Document B5m3EO4zZdq9wLqY4bkvGpOoE

208 1 Cerro Copper Products, Co. 2 vs. 3 Monsanto Company 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 VOLUME 2 14 15 Deposition of Michael A. Pierle 16 Taken June 30, 1994 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 208 WATER PCB-SD0000053122 209 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 3 4 CERRO COPPER PRODUCTS, CO., 5 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 vs. NO. 92-CV-204-WDS 9 10 MONSANTO COMPANY, 11 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 VOLUME 2 16 17 Continued Deposition of MICHAEL A. PIERLE, 18 taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, at the 19 offices of Cobum & Croft, One Mercantile 20 Center, Suite 2900, in the City of St. Louis, 21 State of Missouri, on the 30th day of June, 22 1994, before Tracey Balsitis, Registered 23 Professional Reporter and Notary Public. 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 209 WATER PCB-SD0000053123 210 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Mr. Richard F. Ricci Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1791 9 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 10 Mr. Kenneth R. Heineman 11 Cobum & Croft 12 One Mercantile Center - Suite 2900 13 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 14 15 ............... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 210 WATER PCB-SD0000053124 211 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 Examination by Mr. Ricci 213 4 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 8 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 8 226 9 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 9 229 10 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 10 237 11 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 11 246 12 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 12 260 13 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 13 266 14 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 14 271 15 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 15 271 16 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 16 277 17 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 17 277 18 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 18 283 19 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 19 297 20 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 20 304 21 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 21 306 22 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 22 308 23 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 23 311 24 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 24 313 25 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 25 319 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 211 WATER PCB-SD0000053125 212 EXHIBITS (Continued) PAGE Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 26 321 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 27 328 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 28 331 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 29 334 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 30 337 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 31 339 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 32 342 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 33 346 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 34 350 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 35 351 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 212 WATER PCB-SD0000053126 213 1 MICHAEL A. PIERLE 2 of lawful age, having been previously duly 3 sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, 4 and nothing but the truth in the case 5 aforesaid, deposes and says in reply to oral 6 interrogatories propounded as follows, to-wit: 7 EXAMINATION 8 QUESTIONS BY MR. RICCI: 9 Q Good morning, Mr. Pierle. Mr. Pierle, 10 when we concluded on Tuesday, we were talking 11 about a document that had been marked as 12 Exhibit 7 to your deposition, and I had a 13 couple more questions relating to that 14 document. 15 In the first paragraph under the 16 heading "Summary" on the first page, there is 17 a statement that, "From yield losses it is 18 estimated that these losses total 40,000 19 pounds a year to the sewer." And I believe 20 you were talking about aroclor losses; is that 21 correct? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q Can you tell me how you developed that 24 40,000 pound a year figure? 25 A I don't recall. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 213 WATER PCB-SD0000053127 214 1 Q The document indicates that the 2 estimate is from yield losses. What do you 3 understand the term yield losses to mean? 4 A Typically that would refer to estimate 5 of balance of material around the production 6 facility, and losses would indicate that 7 amount that is not accounted for in product. 8 Q So, in other words, you take what you 9 are putting into the processes, raw materials, 10 and what you are getting out ofthe process is 11 product, and to the extent that they don't 12 match up, then you take the difference as a 13 loss to the sewer? 14 A Usually those would be yield losses 15 roughly as you have described. It could be 16 losses to air, sewer, waste sources generally. 17 And in this case, I mean what I have written 18 here, based on that information, that must 19 have been the estimate of the losses that were 20 expected to have gone to the sewer. 21 Q Do you know whether you had any 22 assistance from anyone, for instance, from 23 production, in computing that yield loss 24 figure? 25 A I don't recall the specifics on that, Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 214 WATER PCB-SD0000053128 215 1 but I would have not been in a position myself 2 to be able to do that. 3 Q Do you have any general recollections 4 of working with anyone in production during 5 this time period regarding the issue of PCB 6 losses to the sewers? 7 A No, I don't. 8 Q And my question makes an assumption 9 that perhaps I should clarify. Would 10 production people be the ones in the position 11 to estimate losses to the sewer by reference 12 to yield losses? 13 A Typically there would have been 14 information on processes that would describe 15 this type of information that would be 16 prepared by production and engineering. 17 Q Would those be the standard 18 manufacturing process sheets? 19 A I recall that terminology. I don't 20 recall if that's precisely where these would 21 have come from or not. 22 Q Do you recall any other documents that 23 were production related that were of 24 assistance in preparing that figure? 25 A Typically this information would be on Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 215 WATER PCB-SD0000053129 216 1 what they would call flow sheets. 2 Q Can you describe a flow sheet to me? 3 A It would be an engineer's depiction of 4 the process and the flow of material within 5 the process, including quantities and rates. 6 Q Is it a diagram type of document? 7 A Typically it would be a diagram with 8 numbers. 9 Q The estimate of losses to the sewer 10 that you computed from yield losses is in 11 pounds per year. Earlier in the document that 12 we have marked as Exhibit 7 to your 13 deposition, you talk about gallon losses of 14 spent aroclors from Department 245. Do you 15 know how to convert gallons to pounds in terms 16 of aroclor losses, what the conversion factor 17 is? 18 A It would be gallons divided by a 19 specific gravity I believe would give you 20 pounds. I do not recall the specific gravity 21 of the materials except that they were all 22 heavier than water. And I believe there was a 23 reference on one of the pages to a specific 24 gravity number. 25 Q Is there in this document? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 216 WATER PCB-SD0000053130 217 1 A Not in this document. 2 Q Can you flip over to the second page 3 of Exhibit 7. In the paragraph identified as 4 A1 -- I'm sorry -- A2 under the heading 5 "Details," there is a reference to aroclor 6 having been detected in the catch pot systems 7 in Department 218 and 217. Do you recall what 8 products were manufactured in Departments 218 9 and 217? 10 A My recollection of that is those were 11 departments, one or both, and I'm not sure, 12 that produced hydrochloric acid. 13 Q Does chlorosulfonic acid ring a bell 14 to you as being manufactured in one of those 15 departments? 16 A It could have been. 17 Q Now, those departments took hydrogen 18 chloride that was a byproduct in the 19 manufacture of aroclors and used it as a raw 20 material; is that true? 21 A My recollection is that the byproduct 22 HCL was collected from around the plant in a 23 header system, some of which was used in 24 chlorosulfonic and some of which was recovered 25 and sold as hydrochloric -- as an aqueous Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 217 WATER PCB-SD0000053131 218 1 acid. 2 Q Muriatic acid? 3 A Yes. 4 Q AndDepartment 246 was one ofthe 5 departments that contributed HCL to that 6 process; is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q What is the reference to catch pots or 9 catch pot systems in the paragraph that we are 10 looking at? 11 A My recollection was that as these 12 lines that carried the HCL byproduct off-gas 13 were generally above grade, and that 14 periodically there would be low spots in the 15 line and there would be a catch pot or a 16 collection tank that could be used to collect 17 any liquid materials that would separate or 18 aggregate in those lines. 19 Q Were these low areas specifically 20 designed for that purpose? 21 A I'm not familiar with the reasons for 22 the design of the operation. 23 Q You just knew they were there? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Was there a valve or some sort of an Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 218 WATER PCB-SD0000053132 219 1 apparatus to clean out -- to allow the catch 2 pots to be cleaned out? 3 A I don't recall. 4 Q Were you involved in the sampling that 5 led to the determination that aroclors had 6 been detected in the catch pot systems? 7 A I remember doing some sampling in the 8 Department 246 gas line itself, actually 9 trying to withdraw vapor samples, gas samples, 10 and check for liquids. I do not recall 11 sampling or working at the catch pots 12 themselves. 13 Q Were there others besides yourself who 14 were involved in aroclor sampling during this 15 time period? 16 A I don't remember exactly who was doing 17 that work. Someone would have been doing it 18 with me, but I don't recall who it was. 19 Q In the next paragraph under details, 20 you indicate that aroclor is readily visible 21 in Department 246 trench sewers. Is that a 22 fair statement? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did you actually see the aroclors 25 yourself? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 219 WATER PCB-SD0000053133 220 1 A Yes. 2 Q What did they look like? 3 A They were clear, heavy, viscous 4 liquids floating at the very bottom of the 5 shallow trench sewers. 6 Q Floating at the bottom of the trench 7 sewers? It sounds like a bit of an oxymoron 8 there. 9 A Thank you for that correction. They 10 were basically separated and heavy and sat at 11 the bottom and moved along the bottom of the 12 sewers. 13 Q And you say they were clear? 14 A That's my recollection. 15 Q Did you ever have occasion to see any 16 spent heat transfer fluids? 17 A It seems to me I did. 18 Q Do you recall what they looked like? 19 A They tended to be a darker -- 20 Q Darker? 21 A -- color. 22 Q More or less viscous than, for 23 instance, the aroclors that you saw in the 24 trench sewers? 25 A It seems to me they tended to be more Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 220 WATER PCB-SD0000053134 221 1 viscous. 2 Q Any other identifying characteristics 3 that you can recall? 4 A Only their, you know, again relative 5 insolubility at very low levels. 6 Q Insolubility in water? 7 A In water. 8 Q Where did you see these spent heat 9 transfer fluids? 10 A I need to be careful here because I 11 have seen these subsequent at other plants. 12 It would tend to be at the sort of heater 13 furnace system areas where you might have a 14 slight leak in the system or a catch pan that 15 would be under a pump and you would be 16 catching materials. 17 Q Do you know if the spent heat transfer 18 fluids or the used heat transfer fluids that 19 you saw were at the Krummrich facility? 20 A I remember seeing the heat transfer 21 units or at least some ofthem at the 22 Krummrich facility. 23 Q Do you recall which units you saw? 24 A No. The one that -- seems to me there 25 was one in the north area that I recall Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 221 WATER PCB-SD0000053135 222 1 seeing. My office was in that area, and it is 2 my recollection, but in my mind I don't 3 pinpoint exactly where it is. 4 Q When you say north area, are you 5 talking about north of Monsanto Avenue? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And this would have been during your 8 initial stint at the Krummrich facility from 9 '66 to 70? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Do you recall ever seeing the heat 12 transfer furnace or the heat transfer unit in 13 Department 245 phosphorous pentasulfide? 14 A We talked a bit about that two days 15 ago, and I still don't recollect that unit or 16 its position in that department. lean 17 visualize the department, but I can't 18 visualize that particular unit. 19 Q Under the next heading on the second 20 page of Exhibit 7, the title is "Quantity." 21 And in the second paragraph under paragraph 22 one you talk about vapor losses due to tank 23 breathing. Do you see that? 24 A Are you on page 3? 25 Q No. I'm on page 2. I'm sorry. Bl, Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 222 WATER PCB-SD0000053136 223 1 second paragraph. 2 A Yes. 3 Q You indicate other department losses 4 are from vapor losses due to tank breathing. 5 What departments are you referring to there? 6 A I don't recall. 7 Q Were there departments other than 8 Department 246 that stored aroclors in tanks? 9 A I don't believe so. What I'm not sure 10 is within these departments that had furnace 11 systems whether there was any sort of system 12 that was open to the atmosphere there. 13 Q Did Department 246 store aroclors in 14 tanks? 15 A I believe they did. 16 Q These were above-ground storage tanks? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Do you know whether there was any 19 aroclor loss due to tanks breathing in 20 Department 246? 