do? 10 A. Then I would seriously consider 11 terminating. That is a personal opinion. 12 Q. And if again, after all appeals, the 13 customer continued to dump, would you terminate, 14 as a personal opinion? 15 A. I would. Yes. 16 Q. Would you agree as a layman, as someone 17 who is familiar with the sales relationship of 1 8 Monsanto, I am not asking for a legal opinion, I 19 am asking for as part of your program, if Monsanto 20 found that a customer was failing to prevent 21 contamination of the environment, Monsanto had the 22 right to terminate, did it not? 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am going to interpose the 24 objection and instruct the witness not to answer. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030309 6 33 1 You are asking him as a layman to give an 2 answer to a legal opinion question. He is not 3 qualified to do that and not to speak on behalf of 4 the company in that respect. 5 So I am going instruct the witness not to 6 answer and object to the question on the grounds 7 that it is asking a layman for legal opinion which 8 is beyond his capability to answer. 9 BY MR. KARAGANIS; 10 Q. Mr. Papageorge, without waiving the 11 question that has-been instructed not to answer - 12 and we will deal with that in front of the court; 13 the jurors who will be in this case will not be 14 lawyers -- when you personally sell an item of 15 goods, be it a used car or a garage sale, the role 16 of seller and buyer doesn't necessarily involve a 17 lawyer, does it? 18 A. I involve attorneys personally. 19 Q. Let's put it to you this way. I asked 20 you who would have initiated the provision that 21 says we can terminate the sale of pcb's, we being 22 Monsanto; you indicated that it came from either 23 Mr. Minckler, Mr. Bergen, or who was the third? 24 A. And Mr. Olson. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030310 6 34 1 Q. Mr. Olson. 2 A. Those were possibilities. There still 3 may be a party I didn't mention. 4 Q. None of those three gentlemen are layers, 5 is that correct? ' 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. Now, from the perspective of the seller 8 of a product, as a seller would it not be correct 9 that the non-lawyers inside Monsanto believed they 10 had the right to terminate the sale of the product 11 if the customer did not control the release into 12 the environment? 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: I interpose an objection to 14 the question and instruct the witness not to 15 answer. ' 16 Mr. Papageorge has testified he has no 17 personal knowledge of discussions with anybody in 1 8 Monsanto about this termination clause or what 19 anybody else thought about it. 20 You are asking him for pure speculation 21 about other people's ideas, and that is improper, 22 and I am going to object. 23 MR. KARAGANIS: I will ask you to produce a 24 non-lawyer in the company who had knowledge of the... Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030311 6 85 1 sales termination clause as to what they intended 2 and what they meant. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: We have already produced Mr. 4 Gossage. He is the best person we have currently 5 employed by Monsanto who dealt with this. 6 You had your opportunity to question him 7 at length and you have done so. He was the person 8 who negotiated this thing after it was initially 9 proposed. You have asked the questions of that 10 person. 11 Mr. Papageorge is not the person for 12 those questions. 13 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 14 Q. Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention 15 to the first paragraph under objectives. Were you 16 the author of the first sentence in that 17 paragraph, this is in Exhibit 174? 18 A. No. I can't recall. But someone 19 contributed that thought and I included it in the 20 write up. 21 Q. The write up then became the official 22 position of the working group, did it not? 23 It was the adopted position of the 24 working group, was it not? Longoria & Gold's tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030312 6 36 1 A, It was the recommendation of the working 2 group. 3 Q. So would it be fair to say, then, that 4 your approach to the pcb pollution problem, your 5 overall objective to the pcb pollution problem, 6 was to prevent the problem from affecting, 7 adversely affecting your return on investment 8 obj ectives? 9 A. And other things. Yes. 10 Q. And subsidiary objectives listed on page 11 2 and page 3 included offering assistance to 12 customers on reclamation, substitute products and 13 proper disposal; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. And another subsidiary objective was to 16 determine the effect of pcb's on humans; is that 17 correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And how was the effect of pcb's on humans 20 determined? 21 A. An assessment of the medical records of 22 our employees who had been exposed to these 23 materials for years and years. 24 Q. Was the effect of pcb's on humans also Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030313 6 R7 1 determined by means of animal studies? 2 A. Yes. Not so much the effect on humans, 3 but the potential effect. 4 Q. The health risk? 5 A. The risk involved, extrapolating animal 6 data which was accumulating and predicting how it 7 might affect humans. 8 Q. That is in part because if you have a 9 suspected toxin or carcinogen, it is normal 10 research practice to inject them into test animals 11 as opposed to humans; isn't that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Off the record. 14 (Discussion had off the record.) 15 Back on the record. 16 Hr. Papageorge, we talked in the last 17 deposition about plant visits that you had to the 1 8 Bloomington plant and other Westinghouse 19 facilities after the pollution control program had 20 been established by the corporate management 21 committee. 22 Do you recall those discussions? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And I believe we identified in Exhibit Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030314 6 88 1 125, do you have that, Exhibit 125, that you had 2 visited the Bloomington facility on July 22, 1970. 3 Do you recall that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And I believe at that time you had 6 inspected the Bloomington facilities with regard 7 to how they handled pcb's and made recommendations 8 regarding the clean up; is that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. I believe I have asked you this, but I 11 will ask it again. 1 2 Do you have any recollection of following 13 up with correspondence to the Bloomington plant 14 regarding the clean up? 15 A. I recall that question and I do not 16 recall whether -- I had intentions of following up 17 with correspondence. I don't recall that I did 1 8 so. 1 9 Q. Were you ever shown such correspondence 20 in preparing for this deposition? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Now, again, my recollection is that apart 23 from the July 22 meeting, you didn't have 24 recollection of any subsequent inspection of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030315 6 39 1 plant or discussion of pollution control at the 2 Bloomington plant; is that correct? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Now, I want to direct your attention to 5 the period of November 1970. I am sorry. Let's 6 go back to July. 7 The visit to the Bloomington plant in 8 July was part of a kind of a round-robin tour of 9 other Westinghouse facilities, was it not. You 10 also went to South Boston? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You made recommendations there as well; 13 is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. Do you recall making a similar 16 round-robin tour in November of 1970? 17 A. I was making plant tours throughout most 1 8 of 1970. When you say similar, are you talking 19 again back to Westinghouse? 20 Q. Back to Westinghouse, the three plants. 21 A. No. I didn't do that. 22 Q. Directing your attention to 132, Exhibit 23 132, which says Monsanto personnel associated 24 within Inerteen control are visiting Westinghouse Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030316 6 90 1 on Tuesday, November 10. They wish to tour the 2 F 30 area and see control conditions at 3 Bloomington. 4 Does that refresh your recollection with 5 respect to a visit? ' 6 A. Yes. There were other Monsanto people 7 that did go back to the Westinghouse plants. I 8 was not included in that. 9 Q. Would you mark the following document as 10 132 A. 11 (The document above-referred to 12 was marked Bloomington Deposition 13 Exhibit No. 132-A for 14 identification.) 15 For the record, Exhibit 132 A is a set of 16 handwritten notes produced by Westinghouse 17 reflecting a visit to the Bloomington facility. 18 It indicates, I apologize for the quality of the 19 text, that Mr. Papageorge and Mr. Graham and Mr. 20 Benignus visited plant on 11/10/70. I would show 21 you 132 A. 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: Where are you reading that 23 description, Joe? 24 MR. KARAGANIS: The visit? " Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ,, STLCOPCB4030317 6 91 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes. 2 MR. KARAGANIS: The names Papageorge, Graham 3 Benignus are on the front of the cover. There is 4 a card with Randall Graham's business card on the 5 second cover/ or on the second page. There are 6 notes with respect to running a carbon filtration 7 system. 8 There is a third page which says Monsanto 9 then it has tower clay system. There is a fourth 10 page with respect to vapors and water effluent 11 indicating facilities at Sauget, Illinois. There 12 is a reference to Randall Graham and Tom Gossage. 13 Reference to 1232 is still a pollution problem. 14 Last page also references Monsanto visit and it 15 talks about a proposed article by Papageorge in 16 Electrical World in September 1970. 17 MR, FRUEHWALD: I see those type of things, 18 but you represented there was something about a 19 visit. Does this document indicate a visit by 20 Papageorge on November 10th? I didn't see the 21 language which indicated that. 22 I see Gossage and Graham being referred 23 to as having been there. 24 MR. KARAGANIS: There is a reference on the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030318 6 92 1 top, on the first page to Papageorge, Graham and 2 Benignus. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. That is what you 4 are referring to. I was unable to determine what 5 the introduction to that was. 6 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: What is the question? 8 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 9 Q. To the best of your recollection, you 10 were not at Bloomington in November of 1970; is 11 that right? 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. Do you recall going to the other 14 Westinghouse facilities in November of 1970? 15 A. I did not go to the producing plants at 16 that time of the year. I may have gone in to 17 Pittsburgh at about that time. 18 Q. I am going to close off this area of 19 questioning. I may have asked you this 20 previously. 21 Mr. Papageorge, assuming you were not on 22 the visit, directing your attention to the 23 November 10 visit, 132 A, there is discussion in 24 those notes, is there not, of a carbon filtration Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030319 6 93 1 system for water effluent? 2 A. I see the word carbon written here. And 3 there is a sample sketch, then the note again 4 carbon or sand. 5 Q. The references to carbon or sand are 6 based on your knowledge referencing carbon or sand 7 filtration, are they not? 8 A. It is more than adsorption, yes. 9 Q. Adsorption to a filter bed made up of 10 either carbon or sand, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. The reference to 10 parts per billion in 13 132 A, that's the same 10 parts per billion that 14 you were talking about in your corporate 15 management report, right? 16 A. That is the target concentration, yes. 17 Q. That was the target concentration 18 established by the corporate management committee 19 at Monsanto; is that correct? 20 A. Accepted by the management committee. 21 Established by Monsanto's technical people. 22 Q. So that is what Monsanto was telling 23 Westinghouse in the visit of 11/10/70; is that 24 right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030320 6 94 1 A. It seems so from these notes. 2 Q. Now, again to avoid confusion and keep 3 with the timeframe, would you mark the next 4 document as 132 B. 5 Let me identify 132 B as a letter dated 6 November 23, 1970 from Papageorge to Kelly. 7 (The document above-referred to 8 was marked Bloomington Deposition 9 Exhibit No. 132-B for 10 identification.) 11 Mr. Papageorge, do you recall writing 12 Exhibit 132 B? 13 A. Yes, I do. 1 4 MR. KARAGANIS: I would ask, I believe I have 15 requested this before, it may be in the package, 16 is the set of instructions or recommendations 17 referred to in 132 B. 18 MR. FRUEHWALD: Right. We produced those for 19 you after your last deposition by letter. We 20 identified those. I sent them up by letter. I am 21 sure I have done that. 22 I have another copy with me, if you want 23 i t. 24 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes, I would like a copy and Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030321 5 95 1 we can mark it. 2 So there is no confusion, Mike, on our 3 part, do you have a list of the transmittals you 4 have made to us and documents? 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: I don't have a list, I have 6 copies of my transmittal letters back home. 7 MR. KARAGANIS: Would you be kind enough to 8 send us up a set of your transmittal copies. 9 Because I don't want to be arguing that we haven't 10 received documents that we have received. 11 Conversely, I want to make sure if we demand 12 documents that they have been produced. 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: There are many documents that 14 were requested several years ago that were 15 collected and never looked at. This was one of 16 them that we figured was important to Mr. 17 Papageorge's deposition. So we went ahead and 1 8 sent it to you for that purpose. 19 I said there are other documents that 20 were collected long ago that you have never been 21 down to look at. We did send that one. 22 MR. KARAGANIS: I will be honest with you, 23 other than being handed a copy of the management 24 committee reports at the beginning of Mr. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030322 6 96 1 Gossage's deposition, I don't recall being sent 2 any documents relative to the Papageorge 3 deposition. 4 Mark this as 132 C. 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 132-C for 8 ' identification.) 9 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 10 132 C, is 132 C the attachment to 132 B? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And who prepared 132 C? 13 A. I did. 14 Q. And was that prepared with anybody's 15 assistance or was that basically your engineering 16 and technical work-up? 17 A. This represents my thinking on the 1 8 subj ect. 19 Q. And it is your thinking as of November 20 23, 1970; is that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, again, just from the standpoint of 23 dates and times, directing your attention to these 24 recommendations, liquid control, the concept of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030323 6 97 1 curbing and proper drainage to avoid release into 2 the sewers, calling for collection. That is what 3 you were talking about, were you not, curbing anc 4 collection? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. That is a technology that didn't come 7 forth full-blown in 1970, that could have been 8 done many years previously, could it not? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. It is a technology, the concept of 11 building curbs and drainage has been around well 12 before the turn of the century; isn't that right? 13 A. It's been available. Yes. 14 Q. Now, the concept on page 2, you mention 15 pcb's are present in wastewater streams, the 16 streams must be treated prior to release. You 17 talk about detergent emulsions must be broken, 18 free pcb must be removed after phase separation, 19 dissolved pcb can be reduced by adsorption. 20 You say "absorption," is it adsorption? 21 A. It is really a "d". 22 Q. A "d". 23 A. It is a surface phenomenon. 24 Q. So that the term "absorption" here is Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030324 6 93 1 something that I usually do which is mix the two 2 up ? 3 A. Right. 4 MR. FRU EHWALD: It is a rough draft. 5 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 6 Q. So it should be adsorption on 7 activated-carbon? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Your recommendation for treatment of 10 wastestreams containing soluble pcb's was 11 adsorption on activated-carbon, was it not? 12 A. That is an approach. Right. 13 Q. That was your recommendation, was it not? 14 A. If you will note, those are suggestions 1 5 and guidelines. They are not hard 16 recommendations. 17 Q. They were suggestions of yours, your 18 personal technical suggestions for control of 1 9 pcb's, were they not? 20 A. To be considered as each reader of that 21 document considers his local conditions. 22 There may be other circumstances at each 23 site that would not lend themselves to following 24 many of those suggestions. So it is a starting Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030325 6 99 1 point 2 Q. Let's go back to the liquids. 3 The idea of curbing and collection as 4 opposed to letting it leak out of a drain could be 5 employed virtually anywhere, could it not? 6 A. Could be. Yes. 7 Q. It is technically feasible to employ 8 curbing and drainage in any location, is it not? 9 A. Sure. 10 Q. So it is a choice whether or not to put 11 it in; isn't that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Your recommendation was to put it in 14 rather than let it go out into the environment, 15 was it not? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. Just by way of background, under no 18 circumstances were your recommendations that 19 liquids be taken to landfills; is that right? 20 A. That's right. 21 Q. You were strongly recommending against 22 liquids going to landfills; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Your concept was that liquids should be Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030326 700 1 stored or incinerated; isn't that right? 2 A. Or recycled. 3 Q. Or recycled. 4 Which would have meant distillation and 5 use of the product again? 6 A. Or use it in, well, at that point in time 7 it had to be distillation. Yes. 8 Q. But under no circumstances was the waste 9 liquid supposed to go to a landfill; is that 10 right? 11 A. That was my belief. It still is. 12 Q. Again, the concept of avoiding sending 13 liquids to the landfill was not a new technology, 14 you could have done that many years previous to 15 this time; isn't that right? 16 A. Well, that could be said for all of those 17 statements. 1 8 Q. For all of the recommendations? 19 A. All those recommendations. It is a 20 matter of awareness for the need to apply these 21 actions. 22 Q. So all of corrective actions that are in 23 Exhibit 132 C were not limited to the year 1970 24 and beyond, they could have technically been Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030327 70 1 1 applied many years previously; isn't that right? 2 A. Certainly. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: I am going to break here and 4 let you go on. 5 MR. MC DONNELL: Okay, ` 6 (Discussion had off the record.) 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 9 Q. Now, before I had marked a document as 10 291 and it appears now that there is a second page 11 to that document, so I put them together. 12 291 is a two-page report dated September 13 29, 1971 and it is signed on the second page by 14 Dr. Ward Richter, reference IBT B 729. 15 And I would ask if you saw that report 16 before? 17 A. I had not seen this before. 18 Q. Okay. 19 Showing you again Exhibit 293, which is 20 another pathology report of one page by Dr. 21 Richter on the same study, I will ask you to 22 compare those and tell me if it appears that those 23 are two reviews of two separate sets of slides 24 from the same study? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030328 702 1 MR. FRUEHWALDs Do you expect that Mr. 2 Papageorge is going to have some insight into this 3 that the rest of us do not from reading the 4 documents? Is that what you are saying? If they 5 are there, I don't know how Mr. Papageorge would 6 know that. 7 MR. MC CONNELL: I don't either. But if he 8 doesn't know, he can tell me. 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. A lot of these 10 questions seem to be asking a person who has no 11 reasonable basis for knowing and as a result seem 12 to be a useless exercise. 13 A. I have not seen either document. But the 14 one dated October 10 does start off with reference 15 to additional series of tissues from the same 16 study. 17 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 18 Q. Did anyone at either Monsanto or 1 9 Industrial Bio-Test discuss with you the plan or a 20 plan in the context of the rat studies to have a 21 second set of slides made up for pathology review 22 of the rat livers? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did the reports that you received on the .,, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030329 703 1 rat studies, either copies of the Industrial 2 Bio-Test test reports or the Monsanto summary 3 reports that were passed to you, reflect that 4 there had been two sets of slides reviewed by 5 pathologists in the rats study? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Showing you what you has been marked as 8 Exhibit 305, which is an undated -- I guess it is 9 undated. Anyway it is a one-page memo or note 10 handwritten document from Dr. Fancher to Dr. 11 Keplinger, reference IBT C 7 299 . 12 I will ask if you have ever seen that 13 before? 1 4 (The document above-referred to 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit No. 305 for identification.) 17 A. I have not seen this report before. 1 8 Q. Did Dr. Fancher ever discuss with you his 19 information that is reflected on Exhibit 305 that 20 weight gain data for UC females do not agree with 21 data for the same animals in other reports? 22 A. No, he did not. 23 Q. Did anyone else at Industrial Bio-Test or 24 Monsanto ever discuss that apparent disagreement Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030330 704 1 with you? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did Dr. Fancher ever discuss with you the 4 next statement which is on Exhibit 305: 5 "It is difficult not 6 to conclude that there may 7 be an affect on body weights 8 for T-III males and T-II and 9 T-III females with 1254 and 10 T-III males and females with. 11 1260 . "? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did anyone else at Monsanto or Industrial 14 Bio-Test ever discuss that with you? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did Dr. Fancher ever discuss with you the 17 statement on Exhibit 305: 1 8 "I question whether 19 one has the right to discount 20 animals that show low gains 21 particularly T-II or T-III 22 animals . " ? 