21 A I don't know that for a fact. 22 Q What do you mean by tank breathing? 23 A Well, as I recall, on aroclors the 24 vapor pressure of this material was very low, 25 so if you had just a pool of this material Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 223 WATER PCB-SD0000053137 224 1 sitting, the amount that might vaporize up 2 into the aerospace would have been very low. 3 But as one would fill a tank, pump into a 4 tank, for example, and you would push that 5 aerospace up, it would vent, and that's what 6 we typically called part of the breathing 7 cycle. It would also breathe air in as the 8 tank came down. 9 Q At this time in September of 1969, 10 were there any systems in place in Department 11 246 to capture vaporized aroclors that were 12 accumulated in the storage tanks? 13 A I don't recall. Again, my 14 recollection is these losses would have been 15 very, very low, and I don't know whether they 16 would have commanded controls then or not. 17 Q To the extent that vaporized aroclors 18 were -- let me withdraw that. Could you flip 19 over to the next page of Exhibit 7, please. 20 I'd like to direct your attention down to 21 heading C, "Control Measures." 22 We talked a little bit yesterday about 23 the sewering of aroclors in Department 245, 24 and I'd like to direct your attention now to 25 the discussion with respect to Department 238. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 224 WATER PCB-SD0000053138 225 1 You state in this memo, "This material -- 2 referring to aroclors in Department 238,1 3 believe -- has and will continue to be 4 disposed of at the landfill." Do you see 5 that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Do you know why it was that the spent 8 aroclors from Department 238 were being 9 landfilled but the spent aroclors from 10 Department 245 apparently were being sewered? 11 A I do not. 12 Q Did it ever occur to anybody prior to 13 September of 1969 that the sewering of spent 14 aroclors was maybe not a good idea? 15 A I don't know. 16 Q Do you know who had authority to 17 release aroclors into the sewer, for instance, 18 spent aroclors, from Department 245? 19 A I don't know that that would have 20 necessarily been a relevant question then. 21 Q I understand that it is probably not 22 an issue that went up through a chain of 23 command, but somebody had to make a 24 determination that we are either going to dump 25 it in the sewer or we are going to take it to Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 225 WATER PCB-SD0000053139 226 1 the landfill or we are going to do something 2 else with it. Do you know who that person 3 would have been or what the title of that 4 person would have been? 5 A No. 6 Q Would that have been a decision that 7 was made in the production department itself? 8 A I don't know. 9 Q Prior to the time that the company 10 became concerned about releases of aroclors 11 into the environment, did anybody ever come to 12 you or your department under Mr. Hodges or 13 Mr. Buckley to discuss the release of aroclors 14 into the sewers? 15 A I don't recall any conversations or 16 interest prior to this time period. 17 Q So this was not an issue that was 18 brought to the attention of the environmental 19 personnel at the plant prior to the time that 20 attention was given specifically to aroclors 21 in the environment? 22 A Well, I'm vague. I don't recall any 23 conversation. 24 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 8 25 marked for identification.) Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 226 WATER PCB-SD0000053140 227 1 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I'm 2 handing you a document that's been marked as 3 Exhibit 8 to your deposition and ask you to 4 take a look at it. This is a document with 5 Bates No. CER 010886. 6 Mr. Pierle, this appears to be a memo 7 dated September 29, 1969, from Mr. McCutchan 8 to Mr. Kuhn. Do you know who Mr. Kuhn is? 9 A I know Bill Kuhn, but I do not know 10 what his role was during this time period. I 11 had an office next to him in the mid to late 12 70s. 13 Q Do you know if he is still with the 14 company? 15 A I'm sure he is not. 16 Q Do you recall whether he was at the 17 Krummrich plant in September of 1969? 18 A This letter would indicate he was not, 19 I think, because the B-240-N mailing address 20 would indicate to me that these were general 21 offices. 22 Q Do you know whether Mr. Kuhn had any 23 involvement in this aroclor control program 24 that was evolving at this time? 25 A I don't recall his responsibilities. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 227 WATER PCB-SD0000053141 228 1 Q You appear to have been copied on this 2 memo. Could we assume that from that you 3 received a copy in September of 1969? 4 A I would assume so. 5 Q Do you have any recollection of this 6 memo? 7 A No, I don't. 8 Q And I believe you testified yesterday 9 that you are not sure exactly who 10 Mr. McCutchan was? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q Who is Mr. Sprandel? 13 A Lou Sprandel was a senior person at 14 the plant in what I would term plant 15 engineering. Again, I'm not certain as to his 16 title or organizational location. 17 Q And Mr. Bratsch was the plant manager? 18 A I believe he was then, yes. 19 Q Paragraph one of the memo estimates 20 aroclor losses to the sewer from Department 21 246 at 50,000 pounds a year. Do you see that? 22 A Yes. 23 Q In the memo that we looked at that was 24 identified as Exhibit 7, which was dated 25 September 22, 1969, you had estimated the Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 228 WATER PCB-SD0000053142 229 1 losses at 40,000 pounds a year. Do you know 2 how the estimate increased by 10,000 pounds 3 during the time from September 22 to 4 September 29, 1969? 5 A I believe my report indicated that 6 these were from the production department, the 7 40,000, and I believe that's the same number 8 that is shown on this memo, net production 9 facility losses 40,000 pounds per year. There 10 appears to be an additional item of net 11 blending facility losses of 10,000. 12 Q What is the reference to blending 13 facilities? 14 A I'm not exactly certain. 15 Q Do you know if it was blending in 16 Department 246 or someplace else? 17 A I do not. 18 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 9 19 marked for identification.) 20 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I'm 21 handing you a document that's been marked as 22 Exhibit 9 to your deposition, and I would ask 23 you to take a look at it. This is a document 24 with Bates No. CER 013928. 25 A Well, I will just generally peruse it Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 229 WATER PCB-SD0000053143 230 1 and then come back to it. 2 Q That's fine. This appears to be an 3 October 29, 1969, memo from a Mr. Tucker to 4 yourself. Do you have any recollection of 5 this memo? 6 A Not particularly. 7 Q Who was Mr. Tucker? 8 A I believe he was a laboratory analyst 9 at our research facilities which were part of 10 the Queeny plant site in 1969. 11 Q There are some other names on this 12 memo that we haven't seen previously. Who was 13 Mr. Farrar? 14 A Martin Farrar was a higher level 15 person in research management. 16 Q How about Mr. Keller? 17 A He was again a higher level person in 18 research management. 19 Q How about Mr. Richard? 20 A Mr. Richard fits the same general 21 classification. 22 Q And Mr. Wheeler? 23 A Mr. Wheeler was in the corporate 24 medical department. 25 Q What was Mr. Tucker's involvement in Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 230 WATER PCB-SD0000053144 231 1 the aroclor control program that was getting 2 under way here? 3 A I believe his expertise was in the 4 analytical detection of PCBs in samples. 5 Q Is he the one that you were sending 6 the samples that you were collecting to? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Was he responsible for developing the 9 protocol fortesting for PCBs in environmental 10 media? 11 A He was in the group that did that. 12 I'm not sure, you know, what his 13 responsibilities were. 14 Q Do you know if such a protocol was in 15 place as of October of 1969 or whether it was 16 still evolving? 17 A I don't know that for certain. 18 Q If you flip over to the next page of 19 Exhibit 9, there are some sampling -- what 20 appear to be sampling results. Is that what 21 you understand the information on the second 22 page of this exhibit to be? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you recognize the handwriting that 25 appears on that page? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 231 WATER PCB-SD0000053145 232 1 A Yes. 2 Q Whose is that? 3 A Mine. 4 Q All of it? 5 A I believe so. 6 Q The first line on the second page of 7 this exhibit, just going across under the 8 heading "Log Number," has 14 WGK. Is that 9 just a number that was assigned to the sample 10 to distinguish it from the other samples? 11 A It appears to be, but I don't recall 12 the notation. 13 Q Under "Sample Identification" there is 14 a notation 24N, No. 1 sewer. Do you know what 15 that means? 16 A It appears to be a sample location 17 number, but again I'm interpreting as opposed 18 to remembering. 19 Q As you sit here today, can you tell me 20 -- can you interpret from that identification 21 where that sample came from? 22 A Well, only that it came out of one of 23 the sewers, but I can't interpret from that 24 precise location. 25 Q The 24N doesn't really have any Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 232 WATER PCB-SD0000053146 233 1 meaning to you? 2 A Doesn't help me. 3 Q Then in the last column under "Amount 4 Found," there is a .05 which I believe 5 represents parts per million; is that correct? 6 A That's what the column indicates. 7 Q And then next to it there is a 8 handwritten .05. Do you know what the 9 significance of the handwritten notation is? 10 A No. 11 Q Let's go down to the third line, 12 16 WGK. Under sample identification it is 13 SVO, No. 1 sewer. Do you know what the SVO 14 stands for? 15 A I really don't. I can't tell if 16 that's Sauget Village outfall. It could be 17 that, but I don't know whether it is for 18 certain. 19 Q You don't have a recollection of what 20 that is? 21 A No, because I don't know what MVO is 22 that is further down. 23 Q Down to the line that's identified 24 18 WGK. 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 233 WATER PCB-SD0000053147 234 1 Q Going across to the last column, there 2 is a typed figure of 1.87, and then 3 handwritten in next to that is 1.37. Do you 4 have any knowledge as to the significance of 5 the handwritten figure versus the typed in 6 figure? 7 A Well, I'm not certain that that's 8 1.37. 9 Q Does it look like maybe -- 10 A It could be 1.87. 11 Q I see what you are saying. 12 A It just looks like a carry over of the 13 number, but I don't understand. Some were 14 carried over and some are different. 15 Q Let me just ask you generally for 16 those situations where the handwritten figure 17 is different than the typed in figure, do you 18 have any knowledge as to the significance of 19 that? 20 A It looks to me like the notations to 21 the left of that, which indicate it is a 22 six-day sample, I have done some 23 multiplication, but again I can't tell what 24 the multiplication was for. 25 Q Okay. It looks like, though, where Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 234 WATER PCB-SD0000053148 235 1 you have got six-day samples, you take the 2 typed in figure and multiply it by six, and 3 that's how you get the handwritten figure? 4 A That's what it looks like. 5 Q And similarly with the seven-day 6 figure under 99 WGK? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know what that six-day or the 9 seven-day notation means? 10 A I don't. I don't recall. 11 Q See, it just corresponds to the date 12 taken, which to me would indicate that that 13 sample was taken then over those number of 14 days. 15 Q Can you flip back to the first page. 16 In the second paragraph there is a statement, 17 "A portion of the black oil (top layer) 18 present in MVO No. 1 was isolated and 19 analyzed. As suspected, it contained the bulk 20 of the aroclor." 21 Do you know why Mr. Tucker suspected 22 that the top layer of the sample would contain 23 the bulk of the aroclor? 24 A I don't. 25 Q Is that consistent with the Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 235 WATER PCB-SD0000053149 236 1 expectation that you had testified to earlier 2 that the aroclors being heavier than water 3 would sink to the bottom, for instance, in the 4 sewers? 5 A I need to know and try to remember 6 where the sample was from, what it was mixed 7 with. I recall that during this time period 8 at the waste treatment plant there was a 9 considerable amount of oil lost from the 10 Mobile refinery that gave us quite substantial 11 operational headaches at the waste treatment 12 plant. And this was after all this water 13 would go down the sewer, would be picked up in 14 pumps and basically homogenized and then taken 15 to the waste treatment plant. And then again 16 what happens to the solubility when this stuff 17 gets mixed up, I don't know where it might go, 18 whether it would stay on the bottom or go into 19 the oil or separate. So I guess what I'm 20 describing is not a simple system once some of 21 this stuff tended to mix further in the 22 system. 23 Q Do you know if PCBs were more soluble 24 in oil than they were in water? 25 A I'm not an expert on that. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 236 WATER PCB-SD0000053150 237 1 Q Do you have any knowledge on that 2 issue? 3 A Well, I think it would depend on the 4 oil and the solubility index. 5 Q Do you know if PCBs were soluble in 6 acid? 7 A Again, you need to talk with someone 8 that's more of an expert on that. 9 Q Is there anybody at the company who 10 you would view as knowledgeable on those 11 issues? 12 A We don't have many PCB people around, 13 but I think -- I don't know a specific person. 14 I think -- I don't know. 15 Q How about Mr. Papageorge? 16 A Bill was quite knowledgeable about 17 lots of things. I'm not sure this fits into 18 his area of specialization or not. 19 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 10 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 22 show you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 10 to your deposition and ask you to 24 take a look at it. This is a document with 25 Bates No. CER 010880. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 237 WATER PCB-SD0000053151 238 1 A Very attractive printing, isn't it? 2 Q I take it from your last statement 3 that this is your handwriting? 4 A It is my printing. 5 Q Your printing. 6 MR. HEINEMAN: Is this when you are 7 really trying to be neat? 8 THE WITNESS: You haven't seen my 9 handwriting. 10 Q (By Mr. Ricci) This is a document 11 that you authored? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Do you have any recollection of it? 14 A Not specifically. 15 Q In the first paragraph there is a 16 statement that the aroclor losses from the 17 plant averaged 700 pounds a day and ranged 18 from 20 to 3,500 pounds a day. Do you see 19 that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Previously we had seen an estimate of 22 40,000 pounds, of a 40,000 pound a year loss 23 from Department 246 and an additional 10,000 24 pounds a year from the blending facilities. 25 Do you recall that? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 238 WATER PCB-SD0000053152 239 1 A Yes. 2 Q Do you have any -- withdraw that. The 3 700 pound a day average discussed in this 4 memo, if annualized, far exceeds 40 to 50,000 5 pounds a year. Is that a fair statement? 6 A With quick math I think that's right, 7 yes. 8 Q Did you have any idea at this point as 9 to where the difference between the 40 to 10 50,000 pound a year estimate and the 700 pound 11a day estimate came from? 12 A No. 13 Q You state that the results also show 14 that the aroclors concentrated in the oily 15 surface layer. Do you know what that 16 reference is to? 17 A Again, this memo was written shortly 18 after the receipt ofthis memo. 19 Q Just to be clear for the record, you 20 are saying Exhibit 10 was written shortly 21 after receipt of Exhibit 9? 22 A Yes. It appears that way. Perhaps 23 within a month, a little more than a month. I 24 don't know what intervened between the two of 25 these. It could be that this references back Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 239 WATER PCB-SD0000053153 240 1 to this memo, but I don't know what happened 2 during the month. 3 Q Do you know if that oily surface layer 4 that you discuss in Exhibit 10 is from the 5 waste treatment plant or from Monsanto's 6 effluent? 7 A I can't tell from this description. 8 Q Move down to the discussion of grab 9 samples towards the middle of the first page, 10 if you could. 11 You indicate that grab samples had 12 been taken from the following sources, and 13 then you talk about the primary treatment 14 plant scum and sludge. Are scum and sludge 15 the same thing or are they two different 16 things? 17 A They are two different things. 18 Q Can you tell me what the scum is? 19 A The scum is basically referred to I 20 think later on as the oil layer. It would 21 have been the floating materials. 22 Q What about the sludge? 23 A The sludge would have been heavier 24 than water or the materials removed off the 25 bottom of the treatment plant. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 240 WATER PCB-SD0000053154 241 1 Q The treatment plant operated so as to 2 remove floaters and sinkers, so to speak, 3 prior to discharge of the liquid into the 4 river; is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q So that to the extent that the aroclor 7 was being concentrated in the floating oil 8 layer that would have been removed from the 9 effluent, that aroclor content would have been 10 removed from the effluent prior to discharge? 11 A I think that's what we are attempting 12 to determine. 13 Q And to the extent that the aroclors 14 continued to sink, as you had indicated you 15 thought would occur, those aroclors would be 16 removed with the sludge, again, prior to 17 discharge of the effluent into the river. Is 18 that a fair statement? 19 A Yes. 20 Q So that at this point it seemed 21 reasonable to assume that the discharge to the 22 river would not contain significant amounts of 23 aroclors; is that true? 24 A Again, I think that's what we were 25 determining or trying to determine. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 241 WATER PCB-SD0000053155 242 1 Q Under paragraph B under the heading 2 "Grab Samples," there is a discussion of 3 activated carbon in Department 218. Do you 4 know what that refers to? 5 A I believe in that department as part 6 of the acid, muriatic acid recovery, there was 7 an activated carbon filtration step. And the 8 exercise here was to sample the carbon to see 9 if any PCBs had been collected on the carbon. 10 Q Do you know whether this carbon 11 filtration step was applied to the HCL coming 12 into the process or to the product coming out 13 of the process? 14 A I don't recall. 15 Q There is a discussion of the acid 16 scrubber in Department 217. Do you know what 17 that refers to? 18 A Where is that discussed? 19 Q It is in the same paragraph that talks 20 about the activated carbon. 21 A I don't recollect what that was. 22 Q If you flip over to the next page, 23 there is a diagram of some trench sewers and 24 an indication of the location ofthe samplers. 25 Do you know if the trench sewers that are Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 242 WATER PCB-SD0000053156 243 1 depicted on this diagram are trench sewers 2 that preexisted this aroclor control program 3 that began sometime in '69? 4 A Could you repeat that? 5 Q Let me try and restate it. Do you 6 know if the trenches depicted on this diagram 7 were trenches that were newly installed as a 8 result of the company's efforts to control 9 aroclor losses or whether they preexisted 10 those efforts by the company? 11 A I believe those were the existing 12 trench sewers. 13 Q In the last paragraph on that second 14 page, you indicate that a fast speed pump is 15 being used to collect the aroclor that settles 16 out in the trench sewers. Do you see that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q This is -- is that fast speed pump in 19 one of the locations on the diagram that are 20 depicted by the word sampler? 21 A I believe the notation on this 22 diagram, the X indicates where the -- and the 23 term there is solid aroclor. The aroclors 24 were actually being trapped behind these wood 25 gates I had referenced earlier in the Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 243 WATER PCB-SD0000053157 244 1 deposition. And the pump that is referred to 2 in this document was the pump being used to 3 remove the aroclor that collected behind those 4 gates. 5 Q Okay. So that was being used to 6 collect what you were preventing from going 7 into the sewers as opposed to measuring what 8 was going into the sewers? 9 A Correct. 10 Q What were you doing with the aroclors 11 that were taken out through that pump? 12 A I'm not certain. The department would 13 have handled those, but my assumption would 14 have been that they would have then gone to 15 the landfill. 16 Q Is it fair to say that prior to the 17 installation of these wood gates, those 18 aroclors were being released into the sewer 19 system? 20 A If there were aroclors there 21 beforehand, I believe that would be correct. 22 Q Do you have any reason to believe that 23 there were not? 24 A Again, I indicated earlier that these 25 trenches collected small amounts of what would Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 244 WATER PCB-SD0000053158 245 1 drip or leak, and those were intermittent 2 streams. My recollection, these were very 3 small amounts we were pulling out here, so 4 without having some understanding of prior 5 operation records, it wouldn't -- I wouldn't 6 be able to try to guesstimate the amount or 7 the frequency of what would be there. 8 Q I don't think I asked you to do that 9 though. I think I just asked you whether you 10 had any reason to believe that there would not 11 be aroclors in that trench prior to the 12 installation of the wood gates? 13 A And I think my answer is that it is 14 possible that there were times when there were 15 no aroclors before then, and there's probably 16 times when it was possible that there were. I 17 don't have any facts to know what the 18 quantities or rates or amounts would be or 19 would have been. 20 Q Can you flip over to the next page. 21 There is a discussion on this page of 22 transformers. Do you see that? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you recall how many transformers 25 there were at the Krummrich facility at this Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 245 WATER PCB-SD0000053159 246 1 time? 2 A No, I do not. 3 Q Was there more than one? 4 A I don't know. 5 Q Do you recall looking into the issue 6 of transformers as part of the aroclor control 7 program that you were involved with? 8 A That doesn't stand out. 9 Q Do you know ifthere was ever any 10 sewering of transformer fluids at the 11 Krummrich facility? 12 A I don't recall. 13 Q You state in this memo that, "All 14 material from electrical transformers is 15 drummed off and reused or disposed in drums to 16 the landfill." Do you know if that was the 17 practice prior to 1969? 18 A I do not. 19 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 11 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I'm 22 handing you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 11 to your deposition. This is a 24 document with Bates No. CER 013930, and I 25 would ask you to take a look at that. This is Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 246 WATER PCB-SD0000053160 247 1 a document that you authored; is that correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q If you flip over to the second page 4 under the heading "Analytical Results," there 5 is a reference to results of initial samples 6 from Scott Tucker on 11/24/69. Are those the 7 results that are set forth in the document 8 that we have marked as Exhibit 9 to your 9 deposition? 10 MR. HEINEMAN: You mean 8? 11 MR. RICCI: I'm sorry. 9. 12 MR. HEINEMAN: I'm sorry. 9. 13 A The date appears to be different. 14 Q (By Mr. Ricci) If you look at the top 15 of Exhibit 9, there is a handwritten notation, 16 "Received WGK 11/24/69"? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Is that your handwriting? 19 A Yes, it is. 20 Q Does that suggest to you that the 21 results referred to in Exhibit 11 are in fact 22 the results that are set forth in Exhibit 9? 23 A Yes. 24 Q In the second paragraph under the 25 heading "Analytical Results," you state that Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 247 WATER PCB-SD0000053161 248 1 results indicate that influents to the Sauget 2 Village treatment plant, and then you list a 3 number of log numbers. Do those log numbers 4 refer to the numbers in the first column of 5 the second page of Exhibit 9? 6 A They appear to, with the caveat I 7 guess here that the letter -- this memo refers 8 to them as influent to the Sauget Village 9 plant, and I don't see that specific notation 10 on the sample sheet. 11 Q Okay. If you look at the second 12 sentence ofthis second paragraph under 13 analytical results, you state samples, and 14 then you give a list of log numbers taken 15 downstream of the aroclor manufacturing 16 department contained an average of four pounds 17 a day aroclor. Do you see that? 18 A Yes. 19 Q I guess I'm a little confused because 20 loss No. 19 appears in both the first sentence 21 and the second sentence of that paragraph. 22 A It would appear to be a mistake, that 23 it should not be in the second grouping. 24 Q Why do you say that? 25 A Well, the notation of sample 19 MVO is Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 248 WATER PCB-SD0000053162 249 1 consistent with the notation in MVO or SVO and 2 all of the samples in the first grouping and 3 is inconsistent with the notation of samples 4 in the second grouping. 5 Q The samples in the second grouping all 6 appear to begin with the notation 24N? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Or actually some have that as the sole 9 notation? 10 A Yes. 11 Q You state a little further down that, 12 "Sample 19 indicates that the aroclor is being 13 concentrated in the light oils present in the 14 sewers." Do you see that? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Were there any light oils that were 17 being discharged by the Krummrich facility? 18 A I don't recall that. As I indicated, 19 the principal oils in the scum sources that I 20 recall were in the sewer that was on the north 21 edge of the plant, which came down both from 22 Mobile, and we had an oil additives was the 23 business we were running on the north side of 24 Monsanto and that from time to time had 25 emulsified materials in it that would float. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 249 WATER PCB-SD0000053163 250 1 So I don't recall light oils in the other 2 sewers. My recollection really is that the 3 light oils, as I recall, were predominantly 4 down that other sewer line. 5 Q Now, I think we indicated or we saw 6 yesterday that the effluent from Department 7 246 was for the most part discharged into the 8 village sewers on the south side of the 9 Krummrich plant; is that correct? 10 A I believe that's correct. 11 Q Do you know where in the process or 12 where in the sewer system the sewers exiting 13 the south side of the plant joined up with the 14 sewers exiting from the north side of the 15 plant? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Where did that occur? 18 A It was at a junction box that was west 19 of Route 3, and I believe it was also in the 20 vicinity of but west of a set of railroad 21 tracks yet east ofthe levee. 22 Q Is it your understanding that the 23 samples of influent to the Sauget Village 24 treatment plant were taken downstream from 25 that mixing ofthe two streams? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 250 WATER PCB-SD0000053164 251 1 A Yes. 2 Q Now, you had indicated that there was 3 some sort of a pump that served to I think you 4 used the term homogenize the effluent in the 5 sewers? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Where was this pump in relation to the 8 junction box where the north and south sewers 9 joined up? 10 A It was down flow from that box. 11 Physically located near the waste treatment 12 facility. 13 Q Do you know whether the influent 14 sampling results were taken upstream or 15 downstream ofthat pump? 16 A Our sampling typically was taken 17 downstream ofthat pump, those pumps. There 18 were a series, a set of them. 19 Q How is it that you have a specific 20 recollection of that? 21 A The design of the facility contained 22 what is called a partial flume at the waste 23 treatment plant that was used to measure the 24 total water flow into the plant. And we would 25 -- we had our sample lines fixed into that Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 251 WATER PCB-SD0000053165 252 1 partial flume. It was an easy access point 2 for sampling. 