23 A. Was the first part of your question did 24 anyone discuss? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030331 1 Q. Did Dr. Faneher in particular ever 2 discuss that with you? 3 A. No . 4 0. Did anyone at Bio-Test or Monsanto ever 5 discuss that with you? - 6 A. No. These are discussions now? 7 Q. Right. 8 A. As distinguished from a summary report? 9 Q. Right. 10 A. That is handed to me? 11 Q. Right. 12 A. All right. 13 Q. Did anybody in a document ever convey to 14 you the thought that Dr. Fancher disagreed with 15 any of the conclusions or opinions that were 16 stated in the report on C 7299? 17 A. No. 1 8 Q. Okay. 1 9 Did anybody in a written report of any 20 kind ever convey to you the thought that Dr. 21 Fancher disagreed with any of the conclusions that 22 were drawn in any of the Industrial Bio-Test 23 studies? 24 A. No. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030332 705 1 Q. Okay. 2 Did anybody in a discussion ever convey 3 to you the thought that Dr. Pancher disagreed with 4 any of the Bio-Test study conclusions or opinions? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. 7 Is it a fact, as reflected in Exhibit 8 305, that nothing is said anywhere in the report 9 of study C 7229 about recover periods? 10 MR. FRUEHWALD: Why don't we just look at the 11 record to be able to tell that, rather than asking 12 Mr. Papageorge to recall fifteen years ago what a 13 multi-page document said. 14 We do not know whether this handwritten 15 document is before or after the final report 16 submitted. We don't know anything about how this 17 relates to what report in particular. 18 So I think it is ununfair to ask Mr. 19 Papageorge to recall fifteen years ago a 20 multi-page document which you probably have 21 somewhere in your office here to -- that will 22 actually give the answer to that question. 23 MR. MC CONNELL: Okay. 24 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 306 which is a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030333 707 1 letter dated December 17, 1971, appears to be in 2 Dr. Fancher's handwriting, consisting of one page. 3 Signed Otis, addressed to, "Dear Don." 4 (The document above-referred to 5 was marked Bloomington Deposition 6 Exhibit No. 306 for identification.) 7 Have you ever seen that before? 8 A. I have not seen it before. 9 Q. I don't recall if I asked you. 10 Did you ever have occasion yourself on 11 any of the times that you were at Industrial 12 Bio-Test to review any of the underlying data in 13 any of these study reports? 14 A. Some of that data was used in some of the 15 formal presentations made to Monsanto people and I 16 was present. 17 Q. So you reviewed it in the sense that 1 8 whatever they selected to use in their 19 presentation was what you saw? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You weren't going through their files 22 spot checking the underlying lab work that went 23 into these studies? 24 A. I did not do so, no. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030334 703 1 Q. Did you know in December of 1971 that 2 there were plans to publish some of these Aroclor 3 animal studies by Industrial Bio-Test in 4 scientific journals? 5 A. Yes. . 6 Q. When were you first told about that? 7 A. At about that time, on or about the dates 8 we have mentioned. 9 Q. Okay. 10 Who told you? 11 A. Elmer Wheeler. 12 Q. Did he say what the purpose was for that 13 publication? 14 A. I don't know that a purpose was 15 mentioned. I don't recall. 16 Q. Is that another way of communicating this 17 information or sharing it with other people who 18 might be interested in the findings? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Was it your understanding when you were 22 told that the studies were to be published that 23 they would be published over the names of 24 Industrial Bio-Test scientists who actually worked Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030335 1 on the studies, rather than Monsanto scie 2 A. My understanding was that Mr. W 3 name would also appear and perhaps Dr. Levinskas. 4 It was not very clear at the time exactly. But 5 some Monsanto people would also be listed as 6 authors. 7 Q. Have you ever authored a .scientific or 8 professional engineering study for a publication? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Are you familiar with the process of peer 11 review that those manuscripts go through before 12 their being published? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If Dr. Levinskas or Mr. Wheeler were to 15 appear as an author, listed as an author in a 16 published study, would it be expected that they 17 would be familiar not only with the report but 1 8 with the underlying data? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was it ever brought to your attention 21 that weight data for chickens in J 8746 were 22 unable to be located? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030336 710 1 Take a look at Exhibit 307, which is a 2 one-page letter from Dr. Fancher to "Dear Don," 3 December 21, 1971. 4 Have you ever seen that letter before? 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 307 for identification.) 8 A. No, I have not seen this before. 9 Q. Under the heading on that page errors 10 found, the first listing is page 74, control 11 figures don't add up. 12 During the course of your involvement 13 with pcb's and Monsanto and your work with 14 Industrial Bio-Test on these studies, did anybody 15 ever call to your attention to the fact that the 16 numbers of animals shown in the reports didn't 17 agree from one part of the report to another? 1 8 A. No. 19 Q. Do you know whether any of these 20 handwritten documents that we have shown you in 21 the course of this deposition by Dr. Fancher were 22 made available to Booz, Allen and Hamilton in the 23 course of their audit of the Industrial Bio-Test 24 pcbstudies? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030337 711 1 A. I do not know. 2 Q. Were the chicken studies done at 3 Industrial Bio-Test in Northbrook or were they 4 done at another location, if you know? 5 A. They were done at another location. 6 Q. That was called the Wedge's Creek 7 Research Farm? 8 A. Yes. In Wisconsin. 9 Q. In Wisconsin. 10 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 308, which is a 11 one-page letter dated December 22, 1971 to Dr. 1 2 Fancher from Donald H. Jenkins. Have you ever 13 seen that document? 1 4 (The document above-referred to 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit No. 308 for identification.) 17 A. I have not. 1 8 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what Mr. 19 Jenkins, the author of the document, is referring 20 to in the statement in the next to the last 21 paragraph, "I had hoped this snake wouldn't be 22 exhumed"? 23 A. No, I do not. 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me also indicate Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030338 1 apparently Mr. Jenkin's first name is Don. So we 2 had a previous speculation as to who the Don was 3 in some of these letters and we speculated it was 4 Dr. Richter . 5 MR. MC CONNELL: Dr. Gordon. 6 A. Dr. Gordon, there is another Don. 7 MR. MC CONNELL: There is another Don. 8 Q. It could be Don Jenkins. 9 Did you know Don Jenkins? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. 1 2 Do you know what Don Jenkins is referring 13 to in Exhibit 308 when he says, "The conduct of 14 this project (J 7300) finally led to the demise of 15 Jim Stevens "? 16 A. I do not. 17 Q. Do you know who Jim Stevens was? 1 8 A. NO. 19 Q. Did anybody ever convey to you the ideas 20 Mr. Jenkins writes in Exhibit 308 that he, that 21 is, Dr. Jenkins, was not happy with the way the J 22 7300 study was done? 23 A. No one conveyed that to me, no. 24 Q. On the occasions when you would visit Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030339 713 1 Industrial Bio-Test in the company of other 2 Monsanto employees who working on these studies, 3 were you ever there at the same time as Mr. 4 Wheeler was? 5 A. Yes. Everytime. 6 Q. Okay. - 7 Were you ever there at a time when Dr. 8 Levinskas was also present? 9 A, I don't recall whether Dr. Levinskas 10 joined us on any of those visits. 11 Q. Okay. 12 On any occasion when you were at -- well, 13 let me back up one step. 14 Did you ever visit any Industrial 15 Bio-Test facility other than the one in 16 Northbrook, Illinois? 17 A. No. 1 8 Q. Okay. 1 9 On any of the occasions - 20 A. Correction. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. That answer relates to pcb's studies 23 only. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030340 714 1 You had been to their other facilities in 2 connection with some work on other products? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Had you ever been to the Wedge's Creek 5 Research Farm? ' 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. 8 What other facility had you visited? 9 A. They had a facility in Decatur, Illinois. 10 Q. Is that also a chicken facility? 11 A. Yes, poultry. 12 Q. Chickens and ducks, other birds of that 13 nature ? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. All right. 16 That was not in connection with pcb's? 17 A. That's correct. 1 8 Q. On any of the occasions when you visited 19 the Industrial Bio-Test facility in Northbrook and 20 toured through the research facility rather than 21 just sitting in an office, listening to a 22 presentation, did anyone else from Monsanto ever 23 point out anything to you as raising in their mind 24 problems with the way the research was being Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030341 7 15 1 conducted or things that needed to be corrected in 2 order to get the studies back on track? 3 A. No. 4 Correction. It was pointed out to r,e 5 that the fish studies were not being conducted 6 quickly enough, adequately. 7 I recall being shown a room which was 8 designated for this study in which equipment had 9 been accumulated, and I was told that this would 10 be the site for the fish studies. And Mr. Wheeler 11 expressed disappointment that nothing had been 12 accomplished yet. 13 Q. He didn't point to any specific thing and 14 say this is the source of the problem why we 15 haven't finished the fish study? 16 A. No. 17 Q. To your knowledge there never war a 18 successfully completed fish study by Industrial 19 Bio-Test? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Exhibit 309 is a letter dated December 22 28, 1971 to Dr. Fancher signed regards, but no 23 name. And there is a handwritten indication on it 24 that it came from file J 8746. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030342 7 15 1 I will ask you if you you have ever seen 2 that document? 3 (The documents above-referred to 4 were marked Bloomington Deposition 5 Exhibit Nos. 309 and 310' for 6 identification.) 7 A. I have not seen this document. 8 Q. What was the interest, the reason, if you 9 know, for the interest in measuring the specific 10 gravity of the chicken eggs? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Was that part of the reproduction study? 13 A. I would assume so. 14 Q. Exhibit 310 is a undated -- no, it is 15 not, it is dated 12/29/71, it comes from the file 16 on J 900. And it includes the statement these 17 birds were wormed on December 22, with a feed . 18 additive, vaccinated for Marek's. 1 9 Do you know if there is any reason why 20 birds used in the Industrial Bio-Test studies 21 before that date were not vaccinated for .Marek's 22 disease? 23 A. I do not. 24 Q. I believe it was your previous testimony Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030343 717 1 that until this portion of your deposition you 2 hadn't heard any mention of f'.arek's disease in the 3 chickens that were used in these studies? 4 A. That is cor rect. 5 Q. Exhibit 311 is a letter dated December 6 29, 1971 from Dr. Raymond Loan to Donald Jenkins. 7 Have you ever seen that? 8 (The document above-referred to 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit No. 311 for identification.) 11 A. I have not seen this before. 12 Q. Do you know why it was that industrial 13 Bio-Test had to go outside for information on 14 Marek's disease in their chickens? 15 A. I do not. 16 Q. I am going to show you what has been 17 marked as Exhibit 312, which is a letter, 1 8 handwritten letter of two pages dated January 14, 19 1972 from Dr. Fancher to "Dear Don" on Industrial 20 Bio-Test letterhead. And it is marked in 21 handwriting J 7300. . 22 I will ask you if you have ever seen 23 that? 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030344 7 13 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 312 for identification.) 4 A. I have not seen this before. 5 Q. Okay. 6 As the person who was passing on reports 7 of these studies or summaries of these Industrial 8 Bio-Test animal studies to Westinghouse customers, 9 would it have been important to you to know in 10 January of 1972 that Dr. Fancher had a notion, as 11 he refers to in t.he first paragraph of the letter, 1 2 that much of the data are either fudged or 13 collected with carelessness or incompetence? 14 A. Yes. That would have been significant. 15 Q. Nobody ever told you that, did they? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Dr. Fancher didn't tell you? 18 A. No. 1 9 Q. Nobody at Monsanto told you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. If they had, would you have passed that 22 information along to the customers to whom you had 23 been supplying these progress reports as the 24 studies went on? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030345 719 1 A. I would have established the impact on 2 the previous information I had relayed and if that 3 would have changed that information, I would have 4 informed the customers. 5 Q. If you had seen, okay. ' 6 I am sorry, were you finished? 7 A. If, however, inspite of these defects, 8 the conclusions were still valid, I would suggest 9 that not immediately, but eventually I would say 10 the data was sort of questionable, but the 11 conclusions are still valid. 12 Q. The data was questionable but the 13 conclusions are valid. Okay. 14 If you had seen this letter that has been 15 marked as 312 on or about the date it bears, 16 before you concluded whether or not to share that 17 information with your customers, you would have 1 8 wanted to talk to Dr. Fancher about it, wouldn't 19 you ? 20 A. I would go to Mr. wheeler. 21 Q, Okay. 22 A. It is Mr. Wheeler's responsibility to 23 talk to Dr. Fancher. 24 0. Did you ever talk directly to Dr. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chi ca c - STLCOPCB4030346 7 20 1 Fancher ? 2 A. Only in group sessions. 3 Q. But you knew him and he knew you, and if ; 4 you picked up the phone and called Dr. Fancher, he 5 wouldn't have refused to take your call, would he? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Does it bother you as you sit here today 8 that you were handing out information on behalf of 9 Monsanto without knowing that one of the senior 10 scientists involved in the project thought the 11 data were fudged? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did anyone ever share with you the 14 thought in the numbered paragraph 3 in Exhibit 312 15 that it is difficult not to conclude that chick 16 body weights at day one are adversely affected for 17 some treatment groups? 1 8 A. No one. 1 9 Q. Okay. 20 Or the thought as it goes on to say tha; 21 thirty days survival is generally lower for chicks 22 from treated groups? 23 A. No one talked with me. 24 Q. On about the middle of the second page cf - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicscc STLCOPCB4030347 41 ___I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 21 Exhibit 312 there is a statement by Dr. Fancher in his own handwriting: "I am ashamed to publish the work done in these studies. " ' Did he ever tell you that? A. No. Q. Did anybody ever tell you that Dr. Fancher was ashamed to publish the work done in those studies? A. No. Q. Were they ultimately published? A. No. Q. They were submitted for publication but they never got published, is that a fair synopsis of the sequence of events? A. I'm not aware that they were submitted to any publication. Q. Okay. Did anybody ever share with you the idea that is expressed by Dr. Fancher in the next sentence of his letter? "This is perhaps the most significant of the - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030348 7 22 1 "Aroclor studies and some of 2 my conclusions are not in 3 agreement with those of the 4 reports (which I signed 5 without detailed analysis)." 6 A. No one discussed that with me, no. 7 Q. Would it have been important to you to 8 know that as you were passing along the 9 conclusions from these reported studies to the 10 customers? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. He also states with respect to "my 13 conclusions are not in agreement..." "or with 14 statements which have been made by Kep I 15 presume that refers to Dr. Keplinger and by 16 Monsanto in discussions with the FDA and 17 environmental groups." 18 Did anybody ever express to you the idea 19 that Dr. Fancher was in disagreement with 20 conclusions that Monsanto was advancing to the FDA 21 and environmental groups? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Would it have been important to you to 24 know that at or about the date of Exhibit 312? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030349 1 1___ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 23 A. Yes. Q. What would you have done if you had known that Dr. Fancher1s opinions and conclusions about the results of these studies, and in particular the chicken study, were different from the conclusions that Monsanto was using to support its position with the Food and Drug Administration? A. I wouldimmediately go back to Mr. Wheeler and Dr. Kelly and ask for total review. And a rewriting, if necessary, of the summaries that I had been giving to others. Q. A review of the type that Booz, Allen and Hamilton was ultimately called upon to do? A. Since I don't know exactly what Booz, Allen and Hamilton did, I am at a loss as to comparing. But it had to be thorough enough to convince Monsanto that the right information was being shared with others. Q. Okay. That would at least involve going through all of the raw data rather than just spot checking it, would it not? A. I don't know about all. But it would have to be representative to pick up any defects. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicscc STLCOPCB4030350 7 24 1 Q. A thorough audit rather than a spot 2 check, whether that means looking at every entry 3 or not? 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: An audit involves usually spot 5 checking in an account sense. I am not sure those 6 are two different terms. 7 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 8 Q. Well, if you are looking at something 9 less than all the data, how do you decide how much 10 less than all the data to look at; particularly in 11 light of a senior scientist's statement that it 1 2 looks to him like it was phony? 13 A. I don't know what others would have done, 14 but I would have looked at enough data without 15 leaving any data gaps or date gaps to see what 16 patterns were being followed in the accumulation 17 of the data results reported. 1 8 Q. Okay. 1 9 When I see Exhibit 312 and Dr. Faneher 20 says he thinks the data were fudged, I take that 21 to mean he thinks that it was made up rather than 22 on the basis of actual observations. Is that the 23 same as your understanding? 24 A. That is my understanding of the word Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chico STLCOPCB4030351 / ^D 1 fudged. 2 Q . Okay. 3 Exhibit 313 is a one-page letter dated 4 January 31, 1972 to Dr. Wheeler from J. C. 5 Calandr a . - 6 I will ask you if you have seen that 7 letter ? 8 (The document above-referred to 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit No. 313 for identification.) 11 A. I don't recall seeing it. 12 Q. Do you know whether that report that is 13 referenced in that letter on the 90-day subacute 14 dog study on 10/16 was mailed to Monsanto or 15 whether it was handed to Mr. Wheeler? 16 A. I do not know. 17 Q. Presumably Mr. Wheeler would know that? 1 8 A. I am sorry? 19 Q. Mr. Wheeler would be the one who would be 20 able to answer that question? 21 A. I would think so. Yes. 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: If he has a 15-year memory of 23 such matters. 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicac' STLCOPCB4030352 7 26 1 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 2 Q. Or Mr. Wheeler's files might tell us if 3 there is an envelope with the document. 4 Exhibit 314 is a one-page memo dated 5 February 1, 1972 from Keplinger to Dale Fletcher. 6 Do you know who Dale Fletcher was? 7 (The document above-referred to 8 was marked Bloomington Deposition 9 Exhibit No. 314 for identification.) 10 A. I have heard the name. 11 Q. Was he somebody who worked at Industrial 12 Bio-Test? 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. I will ask you if you have ever seen that 15 314 before? 16 A. I have not seen this before. 17 Q. Do you know whether there was ever a 1 8 problem at Industrial Bio-Test in measuring 19 specific gravity of eggs because of evaporation of 20 the test solutions that were used for the 21 measurements? 22 A. No, I do not. 23 Q. Does that Exhibit 314 suggest to you that 24 that they are trying to correct that sort of a Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030353 7 27 1 problem? 2 A. It is hard to tell from this document 3 whether a problem existed. I do sense a 4 precautionary statement, don't let it evaporate, 5 which says don't let it evaporate, which implies 6 that problems could have been experienced. 7 Q. Are you familiar with the techniques for 8 measuring specific gravity? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. If you have a series of solutions of any 11 water solutions, of any particular substance that 12 you are using for that purpose, and you leave them 13 all uncovered, eventually all of those solutions 14 will evaporate to a concentration where they have 15 the same specific gravity? is that correct? 16 A. Well, this assumes you started with the 17 same materials, such as salt in water. 1 8 Q. I am assuming a series of solutions that 19 are made up to be 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, whatever, all 20 with the same solute. 21 A. Okay. Eventually they would all 22 evaporate to dryness. Some would have more solid 23 in them than others. 24 Q. Exhibit 315 is a letter from Dr. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4030354 723 1 Keplinger to Peggy Calvert of US Borax Research 2 Corporation dated February 22, 1972. 3 I will ask if you you have ever seen 4 that? 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 315 for identification.) 8 A. I have never seen this. 9 Q. It appears to me that Peggy Calvert was 10 asking for some information about the chicken 11 study or studies. And Dr. Keplinger writes back 12 and says you can't have it, it is proprietary, but 13 we are getting it ready for publication. 