3 Q What is a partial flume? 4 A It is a device that can be constructed 5 to restrict flow and thereby measure the flow 6 of water through a conveyance. 7 Q In the next to the last paragraph -- 8 I'm sorry. In the next to the last sentence 9 of the second paragraph under the heading 10 "Analytical Results," you indicate, 11 "Therefore, it is possible that either the 12 department samples contained only the aroclor 13 in solution or in water emulsion or the 14 aroclor losses are originating elsewhere than 15 at Department 246." Do you see that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q In that sentence you are trying to 18 explain the discrepency between the measured 19 losses from Department 246 and the measured 20 losses from the plant as a whole; is that 21 correct? 22 A I think that with the state of work 23 and where we were, that was an expression of 24 at least what one or two possibilities were. 25 Q Did you later come to recognize other Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 252 WATER PCB-SD0000053166 253 1 possibilities? 2 A I don't recollect. 3 Q Do you recall whether you were ever 4 able to confirm whether either one of these 5 two possibilities in fact did explain the 6 discrepency between the measured losses from 7 Department 246 and the measured losses from 8 the plant as a whole? 9 A I don't remember what the subsequent 10 work revealed. 11 Q You state -- you use the term or the 12 concept that the department samples contained 13 only the aroclor in solution or in water 14 emulsion. What does that mean? 15 A I think what I was trying to depict 16 there is that what we were sampling is -- I 17 mean, we were measuring what we were sampling, 18 and I don't think we were trying to say much 19 more than that. Again, these are hypotheses 20 and possibilities of what we were doing, 21 without being more than two or three months 22 into this study, having pinned down with more 23 precision what was going on. 24 Q I think my question or the intent of 25 my question was a little simpler. I was just Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 253 WATER PCB-SD0000053167 254 1 trying to understand what you mean when you 2 say the department samples contained only the 3 aroclor in solution or in water emulsion. 4 What do you mean by the terms solution and 5 water emulsion? 6 A What I have tried to say is it was 7 probably describing what we were -- what the 8 possibilities were, that as we pulled the 9 sample out, we could have got the water, or if 10 there was any emulsion there or anything in 11 the water, that we would have got that as 12 well. 13 Q Solution would be the aroclors 14 actually dissolved in the water; is that 15 correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What would an emulsion be? 18 A An emulsion could be that if there was 19 any sort of aroclor entrained in any of the 20 water that we were sampling, then we would 21 have gotten that as well. 22 Q Under the heading "Additional Source," 23 there is again a reference to electrical 24 transformer leaks or system change out. Do 25 you see that? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 254 WATER PCB-SD0000053168 255 1 A Yes. 2 Q Do you recall whether you were ever 3 able to confirm that electrical transformers 4 were a source of aroclors in the sewers? 5 A Again, I don't recall. 6 Q Under the Department 218, carbon, you 7 state that the activated carbon used to purify 8 the HCL off-gas from Department 246 is 9 sewered. Was that activated carbon a liquid 10 or a solid? 11 A It would have been a solid. 12 Q Do you know the mechanism by which 13 that activated carbon was discharged to the 14 sewers? 15 A I do not. 16 Q Does that paragraph suggest to you 17 that the activated carbon -- let me withdraw 18 that. 19 Previously I had asked you whether the 20 activated carbon was used to filter the gas 21 coming into the department or the product 22 coming out of the department. This paragraph 23 seems to suggest that it is purifying the gas 24 coming into the department; is that correct? 25 A I wouldn't read it with that level of Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 255 WATER PCB-SD0000053169 256 1 precision and the distinction here whether it 2 was a gas and then it became an acid. It 3 would have to purify that off-gas stream, so I 4 think what it is intending to say is that's 5 the carbon that was used in that system to 6 make muriatic acid. 7 Q Do you know ifthat carbon was used to 8 purify off-gas from departments other than 9 246? 10 A Again, I don't know. 11 Q As I understand -- 12 A I think I stated earlier that that was 13 a mixed header stream. 14 Q That's what I was just going to ask 15 you. The off-gas from Department 246 was in 16 effect mixed with HCL from other departments; 17 is that right? 18 A But I don't know the exact point of 19 mixing and the relationship to that carbon 20 system, so I'm not clear on that. 21 Q Can you flip over to page 2 of this 22 memo, numbered page 2. 23 There is a discussion of again 24 electrical transformers, and I'm just 25 wondering whether that discussion in any way Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 256 WATER PCB-SD0000053170 257 1 refreshes your recollection as to whether 2 there were identified leaks from electrical 3 transformers? 4 A I have read these two statements. 5 Could you repeat your question? 6 Q My question is whether they in any way 7 refresh your recollection as to whether there 8 were identified leaks of aroclors from 9 transformers? 10 A They do not. I mean my recollection 11 was I was getting this input and information 12 from somebody in the electrical department and 13 including this information in the report. I 14 do not recall walking out, are there leaks or 15 are there not leaks, and doing visual 16 observations or measurements. 17 Q Do you recall who your contact was in 18 the electrical department? 19 A I don't. 20 Q Was the electrical department a 21 separate department within the facility? 22 A I believe it was in the maintenance 23 department, but the maintenance department had 24 different, I think what they called area 25 maintenances, so there were sort of different Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 257 WATER PCB-SD0000053171 258 1 groups responsible for different areas ofthe 2 plant. 3 Q And you just don't have any 4 recollection as to who was responsible for 5 electrical distribution? 6 A I do not. 7 Q You state that leaks if present are 8 not at this time controllable. Was that your 9 conclusion or the conclusion of the person or 10 persons that you were dealing with in the 11 electrical department? 12 A I don't recall specifically. My 13 assumption here is I was relying on input for 14 that. 15 Q Given that your goal at this time is 16 to minimize discharges of aroclors into the 17 sewer, is the conclusion that leaks, if 18 present, from transformers are not at this 19 time controllable one that you would have 20 accepted at face value? 21 A I think given the work in progress 22 here and the other priorities that were being 23 worked on, and this indicating not a factual 24 knowledge that there are leaks, that that 25 would have been an appropriate response during Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 258 WATER PCB-SD0000053172 259 1 this time period. 2 Q Is it your feeling that it was 3 appropriate because leaks from transformers 4 were basically insignificant in comparison to 5 the other aroclor discharges that you were 6 aware of at the time? 7 A Well, I'm reading and interpreting it 8 as opposed to remembering. And the fact that 9 it says if they are present, I mean to me 10 would indicate there wasn't enough information 11 to know if they were leaking or not and 12 something needed to be done. I don't know 13 whether there was additional work, follow up 14 on this particular item or not. I just don't 15 recall. 16 Q Is it fair to say that controlling 17 leaks from transformers was not a major focus 18 of the PCB reduction program at this time? 19 A Well, you have predicated your 20 statement that there were leaks, and I guess 21 I'm back to that point again. I would say 22 that we had brought this in -- in reading this 23 document as we had brought it into the could 24 it be, what's the possibility, and this 25 document as a status report simply indicates Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 259 WATER PCB-SD0000053173 260 1 that as of December 12 when this was written, 2 that we were paying a lot more attention to 3 other areas. 4 Q Why is that? 5 A Are you asking me to interpret the 6 document? 7 Q If you can. 8 A Because it didn't indicate to me from 9 reading this document that there was any 10 reason or justification to do more relative to 11 those based on the information that was 12 available. 13 Q Did the potential for leaks from 14 transformers continue to be a focus of this 15 aroclor control program? 16 A I just don't recall. 17 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 12 18 marked for identification.) 19 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 20 show you a document that's been marked as 21 Exhibit 12 to your deposition. This is a 22 document with Bates No. CER 010879. I would 23 ask you to take a look at it. This is another 24 memo from Mr. Tucker to yourself. The subject 25 is aroclor-wildlife. Do you see that? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 260 WATER PCB-SD0000053174 261 1 A Yes. 2 Q Do you have any recollection of this 3 document? 4 A Not specifically. 5 Q Can we assume by the heading that you 6 did in fact receive a copy of this document in 7 or around December of 1969? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you know why the document, the 10 subject ofthe document is identified as 11 aroclor-wildlife? 12 A I do not. 13 Q The document appears to give sampling 14 results for various sediment samples, and the 15 first sample, which is identified as log 16 No. 77, talks about -- is identified as 17 Mississippi River downstream. Is that 18 downstream from the outfall of the village 19 waste water treatment plant? 20 A I believe that's correct. 21 Q The next sample is identified as 22 Mississippi River Monsanto dock. What is the 23 Monsanto dock? 24 A We had a loading/unloading facility 25 extending into the Mississippi River on a Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 261 WATER PCB-SD0000053175 262 1 piece of property that we owned sort of west 2 and probably slightly north of our landfill, 3 pretty much at the intersection of I guess 4 that's still Monsanto Avenue and the river. 5 Q Was that dock upstream or downstream 6 of the outfall for the village waste water 7 treatment plant into the river? 8 A It was sort of in the same vicinity. 9 Q Can you elaborate on that? 10 A Well, as I recall, the outfall was 11 sort of an extension of, I believe again 12 that's Monsanto Avenue, and the dock was just 13 sort of -- the access to the dock was south, 14 just south of that through a gate, but the 15 dock itself extended into the river at a point 16 that I think overlapped the two. 17 Q Do you know whether the dock was used 18 for the loading or unloading of aroclors? 19 A I don't ever recall it being used for 20 that. 21 Q Do you know where the upstream samples 22 identified on this memo were taken? 23 A No, I don't. 24 Q Again, I assume it is upstream of the 25 outfall? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 262 WATER PCB-SD0000053176 263 1 A I would assume so. 2 Q But you don't know how far upstream 3 they went? 4 A And I'm not sure where the dock 5 samples were taken either. 6 Q Do you know -- let me withdraw that. 7 Were you involved in actually taking these 8 samples? 9 A I remember taking some samples, but I 10 don't know whether it was these or not. I 11 just don't recall. 12 Q You recall taking some river sediment 13 samples? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Understanding that those samples that 16 you were involved in taking may not be the 17 samples that are reflected in this memo, can 18 you tell me the protocol that you followed 19 when you took the samples that you were 20 involved in taking? 21 A What do you mean by protocol? 22 Q Where were the samples taken in 23 relation to the outfall? Where were they 24 taken in relation to the water line of the 25 river? How were they taken? What did you use Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 263 WATER PCB-SD0000053177 264 1 to actually take the samples? How much was 2 taken? 3 A I don't recall. The samples I recall 4 taking of "the river" on sludge samples, I 5 believe is what these were referred to, or 6 sediment samples, were simply someplace down 7 the bluff and out, you know, in the river, but 8 not in the water but in the river bed. 9 Q So above the water line? 10 A Yes. 11 Q The sampling results set forth on 12 Exhibit 12 to your deposition indicate higher 13 levels of contamination downstream and in the 14 vicinity of the village outfall than exist 15 upstream. Is that a fair statement? 16 A That's what the two sets of samples 17 seem to indicate. 18 Q Did Monsanto report to the village or 19 to any governmental entity at this time the 20 fact that the Mississippi River sediments 21 appeared to be contaminated with PCBs? 22 A I don't recall. 23 Q Did Monsanto take any steps to in any 24 way address the contamination that was 25 revealed in these sampling results? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 264 WATER PCB-SD0000053178 265 1 A To my knowledge, as witnessed by the 2 other reports, we were taking lots of steps to 3 try to reduce the amount of materials that 4 were going to the river. 5 Q Did you take any steps with respect to 6 the amount of materials that were already in 7 the river as revealed in these samples? 8 A I don't recall. I mean this is early 9 on in a program trying to just understand 10 what's where. 11 Q Do you recall if Monsanto ever took 12 any steps to address PCB contamination in the 13 sediments of the Mississippi River even to 14 this day? 15 A I don't believe there has ever been a 16 need to do that. 17 Q And so no steps have been taken? 18 A I don't believe so. 19 Q When you say there has never been a 20 need to do that, what would you consider to be 21 such a need? 22 A There has never been an issue of 23 health or safety or environmental damage or a 24 regulatory requirement that has suggested 25 actions need to be taken. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 265 WATER PCB-SD0000053179 266 1 Q Do you know if Monsanto has ever 2 reported to any governmental entity the 3 presence of PCB contamination in Mississippi 4 River sediments in the vicinity of the Sauget 5 waste water treatment plant outfall? 6 A I don't recall. I don't know. 7 MR. RICCI: Why don't we take a short 8 break. 9 (Recess) 10 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 13 11 marked for identification.) 12 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I'm 13 showing you a document that we have marked as 14 Exhibit 13 to your deposition. This is a 15 document with Bates No. CER 014725. And I 16 will ask you to take a look at that. 17 This is a memo from Mr. Dalton to 18 Mr. Bratsch, and I believe we have established 19 earlier that Mr. Bratsch was the plant manager 20 at this time? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Who is Mr. Dalton? 23 A As I recall, Tom was, and I believe 24 Tom is correct, was a general superintendent 25 at the plant and would have directly reported Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 266 WATER PCB-SD0000053180 267 1 to Mr. Bratsch. 2 Q Was Mr. Dalton's area of 3 responsibility production or was it 4 engineering or was it something else? 5 A Production. 6 Q You and Mr. Buckley are copied on this 7 memo. Is that in your role as or in 8 conjunction with your responsibilities with 9 respect to the aroclor control program? 10 A I would think so, yes. 11 Q Who is Mr. Greenman? 12 A I know who Mr. Greenman is. I'm not 13 sure what his role or responsibility was at 14 this time. 15 Q There is a list at the top of this 16 memo of potential sources of aroclors entering 17 the sewers. And item No. 7 is shop wash rack. 18 Do you know what that is? 19 A No, I don't. 20 Q Item No. 8 is an aroclor fdled 21 transformer at No. 11 sub. Do you know what 22 No. 11 sub refers to? 23 A That's probably substation, and that's 24 the number code it was given for 25 identification. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 267 WATER PCB-SD0000053181 268 1 Q Do you know where that substation is 2 located? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know why that particular 5 transformer was specifically identified in 6 this memo? 7 A No. 8 Q The paragraph right below the 9 identification of that transformer refers to 10 the 700 pound a day plant loss and then talks 11 about a 230 pound a day plant loss. Do you 12 know the explanation for the reduction in 13 aroclor losses to the sewers from 700 pounds a 14 day to 230 pounds a day? 15 A No, I do not. I mean it is 16 conceivable it is measurement accuracy. 17 Q Under the listing of specific actions 18 having been taken, there is a statement that 19 tank car washings at the rip track are now 20 hauled to the sanitary landfill. Is that the 21 -- do you know what landfill he is referring 22 to in this memo? 23 A I'm sure he continues to mean the 24 Monsanto landfill. 25 Q Now, as I recall your testimony Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 268 WATER PCB-SD0000053182 269 1 yesterday, there was a Monsanto -- there was a 2 landfill on Monsanto's property that was owned 3 by Monsanto and operated by Mr. Sauget. Is 4 that the landfill that -- I'm sorry -- is that 5 the landfill that you believe he is referring 6 to here? 7 A You described the landfill that 8 Monsanto owned, the property it owned? 9 Q Right. 10 A Yes. 11 Q As opposed to the landfill that was in 12 proximity to that landfill but not owned by 13 Monsanto, and I think that second landfill you 14 indicated you sent nonchemical wastes to? 15 A That was the intention. 16 Q But you believe that the reference to 17 the sanitary landfill is the landfill that 18 Monsanto owned the property on which it sat? 19 A Yes. 20 Q There is a reference to weirs having 21 been put into the 246 trench sewers. Are 22 those the wood gates that we have been talking 23 about in the course of your deposition? 24 A I believe so. 25 Q Mr. Dalton states that the value of Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 269 WATER PCB-SD0000053183 270 1 those weirs is thought to be marginal. Do you 2 know why that is? 3 A Well, I don't know the specific 4 reference here, you know. I had indicated 5 that there wasn't much coming down and then 6 the overall context of what was trying to be 7 accomplished here that was positive, but it 8 wasn't the big loss areas. 9 Q Okay. It was marginal because it 10 wasn't there. They were -- well, let me just 11 withdraw that. He talks about losses from the 12 Department 246 of approximately 130 pounds a 13 day. Do you know how that figure was arrived 14 at? 15 A I don't. 16 Q Do you know if that's based upon yield 17 losses or actual sampling? 18 A I don't. 19 Q At the bottom of the page there are 20 three numbered paragraphs. The first one 21 refers to installation of two piping projects. 22 Do you know what those projects are? 23 A No, I do not. 24 Q Is it fair to say that the losses of 25 aroclors to the sewers prior to 1969 were of Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 270 WATER PCB-SD0000053184 271 1 the same magnitude as the losses that were 2 being estimated in '69? 3 A I don't know. 4 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 14 5 marked for identification.) 6 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 7 show you a document that's been marked as 8 Exhibit 14 to your deposition. It is a 9 document with Bates No. CER 010869. This is 10 another memo from Mr. Tucker to yourself. 11 My question with respect to this 12 document is simply is there any way for you to 13 identify the location of the samples, the 14 results of which are set forth in this memo? 15 A No. 16 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 15 17 marked for identification.) 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 19 show you a document that's been marked as 20 Exhibit 15 to your deposition. This is a 21 document with Bates No. CER 010865. And I 22 will ask you to take a look at it. This is a 23 document that you authored; is that correct? 24 A It appears that way. 25 Q Do you have some question as to Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 271 WATER PCB-SD0000053185 272 1 whether you did in fact author this document? 2 A I don't know. I don't see a signature 3 on it. And so I mean I don't know whether 4 that means it wasn't issued or I didn't sign 5 it, or I don't know what it means. I don't 6 recall the document. 7 Q On the second page, there is a heading 8 "Back-up Facilities." Do you see that? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you know what that means, back-up 11 facilities? 12 A The only distinction that I see there 13 is that, you know, the blow tank was sort of 14 part of the production process. The back-up 15 facilities would have been, you know, once you 16 are dealing with the waste streams from the 17 department, but, again, that could have been a 18 secondary facility or something like that. 19 Q Secondary to production? 20 A Well, secondary to the primary 21 production facilities, yes. 22 Q Flip over to the first page for a 23 second. There is a discussion of a project by 24 Mr. Bigge to alter the piping from the blow 25 tank to the scrubber, and that's identified as Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 272 WATER PCB-SD0000053186 273 1 Estimate 1493. Do you see that? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Do you recall these alterations to the 4 blow tank piping? 5 A No. I really don't. 6 Q Estimate 1493, is that terminology 7 that means anything to you? 8 A It is probably simply a project 9 numbering system. 10 Q You don't look at it and say, oh, yes, 111 know what that means? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q You are just interpreting? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Do you know what P & S is? 16 A Not precisely. 17 Q Generally? 18 A Well, I mean again, it is kind of a 19 guess. It could be planning and scheduling. 20 It could be something else, so I really don't 21 know. 22 Q Do you know what the protocol was at 23 this time to get approval for process changes 24 or expenditures for process changes? 25 A Not specifically. In general, for Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 273 WATER PCB-SD0000053187 274 1 capital improvements there has always been a 2 capital approval process that the department 3 people would have to approve and move up 4 through the system to the level where the 5 capital was authorized, but that's just a 6 general description of what the systems tended 7 to be. 8 Q Under the heading "Blow Tank," there 9 is a planned action to sample exit stream 10 before and after installation of Estimate 11 1493. Were you involved in that sampling at 12 all? 13 A I did some sampling of a gas stream in 14 the department, but I'm not certain that it 15 was this stream. 16 Q Under back-up facilities on the second 17 page, there is a statement that 18 noncontaminated water will be removed from the 19 trenches. Do you know what that's about? 20 A I had mentioned earlier that there 21 were waters that were typically referred to as 22 nonprocessed or cooling waters that generally 23 were not in contact with the process itself. 24 And I believe that's what that terminology 25 meant. We were trying to get out of these Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 274 WATER PCB-SD0000053188 275 1 trenches any of the water that we knew was 2 clean and couldn't be contaminated so that it 3 wouldn't mix up or dilute the water that was 4 -- the rest of the water in the system. 5 Q What was being done with that 6 noncontaminated water? 7 A I don't recall specifically. 8 Q Do you recall how it was being removed 9 from the trenches? 10 A No. 11 Q Is that something other than these 12 gates that you had testified earlier which 13 would confine the flow ofthe bottom material 14 and allow only a flow over the top of the 15 gate? 16 A Yes. I think what this would 17 physically refer to is that we were taking the 18 water somehow out of the trenches and not 19 include it in the flows to those weirs. 20 Q Okay. So you are talking about 21 getting the water before it gets into the 22 trench? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you know if that project was ever 25 implemented? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 275 WATER PCB-SD0000053189 276 1 A I don't recall specifically. 2 Q At the bottom there is a reference 3 that, "M. Pierle will contact Anniston and 4 obtain details on their aroclor removal 5 project." Do you recall what was going on at 6 Anniston at this time with respect to aroclor 7 removal? 8 A Not specifically. Only that Anniston 9 had a department that also made aroclors. I 10 don't know if it made the same ones. And I 11 believe the contacts that I made there were 12 simply to inquire as to what they were doing. 13 Q Do you know ifAnniston discharged its 14 effluent to a municipal sewer system? 15 A I believe the Anniston plant at that 16 time had a treatment system, but its effluent 17 may have been going to a municipal system. 18 Q So they treated their discharge before 19 they discharged -- let me rephrase that. They 20 had some sort of an internal effluent 21 treatment system? 22 A For a portion of the plant. I don't 23 know whether it was all or a piece. I just 24 recall I know that they had a treatment 25 facility and that subsequent to that the Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 276 WATER PCB-SD0000053190 277 1 stream still went into a municipal system. 2 Q Do you know whether the effluent from 3 the PCB manufacturing process at Anniston went 4 through this internal waste water treatment 5 facility? 6 A I don't recall what was reported back 7 from these inquiries. 8 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Numbers 16 9 and 17 marked for identification) 10 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I'm going 11 to hand you two documents that have been 12 marked as Exhibit 16 and 17 to your 13 deposition. 16 is a document with Bates No. 14 CER 013941, and 17 is CER 013939, and ask you 15 to take a look at them. Can you tell me what 16 Exhibit 16 is? 17 A It looks like a handwritten summary of 18 data that Scott gave me over the telephone on 19 a certain set of samples. 20 Q I'm a little confused because the date 21 of the document appears to be 1/14/70, but 22 then over at the top on the right it says, 23 "Analysis by phone 2/27/70." Do you know what 24 that means? 25 A I don't know specifically. I mean it Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 277 WATER PCB-SD0000053191 278 1 is very possible that I prepared the ledger in 2 January and the analyses were phoned in 3 February, and I entered the analysis data. 4 Q If you flip over to Exhibit 17, on the 5 second page there's a list of typed written 6 sampling results. Do you see that? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do the log numbers -- or I'm sorry. 9 Do the WGK numbers in the first column on 10 Exhibit 17 correspond to the sample numbers in 11 the first column on Exhibit 16? 12 A They appear to in part. 13 Q Have you noticed any places where they 14 do not appear to so correspond? 15 A Well, the set of data in 17 is much 16 longer than that in 16. 17 Q Okay. So 17 has more samples than are 18 included in 16, but do the -- with respect to 19 the sample numbers identified in Exhibit 16, 20 do those appear to correspond to the WGK 21 numbers in Exhibit 17? 22 A Do the sample numbers? 23 Q Numbers and results. 24 A I haven't looked at them line by line. 25 Q Okay. Well, let me ask you a couple Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 278 WATER PCB-SD0000053192 279 1 of specific questions, and we will see if we 2 can do it that way. On Exhibit 16, the first 3 line sample No. 20 is 246 Main. Do you know 4 what that 246 Main refers to? 5 A Again, based on the documents, it 6 would seem to indicate that's the main sewer 7 out of Department 246. 8 Q And Exhibit 16 indicates a result of 9 112 parts per billion; is that correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And if you look on Exhibit 17, No. 20 12 indicates 112 parts per billion of aroclor 13 A 1242, and then it also indicates 22 parts 14 per billion of aroclor A 1260. Do you see 15 that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you see the reference to the 22 ppb 18 ofA 1260 anywhere on Exhibit 16? 