14 Do you know whether, since the study was 15 never published, Mrs. Calvert was ever provided 16 with copies of the Industrial Bio-Test reports on 17 that study? 18 A. I do not know. 19 Q. Do you have any knowledge of any kind 20 that would indicate why US Borax Research 21 Corporation would be interested in the effects cf 22 pcb's on birds? 23 A. I do not. 24 Q. Did you ever receive any communications Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030355 7 29 1 from Peggy Calvert of US Borax regarding any of 2 these pcb animal studies? 3 A. I don't recall at this time. 4 Q. Was it your understanding in February, 5 January and February of 1972, that Monsanto 6 considered these studies to be proprietary? 7 A. Not in the sense that we would not share 8 th em. 9 Q. In other words, if Peggy Calvert had 10 written to you at the same time, you would have 11 given her whatever you had given your other 12 customers up to that date on those studies? 13 A. As a minimum. 14 Q. As a minimum. 15 A. If she needed more, I would refer her to 16 Mr. Wheeler and then a further dialoguewould have 17 taken place. 18 Q. Either Wheeler would have provided her 19 with additional information or perhaps referred 20 her back to IBT? 21 A. It is possible. 22 Q. 316 is a one-page memo dated May 16, 1972 23 from Keplinger to PLW, which I believe to be Paul 24 Wright. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030356 730 1 I will ask if you have ever seen that? 2 (The document above-referred tc 3 was marked Bloomington Deposition 4 Exhibit No. 316 for identification.) 5 A. I have never seen this. . ' 6 Q. Why would Monsanto want to make advance 7 payment or receive advance billing on some of the 8 Industrial Bio-Test studies and not others, if you 9 know? . 10 A. I do not know. 11 Q. Was there some effort to get a certain 12 amount of payments within the budget for one year, 13 even though the studies might not have been 14 completed, and then use next year's budget to pay 15 for other work, or would you know about that? 16 A. Some of that, I am aware of some of that 17 happening. I don't know the reasoning behind it. 1 8 Q. Could be like congress, they have 19 appropriated the money, if you don't spend it this 20 year, you get less next year. 21 Have you ever had that experience at 22 Monsanto? 23 A. I had that personally. 24 Q. That is one possible explanation for that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030357 731 1 kind of advance billing on some things and not 2 others? 3 A. In my case, not for animal studies, but 4 where I have committed for a service, which is 5 going to cost Monsanto, it is encouraged that we 6 pay for it. Once we have made the commitment, we 7 have to pay for it. 8 Q. You mentioned that in connection with 9 service,, Is that also done in connection with the 10 purchase of goods? 11 A. No. There we wait for the invoice. 12 Q. In your experience did the invoice arrive 13 usually before or usually after the goods? 14 A. After. 15 Q. What is the reason for the distinction 16 between goods and service in that regard, if you 17 know? 18 A. I do not. 19 Q. Exhibit 317 is a two-page letter dated 20 June 2, 1970 to Dr. Tucker from James B. Plank. 21 Have you ever seen that letter? 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 317 for identification.) - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicarc STLCOPCB4030358 732 1 A. I haven't seen this before. 2 Q. Again this refers to the taking of pooled 3 samples from the chicken study in 1970. 4 Do you know if after the date of this 5 letter, June 2, 1970, there was ever the return to 6 the procedure of individual samples with respect 7 to chickens as to liver, muscle or kidney tissue? 8 A. No. There was no return. 9 Q. Okay. 10 Exhibit 318 is a letter in Elmer Wheeler 11 to Herbert Bluraenthal dated June 16, 1972 and it 12 is stamped on the bottom received June 21, 1972. 13 I will ask you if you have ever seen 14 that? 15 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 318 for identification.) 18 A. I don't recall it. 1 9 Q. Do you know whether that letter and the 20 enclosures it refers to were mailed or delivered 21 to Dr. Blumenthal? 22 A. I do not know. 23 Q. Were some of the reports, either 24 Industrial Bio-Test study reports or the Monsanto Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030359 73 3 1 interim summaries of those reports, mailed by Mr. 2 Wheeler or others at Monsanto to the Food and Drug 3 Administration? 4 A. Both types on occasion have been mailed. 5 Summaries as well as reports. 6 Q. Mailed to the FDA; is that correct? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. Exhibit 319 is a one-page letter dated 9 November 17, 1972 from Dr. Calandra to Elmer 10 Wheeler with an attached report consisting of 19 11 pages. 12 I will ask you if you have ever seen 13 either the letter or the report that is a attached 14 to it? 1 5 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 319 for identification.) 1 8 A. No . . 1 9 Q. Exhibit 320 is a -- I didn't ask you 20 about 319. 21 Have you seen that before today? 22 A. I don't recall seeing this document. 23 Q. That Exhibit 319 at least suggests that 24 there was one set of fish studies that were Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chi STLCOPCB4030360 734 1 completed to the point where a final report was 2 made, does it not? 3 A. It appears so. 4 Q. At least as of November of 1972? 5 A. Yes. ' 6 Q. You were still in the pcb coordinator job 7 at that time, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did you see anything in Exhibit 319 that 10 differed from the conclusions you are aware of 11 that other researchers were finding with respect 12 to fish? 13 A. No. I don't see anything that is 14 unexpected. 15 Q. Exhibit 320 is a letter dated Hay 4, 16 1973, one page, with a one-page enclosure to Dr. 17 Keplinger from George Levinskas. 18 Have you ever seen that before, 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 320 for identification.) 22 A. I have not seen this before. 23 Q. Were you aware in 1973 that there were 24 still some difficulties with reconciliation of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicn": STLCOPCB4030361 735 1 what samples had been sent to Dr. Tucker versus 2 the ones he had expected to receive? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did that continue throughout the course 5 of these animal studies? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. To your knowledge, did the type of 8 problem we see reflected in Exhibit 320 and some 9 of the earlier exhibits we have discussed 10 concerning the shipment of samples from Industrial 11 Bio-Test to Monsanto occur in the case of animal 12 studies on products other than pcb's or was it 13 just limited to the pcb studies? 14 A. This exhibit shows many products that are 15 not pcb's. 16 Q. Okay. 17 I wouldn't know. Which ones on the list 18 are pcb's? 19 A. The last two are pcb's. 20 Q. Aroclor 1221 and MCS 1016? 21 A. Yes, the others on page 2 of that 22 document are non-pcb's, not pcb's. 23 Q. They are chemical products, though, 24 rather than pharmaceuticals? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030362 7 36 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Q. Exhibit 321 is a letter dated April 3, 4 1975 from Dr. D. E. Gordon to George Levinskas and 5 I will ask you if you have ever seen that letter? 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 321 for identification.) 9 A. I have not seen this before. 10 Q. Okay. 11 That is another letter enclosing some 12 substitute pages for insertion in a report? 13 A. It appears to do so. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. 15 When such substitute pages were received 16 by Monsanto, were copies of the substitute pages 17 supplied to you for insertion in the reports that 18 you had in your files? . 1 9 A. If it was revised pages for a final 20 report. Yes. 21 Q. You wouldn't see the report until it had 22 been put out by Bio-Test as a final report? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030363 737 1 So you weren't one of the participants in 2 the exchange of drafts and revisions to reach the 3 so-called final report stage? 4 A. That is true. 5 Q. Exhibit 322 is a letter, a one-page 6 letter dated April 18, 1975 from Dr. Calandra to 7 Dr. Roush, R-o-u-s-h, and it has attached a memo 8 of five pages signed by Dr. Calandra, also dated 9 April 18, 1975. 10 Who is Dr. Roush? 11 (The document above-referred to 12 was marked Bloomington Deposition 13 Exhibit No. 322 for identification.) 14 A. Dr. Roush was Monsanto's medical 15 director; succeeding Dr. Kelly, who had retired. 16 Q. The cover page of Exhibit 322 shows that 17 you received a copy of this document and I will 1 8 show it to you and ask you if you recall receiving 19 a copy of the letter and the memo that is 20 attached? 21 A. I recall this set of documents. 22 Q. Were you a participant in the meeting 23 that is reflected in Exhibit 322? 24 A. Yes. - Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030364 733 1 Q. Where was the meeting held? 2 A. In St. Louis. 3 Q. At Monsanto's offices? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Where in particular? 6 A. Dr. Roush's office. 7 Q. Okay. 8 Who was there as best you can recall? 9 A. Elmer Wheeler and Dr. George Levinskas, 10 Dr. Roush/ Dr. Calandra and I. 11 Q. How long did the meeting last? 12 A. Oh, a couple, three hours, less than half 13 a day. 14 Q. Was anything discussed at the meeting 15 other than the IBT animal studies on pcb's? 16 A. We discussed what we understood Dr. 17 Kimbrough had reported. 18 Q. With respect to her animal studies? 19 A. Her studies, yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Was the meeting devoted to discussion of 22 work regarding any Monsanto product other than 23 pcb's ? 24 A. Mo. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030365 73 9 1 Q. So it was a pcb meeting? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. 4 The covering letter from Dr. Calandra - 5 When was the meeting, by the way, do you 6 recall? 7 A. I don't recall. It is about that time. 8 Today. 9 Q. Today, it says presumably - 10 A. The date of the memo. 11 Q. The date of the letter, April 18, or 12 within a day or two, one way or the other? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. To the best of your recollection. 15 In the covering letter Dr. Calandra says 16 and I quote: 17 "I fully appreciate 18 that the meeting on pcb's 19 today was not completely 20 satisfy and that many nagging 21 questions remain." 22 Was this meeting the first time that you 23 became aware that the situation with respect to 24 the IBT animal studies on pcb's was not entirely Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chican STLCOPCB4030366 7 40 1 satisfactory? 2 A. No. Mot at this meeting, or any meeting. 3 0. So are you telling me you don't agree 4 with the characterization in the letter? 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: The characterization in the 6 letter doesn't match your question. 7 The question says a meeting was not 8 satisfactory and you are saying the IBT studies 9 were not satisfactory. 10 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 11 Q. What was it about the meeting that was 12 unsatisfactory? 13 A. As I recall, Dr. Calandra was asked to 14 come to St. Louis and discuss with the Monsanto 15 representatives in the health medical field his 16 understanding of Dr. Kimbrough's findings and the 17 findings out of his own laboratory. And to try to 18 tutor the Monsanto people regarding the 1 9 differences in the interpretations that 20 pathologists were giving to what they are seeing 21 under the microscope. 22 So the nagging questions, at least as far 23 as I was concerned, was the one we had talked 24 about earlier, the interpretation of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030367 7 41 1 observations by different scientists of the same 2 slides. 3 Q* Or, in shorthand, whether what they were 4 seeing in the rat livers was cancer or not cancer? 5 A. That is it. Yes. 6 Q. That was the primary concern? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Because, of course, if pcb's were labeled 9 as a cancer-causing chemical, that was the end of 10 the road as far as Monsanto was concerned with 11 continued production of that product? 12 A. Probably. 13 Q. And at least as of the date of this 14 Exhibit, 322, as of that date at least Dr. 15 Kimbrough had reported her findings that there 16 were cancerous lesions in the rats that she was 17 working with and feeding pcb's? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. The covering letter on 322 says the 22 enclosed is a brief summary of my personal views 23 and I would appreciate any open and frank comments 24 that you all may have. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics c c STLCOPCB4030368 7 42 1 Did you make any comments at all back to 2 Calandra in response to the letter and enclosed 3 memorandum? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you know whether anyone else at 6 Monsanto did? 7 A. No. 8 Q. No, you don't know, or, no, they didn't? 9 A. I do not know. 10 Q. Okay. 11 The flaw is in my question, not your 12 answer. 13 Was there, as the letter suggests there 14 might be, any additional pathologists brought into 15 look at the either the Industrial Bio-Test slides 16 or Dr. Kimbrough's slides in an effort to resolve 17 the impasse? 1 8 A. Yes, that was discussed thoroughly. 19 Q. Was somebody else brought in? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. The letter closes with the statement it 22 is my feeling that we need to get together again 23 within the next few weeks to continue our 24 discussions. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics .ic STLCOPCB4030369 7 43 1 Was there a meeting within a few weeks 2 after April 18, 1975? 3 A. There was another meeting. I have 4 forgotten the time span between meetings. 5 Q. That you attended? " 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Where was that second meeting? 8 A. St. Louis . 9 Q. Also in Dr. Roush's office? 10 A. The area near Dr. Roush's office. 11 Q. And were' the same people in attendance? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. How long did the second meeting last? 14 A. A little over half a day. 1 5 Q. To your knowledge, was there ever a memo 16 committed to writing by anyone about the second 17 meeting in the same sense that there is a memo 18 attached to Exhibit 322? 1 9 A. No. I don't recall any. 20 Q. You didn't make any written notes of thac 21 second meeting? 22 A. No. 23 Q. As best you can recall, what was 24 discussed at the second meeting that was different Longoria & Goldstinc 236 1030 Chic STLCOPCB4030370 1 from what is summarized in the memo attached to 2 Exhibit 322? 3 A. The principal topic of discussion was 4 contacting of the appropriate federal agencies and 5 sharing with them Calandra's opinions -and our 6 understanding of Dr. Kimbrough's work and how it 7 all appeared to Monsanto. 8 Q. Monsanto wanted to make sure that the 9 government had both sides of the story, not just 10 Dr. Kimbrough's side. Is that a fair statement? 11 A. That is fair. 12 Q. There had already been an attempt through 13 meetings or among Monsanto scientists. Dr. 14 Kimbrough and Industrial Bio-Test scientists, to 15 resolve it among themselves and they had not 16 succeeded? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that correct? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. Let's break for lunch now that it is 21 here. 22 (Whereupon a short recess was 23 had.) 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic arc STLCOPCB4030371 7 45 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, 5 ). ) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs. 7 ) Civ :!o. ) IP 83-9-C ) 8 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, ) 10 ) Pi;.Dl3D.k.S-.1 11 12 13 The continued deposition of W. B. PAPAGEORGE, 14 called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant 15 to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United 17 States District Courts, pertaining to the taking 18 of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taker, 1 9 before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public and 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the 21 County of Cook and State of Illinois, at Three 22 First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, on 23 October 16, 1986, at the hour of 1:30 o'clock o . ~ . 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic: ' : STLCOPCB4030372 7 46 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 4 Mr. James G. McConnell Bell, Boyd & Lloyd 5 Three First National Plaza ' 70 West Madison Street 6 Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 7 - an d - 8 Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner 9 Law Offices of Geoffrey M. Grodner One City Centre 10 Suite 100 Bloomington, Indiana 47401 11 appeared on behalf of the 12 Plaintiffs; 13 14 Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald 1 5 Barnes & Thornburg 1313 Merchants Bank Building 16 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 17 appeared on behalf of Defendant Monsanto Company. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030373 7 47 1 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 2 having been previously duly sworn, 3 was examined and testified as follows: 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 5 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 6 Q. Returning to Exhibit 322, the second 7 page, which is the first page of the enclosed 8 memorandum, it leads off with a sentence: 9 "The central issue in 10 question is whether pcb's are 11 carcinogens or not." 12 Was that the central issue of the 13 meeting, or did you understand that to be the 14 central issue of the entire Industrial Bio-Test 15 research effort? 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: Back in '75? 17 MR. MC CONNELL: As of the date of that 1 8 meeting. 1 9 A. I can't apply this thought to the total 20 Industrial Bio-Test research effort. Because some 21 of the tests were not designed to address 22 carcinogenicty. But it does apply to parts of it. 23 Q. Okay. 24 So Monsanto as a company and the research Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicueo STLCOPCB4030374 7 43 1 program they commissioned, they had Industrial 2 Dio-Test undertake with respect to pcb's, were 3 both concerned not only with carcinogens but also 4 possible adverse health effects from exposure to 5 pcb's? ' 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And it was your understanding that 8 Industrial Bio-Test was to include in its reports 9 any findings of any kind of potential adverse 10 health effect, not just findings concerning 11 cancer? 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. And that was true with respect to the 14 two-year rat oral toxicity study in particular? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. That study was not limited solely to the 17 question of cancer? 1 8 A. That's right. 19 Q. Okay. 20 The memo goes on to say: 21 "The long-term 22 studies conducted at Bio-Test 23 indicate that the answer is 24 "no. Drs. Ward Richter and Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030375 7 49 1 Donovan Gordon are of this 2 opinion which is shared by M. 3 L. Keplinger and J. C. 4 Calandra. " 5 All of the people mentioned in that first 6 paragraph are Industrial Bio-Test people; is that 7 correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. The memo goes on to discuss Dr. 10 Kimbrough's work, in the second paragraph. In the 11 third paragraph it refers to some studies of pcb 12 products manufactured by people other than 13 Monsanto, Kanechlor-300 , -400 and -500 . Those 14 were not Monsanto products? 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. Okay. 17 Is there some comparability, if you know, 18 between the Kanechlor series of products and the 1 9 Aroclor series of products in the sense, I mean we 20 know they are all pcb's. 21 My question is can you say that 22 Kanechlor-300 is equivalent to Aroclor something 23 or other, in the sense that they are essentially 24 the same mixture of the various components or do Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030376 7^T 1 you know the answer to that? 2 A. I wouldn't quite describe them as 3 equivalent in having the same components. But 4 they were equivalent in attempting to have the 5 same percentage chlorine. - 6 Q. By weight? 7 A. By weight. 8 Q. Okay. 9 Differences in the manufacturing process 10 would lead to a different gas chromatograph 11 pattern even though the two mixtures had the same 12 percentage of chlorine by weight? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. Okay. 15 So research findings on the Kanechlor 16 products might not reach the same conclusions as 17 the same experiment done with the Aroclor product 1 8 with the same weight, percent chlorine by weight? 19 A. That is possible. 20 Q. That is possible. 21 Q. On page 2 of the memo, which is the third 22 page of Exhibit 322, in the second paragraph Dr. 23 Calandra goes on to say: 24 "The evidence to date Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030377 7 51 indicate that male rats are 2 more resistant than females to 3 the formation of nodular 4 hyperplasia as as well as 5 hepatocellular carcinoma. 6 Rats are also more resistant 7 to the induction of these 8 lesions than mice." 9 To your knowledge, did either Monsanto or 10 Industrial Bio-Test at any time go back to the raw 11 data that already existed with respect to the 12 Industrial Bio-Test rat studies and try to 13 segregate out the numbers of liver lesions and the 14 types of lesions by sex of the animals? 15 A. There was a study to distinguish between 16 sex. I don't know about whether it was centered 17 on numbers. I know that they tried to separate 18 the combinations. 19 Q. The males from the females? 20 A. The males from the females. 21 Q. Had that been done by Industrial Bio-Test 22 prior to Exhibit 322? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did Industrial Bio-Test or anyone else cn Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chi STLCOPCB4030378 7 52 1 behalf of Monsanto ever study carcinogenesis of 2 pcb's in mice? 3 A. Did Monsanto conduct carcinogenesis 4 studies, no. 5 Q. Or did IBT on its behalf? . 6 A. No . 7 Q. . Okay. 8 Why was that? 9 A. It is my understanding that mice were not 10 perceived by Monsanto and its consulting 11 laboratories, including Industrial Bio-Test, as 1 2 being a reliable test animal for carcinogenesis. 13 Q. Were you you ever advised of the basis 14 for that conclusion? 15 A. Not in a scientific way. 16 The comment that I recall is that mice 17 very easily will show cancer effects on many 18 chemicals. 1 9 Q. Whatever you give to the mice causes 20 cancer ? 21 A. Not whatever, but many chemicals that do 22 not have the same effect on other animals seem to 23 affect the mice. 24 Q. Did anybody discuss with you the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030379 7 53 1 comparability of cancer data for mice and people, 2 as to whether -- in your last answer you indicated 3 that mice wouldn't be a good model for other 4 species of animals. 5 My question is did anybody look at the 6 question of whether the mouse experience and the 7 human experience was reasonably related? 8 A. It is my understanding that is even more 9 controversial and less reliable. 10 Q. You can go ahead and take your time and 11 review it if you haven't had a chance to read the 12 whole memorandum. 13 The third paragraph on page numbered 2 of 14 the memo of Exhibit 322 says: 1 5 It should be noted 16 that the liver sections which 17 were read by the pathologist 18 and reported in IBT number 19 641-06672 and dated March 24, 20 1975 were not the same slides 21 or sections as those reported 22 on originally." 23 Was there any explanation given to you at 24 that meeting or at any other time, for that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic arc STLCOPCB4030380 7 54 1 matter, as to why new sections had to be taken for 2 this later review by the various pathologists? 3 A. Yes. 4 I was told by Hr. Wheeler that sometimes 5 when they slice an organ, there may be parts of 6 that organ that are affected that your sampling 7 didn't pick up. So the intent here is to see more 8 of that liver, see if other slices of the organ 9 show these effects. 10 Q. If that were the case, wouldn't you want 11 the reviewing pathologist to look at both the old 12 slides and the new slides to get a total picture 13 of what was going on? 14 A. It seems so. 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: Page 3 of the memo says there 16 are no slides in the possession of FDA since June 17 of '73. Could be that they just were not 18 available. That is just what the memo says. 19 MR. MC CONNELL: I would come to that in due 20 cour se. 21 Q. But let me just ask you. Do you know 22 whether any effort was made before this meeting or 23 after it to get those slides back from FDA, so 24 that they could bet included in a review as well Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chiczgo. STLCOPCB4030381 , 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 55 as the new slides? A. All I can recall is that we continued cur effort to get the slides back. I do not know if they were viewed by others after the return. Q. After this, was there ever a third meeting? We have mentioned the first meeting that is reflected in the date of 322. Then there was a second meeting some days or weeks after that. Was there ever a third meeting that you attended on this subject of rat carcinogenesis by pcb1s ? A. No. Q. Okay. Some of the partial sentence on the bottom of page 2, carrying over to page 3 says: "Serial sections of the liver would eliminate some of the covariants." Referring to the reason why you don't cs: the same answer when you look at a different set of slides. In either of those two meetings, was there any discussion about going back and doing - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030382 7 55 1 serial sections of the remaining liver samples to 2 see if the covariants could be eliminated? 3 A. I don't recall that detail. 4 Q. Page 3 of the memo goes on to describe 5 the differences in the terminology among the 6 various pathologists that are looking at these 7 slides, as Dr. Squires' view as opposed to the 8 view of Monsanto and Industrial Bio-Test with 9 respect to what is or isn't a "carcinogenic 10 response. " 11 Does that summary comport with what your 12 understanding was before this meeting of the areas 13 of dispute amongst the various pathologists? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. That portion of the discussion at the 16 meeting wasn't new information to you? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. Okay. 1 9 Beginning near the bottom of page 4 there 20 is a list of several additional things that neec 21 to be done by Bio-Test. 22 Can you tell me which of the things on 23 that list were done after this meeting? 24 A. I really don't know. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030383 7 57 1 Q. In particular was there ever an 2 experiment designed to develop information on the 3 reversibility of the liver changes that were 4 observed? 5 A. Not to my knowledge. 6 Q. Okay. 7 Was there any discussion at the follow-up 8 meeting after April 18, 1975 about other health 9 effects other than cancer that were seen or not 10 seen in the rat studies? 11 A. NO. 12 Q. Those two meetings focused strictly on 13 the cancer question? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 (The documents above-referred to 16 were marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit Nos. 323 through 328, both 18 inclusive, for identification.) 1 9 Q. Exhibit 328 is a two-page letter from Dr. 20 Levinskas of Monsanto to Dr. Calandra at Bio-Test 21 dated July 18, 1975 stamped received July 21, 1975 22 and a single page chart attached to the letter 23 referred to as the attached table. 24 I will ask you if you have seen that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030384 753 1 Exhibit before today? 2 A. I do not recall seeing this document. 3 Q, Did you discuss with Dr. Levinskas at4 either of those two meetings we just talked about 5 or any other time the fact that he was going to 6 make a request of Industrial Bio-Test to change 7 the conclusions on the three 2-year oral rat 8 toxicity study reports? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Had you sign any draft versions of those 11 reports before the two meetings that we just 12 talked about? 13 A. No. 1 4 Q. Did you know before -- well, take your 15 time and finish reading that before I ask you. 16 A. That is all right. 17 Q. At either of those two meetings or at any 18 other time, did Dr. Levinskas say that he was 19 going to ask Industrial Bio-Test to change the 20 wording of his conclusions? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you receive copies of the three 23 reports on the three 2-year rat studies that 24 contained the conclusion phrase "does not appear. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030385 7 59 1 to be carcinogenic"? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Before today, were you aware that there 4 were earlier versions of those reports which said 5 that the conclusion was that each of the 6 substances was slightly tumorigenic? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When did you first become aware of that? 9 A. I think in preparing for this deposition. 10 Q. And in preparing for the deposition, did 11 you review the final reports of some of the 12 Industrial Bio-Test study? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did you review any <bf the Industrial 15 Bio-Test documents before coming here to testify? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you talk to somebody at Monsanto in 18 preparation for your deposition who told you that 1 9 the wording of those three reports had been 20 changed? 21 A. I don't recall if it was a Monsanto 22 person or outside counsel. 23 Q. Well, I am not permitted to ask you about 24 your conversations with outside counsel. So I Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030386 1 won't do that. 2 But it wasn't until you were preparing 3 for the deposition that you learned of the changes 4 in the wording of the three 2-year rat study 5 reports; is that correct? - 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. Did it surprise you to learn of those 8 particular changes? 9 A. No. 10 Q. In your view, does the change from 11 slightly tumorigenic to does not appear to be 12 carcinogenic reflect a substantive difference in 13 the conclusions? 14 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me interpose an objection 15 here. 16 Without the context of the entire report, 17 it is hard to say whether one word in a particular 1 8 sentence is a substantive change. 19 I think the question can't be answered 20 without showing the report. 21 As I recall the report, the entire page 22 was on tumors. We are talking about one sentence 23 on a full page discussion and, therefore, I think 24 it is impossible to answer the question as phrasec Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030387 761 1 as to whether in the context of the report this is 2 a substantive change. 3 MR. MC CONNELL: Nell, my question wasn't 4 whether in the context of the report it is a 5 substantive change. My question was in the 6 context of the conclusion is that a substantive 7 change. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: You have a whole page of 9 conclusions that I am talking about. 10 Can you show the witness the report or is 11 there some reason you won't do that to let him 12 answer the question? 13 MR. MC CONNELL: I could do that, but I would 14 like him to tell me rather than you telling me 15 whether he can answer the question without seeing 16 the report before I do that, now that you have 17 thoroughly coached him. 18 MR. FRUEHWALD: I raised an objection which I 19 think it is an infair question, Jim, to ask if 20 this is a significant change out of context, when 21 you can provide the context very easily. I think 22 it is a trick question. 23 MR. MC CONNELL: I didn't ask him if it v/as a 24 significant change. I asked him if it was a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030388 762 1 change in the meaning. 2 Now, he told me before that there was no 3 difference between significant findings and no 4 significant findings and effects and no effects, 5 which were the two terms in a letter. - He was able 6 to do that without looking at the back-up report 7 that was attached to that letter. And I want to 8 find out if he can do it in this instance without 9 looking at the report. If not, he can tell me 10 tha t. 11 You don't need to prompt him. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: I don't think that the analogy 13 you have drawn to the prior exhibit is a correct 14 one. 15 The question that is pending I have 16 raised my objection to it. And if the witness 17 feels he can answer it, he can go ahead. 18 A. I have forgotten the question. 1 9 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 20 Q. The question was in your view, is the 21 change from the phrase slightly tumorigenic to the 22 phrase does not appear to be carcinogenic change 23 the meaning of the conclusion? 24 A. Yes, it does. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030389 76 3 1 Q. In fact, if it didn't change the meaning 2 of the conclusion, there wouldn't be any reason 3 for Monsanto to press for that change in the 4 wording of the final report by Industrial 5 Bio-Test, would there? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: I object to the question, 7 pressing for changes, things of that nature. It 8 is a very argumentative question, Jim, as to what 9 was going on here. It is not supported by this 10 exhibit. 11 MR. MC CONNELL: I will withdraw that 12 question. Let me ask a different series of 13 questions. 14 Q. The report as it was originally sent and 15 called a final report from Industrial Bio-Test to 16 Monsanto contained the conclusion that was phrased 17 for all three substances that were the subject of 1 8 that study that they were slightly tumorigenic. 19 Monsanto had two meetings with people 20 from Industrial Bio-Test and then wrote a letter 21 that says we want you to change that, so that it 22 says does not appear to be carcinogenic. 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: Can you show me the letter 24 that says change all three reports? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics' STLCOPCB4030390 754 1 This letter says you have already chanced 2 two of the reports, why don't you make the third 3 one coincide with what you have done on the other 4 two. 5 There is no letter that I know of telling 6 them to change all three reports. 7 MR. MC CONNELL: There were two meetings that 8 led up to that. 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your making a lot of 10 argumentative assumptions here, there is no 11 factual basis for. That is why I object to your 12 questions. 13 MR. MC CONNELL: There is a factual basis in 14 the letter, I believe. 1 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: You are talking about this 16 letter, you are talking about a request of a 17 change in one report to coincide with two other 1 8 reports already change by Industrial Bio-Test. 1 9 There is no evidence that the change on the other 20 two reports was requested or otherwise caused by 21 Monsanto. 22 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 23 Q. To your knowledge was that change 24 requested by Monsanto on the two reports that were' Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030391 75 5 1 changed when that letter was written? 2 A. At this moment I am confused as to which 3 change was being recommended here. I see a 4 reference to two reports, a number 1 and a number 5 2, with the wording that we have expressed here. 6 I don't know what Monsanto's position, other than 7 in the write-up up front. 8 Q. According to the attachment, there was a 9 supplemental report number 1 mailed, it says here, 10 and under each substance the conclusion is listed 11 as slightly tumorigenic. 12 Supplemental report number 1, the column 13 headed supplemental report number 2, which is 1 4 noted JCC delivered. Two of the three substances, 15 the conclusion is does not appear to be 16 carcinogenic. The third one remains slightly 17 tumorigenic as a conclusion. 1 8 I take the letter to be a request by Dr. 19 Levinskas to change the 1255 conclusion, so that 20 it matches the conclusions for the other two 21 products; that is to say, that all three of them 22 will say does not appear to be carcinogenic. 23 Does that agree with your under standinc 24 of what is going on in that set of exhibits? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030392 756 1 A. Yes. By reading the letter and looking 2 at these charts, yes. 3 Q. All right. 4 At v/hose instance, if you know, was the 5 change that occurred with respect to 1260 and 1242 6 between supplemental report number 1 and 7 supplemental report number 2 made? 8 A. That I don't know. 9 Q. Was that change discussed at either of 10 those two meetings you attended? 11 A. No. The reports were not discussed at 12 the meetings. 13 Q. At meetings that you attended? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Okay. 16 May I see that. 17 Dr. Levinskas says in his letter, that it 18 does not appear to be carcinogenic is preferable. 1 9 Do you know why he preferred that phrase? 20 A. Since the issue of carcinogenicity became 21 quite important, it was considered that a 22 reference to whether or not it causes cancer was 23 more important than the fact that tumors were 24 observed in some instances. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030393 757 1 Tumors and cancer are not the same 2 subject. 3 So the reports as revised emphasized no 4 cancer rather than say slightly tumor forming. 5 There is a different thrust in the 6 conclusions. 7 Q. And it was Monsanto's preference that the 8 emphasis be on what didn't happen rather than on 9 what did happen in those studies? 10 A. Yes. To answer a very important . 11 question. Yes. 1 2 Q. In other words, without an Industrial 13 Bio-Test study report that said the substances dia 14 not appear to be carcinogenic, there was nothing 15 that could be put head to head with Dr. 16 Kimbrough's study as reaching an opposite 17 conclusion? 1 8 A. At that time. Yes. 19 Q. The letter in 328 goes on to comment 20 about lack of agreement in animal numbers between 21 the various versions of the report, does it not? 22 A. Yes, it does. 23 Q. Was there any discussion at the two 24 meetings you attended about the lack of agreement Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030394 75 3 1 in the animal numbering? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Before I showed you Exhibit 328, had you 4 been aware of that problem at all? 5 A. No. 6 Q. From what you know about the other 7 Monsanto products that led up to the indictment of 8 Paul 17right and Moreno Keplinger and Dr. Cala.ndra, 9 that is one of the same problems that existed in 10 those other studies, wasn't it, that they couldn't 11 track the animal from start to finish? 1 2 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Do you know if the issues about animal 14 numbering that are raised in Exhibit 328 were ever 15 resolved to Monsanto's satisfaction? 16 A. I understand they were eventually 17 resolved. 1 8 Q. Did anybody after the time of this July 19 18, 1975 letter that we have marked as Exhibit 20 328 -- did anybody from Monsanto go back to 21 Industrial Bio-Test and go through the raw data, 22 that is, the lab notebooks, the body weight books 23 and other original laboratory records, to 24 determine whether in fact there was or was not Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicac o STLCOPCB4030395 1 substitution of animals in mid-study in those 2 three studies? 3 A. I don't know that. 4 Q. You don't know, in fact, whether that was 5 done in connection with the Booz, Allen and 6 Hamilton review either? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. Did you ever hear of or perceive any 9 resistance on the part of Industrial Bio-Test to 10 making the change that is requested in Exhibit 11 328? 12 A. I heard nothing. 13 Q. I show you what has been marked as 14 Exhibit 323, which is a one-page letter originally 15 typed with a date of July 25, and scratched out 16 and redated August 4, from Dr. Calandra to Dr. 17 Levinskas. And on the front of it there is a 18 handwritten note signed by somebody named Adele. 19 I will ask if you ever saw either of 20 those documents before? 21 A. I have not seen either document. 22 Q. Exhibit 324 is a handwritten document 23 which appears to me to be a rough draft of the 24 typed version of 323. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic1, STLCOPCB4030396 770 1 Would you recognize the handwriting of 2 Dr. Calandra? 3 A. No . 4 Q. Okay. Never mind about that exhibit, 5 then. ' 6 Exhibit 325 is a one-page letter typed 7 with a date of August 4, 1975 from Dr. Calandra to 8 Dr. Levinskas. 9 I will ask you if you ever saw that 10 version of the other preceding two exhibits? 11 A. No, I had not. 12 Q. 325 reflects an acquiescence in the 13 request to Industrial Bio-Test that they change 14 the conclusion of the one report that was 15 requested by Monsanto? 16 A. It does that, yes. 17 Q. It also responds to the questions about 18 discrepancies in animal numbering? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you know whether there was any further 21 dialogue either by way of correspondence or phone 22 conversations, or face-to-face meetings between 23 Monsanto and Industrial Bio-Test on the subject of 24 the disagreement in animal numbering? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030397 771 1 A. I have no knowledge at all on that. 2 Q. Exhibit 326 is a letter dated August 5, 3 1975 in Dr. Calandra to Dr. Levinskas. 4 Have you ever seen that letter? 5 A. No. I have not. " 6 Q. Do you know whether that was mailed or 7 hand delivered? 8 A. I do not know. 9 Q. This letter refers to a revised page 2. 10 Is that the changed conclusion that is 11 referred to in the previous Exhibit, dated August 1 2 4? 13 A. It appears to be. 14 Q. Okay. 15 So they didn't send a new report. They 16 just sent the page with the revision on it? 17 A. That is what is implied here. 18 Q. To your knowledge, that was the same 19 procedure that had been followed on other 20 occasions? 21 A. That is very typical. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Did you at some time after August 5, 24 1975, receive copies of these three rat study Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic?.-:; STLCOPCB4030398 772 1 reports? 2 A. Eventually I did. I don't recall just 3 when, though. 4 Q. Okay. 5 But the only copies you received had the 6 dose not appear to be carcinogenic conclusion? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So it would have had to have been after 9 August 5, 1975? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Exhibit 327 is a letter dated August 14, 12 1975 stamped received August 18, 1975 to Dr. 13 Calandra from Dr. Levinskas and I will ask you if 14 you have ever seen that document? 15 A. ' I don't recall ever seeing this document. 16 Q. Apparently as of the date of Exhibit 327, 17 the matter of discrepancies in animal numbering 18 among the various versions of the two-year oral 1 9 rat study reports had not been resolved to Dr. 20 Levenskas' satisfaction. Is that a fair 21 statement? 22 A. That appears to be correct. 23 Q. As I understand your earlier testimony, 24 this whole question of problems with the animal Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030399 77 3 1 numbering in these studies was never brought to 2 your attention? 3 A. True. 4 Q. Based on what you have seen here in these 5 exhibits today, does that continuing inability to 6 resolve the discrepancies in animal numbering 7 raise a question in your mind about the validity 8 of the results in that study? 9 A. Not truly. Because of what Booz, Allen 10 Hamilton reported. At least what I was told they 11 reported. . 12 So from that information, I am led to 13 believe that the study and conclusions are still 1 4 valid. 15 Q. To your knowledge, did Booz, Allen and 16 Hamilton people actually go to Industrial Bio-Test 17 and review the complete Industrial Bio-Test file 1 8 on all these studies? 1 9 A. That is my understanding, yes. 20 Q. So, presumably, they would have seen this 21 correspondence that we have before us here today? 22 A. I don't know what they looked for. 23 Q. You don't know what kind of people they 24 used to do the looking either, do you? -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030400 774 1 A . NO . 2 Q. What their training was? 3 A. I do not know. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Booz, Allen and Hamilton as I understand 6 it is a management consulting company. 7 Is that correct? 8 A. Well/ I don't claim to know all about 9 Booz, Allen and Hamilton. They also have the 10 Arthur D. Little group which is a subsidiary which 11 is technically oriented, so they do have access to 12 technical skills of various types. I don't know 13 exactly what they have. 14 Q. Was Arthur Little group involved in this 1 5 review, if you know? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. All you know is that somebody at Monsanto 18 told you that you they got a clean bill on the pcb 19 studies done by Industrial Bio-Test? 20 A. That is cor rect. 21 Q. I may have asked you this before, but do 22 you know even though you haven't seen it whether 23 there was, in fact, a written report on that 24 review from Booz, Allen and Hamilton? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030401 / /t 1 A . No, I don't know. 2 0. Before the Industrial Bio-Test 3 indictments were returned, had Booz, Allen done 4 other work for Monsanto? 5 A. I understand they have, yes. 6 Q. Have you ever worked with them before? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you know in the course of the earlier 9 work that Booz, Allen did for Monsanto, whether 10 they customarily submitted their reports in 11 writing? . 12 A. That is the custom, yes. 13 Q. So you would expect that there should be 14 a written report of this pcb study review that 15 they did? 16 A. I would expect one, yes. 17 Q. I don't think we have asked you, Mike, 18 but if you have got such a report I would sure 19 like to see it. 