19 A No, I don't. 20 Q If you look down, again referring back 21 to Exhibit 16, on sample No. 26, again it is 22 246 Main, and the result on Exhibit 16 is 23 10.33 ppm. Do you see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And that appears to correspond to the Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 279 WATER PCB-SD0000053193 280 1 result set forth on Exhibit 17 for WGK No. 26; 2 is that correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And then No. 27 on Exhibit 16 again is 5 246 Main, and the result is 1.50 ppm, and that 6 too appears to correspond to WGK No. 27 on 7 Exhibit 17; is that correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Looking down to No. 29 on Exhibit 16, 10 there is a sample 246 trench, grab from 11 surface. Do you see that? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And the result appears, although it is 14 hard to read on Exhibit 16, to be 2.63 ppm. 15 Is that what that appears to be to you? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. And then if you look at Exhibit 18 17 under WGK 29, it does correspond as 2.63 19 ppm? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What do you understand the term grab 22 from surface to mean? 23 A My sense would have been that would 24 have just been a grab sample taken off the 25 surface or at the surface level of the water. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 280 WATER PCB-SD0000053194 281 1 Q And that would have been in the trench 2 sewer or in a trench sewer in Department 246? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Based upon your prior testimony that 5 it was your understanding of PCBs being 6 heavier than water, they would sink to the 7 bottom of the trench, does it surprise you to 8 see a reading of 2.63 ppm in a grab sample 9 from the surface of the trench? 10 A I don't know whether it does or not. 11 Q Is that consistent with the idea that 12 the PCBs would sink to the bottom in a trench 13 sewer? 14 A It very well could be. 15 Q And how is that? 16 A I mean I don't know where this was 17 taken in the trench, if it was at an area 18 where you could really separate the surface 19 sampling from what was settling, if it was 20 taken right where maybe there was a leak in 21 the water where there was stuff right at the 22 top and it hadn't had time to settle. I don't 23 know what that actually meant. I don't know 24 what day it was taken on or what sample to 25 compare it to, so these are all pretty low Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 281 WATER PCB-SD0000053195 282 1 numbers. 2 Q When you say they are all pretty low 3 numbers, low in relation to what? 4 A Well, at 2 parts in a million, I mean 5 that's low in this sample. This is beyond 6 levels that I think you could visually see. 7 They are just extremely low numbers. 8 Q Is there any way that you could 9 translate that 2.63 ppm into a pounds per day 10 number? I guess you need to know what the 11 flow rate was? 12 A You would. 13 Q And that information is not apparent 14 from these documents, is it? 15 A Not on these. No, it is not. 16 Q Sample No. 29 specifically states that 17 it is a grab from the surface. Is that in 18 distinction to the way you normally took 19 samples from the trench sewer? 20 A My sense as a routine is we had a 21 sampler there that was collecting water over a 22 period of time. And the typical way to sample 23 was to have the sampler somewhere in the water 24 layer, typically not at the bottom and 25 typically not at the top. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 282 WATER PCB-SD0000053196 283 1 Q The notation at the bottom of 2 Exhibit 16 states, "Comp samples are dated on 3 day taken, not for day they represent." Comp 4 refers to composit? 5 A It probably does. 6 Q Do you understand from the fact that 7 sample No. 29 is specifically identified as a 8 grab sample, that the other samples reflected 9 on this document are composit samples? 10 A I don't know that for a fact. I mean 11 the reality is that I would doubt that the 12 Monsanto dock sample, for example, was a 13 composit sample. 14 Q You don't recall -- I'm sorry. Go 15 ahead. 16 A I don't recall. 17 Q I was going to ask you whether you 18 recalled having any kind of a composit sampler 19 down there? 20 A I don't recall. 21 Q Or in the Mississippi River 22 downstream? 23 A Yes. I don't recall ever having a 24 composit sampler set up there. 25 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 18 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 283 WATER PCB-SD0000053197 284 1 marked for identification.) 2 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I will 3 show you a document that's been identified as 4 Pierle Exhibit 18 and ask you to take a look 5 at it. This is a document with Bates No. CER 6 013947. This is a document that you authored, 7 Mr. Pierle? 8 A It appears that way, yes. 9 Q There is a statement in the third 10 paragraph on the first page that says, "The 11 latter decrease -- referring to a decrease 12 from 230 pounds per day to 45 pounds per day 13 of aroclors being lost to the village 14 treatment plant -- coincides with the 15 installation of a trap in the pipeline to the 16 scrubber." Do you see that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Is that the scrubber of the gas from 19 the blow tank that that memo is discussing? 20 A I don't know. 21 Q There is a statement that the trap is 22 collecting between 115 and 385 pounds per day. 23 Do you recall sampling a trap in any pipeline 24 to any scrubber in Department 246? 25 A No. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 284 WATER PCB-SD0000053198 285 1 Q Do you know if there were others who 2 may have been involved in that sampling? 3 A I don't know. 4 Q Is there a way of arriving at the 5 figure set forth in this memo without sampling 6 the trap and the line to the scrubber? 7 A Well, the way I read this, this was 8 actually what was being collected and probably 9 taken off, so it was a measurement, if that's 10 what you mean by sampling. 11 Q Right. 12 A So someone was doing this. 13 Q It wasn't you though? 14 A No. If it was, I don't recall. 15 Q Do you know when the trap that's 16 referred to in this memo was installed? 17 A Well, it would imply that it was 18 between the two sampling period time frames. 19 Q So sometime between December of'69 20 and February of'70? 21 A That's what's indicated. 22 Q Can you flip over to the next page, 23 please. There is a chart on this page that 24 sets forth aroclor losses from Department 246. 25 If I showed you a map that included 246,1 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 285 WATER PCB-SD0000053199 286 1 think it is the map we marked yesterday as 2 Exhibit 6, would you be able to identify these 3 sampling locations for me? 4 A Not unless there was a diagram that 5 showed the sampling points. 6 Q Mr. Pierle, let me show you a document 7 that we marked yesterday as Exhibit 5 to your 8 deposition. This was a document that was from 9 Mr. Bigge to Mr. McCutchan, and I think you 10 testified yesterday that you had some 11 involvement in the preparation of this 12 document. Is that a fair statement? 13 A I guess what I said is what I said. I 14 don't recall. 15 Q Okay. There is a map that's included 16 as the last page of this document, and I'm 17 just wondering whether you can identify the 18 sampling locations set forth on Exhibit 18 by 19 reference to the map that's included with 20 Exhibit 5? 21 A I don't think I can do this. 22 Q All right. Can you flip over to the 23 next page of Exhibit 18. Is that your 24 handwriting on that chart, the handwritten 25 sections? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 286 WATER PCB-SD0000053200 287 1 A I don't believe so. 2 Q In the heading for Table 2, which is 3 aroclor losses at treatment plant, there are 4 some figures set forth as to both the 5 concentrations and the pounds per day of 6 aroclors in the effluent. Do you see that? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, we had talked earlier today about 9 the fact that the waste treatment plant was 10 removing aroclors that were being concentrated 11 in the scum and also aroclors that would 12 settle into the sludge. 13 My question based on this memo is it 14 does not appear that the waste treatment plant 15 was successful in removing all aroclors from 16 the influent. Is that a fair statement? 17 A If your question is were there 18 reported PCBs in the effluent, the answer is 19 yes. 20 Q So that the waste treatment plant was 21 not totally effective in removing aroclors 22 from the flow that was coming into the waste 23 treatment plant? 24 A Well, again, I don't want to quibble 25 with your words, but it may have been totally Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 287 WATER PCB-SD0000053201 288 1 effective to its capabilities. Do you mean 2 did it remove a hundred percent, the answer 3 would be no. 4 Q Did you have any explanation as to how 5 it was that the waste treatment plant was not 6 removing 100 percent ofthe aroclors coming 7 into it? 8 A I don't know that that was an 9 expectation. We were just simply trying to 10 find out what the facts were and what it was 11 doing. 12 Q You weren't interested in how or why 13 what was happening was happening? 14 A I think what we were interested in at 15 this point in time is finding out what was 16 happening. 17 Q And this document suggests that what 18 was happening was that aroclors were remaining 19 in the effluent from the waste water treatment 20 plant after the removal of the floaters and 21 the sinkers; is that correct? 22 A I think what it indicates is what was 23 concluded at the bottom, that the treatment 24 plant was removing aroclors based upon what we 25 were seeing in the samples. It didn't talk Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 288 WATER PCB-SD0000053202 289 1 about the level of efficiency. I mean the 2 data clearly showed that there were still some 3 reported or detected levels in the effluent. 4 I mean we were at a point in time here, you 5 can see where this data was still early on, 6 and just trying to predict and indicate what 7 was going on here at the plant. 8 Q Can you flip over to page 3 of the 9 memo. The second paragraph at the top, if you 10 could just review that paragraph, and I have a 11 couple questions. 12 A I have read it. 13 Q You state that, "All effluent samples 14 are in the solubility range of PCB in water." 15 What does that mean? 16 A That the concentrations that were 17 being reported as in the effluent were within 18 the known values of solubility of aroclor and 19 water. 20 And if that were the case based on 21 your earlier question, the treatment plant 22 would have been probably doing about what it 23 could. 24 Q Which is removing the PCBs that were 25 in the oils that were rising to the top and Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 289 WATER PCB-SD0000053203 290 1 also removing the PCBs that were sinking to 2 the bottom and collecting in the sludge? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And leaving only that which was 5 dissolved in the water. You state that tests 6 will be conducted to determine if the present 7 sampler is collecting only soluble material or 8 if the results are accurate. Can you explain 9 to me how those two possibilities are mutually 10 exclusive or if they were mutually exclusive? 11 A I'm not sure I understand the 12 question. 13 Q Well, you seem to be saying here that 14 either the present sampler is collecting only 15 soluble materials or the results are accurate. 16 That's the way I understand that sentence. Is 17 that an incorrect understanding? 18 A I think what that is, as I read that, 19 what it says is that we will do more work to 20 verify what we found to date, and that is 21 basically that what it shows is that we have 22 accurate information. The comment about 23 collecting solubles sounds like a cautionary 24 statement to say let's make sure that, you 25 know, if there were any insoluble materials, Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 290 WATER PCB-SD0000053204 291 1 that we make sure we collect those and measure 2 those as well. 3 Q Okay. So you are going to do further 4 testing? 5 A To verify the results. 6 Q Right. To verify whether there is 7 insoluble material that you are not 8 collecting, or otherwise the results that you 9 have given are probably accurate? 10 A Yes. 11 Q If you can flip over to the next page, 12 please. If you go down to the second 13 paragraph under the chart or under the graph, 14 you state, "It can be concluded from the data 15 that aroclor is present in high concentrations 16 along the river bank." Do you see that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Based upon that conclusion, are you 19 aware of any steps taken by Monsanto at any 20 time to address these high concentrations on 21 the river bank? 22 A Again, I think that was high 23 concentrations, and it is basically in this 24 sense relative to the upstream concentrations. 25 It did not -- to me does not indicate that Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 291 WATER PCB-SD0000053205 292 1 they were high to the point where something 2 needed to be done. 3 And I think I answered your question 4 earlier on, had we taken any action, that I do 5 not recall any conversation that says that 6 there was a health or environmental or safety 7 or regulatory reason to take any action. 8 Q Mr. Pierle, are you familiar with PCB 9 related -- let me withdraw that. Are you 10 familiar with a PCB-related Super Fund site in 11 New Bedford Harbor in Massachusetts? 12 A Only that I have heard of the New 13 Bedford Harbor site and that that is a Super 14 Fund -- has been a Super Fund site. 15 Q Do you know if it is a Super Fund site 16 in part because of PCB contamination in harbor 17 sediments? 18 A I don't know any of the specifics 19 about the site itself. 20 Q Are you familiar with a PCB cleanup 21 that General Electric is involved with with 22 respect to the Hudson River? 23 A I have read some things on that. 24 Q Do you know if that cleanup is in any 25 way related to PCB contamination in river Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 292 WATER PCB-SD0000053206 293 1 sediments? 2 A I believe it is. 3 Q Do you know what PCB levels were 4 identified in the river sediments in the 5 Hudson River? 6 A No. 7 Q Are you aware of any other situations 8 where remediation of sediments from bodies of 9 water have been required because of the 10 presence of PCBs? 11 A There was some debate some time ago 12 about a site up in -- I forget exactly. We 13 were involved, I think, in a lawsuit, I think 14 a site that EPA had produced a Super Fund site 15 and then withdrew. I don't recall the name of 16 it though. 17 Q Do you know what state it was in? 18 A I don't recall specifically. 19 Q Do you recall what region of the EPA 20 you were dealing with? 21 A It was someplace up north, but it was 22 probably in region five, but I'm not certain. 23 Q Do you recall the body of water that 24 was involved? 25 A No. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 293 WATER PCB-SD0000053207 294 1 Q Did you have a plant up there? 2 A No. 3 Q Were you named as a potentially 4 responsible party, you, Monsanto? 5 A No. I don't believe so. 6 Q How did this come to your attention? 7 A I think the company had been sued by 8 one of the PRPs. 9 Q Do you recall who it was that sued 10 you? 11 A The name doesn't strike me. 12 Q Do you know how that lawsuit was 13 resolved? 14 A We were -- I don't know that we were 15 involved for very long in it. I don't 16 remember any responsibilities that Monsanto 17 had. 18 Q Was there ever an issue raised with 19 respect to PCB contamination in sediments in 20 bodies of water in the vicinity of the 21 Anniston plant? 22 A I don't know. 23 Q You are not aware of any? 24 A I don't recall. I wasn't -- you know, 25 in the times that I have been involved, I Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 294 WATER PCB-SD0000053208 295 1 don't recall that being an issue. 2 Q Do you know the last time Monsanto 3 sampled Mississippi River sediments for PCB 4 contamination? 5 A No. 6 Q Do you know if any sampling of river 7 sediments has occurred in conjunction with the 8 closure of the Monsanto landfill? 9 A I don't recall. 10 Q If you could refer on this document 11 that we have marked as Exhibit 18, page 4 at 12 the bottom under the heading "Miscellaneous 13 Samples," there is a discussion of samples of 14 the spent carbon in muriatic acid as 15 containing 8 and 6 parts per billion aroclor. 16 And from that you conclude that the spent 17 carbon which was sewered did not significantly 18 contribute to aroclor concentrations in the 19 village effluent. What's the basis for that 20 conclusion? 21 A Well, these levels are so low 22 themselves and the amount of carbon here would 23 have been small relative to poundage of the 24 total water flow that they were just very low 25 samples. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 295 WATER PCB-SD0000053209 296 1 Q The next paragraph talks about a 2 sample of River Ranney well water? 3 A Yes. 4 Q What is that? 5 A It was a water supply well that we had 6 at the river for cooling water purposes. 7 Q At the Mississippi River? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Can you tell me where that well was 10 located? 11 A Several feet underground below the 12 river in the vicinity of the dock. 13 Q Do you know how deep this well was? 14 A My recollection, it could have been 15 somewhere between 60 and 100 foot deep. 16 Q Do you know where it was screened? 17 A No. 18 Q Do you know the extent to which 19 Monsanto pumped from that well? 20 A It was a pretty significant supplier 21 of water to us for cooling purposes. I don't 22 recall the flows and volumes. 23 Q Do you know if the well is still in 24 operation today? 25 A No, it is not. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 296 WATER PCB-SD0000053210 297 1 Q When was it taken out of service? 2 A I don't recall exactly, but it seems 3 to me it was -- may have been taken out even 4 during the late '60s or sometime in the early 5 '70s. 6 Q Why was it taken out of service? 7 A As we began to further expand the 8 waste water treatment facility at Sauget 9 Village, the cost of capital was flow 10 dependent, and it was more economical to put 11 systems in the plant on cooling water and 12 cooling towers and reduce flows, and it got to 13 the point where the well was no longer 14 necessary. 15 Q So when the well was in service, the 16 water was basically pumped from the well, 17 used, and then discharged to the sewers? 18 A Yes. 19 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 19 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 22 show you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 19 to your deposition. This is a 24 document with Bates No. CER 012903 and ask you 25 to take a look at it. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 297 WATER PCB-SD0000053211 298 1 This is a memo from Mr. Engman to 2 Mr. Papageorge, dated June 25, 1970, and you 3 are shown as being copied on this document; is 4 that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Who is Mr. Engman? 7 A I recall Bill at the plant as I think 8 an engineering superintendent in the technical 9 services department. 10 Q What was his role in this PCB control 11 program? 12 A I can only interpret from this that 13 Bill was pulling together the total plans and 14 action, sort of became a program 15 administrator, I guess. I don't really recall 16 much about Bill's direct involvement. 17 Q Did you have any direct contacts with 18 him? 19 A I don't recall. This is getting close 20 to the time when I was getting ready to leave 21 the plant or when I was about to find out I 22 was going to leave the plant. I don't recall 23 much contact with Bill. 24 Q Was he in your chain of command? 25 A No. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 298 WATER PCB-SD0000053212 299 1 Q And who was Mr. Papageorge? 2 A Bill at that time I believe was 3 working in St. Louis and had come into a 4 position to manage overall company activities 5 on PCBs. 6 Q When you say manage company activities 7 on PCBs, are you talking about production and 8 distribution and marketing, or are you talking 9 about pollution control or both? 10 A Well, it was broader than what was 11 going on at the Krummrich plant, but I didn't 12 have any idea what the scope of his 13 responsibilities were. 14 Q Do you know if this position that 15 Mr. Papageorge came into was created as a 16 result of the adverse publicity that had hit 17 the press regarding the environmental impact 18 of PCBs? 19 A I don't know why the position was 20 created. 21 Q Do you know if Mr. Papageorge had a 22 title at that time? 23 A I'm sure he did, but I don't know what 24 it was. 25 Q You don't know what it was. Do you Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 299 WATER PCB-SD0000053213 300 1 know how long the position that Mr. Papageorge 2 moved in that you had described continued? 3 A No. 4 Q Was that position still in existence 5 when you became manager of environmental 6 protection? 7 A I don't know. When I returned to that 8 position, the group I was in, Bill was not in 9 that group, so I don't know what he was doing 10 then. 11 Q He was not in the group that you were 12 in? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q So you don't know whether he was still 15 involved in PCB-related activities in '75, was 16 it, when you became manager of environmental 17 protection? 18 A That's correct. And I do not recall 19 what he was doing then. 20 Q Did Mr. Papageorge, to the best of 21 your knowledge, have any involvement in PCB22 related activities at any time after 1975? 23 A I don't know specifically. 24 Q Generally? 25 A I don't know. I mean, I started Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 300 WATER PCB-SD0000053214 301 1 working for Bill in 1977 sometime. But I 2 don't recall what he was doing up to that 3 point. 4 Q You worked for him in 1977? 5 A Yes, '78. I mean it was sometime in 6 that time frame. I'm not exactly sure. 7 Q Was that while you were still manager 8 of environmental protection? 9 A Yes. 10 Q But it was sometime after you first 11 assumed that position? 12 A Yes. 13 Q What was Mr. Papageorge's title? 14 A When? 15 Q When he was your supervisor as manager 16 of environmental protection. 17 A Director of environmental operations. 18 Q Now, you remained manager of 19 environmental protection until, I believe, it 20 was August of '79; is that correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you know if Mr. Papageorge stayed 23 in the position of director of environmental 24 operations after you left the position of 25 manager of environmental protection? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 301 WATER PCB-SD0000053215 302 1 A Yes. 2 Q Who succeeded you in that position of 3 manager of environmental protection? 4 A I don't recall. 5 Q Do you recall when Mr. Papageorge 6 assumed the position of director of 7 environmental operations? 8 A My best recollection was it was 9 sometime in 1977, but, again, I'm not clear on 10 that. 11 Q Do you recall if it was before or 12 after the time that the company decided that 13 it would get out of the PCB business? 14 A I think this was after that. 15 Q Do you know if it was before or after 16 the time that the company actually stopped 17 manufacturing PCBs? 18 A I don't recall. 19 Q If you flip over to the second page of 20 Exhibit 19, there is an indication that Krull 21 and Pierle will be involved with determining 22 points of loss with respect to PCB levels in 23 the atmosphere. Do you see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Do you have any recollection of being Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 302 WATER PCB-SD0000053216 303 1 involved in such efforts? 2 A That's not -- no, I don't. I don't 3 recall that. 4 Q Does PCB levels in the atmosphere mean 5 air releases? 6 A I don't know what Mr. Engman meant. 7 Q Do you recall working with Mr. Krull 8 on any PCB-related projects? 9 A I don't specifically remember that. 10 Q Do you remember Mr. Krull? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Andwho was he? 13 A As I recall, he was an engineer in the 14 technical services department. 15 Q You don't recall doing any sampling of 16 PCB levels in the atmosphere? 17 A No. 18 Q Or setting up a routine control 19 sampling? 20 A What are you referring to there? 21 Q I'm referring to item Roman Numeral V, 22 letter D on the second page of Exhibit 19. 23 A No. As I indicated, I left the plant 24 sometime within a month after this memo was 25 written. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 303 WATER PCB-SD0000053217 304 1 Q I may have asked you this before, and 2 I'm sorry if I did, but did somebody take over 3 your position after you left Krummrich? 4 A Someone did. I believe it was Mike 5 Foresman. 6 Q Did you have any contact with 7 Mr. Foresman regarding the PCB control program 8 after you left the Krummrich plant? 9 A I don't recall any. 10 Q Do you recall any kind of transitional 11 communications with Mr. Foresman at or around 12 the time that you left Krummrich? 13 A No. As I recall, I'm not even sure if 14 he was in the job when I left. 15 Q Was he at the plant? 16 A I believe he was. 17 Q Doing something else though? 18 A Yes. 19 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 20 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 22 show you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 20 to your deposition. This document 24 is Bates No. CER 014897. It appears to be a 25 July 10, 1970, memo from Mr. Tucker to Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 304 WATER PCB-SD0000053218 305 1 yourself. This memo sets forth various 2 sampling results for PCBs; is that correct? 3 A It appears to. 4 Q There is a reference for log No. 299 5 to Mississippi River it looks like north of 6 E-A-D-S Bridge. Do you know what that is? 7 A Well, I believe that's the Eads 8 Bridge. 9 Q Eads Bridge. What's the Eads Bridge? 10 A It is a bridge that crosses the 11 Mississippi River north of the village. 12 Q So that would be an upstream sample? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Upstream from the village waste water 15 treatment plant? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Log No. 309 and 311 refer to samples 18 from the 246 drowning jet. Do you know what 19 that is? 20 A Which log numbers again? 21 Q 309 and 311 at the bottom. 22 A Okay. Well, again, that was -- I 23 believe that was a scrubber of sorts in the 24 246 department, a water scrubber. 25 Q Do you recall if it was off of a blow Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 305 WATER PCB-SD0000053219 306 1 tank or off of the chlorinator? 2 A Well, it would have had to have been 3 off of the chlorinator piping somewhere, but I 4 don't recall its relationship to the 5 chlorinators or to the blow tank. 6 Q What do you mean when you say it would 7 have to be off of the chlorinator piping 8 system someplace? 9 A Well, my recollection was that this 10 was a jet for drowning HCL gas in the 11 department area. 12 Q Do you know if there was a separate 13 scrubber for chlorinator off-gas than for air 14 from the blow tank? 15 A I don't know. 16 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 21 17 marked for identification.) 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 19 show you a document that's been marked as 20 Exhibit 21 to your deposition. It is a 21 document with Bates No. CER 014896. And I 22 will ask you to take a look at it. 23 This appears to be an August 11, 1970, 24 memo from Mr. Engman to Mr. Papageorge, and 25 there is some handwriting at the bottom. Is Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 306 WATER PCB-SD0000053220 307 1 that your handwriting or hand printing? 2 A Yes, it is. 3 Q You state in your hand printed note, 4 "The plant goal for losses is 10 ppb." Where 5 did that goal come from? 6 A I don't recall. 7 Q Do you recall the goal at all of 8 10 ppb? 9 A No, I don't. 10 Q Do you recall how that goal translated 11 into a pound per day goal? 12 A Well, again, it would have been times 13 the flow from the plant, which we had pretty 14 good fixes on. 15 Q Do you recall what the goal was in 16 terms of pounds per day? 17 A No. 18 Q You state that, "A 12 gallon loss of 19 aroclor represents two-month allocation of 20 plant losses." What do you mean by that? 21 A It looks to me like this was a note 22 just to emphasize that we had set ourselves a 23 very, very low target that clearly here would 24 have been less than a pound per day we were 25 trying to get to, and that these losses, we Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 307 WATER PCB-SD0000053221 308 1 just needed to continue to highlight that 2 wherever we had the potential, we needed to 3 make sure that we weren't experiencing these 4 kinds of losses. They were--1 mean we 5 couldn't get to the goal eventually with these 6 kinds of losses. 