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: I will note the request. I 21 have not seen the document so I don't know whether 22 one exists. 23 MR. MC CONNELL: All right. 24 Let's see if we can turn to a different Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chica-c STLCOPCB4030402 775 1 subject. Let's take five minutes. 2 (A short recess was taken.) 3 MR. MC CONNELL: Back on the record. 4 Do you want to mark this whatever our 5 next number is. 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 329 for identification.) 9 Q. Exhibit 329 is a letter you wrote on 10 October 17, 1975 to Larry it looks like Wapensky 11 of the you USEPA. 12 Do you recall what that refers to? 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. What was the samples that were sent? 15 A. Mr. Wapensky asked for a sample of 16 Aroclor 1016. And by that time we had a 17 preprinted form that we asked the requestors to 1 8 fill out. 1 9 Q. So that you would know what it was chev 20 proposed to do with the stuff? 21 A. It was primarily one of their 22 understanding that they were to handle it 23 properly. Don't dispose to the environment. 24 Precautionary kinds of statements. That was Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030403 777 1 returned, and this acknowledges the return of that 2 form. 3 In the meantime, I offered to enclose 4 with this letter some information I had on the 5 Aroclor 1016, which was the specifications, how it 6 compared with Aroclor 1242. 7 Q. With respect to physical and chemical 8 characteristics? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. Was this in connection with some EPA 11 research or do you recall what it was he wanted to 1 2 use it for? 13 A. This was involved with EPA studies. I 14 don't know specifically what for. 1 5 Q. ' At this time the EPA wasn't very old, was 16 it, a couple years? 17 A. This is about five years old now. 18 Q. Had you dealt with people at the EPA 1 9 before this with respect to pcb's? 20 A. Oh, yes. But this is the first contact 21 with the field office. 22 Q. You had been dealing with Washington 23 before that? 24 A. Correct. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030404 77 3 1 Q. Do you want to mark that 330. 2 (The document a bove-referred to 3 was marked Bloomington Deposition 4 Exhibit No. 330 for identification.) 5 Exhibit 330 is a letter dated also 6 October 17, 1975 from you to Dr. Raymond Shapiro 7 of the Food and Drug Administration. 8 I take it you were forwarding that paper 9 to him in the spirit of information sharing which 10 existed throughout the course of your role as peb 11 coordinator; is that correct? 12 A. Yes, that's correct. 13 Q. That wasn't something that he had 14 specifically requested from you? 15 A. NO. 16 Q. By October 17, 1975 had the FDA set 17 specific guidelines for peb levels in a various 1 8 foodstuffs? 19 A. Yes, it had. 20 Q. Hark this. 21 (The document above-referred to 22 was marked Bloomington Deposition 23 Exhibit Mo. 331 for identification.) 24 Was there ever an effort by Monsanto to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicarc STLCOPCB4030405 77 3 1 get the if FDA to make a distinction between 1016 2 and its other products with respect to those 3 examination guidelines? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Exhibit 331 is a letter dated October 31, 6 1975 from you to you Dr. David Brown of the 7 National Institute for Occupational Health and 8 Safety. 9 Do you recall writing that letter? 10 A. Yes. I wrote this letter. 11 Q. What was the nature of the customer 12 information that he requested? 13 A. He wanted to know who our customers were 14 and the types of pcb's that we sold them and how 1 5 much . 16 Q. Was that the kind of information that 17 prompted -- strike that. 1 8 Was that the same kind of information 19 that had initially been requested of Monsanto by 20 Congressman Ryan that John Mason initially refused 21 to provide to Congressman Ryan without some 22 assurance of confidentiality. 23 Do you recall that exchange of 24 correspondence? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicle STLCOPCB4030406 n 1 A. Yes . 2 No, that earlier request was in broader 3 terms and not related to specific customers and 4 their locations. This request, the customer by 5 name and address and the amount. ' 6 Q. So the National Institute of Occupational 7 Health and Safety wanted more detail than what 8 Congressman Ryan had asked for? 9 Q. That's right. 10 Q. When did the policy change at Monsanto 11 from not providing the information without 12 assurances of confidentiality as reflected in 13 Mason's correspondence with Ryan to your 14 indication in Exhibit 331 that NIOSH already had 15 that detailed information? 16 A. This information was given to the 17 agencies with the stipulation that it be treated 1 8 confidentially. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Not shared with your competitors, in 21 other words? 22 A. That's right. 23 Q. All right. 24 A. The previous information was eventually Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030407 7 31 1 given to the inter-agency taskforce that put out 2 the March 1972 report, and at that point we did 3 not ask for confidential treatment. 4 Q. But the information which was given to 5 the task force didn't identify specific locations? 6 A. No. But it identified Monsanto's share 7 of the market amounts, types of applications, 8 other types of confidential information. 9 Q. But there was a distinction still being 10 made by Monsanto between protecting information 11 that was proprietary only to Monsanto and 12 information that was proprietary to Monsanto and 13 its customers? 14 A. Correct. 1 5 Q. The company felt it had to be a little 16 more careful with its customers' proprietary 17 information than it did with its own? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. That is not an unreasonable position to 20 take, I guess. 21 Do you want to mark this. ' 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 332 for identification.)-- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030408 7 12 1 332 is a letter to you from Harvey Stein 2 of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare 3 dated November 4, 1975. 4 I will ask if you recall receiving that 5 letter ? - 6 A. I recall this, yes. 7 Q. What was the information that is referred 8 to in the letter that you supplied to the 9 Department of Health, Education and Welfare? 10 A. It is primarily the last three pages, 11 three sheets. 12 Q. Which he had incorporated into the larger 13 document that is attached to the letter; is that 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So in essense he is writing back to you 17 to let you know what it was he did with the 18 information you gave him? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And to share the rest of that compilation 21 with you; is that correct? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. What at the time of November 1975 was the 24 role of the office of Occupational Health, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030409 33 1 Surveillance and Biometrics with respect to pcb1s, 2 was that part of NIOSH? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. ' 5 So their concern was with worker 6 exposure, principally? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And the FDA's concern was with exposure 9 through food contamination? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And the EPA's concern was with exposure 12 through other environmental contact? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Does the summary of the various studies 15 that is contained on pages numbered pages 6, 7, 16 and 8 of the report that is attached as part of 17 Exhibit 332, to your knowledge as of the date of 1 8 the letter include all of the reported Industrial 19 Bio-Test studies? 20 A. I don't see the Bio-Test studies listed. 21 Q. Do you know why they were not? 22 A. Mo, I don't. 23 Q. Presumably they had been made 24 available -- well, let me ask that as a question. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chios's STLCOPCB4030410 1 Had the Industrial Bio-Test report been 2 made available to the National Institute of 3 Occupational Safety and Health? 4 A. I don't think so. I really don't 5 remember clearly, but I don't think this 6 particular agency got a copy of their own. 7 Q. Okay. 8 They went to the Food and Drug 9 Administration? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And they went to the Environmental 12 Protection Agency? 13 A. EPA. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. 1 5 A. And USDA. 16 Q. Department of Agriculture? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. That was as a result of the prior use in 19 pesticides, as a medium for pesticides, or why was 20 it supplied to the USDA? 21 A. They were involved with pesticides, as 22 well as their interest in meat and grain. 23 Q. They are at the other end of the food 24 chain from the Food and Drug Administration? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030411 7 35 1 A. That is correct. 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me note that the document 3 hasn't been studied by the witness, but there does 4 appear to be a footnote to a Keplinger/Fancher 5 report cited as the chicken study, as "one of the 6 things that is included here. 7 MR. MC CONNELL: Does this indicate that it 8 was published or not? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes, toxico1-something 10 pharmacology, in 1971. So it is a very - 11 MR. MC CONNELL: The chicken study did get 12 published. 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: It appears to be a chicken 14 study by Keplinger at that period in '71, as 15 indicate by a footnote in this report. 16 MR. MC CONNELL: In that document. 17 Q. So if that were published, it would have 18 been available to them other than having been 19 supplied by Monsanto? 20 A. That is true. 21 Q. To your knowledge, did the National 22 Institute of Occupational Health and Safety ever 23 request from you, Mr. Papageorge, copies of the 24 Industrial Bio-Test study reports that were not . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chico.''- STLCOPCB4030412 7 85 1 published? 2 A. Yes. Through me to Dr. Levinskas. In 3 about 1975 or thereabouts, NIOSH was putting 4 together a criteria document and they were talking 5 with Dr. Levinskas regarding toxicolog-y effects. 6 I do not know what Dr. Levinskas shared 7 with them. 8 Q. Presumably since all of those reports had 9 already been supplied to two other federal 10 agencies, there wasn't any particular reason not 11 to share them with NIOSH? 12 A. There wouldn't appear to be any reason. 13 Q. Do you want to mark that. 14 (The document above-referred to 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit No. 333 for identification.) 17 Is it possible that, I know this happens 1 8 with legal journals, maybe it also happens with 19 scientific journals, that the 1971 issue of the 20 journal would actually not be out as of February 21 1 972? 22 A. What I don't know is what this 19 means. 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: Probably a volume number. 24 MR. MC CONNELL: Volume number I would assume. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030413 7 87 1 A. I just don't know about that publication, 2 whether it is published quarterly or when ready. 3 Q. In any event, it does appear that some 4 Bio-Test chicken study was ultimately published. 5 Exhibit 333 is a memo consisting of five 6 pages, dated November 17, 1975 from J. Coleman 7 Webber to a list including yourself. 8 I will ask you if you recall receiving 9 that document? 10 A. Yes, I recall this document. 11 Q. Were you a participant in the discussions 12 that are reflected in the later pages of that 13 document? 14 A. Yes, I was. 15 Q. Over how long a period of time did they 16 take place? 17 A. Two days. 18 Q. Two days. Okay. 19 And that it was November 13 and 14, 1975? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And the memo was circulated on November 22 17, so it was shortly after the conclusion of the 23 discussions? 24 A. Right. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030414 7 33 1 Q. Where did those discussions take place? 2 A. In Washington, D.C. and the surrounding 3 area in the offices of the agencies that are 4 listed here. 5 Q. In other words, you and Dr. R'oush and r. 6 Webber -- was he a Monsanto employee? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And Mr, Easley, he has also a Monsanto 9 employee? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And Dr. Calandra from Industrial Bio-Test 12 made a tour during that two-day period of various 13 agency offices in Washington, D.C. to take the 14 story of the Bio-Test animal studies to the 1 5 government, so to speak? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Who made the arrangements for those 18 various visits to the government agencies? ' 1 9 A. Mr. Easley. 20 Q. Did he work for you at that time? 21 A. Mo. He was Monsanto's representative 22 located in Washington, D.C. 23 Q. Would it be fair to describe him as a 24 lobbyist? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030415 7 39 1 A. I don't know if he meets the total 2 definition of lobbyist, but he did represent 3 Monsanto and arrange for meetings for those of us 4 out of St. Louis. 5 I don't know that he participated in 6 legislative issues. 7 Q. You don't know whether he was actually 8 registered as a lobbyist or not? 9 A. I do not know that. 10 Q. All right. 11 A. He was more related to regulatory 12 agencies. 13 Q. But he was a full-time Monsanto employee? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. He didn't represent any other companies? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Okay. 1 8 According to the memorandum in the 19 paragraph on the second page, the numbered 20 paragraph number 1, the purpose of the discussions 21 was to show that positive action was taken by 22 Monsanto in response to Dr. Kimbrough's report 23 that Aroclor 1260 caused malignant tumors in the 24 liver of the rat and, number 2, to report the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030416 7 90 1 recent review by Industrial Bio-Test and Eppley 2 Institute Consultants. 3 Who is Eppley Institute Consultants? 4 A. That is a medical institute in Omaha, 5 Nebraska that Monsanto approached, retained to 6 help in the impartial analysis of the pcb livers 7 and damaged cells. 8 Q. They looked at the slides? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did they look at both sets or just the 11 second set, to your knowledge? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. In any event, the object of the trip was 14 to try and convince the government agencies that 15 in fact that pcb's, in particular the three 16 Aroclors that were studied by Industrial Bio-Test 17 were not carcinogens, is that a fair summary? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. And you met with the various government 20 employees that are listed? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did all of the Monsanto people and Dr. 23 Calandra meet with each of those government 24 employees or did you break up into groups and ao Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030417 7 91 1 around? 2 A. We went as a team and met with these 3 individuals. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Did you feel, you personally -as a result 6 of these two days of meetings, that you made any 7 progress in addressing the problem that is stated 8 in the last paragraph on the second page of the 9 Exhibit; that is, that people concerned with pcb's 10 treat them as one chemical and do not recognize 11 the difference between the different mixture 12 number s? 13 A. Yes. I personally felt that we made 14 considerable progress, at least in getting 15 receptivity to further discussions, and better 16 under standings. 17 Q. Okay. 1 8 Was part of the purpose of this trip tc 19 keep the 1016 product and other electrical grade 20 products alive as long as you could you? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Who initiated the idea of a mortality 23 study at Westinghouse's Bloomington, Indiana 24 capacitor plant? . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics -.o STLCOPCB4030418 7 92 1 A. I don't know. 2 0. It wasn't Monsanto? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. 5 The document refers to our, Monsanto's, 6 review of causes of death of employees associated 7 with the production of pcb's over the past 25 8 years. 9 Are you familiar with that study? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Was it completed? 12 A. Yes. And there was a report published or 13 completed also. 1 4 Q. The memo goes on to say that NIOSH is 1 5 concerned that there is poor control and 16 containment in plant practices once the pcb leaves 17 our plant, meaning Monsanto's plant. 18 Did you discuss with the NIOSH 19 representatives you met with engineering practices 20 that could be used to control pcb release by your 21 customer s ? 22 A. Yes, in a general way. Yes. 23 0. Would it be fair to say that the NIOSH 24 concern reflected the same concern that Monsanto Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030419 7 93 1 had about sloppy customer practices based or. your 2 visit and other Monsanto employees' visits to 3 various customer facilities? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So they weren't telling you anything you 6 didn't already know? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Did the NIOSH people that you talked to 9 at these meetings indicate that they had, any of 10 them had visited the Bloomington Westinghouse 11 plant? 12 A. No. In fact as I remember none had 13 visited an industrial site, the NIOSH people. 1 4 0. So, whatever they were talking about 15 doing was still in the raw idea stage? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. None of them really had any field 18 experience with pcb use? 1 9 A. Right. 20 And earlier you talked about their 21 concern being equivalent to Monsanto's. I said 22 yes. What I meant is the concern was equivalent 23 but timewise our concern in 1970 equaled their 24 concern in 1975. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030420 7 34 1 Q. Did NIOSH tell you that they were not 2 recommending the banning of pcb's but, rather, 3 restricted practices, or is that a conclusion that 4 the Monsanto team drew on the basis of the 5 discussions? - 6 A. No, this came up in the discussion and 7 they came out with that thought. 8 Q. They were recognizing, in other words, 9 that no effective substitute had been successfully 10 developed as of the time of these meetings? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. On the third page of Exhibit 333 there is 13 a reference to the McAllister bill in the House on 14 toxic substances, is that reference to the bill 15 that ultimately became the Toxic Substances 16 Control Act? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. You also visited with some congressional 19 committee representative? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was it your conclusion or was it their 22 statement to you, that is, Representative Daniels 23 and his staff, that they can use pcb's as a 24 politicaltool? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 C h i c r. o c STLCOPCB4030421 1 A. It was our conclusion. 2 Q Unlike N10 S H , they didn't come riaht cut 3 and tell you that is what they were planning to 4 do, I take it? 5 A. That is correct. - 6 Q. Did the subcommittee on manpower 7 compensation, health and safety ultimately conduct 8 hearings on pcb problems? 9 A. Not to my knowledge. 10 Q. Is that because you all talked them out 11 of it? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. You also visited the National Cancer 14 Institute? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. That is NCI? 17 A. Correct. 1 8 Q. And NCI was already in tune with the 19 ongoing dispute in the pathological community 20 about how to interpret these findings? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. That was Dr. Kimbrough's agency, was it 23 not ? 24 A. No. She used pathologists from that ___ Longoria & Ooldstine 236 1030 Chicacc STLCOPCB4030422 7 96 1 agency. She was down in Georgia with the -2 Q. Center for Disease Control? 3 A. She transferred to the Center for Disease 4 Control. 5 Q. In any event, the National Cancer 6 Institute would have been familiar with her work, 7 at least to the extent that it related to cancer? a A. Yes. Because their pathologists were 9 involved with Dr. Kimbrough's work. 10 Q. Who is Dr. David Rail? 11 A. He was -- he was and I believe still is 12 the director of the National Institute of 13 Environmental Health Sciences. 14 Q. That's the same outfit you mentioned 15 yesterday? 16 A. Located in North Carolina. 17 Q. Is he a medical doctor? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Where does he come out, if you know, on 20 the question of interpretation of liver lesions? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Was the fact that the committee, Health 23 Education and Welfare's toxicology coordinating 24 committee was chaired by Dr. Rail of some Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4030423 7 97 1 significance in the context of how that dispute 2 might be resolved by that committee? 3 A. I am not able to evaluate the 4 significance. He is a respected medical man ana 5 knows his way within government and is'well known. 6 So he makes a good chairman for such a 7 group. 8 Q. If the group were able to reach a 9 consensus, the fact that he was chairman of it 10 would give that consensus some significant weight 11 in the general scientific community, is that a 12 fair statement? 13 A. Not necessarily. He is in some regards 14 controversial. 15 Q. Okay. 16 The principal concern of the FDA as you 17 discussed it with them at these two days of 18 meetings was food levels of pcb's and in 19 particular levels in fish; is that correct? 20 A. Fish was certainly high on their priority 21 list and they were also concerned about dairy 22 products and about animal feed. 23 Q. Okay. 24 There is a statement contained in pace 3 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030424 7 93 1 of the memo, of the exhibit here that says Kolbye, 2 I take it that is referring to Dr. A1 Kolbye? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Kolbye's concern is body burden. Is that 5 a reference to animal body burden or human body 6 burden? 7 A. Human. 8 Q. And body burden is a way of measuring the 9 total amount of pcb's that is accumulated in the 10 body; is that correct? 11 A. That is correct. 1 2 Q. That is one of the things in the context 13 of animals that Dr. Tucker's analysis was aimed at 14 learning or is it? 15 A. No. 16 Dr. Tucker's analyses were aimed at 17 determining whether there is a chemical change, 18 whether there is any retained or any metabolized, 19 discarded. His data would not lead to body burden 20 because he would be lacking distribution of pcb's 21 throughout the body and the total weight of that 22 body. 23 He was looking at specific organs, points 24 of concentration. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030425 7 39 1 Q. Okay. 2 Rather than? 3 A. Whole animal, fish or whatever. 4 Q. According to the last page of Exhibit 5 333, it says and I will read it, quote: 6 "In general this 7 group of EPA referring to 8 the listed names I take it "- 9 was not receptive to our 10 concept that pcb's are not 11 cancer-causing agents." 12 Do you recall any reasons they gave for 13 differing with the conclusions you were presenting 14 that pcb's do not cause cancer? 15 A. No. I don't recall them giving any 16 reasons. They just disagreed with the 17 interpretation that -- 18 Q. They came out on the Kimbrough side 19 rather than the Bio-Test side? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. It says here EPA most probably will treat 22 pcb's as such. 23 I take that to be as a cancer-causing 24 agent, which appears to be consistent with their Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030426 30 0 1 desire to have a toxic substances act 2 Does that reflect the view of the 3 Monsanto team that the EPA was also using pcb's as 4 a political tool? 5 A. Ye s. 6 Q. Is that still your view? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you want to mark this. 9 (The document above-referred to 10 was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 334 for identification.) 12 Are you familiar with an organization the 13 initials of which are CIGRE? I can't pronounce 14 it, it is in French. 15 A. CIGRE. Yes. I am familiar with the 16 acronym. 17 International conference on large 18 high-voltage electric systems, that is how they 19 translate it on their letterhead. 20 A. It is and electrical association. 21 Q. Something equivalent to the National 22 Electrical Manufacturers Association in the United 23 States? 24 A. Yes. Except that it is an international.... Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacc ^ STLCOPCB4030427 1 Yes 2 Q. Okay. 3 Is it a standard-setting body? 4 A. I don't associate it as a 5 standard-setting. 3ut that doesn't mean -6 Q. That doesn't mean that it is not? 7 A. That's right. 8 Q. All right. 9 Let me show you this document, Exhibit 10 334, which consists of a total of five pages. 11 The first page is a handwritten note 12 which has been cut off in the copying here and I 13 can't tell you what you it says. Second page is a 14 letter from E. H. Reynolds to Dr. T. W. Dakin of 15 Westinghouse, dated December 11 , 1 97 5 . 16 Take a look at that and tell me if you 17 have ever seen that before? 18 A. I have reviewed it. 19 Q. You are referred to in that letter as 20 being Dr. Munch's assistant. Was that an accurate 21 description? 22 A. NO. 23 Q. Who was Dr. Munch? 24 A. Dr. Munch was a research chemist wcrkinc Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030428 02 1 on applications of dielectric fluids reporting to 2 Dr. Richard, who was the director of research. 3 Q. Did Dr. Munch have something to do with 4 CIGRE as part of the his job responsibilities? 5 A. I don't know. . 6 Q.. In any event, he had some acquaintance 7 with these European people? 8 A. It appears to be so, yes. 9 Q. They made a request of him and he passed 10 it on to you, because you were the guy who was 11 supposed to respond for requests for information 12 on pcb's; is that correct? 13 A. That is what happened, yes. ' 14 Q. So that led the author of this letter 15 apparently to conclude that you were his 16 assistant? 17 A. I was assisting him. 1 8 Q. Not an unreasonable interpretation. It 19 didn't happen to be the correct one, I guess. 20 Do you know v/hat the SC 16 and W G 1502 21 meetings in Budapest had anything to do with? 22 A. I do not know. 23 0. Do you know without particular reference 24 to CIGRE whether there was a European Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicc^c STLCOPCB4030429 30 3 1 standard-setting body that was working on a set of 2 standards for pcb use in electrical equipment 3 similar to what the ANSI C 107 committee did in 4 the United States? 5 A. I was not aware and am not aware of any 6 such group. 7 Q. Do you agree with the statement in the 8 second paragraph on the third page of the exhibit 9 which is a letter from E. H. Reynolds to Dr. 10 Kimbrough, that the use of pcb's in electrical 11 equipment could be easily and completely 12 controlled to avoid contamination even at the 13 lowest detectable levels? 14 A. At that time we believed that. Since 15 then we found out it is not as easy as we thought 16 it would be. 17 Q. Theoretically possible, but it doesn't 18 seem to be practically possible, is that a fair 1 9 summary of the 1986 state of the knowledge? 20 A. That is what our experience has taught 21 us. 22 Q. Do you know whether there was ever any 23 action taken by any European country to ban pcb's 24 in electrical equipment? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030430 30 4 1 A. Yes. Scandinavian countries banned it. 2 I don't recall, the Netherlands were considering, 3 but I don't recall whether they actually banned 4 it. Thatisit. 5 Q. As far as you know it is still at least 6 legal, whether or not they are still in use in 7 other European countries? 8 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 9 Q. Would you mark this, please. 10 (The document above-referred to 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 335 for identification.) 13 Exhibit 335 is a memo from you to D. 14 Wood, dated December 19, 1975. Do you recall 15 sending that memo? 16 A. Yes. I do. 17 Q. Were the samples that Hr. Wills was 18 requesting Monsanto to analyze sewer effluent 19 samples? 20 A. I don't know. They might have been 21 effluents from individual units within a plant 22 instead of the final effluent. 23 Q. Depending on where the sample was taken 24 within the plant sewage system? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane. STLCOPCB4030431 80 5 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Monsanto had done this on isolated 3 occasions for Westinghouse in the past, had it 4 not? 5 A. Yes. - 6 Q. Would you mark that. 7 (The document above-referred to 8 was marked Bloomington Deposition 9 Exhibit No. 336 for identification.) 10 336 is a two-page letter from Roger 11 Hatton to Roger VJills dated January 19 , 1 976 . A 12 copy to you. 13 Is that the ultimate response of Monsanto 14 to the request as reflected in Exhibit 335? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You turned him down on that occasion? 17 A. That's what they did. 1 8 Q. To your knowledge, did Westinghouse ever 19 share with Monsanto what the EPA findings were on 20 the sewer or. effluent samples that were taken 21 where they had asked you to analyze the split 22 samples for them? 23 A. Not to my knowledge. 24 Q. So as far as you know, one result of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030432 306 1 refusal was that Monsanto wasn't able to find'out 2 what the effluent levels were as of that tine in 3 the Bloomington plant? 4 A. No. I don't know that. I left this job a 5 month later . 6 Q. So there may have been some information 7 that came in after you had gone? 8 A. That I didn't know about. 9 Q. Okay. 10 As of the time you left the pcb 11 coordinator job, you knew, did you not, that the 12 Westinghouse plant in Bloomington was still -- to 13 use a phrase that showed up in earlier 14 documents -- not, "bone dry," is that correct? 15 A. True. 16 Q. And you had been in that position a total 17 of about six years? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. A little over six years? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Had there been steady progress at the 22 Westinghouse-Bloomington plant over that period of 23 six years or was it kind of sporadic? 24 A. It was reported to me as steady progress. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030433 7 1 Q. I am going to show you a document that 2 was previously marked as Exhibit 207 and ask if 3 you recall receiving that, a copy of that memo, on 4 or about the date it bears? 5 A. I recall this memo, yes. . 6 Q. Up to the time you left the job of pcb 7 coordinator at Monsanto, was there ever a 8 satisfactory explanation uncovered for the 9 difference in the ability to recover pcb's from 10 distilled water as opposed to river water? 11 A. I don't know about the adjective 1 2 satisfactory explanation. There were explanations 13 offered. The difficulty in extracting from river 14 water was attributed to the presence of other 15 materials in the water, which interfered with the 16 extraction process and also with the presence of 17 particulate matter, invisible to the naked eye but 1 8 still present, to which the pcb's would adhere. 19 Q. Adsorption as you and Mr. Karaganis were 20 discussing earlier today? 21 A. Yes. 22 Then when the sample was processed by 23 filtration or passage through the capillary tubes 24 used in the analytical procedure, the pcb's v/ould Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030434 30 3 1 go with the particulate matter and would not be 2 detected in the water itself. 3 Q. So that is the same phenomenon that was 4 relied on or one of the phenomena that was relied 5 on in the technology of removing the pcb's from 6 the water? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. That is, you put it on a particle and you 9 filter the particle out? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Would you mark this, please. 12 (The document above-referred to 13 was marked Bloomington Deposition 14 Exhibit No. 337 for identification.) 15 Exhibit 337 is a memo dated February 10, 16 1976 consisting of three pages. That is all I can 17 say about it because that is all I know. 1 8 Referring to a membership list of 19 something called the pcb ad hoc committee 20 membership. 21 What was the pcb ad hoc committee? 22 A. This is a committee within the -- I 23 believe it is the EEI. 24 Q. Edison Electric Institute? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic.-m: STLCOPCB4030435 1 A. Let me be sure here that I am not 2 confusing my groups. There is Edison Electric 3 Institute. Then there is another group Electronic 4 Industries Association, EIA. I believe it was the 5 EIA. This is a committee of that organization, 6 Electronic Industries Association. 7 Q. Okay. 8 Is that a standard-setting body? 9 A. Not to my knowledge. 10 Q. What was it that the ad hoc pcb committee 11 was doing within the context of the EIA? 12 A. They were preparing a statement that /they 13 were going to share with legislative bodies, state 14 and federal, supporting the continued use of pcb1 s 15 because of their safety features. 16 Q. Is EIA an organization that sends 17 delegates to NEMA or to ANSI? 18 A. No, there are companies that belong to 19 both, NEMA and EIA, And it is the companies that 20 send the delegates. 21 Q. Was Arrow Box industries a pcb customer 22 of Monsanto? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was Cornell Dubilier Electronics a pcb Longoria & Goldstine 236 103G Chicane STLCOPCB4030436 310 1 customer of Monsanto? '' 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Everybody on this list other than 4 Monsanto was a pcb customer of Monsanto? 5 A. I would have to see it again. 6 Q. All right. 7 See if there is anybody on there who is 8 not. 9 A. There is a representative of EIA listed. 10 Q. A staff of the association? 11 A. A staff vice president. 12 A. Other than the staff vice president of 13 EIA, and the Monsanto representatives, all other 14 members do represent Monsanto customers of pcb's. 15 Q. .Who was Cole Weber? 16 A. He replaced me in my pcb coordinator 17 assignment. 1 8 Q. Is he still with Monsanto? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you know where he is now? 21 A. He is retired and the last I heard he is 22 residing in the St. Louis area. 23 Q. What part of the Monsanto organization 24 did he come from when he replaced you as pcb Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030437 311 1 coordinator? 2 A. He was my counterpart within the same 3 operating unit. Industrial Chemicals Company, 4 responsible for a different set of products than 5 the set I had. 6 Q. His set didn't include pcb's? 7 A. Pcb's were kept out of his set and I 8 retained those. But then they rejoined the 9 appropriate set when they were given to him. 10 Q. When he took over for you? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. When you say the appropriate set, you are 13 describing the chemical relationship to each 14 other ? 1 5 A. I was thinking of the functional fluids 16 group of products. 17 Q. Would you mark that, please, 338. 1 8 (The document above-referred to 1 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit No. 338 for identification.) 21 Exhibit 338 is a three-page document 22 which consists of a one-page memo from you to J. 23 C. Weber and attached letter of one page dated 24 October 12, memo is dated October 18, 1978, the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chico -c STLCOPCB4030438 Q1 9 1 attached letter is dated October 12, 1978 to you 2 from William A. Wallace of the EPA and attached to 3 the letter, although I can't say why, another one 4 of these phantom attachments here. Mow, it is a 5 two-page exhibit. I took off a page of 6 Westinghouse analytical results October 20, 1978 7 from Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories, Inc., 8 which bears no apparent relationship to the other 9 two pages that I can determine. 10 Let's do this. Let's mark this as 339. 11 I think maybe we can get rid of this quickly. 12 (The document above-referred to 13 was marked Bloomington Deposition 14 Exhibit No. 339 for identification.) 15 At the time that Monsanto declined to do 16 those water sample analysis for Westinghouse, did 17 you recommend some commercial laboratories to 1 8 them? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was Analytical Biochemistry Processes, 21 Inc. one of those labs if you recall? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 339 is a one-page analysis, results of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030439 313 1 Westinghouse Electric Corporation water analysis 2 for pcb's dated October 20, 1978. Which, of 3 course, is after you left the pcb coordinator 4 role. 5 Do you know whether this report was ever 6 shared with Monsanto? 7 A. I do not. 8 Q. Now, back to 338, which is now a two-pace 9 exhibit, do you recall receiving the letter and 10 writing the memo? 11 A. I recall receiving the letter from Mr. 12 Wallace of EPA and recall forwarding it to Mr. 13 Cole Weber for a response. 14 Q. Do you know if he ever responded? 15 A. I do not know. 16 Q. Okay. 17 The second paragraph of Mr. Wallace's 18 letter says: 19 "Our principal 20 concern is to identify 21 feasible commercial routes for 22 the disposition of pcb's that 23 are available to persons who 24 are disinclined to pay the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics": STLCOPCB4030440 314 1 cost of proper storage and 2 disposal." 3 Do you understand what that means? 4 A. I think I do. 5 Q. What does it mean to you? ' 6 A. The way I interpret it is there ways of 7 proper disposal other than just storing it. That 8 word disposal is all-encompassing. The way I 9 interpret it was is there a commercial service 10 that is less costly than the storage and on-site 11 incineration, other means of disposal. 1 2 Q. Okay. 13 As of the date on exhibit -- what is the 14 number of that, 338? 1 5 A. 338. 16 Q. Chemical hazardous waste disposal 17 facilities or incineration were the only two 1 8 acceptable ways to get rid of pcb or 19 pcb-contaminated waste; is that correct? 20 A. That is correct. 21 Q. And this gentleman's inquiry to you, both 22 of those are comparatively expensive as ways of 23 getting rid of garbage go. He is asking is there 24 some other way to do it? . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030441 2 15 1 A. Is there a cheaper way to do it is the 2 way I read that. 3 Q. Okay. 4 As far as you knew at that time the 5 answer was no? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. At least not to do it safely, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. I mean, obviously, there are cheaper ways 10 to do it, but Monsanto wasn't advocating them at 11 that time, I take it. 12 Had you stopped selling pcb's in October 13 of 1978? 14 A. Oh, yes. 15 Q. Long since? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Wou were a member of a subcommittee of 18 the American National Standards Institute called 1 9 C 107? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. 22 As I understand it, the American National 23 Standards Institute is a organization that is in 24 the business of establishing minimum standards for Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030442 8 16 1 various industrial processes, product performance 2 and the like, is that a fair description of what 3 it does? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. To your knowledge, is that a 6 government-sponsored organization? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Okay. 9 Hr. Benignus seemed to be of the opinion 10 that it was. He and I argued a lot about that. 11 It is an industry-sponsored organization; 12 is that correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And its membership consists of companies 15 in the various industries that are covered by the 16 standards it promulgates? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. 19 And the subject, the work of the C 137 20 subcommittee of ANSI as I understand it was use 21 and controls of pcb's, is that a fair statement? 22 A. And dielectric applications.. 23 Q. Transformers and capacitors? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030443 317 1 Q. Which at the time that C 107 began was 2 about all that was left in the United States? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. By Monsanto's action in refusing to sell 5 pcb's for other purposes? . 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. When was the C 107 committee formed, if 3 you recall? 9 A. The committee was originally formed under 10 the auspices of the National Electrical 11 Manufacturers Association, so as a group they 12 existed starting in 1970. 13 Q. . -Under the auspices of NEMA? 14 A. NEMA. I am trying to recall, sometime 15 either late '70, early '71, it requested and got 16 sponsorship under ANSI and at that time it became 17 known as ANSI C 107. 18 Q. Okay. 1 9 C 107 is a form of numbering that is 20 employed by ANSI to designate various standards 21 that it promulgates? 22 A. I thought that C 107 was assigned to this 23 group for this subject. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chisago STLCOPCB4030444 313 1 A. Other numbers were assigned to other 2 groups. 3 Q. Right. 4 Did this group ultimately come up with a 5 standard that was approved by ANSI? . 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Was that standard also number C 107? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. NEHA is also a standard-setting 10 organization, is it not? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Within the electrical industry? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And primarily sets standards with respect 15 to fire protection and performance of electrical 16 machinery and equipment? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. National Electrical Code is one of the 19 big things that comes out of NEHA, isn't it? 20 A. I don't know if NEHA is on that. I can't 21 speak for that. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. By they do have standards for electrical 24 equipment of all kinds, both safety, fire and Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030445 319 1 performance. 2 Q. Why was it that NEKA sought ANSI 3 sponsorship for the pcb standard-setting effort? 4 A. Well, it was perceived very early on that 5 the pcb's in transformers and capacito-rs involved 6 more than the manufacture of electrical equipment, 7 it involved the users, the utility companies, that 8 generated power. It involved government agencies. 9 So it was perceived to require a broader 10 umbrella, if you will. And ANSI seemed to be the 11 logical unit. 1 2 Q. Was it perceived that a NEKA standard 13 regulating pcb's would have less persuasive force 14 with government agencies than an ANSI standard? 15 A. Oh, I don't know how to measure the 16 persuasive ability. I don't know that that was 17 really the intent. 1 8 The intent was to interest the users of 19 the equipment in addition to the manufacturers of 20 the equipment. 21 Q. Building owners, substation operators, 22 and large industrial facilities, people like that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did that effort succeed? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chica:: STLCOPCB4030446 1 A. We think it did. Yes. . 2 Q. You got some people from companies of 3 that nature involved in the C 107 committee 4 process? 5 A. I remember some utility representative 6 and a service company that went around and 7 repaired and overhauled or refilled transformers. 3 We did get some federal government 9 representation. 10 Q. Was the government participation in this 11 C 107 process as much as had been hoped for by the 12 industry members? 13 A. Not really, no. It was a disappointment. 14 Q. Do you want to mark this. 15 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 340 for identification.) 18 Had you been active in NEKA or ANSI or 1 9 both before the C 107 effort commenced? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Were you familiar with the ANSI standards 22 that applied to chemical industry before you 23 became the pcb coordinator? 24 A. Some of them. Longoria & Golds.tine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030447 1 Q. Those are related to the plant that was 2 under your supervision? 3 A. Some of them. Primarily the labeling 4 standard. 5 Q. Okay. . 6 In that context, were you familiar with 7 the phenomenon that government regulatory agencies 8 often adopt or adopt in some modified form the 9 ANSI standards as their own regulatory standards? 10 A. I was aware of that. Yes. 11 Q. 17as it the intent of those electrical 12 industry people who participated in ANSI C 107 13 that ANSI would come up with a pcb standard that 14 would be adopted by the EPA and NIOSH? 15 A. I don't perceive it as an intent. It was 16 a desired objective that if the standard was a 17 good one, it could be adopted. 18 Q. The best way for individual companies to 19 have an impact on the government standard setting 20 process was through something like ANSI C 107 21 rather than individual lobbying of the regulators? 22 A. That is what we thought. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 It turned out it didn't work? Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030448 0 2 ~> 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. Is that correct, in terms of adoption? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Ultimately the EPA banned pcb's? 5 A. That' s. r igh t. . 6 Q. Rather than taking the C 107 approach to 7 attempt at control? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. I am handing you a document we have 10 marked as Deposition Exhibit 340, which is 11 entitled Monsanto pcb program dated September 14, 12 1971 . 13 I will ask you if you recognize that? 14 A. I recognize it. 15 Q. Is that a written presentation that you 16 made to one of the early meetings of the ANSI 17 C 107 group? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did you actually draft that document 20 either alone or in conjunction with some other 21 people at Monsanto? 22 A. Oh, I ended up doing the drafting, yes, 23 with reviews and inputs from others. 24 Q. Who reviewed it before you presented it Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chi STLCOPCB4030449 323 1 to the C 107 group? 2 A. Oh, the group of Monsanto's people we 3 discussed earlier, research representative, 4 manufacturer representative, business 5 representative. PR man, lawyer. 6 Q. So as this document 340 was presented to 7 ANSI C 107, it was a statement of the company's 8 position and not just Bill Papageorge's 9 interpretation of what Monsanto was doing; is that 10 cor rect? 11 A. That is correct, yes. 12 Q. On the page numbered 4 of this document 13 there is a statement: 14 "There is growing 15 concern that we should be 16 considering to a greater 17 degree chronic effects of all 18 these materials rather than 19 relying on the old acute 20 studies that used to serve as 21 a screening for many, many 22 chemicals. " 23 Do you see that statement? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030450 C1 * 1 Q. Is that a reference to the type of skin 2 patch testing that we saw in the late forties and 3 early fifties, way back in the beginning of your 4 deposition? 5 A. Which part of the sentence? . 6 Q. The reference to the old acute test 7 screening methods? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. That was one of the old acute screening 10 methods? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. As of the date on the exhibit, what is 13 it, 339? 14 A. 340. 15 Q. 340. 16 Had Monsanto itself undertaken any such 17 chronic studies in the human populations that had 1 8 been exposed to pcb's as opposed to animals? 19 A. No. No human studies were made. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Such a human epidemiological study coulci 22 have been done on Monsanto's own workforce of 23 those employees who worked with pcb's, could it 24 no t ? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030451 325 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Is there some particular reason why that 4 wasn't undertaken? 5 A. That was undertaken eventually. I 6 believe if memory serves me right it was underway 7 in ' 71 . 8 Q. But not completed? 9 A. Not completed. 10 Q. Was it eventually completed to your 11 knowledge? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And in fact some other studies were done 14 by others on worker populations of your customers, 1 5 who were exposed to pcb in the occupational 16 setting? is that correct? 17 A. I have heard of at least one more. 18 Q. On page 6 of the memo you refer to the 1 9 only widespread use that I could find was a 20 limited trial to help prevent or curtail the dutcu 21 elm disease and that proved to be a failure. That 22 is a reference to a use of pcb's as a pesticide 23 extender? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldsti.ne 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030452 1 Q. You describe it in the same phrase as 2 extensive and limited. 3 I'/hat specific information can you give n e 4 about the nature of that dutch elm disease trial? 5 A. I don't recall the specifics . bu t it was 6 limited in area and limited in time of 7 application. 8 Q. It was an experiment to see if adding 9 pcb's to the mixture would enhance its 10 effectiveness? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. And it didn't? 13 A. It didn't. 14 Q. Okay. 15 On page 11 you refer to the Toxic 16 Substances Act and the legislative proceedings 17 pending with respect to that bill. 18 Did Monsanto ultimately present testimony 1 9 to the congressional committee on the Toxic 20 Substances Act? 21 A. Mot to the committee that considered the 22 Toxic Substances Act, but to another committee in 23 Congress. 24 o. Which committee did Monsanto present to, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030453 72 1 do you recall who? 2 A. I don't recall the title, but I recall 3 the reference to maritime in the title. It is a 4 subcommittee on several things including maritime. 5 Q. How did that committee get interested in 6 pcb's ? 7 A. The chairman of the subcommittee 8 represented a part of Massachusetts, where several 9 of Monsanto's pcb customers were located and he 10 agreed to conduct hearings. 11 Q. Did this committee ever take any action 12 on the subject of pcb's? 13 A. Not as a committee. I am not aware of 14 any. 15 Q. Do you still agree with the statement on 16 page 14 of your paper on Monsanto's pcb program 17 and I will read it to you? 1 8 "We have got to live 19 with the pcb's we have 20 introduced into the 21 environment for the past forty 22 years. They have not 23 disappeared overnight. They 24 will not disappear overnight. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chiccc- STLCOPCB4030454 328 1 We do not have any test to 2 tell us how long it will take. 3 We can only make an educated 4 guess and we might say they 5 will be out there for another 6 generation, 25 to 30 years 7 yet. Hopefully it will be a 8 decreasing amount as time goes 9 on. " 10 A. Yes, I still believe that. 11 Q. Do you think they will really be gone in 12 30 years if we don't do anything? 13 A. I have no information to indicate 14 otherwise. So that is as good a guess as I come 15 up with. 16 Q. What is the basis for that 30 year 17 figure? 1 8 A. It is subjective. There is no scientific 19 basis. 20 Q. Do you think they will all be gone from 21 Bloomington, Indiana in 30 years? 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: If the consent decree is 23 implemented? 24 BY MR. MC CONNELL: Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 C h i : or. STLCOPCB4030455 82 9 1 Q. If nobody does anything? 2 A. I don't know. I don't know the 3 conditions there. I don't know if any bacteria 4 are present. I don't know anything about it. 5 Q. When you say in this exhibit on page 14 6 of Exhibit 340, you don't really say they will bo 7 gone. You say they will be out there for 25 to 30 8 years. 9 Do you mean to say at that end of that 10 period, whatever it is, that they will through 11 some chemical process have been changed into some 12 other material, or are you saying that they will 13 have moved to some other location? 14 A. I don't know that I could be that 15 specific. It reflected a hope that science 16 eventually would be able to help within a 17 generation. 1 8 Q. One way of getting them gone within 19 twenty years is to dig up all of the contaninatec 20 material and incinerate it over the next twenty 21 years? 22 A. That is an economic problem, not a 23 technical problem. 24 Q. Right. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030456 330 1 It is possible to do that? 2 A. If society can afford the cost. 3 Q. The question is who is going to pay for 4 it. That is what this lawsuit is all about, I 5 guess . 6 On page 15 of this Exhibit 340 you wrote 7 as of the date September 14, 1971: 8 "Studies today would 9 indicate that these pcb's are 10 not and cannot be classified 11 as highly toxic." 12 Do you still agree with that conclusion? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. But they are toxic in some degree? 15 A. -Yes. 16 Q. To human beings? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You go on to say: 19 "There is still a lot 20 of information that is needed 21 to help us determine the 22 long-term effect on human 23 beings. " 24 Do you still agree with that statement? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030457 A. That's right. Q. We don't have enough information now to make a definitive determination one way or the other ? A. Definitive, you are right. Q. Can we make a preliminary determination? A. one . We can make a preliminary or a practical Q. What is your view of the preliminary determination concerning the long-term effect of pcb exposure on humans? A. That at the normally low levels of potential exposure, no problem would be anticipated with human beings. Q. What level do you define as normally low levels of potential exposure? A. It is the kind of levels one would find in changing a ballast unit out of a light fixture, or - - Q. Can you put a number on it in terms of parts per million body burden or parts per billion body burden? A. That would take more scientific data. Q. What about, let's work down the scale. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic; c STLCOPCB4030458 232 I suppose the most exposed group of people would be those who in the past worked with pcb's, either at Monsanto or at a Monsanto customer facility, where they came in contact with 5 it on a daily basis? 6 A. The potential for great exposure existed 7 under those conditions, yes. 8 Q. What is the preliminary determination of 9 the long-term effect on those people, if you know? 10 A. I haven't heard of any adverse health 11 symptom associated with that exposure. 12 Q. You haven't heard of chloracne in people 13 working with pcb's? 1 4 A. Yes, I have, but I was thinking of a long 15 term. I am aware of the total situation of 16 chloracne due to a high exposure. Then it clears 17 up. 1 8 I don't know of any continuing chloracne 19 problem to human beings that at one time worked 20 with pcb's. 21 Q. Do you know of any continuing liver 22 disease problem? 23 A. I don't know of any. 24 O. What about, do you know of any continuin' Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chi nn - ~ STLCOPCB4030459 33 3 T 1 problem of birth defects in the pcb worker 2-- population? 3 A. I don't know of any. 4 Q. What about the population of people who 5 live at or near a dump where pcb's wastes were 6 buried, do we have enough information to determine 7 the long-term health effects on those people? 8 A. No. We don't. 9 Q. What about the population of people in 10 Bloomington, Indiana who spread pcb contaminated 11 sewage sludge on their gardens, do we have enough 12 information to determine whether they are at risk 13 in your view? . 14 A. No. 15 Q. Do you still agree with the statement 16 that begins on page 15 of this Exhibit 340: 17 "We also believe that 18 under the proper conditions we 1 9 can control the amount of 20 these that do enter the 21 environment to the point where 22 _ the adverse effects are not 23 great and that the benefits we 24 derive far outweigh the minor Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 7 h i c n '" STLCOPCB4030460 '1 T 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 33 4 adverse effects that we might notice. "? A. Yes. I believe that's possible. Q -as it ever achieved at any time before Monsanto finally went out of the pcb business at any particular facility that you are aware of? A. Yes. Q. Where was that? A. Certainly at the manufacturing site that I am aware of. Q. In Anniston? A. No. Anniston was shut down by then. Q. Okay. A. In Illinois. Q. Sauget? A. Sauget. And I don't know of any of Monsanto's customer sites where the adverse effects have been demonstrated without question. Those are differences of opinion, there are allegations. Q. My question concerns control, controllir.o the amount that would enter the environment. A. But it also had the adverse effects. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicnr- STLCOPCB4030461 33 5 Q. You are measuring the degree of control by the existence or nonexistence of adverse 3 effects? 4 A. All control is based on effects. 5 Q. Not if it goes away, that is complete 6 control, whether there is an effect or not. 7 A. That is ideal. Certainly. 3 Q. The idea was never achieved? 9 A. It never will be. 10 Q. Do you want to mark that. 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: Wait a minute. 12 Off the record. 13 (Discussion had off the record.) 14 MR. MC CONNELL: Let's go back on the record, 1 5 please. 16 Q. I will show you a document that has 17 previously been marked as November 18, 1971, it is 1 8 a multiple page document. 19 MR. FRUEHWALD: Start over again, Jim. 20 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 21 Q. I am going to show you a document that 22 has previously been been marked as Exhibit 197, 23 dated November 18, 1971, on the letterhead of the 24 American National Standards Institute and I will Longoria & Goldstine 236 10 30 C h i c a~ STLCOPCB4030462 ask you if you recognize that document? 'A. Yes. I recognize the document. Q. Is that the first ANSI document that was generated after the group moved from the auspices of NEMA to the auspices of ANSI, if you can recall? MR. FRUEHWALD: The previous Exhibit 340 is calling it ANSI committee C 107 in September. MR. MC CONNELL: Right. I am not suggesting that that fixes the date of the change. I am asking if that is the first document to come out of ANSI after that, after the change took place. If there was something before that. A. I don't know. There were documents representing correspondence between NEMA and ANSI before I first became involved. I don't know what ha ppe ned. So I don't know if this represents the first document. Q. To your knowledge was Exhibit 340 the first Monsanto presentation to the group, whether under NEMA or under ANSI? A. As best I recall, I made an informal Longoria & Coldstine 236 1030 STLCOPCB4030463 O J 3 7 1 presentation before a NEMA group covering many of *2-' the areas which I later covered in a more formal 3 fashion in this document, Exhibit 340. 4 0. Okay. 5 Now, according to Exhibit 197, the 6 membership list on the front, you and Hr. Benignus 7 were members of both the transformer subcommittee 8 and the capacitor subcommittee; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Why was that? 11 A. Well, I don't know that I have a reason, 12 other than that neither Benignus nor I nor 13 Monsanto were members of NEMA or of this ANSI 14 group. 15 We were invited initially as guests and 16 shortly thereafter I was asked to be chairman of 17 the committee. 1 8 So in accepting the chairmanship, I found 19 myself as ex officio member of the full committee 20 and a participant in each of the subcommittees, ns 21 ex officio. 22 Q. So you went from being a nonmember of 23 ANSI to chairman of an ANSI committee skipping 24 over the phase of being a member of ANSI? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics.''. STLCOPCB4030464 1 ?- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 33 3 A. That's right. Q. Is it fair to say you were drafted into that capacity by the Monsanto customers who were members of the group? A. yes. I guess one could use that expression, I was asked, and as part of the customer relations I accepted. 0. How come it was you rather than Mr. Benignus that was asked, if you know? A. I don't know. Q. One of the interesting things that - this is totally off the subject of that document now, but I want to ask you before I forget, that if I recall correctly it was Mr. Gossage who said at his deposition that your job was to protect the environment from the peb's, and his job was to protect the peb's from the environment. MR. FRUEHWALD: Mr. Benignus. MR. MC CONNELL: Was it Benignus who said that? 0. Would you agree with that statement? A. Well, I will accept the part where I was supposed to protect the environment. I cannot Longoria & Goldstine 236 1C30 Chic;-a STLCOPCB4030465 1 2*-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 33 9 speak for Benignus' perceived role. Q. The whole object of setting the C 107 standard was to protect the environment from the pcb1s, was it not? A. it was to serve both purposes. Protect the environment and continue the use of these materials which we were led to believe were required because of their safety features and we wanted to have both. Q. Okay. But C 107 as I understand it is not a standard that is desired to protect the pcb's from contamination with water or dust or anything like that? A. Oh, that, I see what you mean. Mo. Mo. 0. That's what I took Mr. Benignus to mean when he said to protect pcb's from the environment was if a tankcar dome was loose, your concern was that the pcb's would spill out; his concern was that junk from the air would get in. Okay. I think we would agree on what this process was about. Is it fair to say that other than the - well, I see a gentleman from the Department of the Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chic?.--;. STLCOPCB4030466 ^ *" ' 940 1 Army listed on the transformer working group, but 2 according to this November 18, 1971 list, he is 3 the only person with a government connection on 4 either one of those groups. Is that correct? 5 A. He is the only one listed in '71. 6 Q. Others were added later, as I understand? 7 A. Yes. Invitations were sent by the NE"A 8 executives to many government agencies. 9 Q. The Army uses pcb transformers, does it 10 not ? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Did they at this time buy pcb's directly 13 from Monsanto? 14 A. I don't recall seeing a Department of 15 Defense listed on the customer list. This does 16 not mean -- I take it back. I am confusing the 17 Corps of Engineers, which is sort of between the 1 8 Army, and I am not too sure of its standing. 19 But, anyway, the Corps of Engineers were 20 . . listed as customers. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me interpose that you have 22 been referring to the first page which is the 23 - working groups. The subcommittees are actually 24 listed later on in the documents and they did Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic; 'c STLCOPCB4030467 3 `1 1 1 include other governmental officials on r~ 2-^. subcommittees. The working groups is what you are 3 referring to. 4 MR. MC COtINELL: I stand corrected. 5 Q. The two working groups that are listed on 6 the first sheet of Exhibit 197 then all consisted 7 of either Monsanto employees or customer 8 employees; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. 11 That is what it looks like. Except for 12 the Department of Army representative. 13 Well, if that covers the Corps of 14 Engineers, then they are also if not a customer, 15 certainly a user of pcb's, rather than having only 16 a regulatory interest in the matter, right? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Turn back to the page that lists the 19 subcommittees which are listed on attachment 1, 20 are they not? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 And those are broken down by the 24 organization supplying the individual Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030468 ?9 1 2*-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 representative? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Who are the government employees that are on the subcommittees? A. I see a member of the Department of the Army, a member of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Rural Electrification Administration, which is part of the Department of Agriculture. Tennessee Valley Authority. A second imember of the Department of the Army. Q. Okay. The TV A is in as a utility? A. Yes. Q. That was is its interest in the issue, is it not? A. Yes. Q. The Department of Agriculture was interested I take it both as a utility in the for: of the Rural Electrification Administration and as a regulator in its interest in keeping pcb' s out of the food chain? A. Yes. - Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 STLCOPCB4030469 T ->3 1 2-v.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The Environmental Protection Agency obviously is in it in its interest as aregulator in connection with environmentalrelease; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And the Department of the Army, do we have any information about what capacity either of those two particular individuals had? A. Not specific. But they were interested in power distribution and the equipment associated with it. Q. In the same sense as the TVA would be? A. Yes . Q. Okay. Nobody from the FDA is listed as participating as of the date of this Exhibit; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Was there ever a Food and Drug Administration representative to the C 107 committee that you recall? A. I don't recall any. Q. Did the EPA representative or representatives Darticipate actively in the work Longoria & Goldstine 2 36 1030 C h i r: STLCOPCB4030470 OA j `i 1 of the committee or subcommittees? 2 A. To the extent of their ability to. in 3 terms of committee actions, they are part of the 4 groups. 5 Q. They showed up for meetings? 6 A. Ye s. . 7 Q. Participated by contributing their 8 thoughts, always with the disclaimer that this is 9 what I think and not what the government thinks? 10 A. In most cases they took the position of 11 the inter-agency taskforce. Which was reflected 12 later on in the March 1972 or May 1972 13 publication. ` 14 Q. Okay. 1 5 A. That is their posture. 16 Q. So without regard to what agency they 17 came from, they were in essentially the same 1 8 position? 1 9 A. Correct. 20 Q. And they were sharing with the other 21 members of the committee the thinking of the 22 agencies in terms of impending regulatory actions? 23 is that correct? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030471 34 1 Q. So there was an ongoing dialogue within 2 the-context of C 107 between industry and the 3 regulatory authorities as to what ought to be cone 4 about this problem of pcb's in the environment? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. The same dialogue was also continuing 7 through different avenues outside C 107 such as 8 the round of meetings that we discussed earlier in 9 Washington, D.C., direct 101 contact by Monsanto 10 with individual agency employees? 11 A. By Monsanto and some of our customers die 1 2 this also. 13 Q. GE in particular? 14 A. Yes. And Westinghouse. 15 Q. .Westinghouse. 16 And you talked to them and they talked to 17 you about what each of you was doing with respect 18 to contacting the government; is that correct? 19 A. As often as we could, yes. 20 Q. Exhibit 341 is a three-page memo from . 21 D. McClain of Westinghouse to T. Dakin and L. 22 Mandelcorn, dated December 29, L971, subject AMSI 23 C 107 working group meeting Chicago, December 15, 24 1971. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chi:;-: STLCOPCB4030472 (The document a bove-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 341 for identification.) I will ask you to take a look at that and I recognize that that being a -- well, let me ask you. I recognize that this is a Hestinchouse internal document. Have you ever seen it before? A. I do not recognize it. I don't recall seeing it. Q. Look it over and just tell me briefly whether there is anything in there relating to that meeting which doesn't agree with your recollection of what transpired at the meeting? A. It appears to be a fairly accurate summary of my comments. Q. The exhibit that has previously been marked as 199 consisting of three pages and dated December 15, 1971, meeting ANSI C 107, use and disposal of askarel and askarel-soaked materials, consisting of three pages, signed by T. K. Sloat, I will show you that document and ask if these are the ANSI official minutes of that meeting? A. I don't believe these are the official Longoria & Gold stine 236 1030 Chica c STLCOPCB4030473 T _i _ .. 3 1> fAct *i7 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 * 23 24 minutes, primarily because they are not signed by the secretary, Mr. Salazar, who would be the one who issued the official set. Q. Mr. SI oat was a l'7estinghouse employee, was he not? A. Yes. Q. Document 341 and Exhibit 199 are referring to the same meeting, are they not? A. Yes. Q. Two different people's summaries of what took place? A. Yes. Q. Is there anything in 199 that you don't agree with? Is there anything in 199 that you find to be an inaccurate summary of what took place at the meeting? A. I don't see anything in here that does not appear to be fairly accurate. Q. Okay. In the course of the work of the C 107 committee and its subcommittees and working groups, different individuals as I understand it were assigned to prepare first drafts of differ on f Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chi::"1 STLCOPCB4030474 portions of what ultimately would become ANSI's proposed standard for action by the organization as a whole? is that correct? A. Well, they were asked to undertake assignment. Some of them put it in writing, others just came back with oral reports. Q. Okay. And the ANSI staff took all those pieces and put them together into a rough draft of the standard? A. Yes. Q. Then that was circulated among all the members of the committee for their comments and criticism? A. Well, in turn, all the members of the subcommittee and finally a composite document was sent to all members of the total committee. Q. Okay. The transformer people worked on the transformer standard, part of the standard, until they were satisfied with it? A. Yes. Q. And the capacitor people worked on the capacitor part of the standard until they were Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030475 34 9 1 satisfied with it? 2 -A. Yes. 3 Q. And then they were exchanged to see what 4 the people who didn't know anything about it 5 thought about it? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Okay. 3 A. So that they were consistent in terras of 9 referring to certain services, incinerator 10 services , analytical services and the like. 11 Q. And organizationally consistent with each 12 other ? 13 A. That's right. 14 Q. That's kind of a function that the ANSI 15 staff provides, do they not, when they put these 16 things together? 17 A. The ANSI staff did not participant to 18 that extent. They just supplied the letterhead 19 and the umbrella. 20 21 Q. Okay. So all the hard work was done by the 22 committee members? 23 A. And the NEMA staff did the typing, the 24 mailing, the arrangements for meetings and the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030476 "50 like were done by NEMA. 'Q. ANSI was lending its seal of approval? A. Yes. 0. And, of course, once the C 107 committee 5 was satisfied with its work product, then it was 6 up to the ANSI to decide whether they were going 7 to promulgate that as an ANSI standard or not? 8 A. Yes, 9 Q. There is a formal procedure for that? 10 A. Review panel, yes. 11 Q. At that point the process is out of the 12 hands of the people on the committee? 13 A. Correct. ' 14 Q. But it was ultimately adopted? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was there any effort to your knowledge in 17 the course of the drafting process of the C 107 1 8 standard to put it together in such a way that it 19 would not call for drastic engineering changes in 20 the existing plants of those people who were 21 participating in the process? 22 A. I didn't sense that that was the 23 direction the committees took. 24 They looked at what was the desired end Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic?. -- c STLCOPCB4030477 T- r -a _ __ . 1 2^ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 351 result and then worked back, what would it take to achieve it. Q. But they weren't starting with a clean slate, so to speak? A. True. Q. The process wasn't in an ideal world where pcb has never been used before, how can we build a plant that will achieve maximum control, or was that the starting point? A. There were elements of that in the process. The best technology available was considered, and that is the very technology you would use to build a new plant. The introduction of this curbing we talked about and the sumps underneath an operating unit, all the other devices used to contain and control and direct. They could just as well be used in a totally new installation as well as added onto an existing. Q. What my question I guess is, in considering two alternative ways of achieving the same result, that is, containment of the pcb's, was there consideration given to which is more Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic: STLCOPCB4030478 1 readily put into place in an already existing 2 facility, as opposed to if you are building a new 3 plant you can choose on economic reasons or 4 feasibility reasons or completeness of 5 containment, the economics are going to be 6 different in an existing plant? 7 A. Certainly. 8 Q. Was that taken into consideration in the 9 deliberative process? 1 0 A. I don't recall that the intent of the 11 ANSI standard setting groups was to supply 12 engineering standards, so much as to point out the 13 objective and, where known, to point out alternate 14 ways of achieving the objective. Allowing the 15 individual company to choose whichever fit his 16 situation. 17 As our example, it says something like 18 avoid getting it on your skin, it talks about 1 9 gloves and it talks about barrier creams and it is 20 up to the individual company then to decide do I 21 want to use barrier creams, do I want to use 22 creams and gloves, or cream is something I don't 23 want because it will affect my product and I can't 24 paint it later. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chica-r STLCOPCB4030479 C53 1 So the objective overall was to point or. 2 the things we wanted to achieve and the how to 3 part where known was described and in some cases 4 it wasn't known. It was left up to each company 5 then to come up with their solutions. 6 Q. Which might be application specific? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I might be able to do something you 9 couldn't do because of differences in our 10 processes? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. It was the hope of those who were 13 participating in the C 107 process that if they 14 could come up with a standard, and if by following 15 the standard the people in the electrical industry 16 could reduce or eliminate environmental release of 17 peb's, that then peb's would continue to be 18 available for their use in manufacturing 19 capacitors and transformers? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And there was a strong feeling I take it 22 in 1971 and '72 as this process was going on thac 23 if they couldn't achieve that result, either 24 through an ANSI standard or otherwise, eventuall" __ Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic: 'c STLCOPCB4030480 1 regulators were going to take their produce away? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And as of '71 and '12 there was yet no 4 substitute that had been developed? 5 A. That is correct. ' 6 Q. So it would have meant going back to 7 mineral oil and taking the risk of the fires that 8 peb's were designed to prevent? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Let's look at 342, Exhibit 342, which is 11 < a letter dated January 12, 1972 with attachments 12 including a note stapled to the front in A. 13 Pozefsky's handwriting and then the typed letter 1 4 and then a draft of the guidelines for transformer 15 manufacturing and repair. 16 Do you recognize that early draft? 17 (The document above-referred to 18 was marked Bloomington Deposition 19 Exhibit No. 342 for identification.) 20 A. Yes. I recognize this. 21 Q. Do you agree with the assessment on the 22 third page of the exhibit, which is the first page 23 of the standard, that care must be taken to avoid 24 unnecessary contact with peb liquid or vapors? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030481 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Other than the four methods or I am 3 searching for the word, the four routes of contact 4 that are listed immediately under that statement, 5 that is, breathing, swallowing, skin c-ontact and 6 what it says is eye protection, I presume that is 7 a reference to eye contact. Is there any other 8 way that pcb's can get into the human body that 9 you know of? 10 A. No, I don't. 11 Q. Okay. 12 Was there a similar statement in the 13 capacitor draft about routes of human contact? 14 A. I don't recall. 15 Q. Take a look at 343, which is dated 16 January 17, 1972, the first page is a cover letter 17 by A. Pozefsky of General Electric to the members 1 8 of the capacitor working group. And with this 19 draft attached. 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was narked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 343 for identification.) 23 A. I have reviewed it. 24 Q. Although the language about human Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic.r-: STLCOPCB4030482 1 exposure in the capacitor draft isn't the sane as 2 in the transformer draft, I take it that whatever 3 human health risks might exist would be the same 4 without regard to whether the material was beinc 5 used in capacitors or transformers; is that 6 cor rect? 7 A. Yes. 8 (The document above-referred to 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit No. 344 for identification.) 11 Q. Exhibit 344 is a document dated April 23, 1 2 1972 entitled peb's - allowable discharge from 13 producing/using plants, minutes of meeting 4/13/72 14 in EPA Offices Washington, D. C. 15 Do you recall attending that meeting in 16 April of '72? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. That was something different from the 19 C 107 committee, was it not? 20 A. That's right. 21 Q. Who called that meeting? 22 A. As I recall, this meeting was reauestec 23 by me through Mr. Easley to discuss with Dr. 24 Buckley the status of E ? A ' s 'activities regarding Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030483 1 preparing a standard, control standard for pcb 2 effluents. 3 Q. Sewer effluents? 4 A. Yes. N a ter effluents. 5 Q. That was under the statutory -authority of 6 the Water Pollution Control Act? 7 A. Yes. Q Q. Was that the first regulatory effort on 9 pcb's that came out of the EPA? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. As of the date of that meeting in April 12 of '72, the Toxic Substances Control Act hadn't 13 yet been passed; is that correct? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. So that the only authority at thistime 16 the EPAhad with respect to regulating pcb's was 17 under the Water Pollution Control Act? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And that was the direction they were 20 headed in as of that meeting? 21 A. Yes. 22 0. Now, the meeting that is reflected in 344 2 3 was limited to EPA people and Monsanto people; is 2 4 that correct? Longoria & G o 1 d s t i n e 236 1 0 3 0 C h i r. STLCOPCB4030484 cD 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. And it was at Monsanto's request that the 3 meeting took place? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What was the purpose of that .meeting from 6 Monsanto's point of view? . 7 A. To avoid getting a standard that was 8 unrealistic and unachievable. 9 Q. In other words, if the EPA water effluent 10 standard were low enough, it would effectively 11 amount to a ban on pcb's? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Because your customers couldn't possibly 14 achieve it with the available technology? 15 A. Our customers as well as Monsanto. 16 Q. As well as you at your production 17 facility? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. Although at that point in 1972 I gather 20 you were generally doing better at your plant than 21 your customers were doing at their plant in terms 22 of water quality? 23 A. We were doing better than sore of our 24 customers and as well as others. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics': STLCOPCB4030485 359 1 So I don't know that I could use the word 2 generally doing better. 3 Q. Okay. 4 Nobody was doing better than you, in any 5 event? - 6 A. There might have been a couple. 7 Q. Who do you have in mind? 8 A. There was an operation in near here, near 9 Chicago, I am trying to remember the city. 10 Q. It wasn't Waukegan, was it? 11 A. I am sorry? 1 2 Q. Waukegan. 13 A. No. This was a capacitor manufacturer. 14 There was a company in the northeast, I 15 forgot their name. JARD, I believe, or some such 16 acronym. 17 Q. Does that Exhibit 344 accurately reflect 18 what you recall as having taken place at that 19 meeting? 20 A. Yes. Very accurately. 21 Q. Who prepared the memo? 22 A. Mr. Paul Hodges. 23 Q. Is he a Monsanto person? 24 A. He was a Monsanto employee. Longoria & Holds tine 236 1030 Chic: STLCOPCB4030486 33 0 1 Q. GO refers to what? 2 A. General offices. 3 Q. St. Louis location, in other words? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. The EPA was recommending before this 6 meeting standards at .01 parts per billion for 7 rivers and lakes and zero detectable discharges 8 from the plants? 9 A. That was the -- 10 Q. That was what they came in with? 11 A. Yes . 12 I don't know that they were convinced 13 that that was it. But at least -- 14 Q. That was their starting point coning into 15 the meeting? ' 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And your starting point was that neither 18 one of those could be feasibly achieved? 1 9 A. Right. 20 Q. According to this, your objectives were 21 to induce EPA to recommend .1 parts per billion or 22 10 times what their initial thinking was for :he 23 river and lake water and 5 pounds per day 24 discharge from manufacturing facilities, with a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic a -c STLCOPCB4030487 361 1 reasonable tine to achieve those levels? 2 A. Yes . 3 Q. Did you tell them up front that is what 4 your goal was? 5 A. Yes. . 6 Q. Okay. . 7 So the negotiating that took place was 8 between those positions, your goal and their 9 coming-in position? 10 A. Yes . 11 I don't know that I would describe it as 12 negotiating. It is a statement of our positions. 13 Q. They backed up, they told you what 14 information they had that backed up their position 15 and you told them what information you had chat 16 you thought backed up your position? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. And you parted company at that point? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was there a further dialogue with the r 21 as time went on? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Were there any further minutes that 24 reflect that, if you know? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago A STLCOPCB4030488 3 '3 2 1 A. NMoo. It was not that type of meeting. 2 The dialogue took place in a more public-type 3 forum. 4 Q. They published a proposed regulation 5 ultimately in the Federal Register? _ 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And you submitted some comments on it, 8 you being Monsanto? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. 11 Did those go out over your signature, 12 didn't we talk about those already? 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: Some of those were shown up in 14 Mr. Gossage's deposition and they may have been i r. 15 Bill's other deposition. 16 MR. MC CONNELL: Ue didn't discuss those in 17 your testimony. I can't remember that. 18 A. I don't recall. 1 9 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 20 Q. Just without getting into those documents 21 right now, there were some comments to the 22 proposed regulation by Monsanto and by some of its 23 customer s? 24 A. Yes the regulation, the proposal was Longoria & Go Ids tine 236 1030 C icaoc STLCOPCB4030489 G53 1 withdrawn and held in abeyance. There were many, 2 many delays, it was never promulgated. 3 Q. There never was a water quality standard 4 because the ban under the Toxic Substances Control 5 Act intervened, is that a fair statement? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So the regulatory process as it proceeded 8 informally in the context of this April '72 9 meeting, informally once an initial proposed 10 regulation was published in the Federal Register 11 dragged on until it became moot, because action 12 was taken under a different statute? 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. The thought being that once the 15 production and use of pcb's was eliminated, the 16 problem of water effluents would eventually take 17 care of itself? 1 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me object here. 1 9 We are going down a road that is 20 obviously contrary to the public record. And 21 these are events that occurred after fir. 22 Papageorge left his position as pcb coordinator. 23 I think you know that there was an 24 effluent standard promulgated in '76 and 'll. nut Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicle STLCOPCB4030490 1 that is after Mr. Papageorge left his 2 responsibilities. 3 So his testimony about what the EPA cid 4 is probably based on his experience during his 5 role. But the leading questions that this was 6 never done is contrary to the fact. There was an 7 effluent standard promulgated in '76. 8 MR. MC CONNELL: That was after he was out of 9 the job. I am only asking him about the period of 10 time -- 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: I want to make sure that's 12 clear. 13 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 14 Q. Up until you left, there was no water 1 5 quality standard? 16 A. That's right. , 17 Q. After you changed jobs, you didn't 1 3 particularly care what happened, you had other 1 9 things on your mind? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. You weren't following what the EPA was 22 doing with pcb's with any interest in the details 23 of it ? 24 A. Not closely, no. Longoria & Goldstine. 236 1030 Chic:, u: STLCOPCB4030491 355 1 Q. Okay. 2 It came to yout attention at some point 3 that they were ultimately banned, I take it? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. During the time now up until you left, 6 which was in '75, '76? 7 A. '76. 8 Q. Beginning of '76? 9 A. February of '76. 10 Q. Okay. 11 During that period of time from April of 12 '72 to '76, there was a proposal, a proposed water 13 quality, water effluent standard promulgated, 14 comments were received and it was withdrawn, to 15 the best' of your recollection? 16 A. As best I recall. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. 1 0 And Monsanto did submit comments in 19 response to that proposed standard? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And you shared those comments with your 22 customer s ? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So they new what you were saying and th cv Longoria & Goldstine 236 1039 Chico"c STLCOPCB4030492 1 also put in their comments to the EPA? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And they told you what their comments 4 were? 5 A. Yes . 6 Q. And the gist of all the comments I gather 7 was that the initial proposal wasn't feasible? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Couldn't be achieved? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And that, it would effectively amount to a 12 ban on the use of pcb's? 13 A. I don't know that those words were used. 14 Q. I mean that wasn't a mystery to the pcb 15 people and it wasn't a mystery to the EPA? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Once it became apparent that it couldn'c 18 be achieved, they said don't put out .01 parts per 1 9 billion and you couldn't use pcb's without 20 releasing more than that, you can't use pcb's? 21 A. Then you are in violation, all the 22 problems. 23 Q. Or you had to pay all the fines and you 24 get dragged into court? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Ch i STLCOPCB4030493 1 It is probably not worth the headache. 2 You get bad publicity for your company and all the 3 attendant things that go with violating EPA 4 standards, right? 5 A. Yes. . 6 Q. The objective of Monsanto and its 7 customers during this period of four years, a 8 little less than four years, from April of '72 9 through February of '76, when you stepped out of 10 that role, was to do whatever could be done to 11 control environmental release, while still keeping 12 the product available for capacitor transformer 13 use. 14 Is that a fair summary of what all of 15 this activity was about? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did there come a time before you left che 18 pcb coordinator role where somebody developed a 19 substitute dielectric fluid? 20 A. I was not made aware before I left thac 21 someone had. But it appeared to be an alternate 22 with some shortcomings. 23 Q. It was always Monsanto's position during 24 this period that should a safe and effective Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chicc-'c STLCOPCB4030494 353 1 alternate become available, pcb production would 2 be stopped? 3 A. That was a stated policy, yes. 4 Q. So that was the hang up so to speak, 5 finding an alternative? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Monsanto was not the company that 8 ultimately ended up doing that? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. Take a look at the document that has 11 previously been marked as Exhibit 204, which is a 12 memo from you to Benignus and others dated May 2, 13 1972, with two letters attached. And I will ask 14 you if you recognize that? 15 A. I recall these documents. 16 Q. The pcb taskforce was an internal 17 Monsanto group or was that something that that 18 involved others? 19 A. No, this was the inter-agency taskforce. 20 Q. Okay. 21 There was going to be a meeting of 22 Monsanto people with the taskforce to review the 23 topics that are included in the two letters 24 attached to the memo, is that correct? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030495 26 9 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And that meeting was to be scheduled cn 3 May 15, 1972? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you attend the meeting? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you attend the full dress rehearsal 8 on May 8? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. That was at Monsanto in St. Louis? 11 A. Yes . 12 Q. And you had a number of overhead slides 13 and script that was used in your presentation to 14 the inter-agency taskforce? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did that presentation -- we marked that 17 as an exhibit before. 18 Did that presentation include some 19 information that was excerpted or summarized from 20 the Industrial Bio-Test animal studies as they 21 stood in May of 1972, do you recall? 22 A. I don't believe that we covered that. 23 MR. MC CONNELL: Well, I am not done but we 24 have to stop. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030496 370 1 HR. FRUEHWALD: All right. So be it. 2 MR. MC CONNELL: I am physically incapable of 3 continuing, I think. 4 (Whereupon the taking of the 5 deposition was continued sine 6 die.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4030497