7 Q You mentioned in that last answer the 8 goal was less than a pound per day. Did I 9 hear you correctly? 10 A Well, I'm computing that if this is 11 two months at 12 gallons -- let me take that 12 back. It would have been less than a gallon a 13 day, which would have been less than whatever 14 that times its specific gravity is. I 15 shouldn't try to make those calculations 16 without the numbers. 17 Q Who was this note written to? 18 A I don't know. 19 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 22 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 22 show you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 22 to your deposition. This is a 24 document with Bates No. CER 014895. It 25 appears to be a memo from a Mr. Webb and a Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 308 WATER PCB-SD0000053222 309 1 Mr. Campbell to a number of people including 2 yourself. 3 First of all, can you tell me who 4 Mr. Webb and Mr. Campbell are? 5 A I believe they were both in the plant 6 analytical laboratory. 7 Q Can I assume from that that by August 8 of'70 PCB analyses were being performed at 9 the Krummrich facility as opposed to the 10 Queeny plant? 11 A Well, it looks like this set was. 12 Q Do you recall responsibility for that 13 analysis being shifted from Queeny to 14 Krummrich? 15 A I recall reading in some of these 16 prior documents some reference to the fact 17 that that was going to happen. 18 Q Who was Mr. Jackson? 19 A When I remember Daryl at the plant, he 20 was the general superintendent of technical 21 services. 22 Q Was the lab within the jurisdiction of 23 technical services? 24 A I don't recall. 25 Q How about Mr. Blowers? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 309 WATER PCB-SD0000053223 310 1 A I remember Dick Blowers. I don't 2 recall specifically what his job assignment 3 was during this time period. 4 Q How about Mr. Homer? 5 A I believe he was -- I believe he ran 6 the lab. 7 Q And then in the space where the memo 8 is directed to, there is a D. Woods. Do you 9 know who that is? 10 A No, I don't. 11 Q How about B. Corlew? 12 A He was a production person at the 13 plant. That's all I recall. 14 Q There are some sampling locations that 15 I wanted to ask you about. Sediment, J. B. 16 Bridge, do you know what that is? 17 A I believe that's the Jefferson 18 Barracks Bridge. 19 Q Is that upstream or downstream- 20 well, let me withdraw that. Is that a bridge 21 on the Mississippi River? 22 A Yes, it is. 23 Q Is it upstream or downstream from the 24 village outfall? 25 A Downstream. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 310 WATER PCB-SD0000053224 311 1 Q How about sediment E. Carondelet? 2 A East Carondelet is a small, I believe 3 incorporated area on the west side of the 4 river, south of Sauget Village. 5 Q Do you know how these sample locations 6 were chosen? 7 A My recollection is they were access 8 points to the river. 9 Q Further down on log No. 85, it is 10 identified as water, No. 4 still, steam 11 condensate. Do you know what that sample 12 location is? 13 A No, I don't. 14 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 23 15 marked for identification.) 16 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 17 show you a document that's been marked as 18 Exhibit 23 for identification. This is a 19 document with Bates No. CER 011584, and it is 20 dated January 8, 1971, which is after you left 21 the Krummrich facility as I understand it? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q If you could just flip over quickly to 24 page 8 of the document, under the Krummrich 25 plant heading, paragraph 3, there is a Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 311 WATER PCB-SD0000053225 312 1 statement that, "Sewer samples were taken from 2 the effluents of other industrial plants." Do 3 you know if that sampling took place while you 4 were still at the Krummrich plant? 5 A I don't recall. 6 Q You don't recall having any 7 involvement in any such sampling? 8 A I just don't recall. 9 Q There is a reference just below that 10 to two to three pounds -- "This amounts to 11 about two or three pounds a day. Probable 12 source is aroclor trailer washes at Rogers 13 Terminal." Do you see that? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Are you familiar with Rogers Terminal? 16 A Somewhat. 17 Q What is your familiarity with Rogers 18 Terminal? 19 A I believe they were located in the 20 village somewhere in the vicinity of the 21 village hall and whatever the road is next to 22 the Cerro property. I don't remember a lot 23 about them. 24 Q Do you know what business they were 25 in? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 312 WATER PCB-SD0000053226 313 1 A You know, at this time I don't think I 2 knew much about them other than they were 3 there. 4 Q Do you know if they had any 5 involvement with hauling aroclors from 6 Monsanto? 7 A I don't know that. I don't know 8 whether they did or whether they didn't. 9 Q Are you familiar with a company by the 10 name ofWaggoner, W-A-G-G-O-N-E-R, in the 11 village? 12 A Again, I have heard ofthat company 13 but don't have much of a recollection of it. 14 Q Do you have any knowledge of what its 15 business was? 16 A Not particularly. 17 Q Do you know whether Monsanto ever did 18 business with the company by the name of 19 Waggoner? 20 A I don't know. 21 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 24 22 marked for identification.) 23 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 24 show you a document that's been marked as 25 Exhibit 24 to your deposition. This is a Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 313 WATER PCB-SD0000053227 314 1 document with Bates No. CER 014500. Is that 2 your signature on the second page of the 3 document? 4 A Yes, it is. 5 Q This appears to be a September 2, 6 1976, letter from yourself to a Mr. Zar of the 7 USEPA. Do you recall Mr. Zar? 8 A I recall the name. I don't recall 9 that I ever met the man. 10 Q In September of 1976, you were manager 11 of environmental protection? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Under paragraph 3 of the letter, there 14 are some analytical results with respect to 15 PCBs. And there is an indication that the 16 result with respect to the Sauget treatment 17 plant influent is .9 pounds per day. And for 18 the effluent it is 2.1 pounds per day. 19 Do you know of any explanation as to 20 why the amount of PCBs coming out of the 21 treatment plant was greater than the amount 22 going in? 23 A These numbers are, again, extremely 24 low, and they represent concentration levels 25 in the probably subpart per billion range or Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 314 WATER PCB-SD0000053228 315 1 subpart per million range, very low subpart 2 per billion range, and I guess my general 3 reaction to that would be I'm not sure there 4 is really a difference between the two, but 5 you have to report the analyses that you got, 6 and that had to have been an accurate 7 reporting of data that we had. 8 Q You are not saying there is no 9 difference between .9 and 2.1. You are saying 10 more that there is very little difference 11 between the concentration levels that led to 12 the computation of these poundage levels. Is 13 that a fair statement? 14 A Well, no. I think my point was that 15 since you would multiply each of those 16 concentrations by the same flow, and the flow 17 is so large compared to those two, that there 18 is probably not much difference between these 19 two numbers. 20 Q At the top of the second page there is 21a reference to a visit by Mr. Park and 22 Mr. Nelson to the EPA offices in July. And is 23 Mr. Park, Phocion Park, the attorney that we 24 talked about yesterday? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 315 WATER PCB-SD0000053229 316 1 Q Who is Mr. Nelson? 2 A I believe that is Robert Nelson. 3 Q Who is Robert Nelson? 4 A He was my supervisor at the time. 5 Q It is not Richard Nelson, is it? 6 A I don't believe so. 7 Q Okay. Was his title director of 8 environmental operations? 9 A It wasn't. He was a director of 10 something. I don't recall the precise title. 11 Q Did he have the position that 12 Mr. Papageorge then took over? 13 A It was pretty much the same position. 14 Q Do you have knowledge of this meeting 15 or this visit that Mr. Park and Mr. Nelson 16 made to the EPA offices in July? 17 A I don't really recall that. 18 Q Do you know how you came to write this 19 letter as opposed to Mr. Nelson or Mr. Park or 20 somebody else? 21 A I can't tell from this letter 22 precisely what we were responding or reacting 23 to. 24 Q Were you still involved in PCB control 25 in September of 1976? I said were you still Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 316 WATER PCB-SD0000053230 317 1 involved. I don't mean to imply that you were 2 involved continuously. I mean obviously 3 during the time that you were not at the 4 Krummrich plant you were not involved. I 5 think that's true, isn't it? 6 A I'm not sure what your question is 7 now. 8 Q Let me back up again. You were 9 involved in PCB control up until '70 when you 10 left the Krummrich plant? 11 A Yes. 12 Q You left the Krummrich plant and went 13 to New Jersey. And during the time that you 14 were in New Jersey, you were not involved in 15 PCB control? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q And then you went to the USEPA for a 18 year -- I'm sorry -- the Department of 19 Commerce for a year, and again you were not 20 involved in PCB-related issues; is that true? 21 A That's true. 22 Q When you came back to Monsanto as the 23 manager of environmental protection, did you 24 resume some responsibility for PCB control 25 efforts? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 317 WATER PCB-SD0000053231 318 1 A Not as you have described it. I mean, 2 I indicated I was in an oversight generalist 3 role. I did not get involved in plant 4 specific pollution control efforts. 5 Q In order to prepare this letter then, 6 did you have to go back to people who were 7 involved in plant specific issues to get the 8 information that you needed? 9 A I would have had to receive the data 10 from someone. 11 Q And that presumably would have been 12 someone at Krummrich? 13 A It doesn't indicate where it came 14 from. 15 Q Who is Mr. Harsh who is copied on this 16 letter? 17 A I don't know. He is mentioned on 18 page 1. Appears to me that it is probably an 19 EPA employee or someone outside Monsanto. 20 Q Is that your handwriting in the top, 21 right-hand comer ofthe first page? 22 A No. 23 Q Do you know whose handwriting it is? 24 A No, I do not. 25 Q Do you know if Monsanto had made a Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 318 WATER PCB-SD0000053232 319 1 decision by September of 1976 to stop 2 manufacturing PCBs? 3 A I mean that date's available. I don't 4 recall what the decision time frame was. 5 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 25 6 marked for identification.) 7 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, this is a 8 document that's been marked as Exhibit 25 to 9 your deposition. This is a document with 10 Bates No. CER 014441. And it appears to be a 11 September 29, 1976, memo from Mr. Buckley to 12 Mr. Heisler, and you appear to have been 13 copied on this memo; is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q The memo refers to some sampling that 16 was conducted by the USEPA and also the 17 Illinois EPA. Do you have any recollection of 18 this sampling? 19 A I vaguely remember the request that 20 was made and our agreement to the request as 21 it pertained to Monsanto. 22 Q Do you know why the EPA was interested 23 in sampling in this regard at this time? 24 A I believe there were still active 25 discussions concerning PCB limits in their Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 319 WATER PCB-SD0000053233 320 1 waste water discharge permit for the village, 2 and that this sampling was in conjunction with 3 that activity. 4 Q At the bottom of the second paragraph, 5 there is a list of compounds that the EPA will 6 be looking for. Do you see that? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know how that list was 9 developed? 10 A No, I do not. 11 Q Do you know any potential source of 12 hexachlorobenzene in the discharge from the 13 Krummrich facility? 14 A I don't recall. 15 Q How about hexachlorobutadiene? 16 A No. 17 Q No, you don't? 18 A I don't recall really on any ofthese. 19 Q Okay. You don't recall on 20 pentachlorophenol? 21 A We had a pentachlorophenol department, 22 but I don't know what prompted this particular 23 list. It looks like a generic list of 24 chlorinated polycyclic compounds. 25 Q Did the company use or manufacture Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 320 WATER PCB-SD0000053234 321 1 polychlorinated terphenyls at the Krummrich 2 facility? 3 A I don't know. 4 Q Do you know if hexachlorobenzene was a 5 byproduct in any of the chlorinated benzene 6 manufacturing processes at the Krummrich 7 facility? 8 A I don't ever recall that. 9 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 26 10 marked for identification.) 11 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 12 show you a document that's been marked as 13 Exhibit 26 to your deposition and ask you to 14 take a look at it. This is a document with 15 Bates No. CER 014436. Can you identify this 16 document, Mr. Pierle? 17 A What do you mean by that? You just 18 want me to read it? 19 A Do you know what the document is? Do 20 you know what it is other than by reading the 21 heading? Let's start over again. 22 The document appears to be minutes of 23 a meeting that occurred in September of 1976; 24 is that correct? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 321 WATER PCB-SD0000053235 322 1 Q And you are indicated as being an 2 attendee at the meeting; is that correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you have any recollection of this 5 meeting? 6 A I do recall conversations and 7 discussions. I don't know that I recall this 8 specific meeting. 9 Q The document was authored by 10 Mr. Leisy. Do you know who Mr. Leisy was? 11 A I believe Art was still a production 12 superintendent at the Krummrich plant then. 13 Q The subject of this meeting is the 14 decontamination and disposal of the PCB 15 department at the Krummrich facility; is that 16 correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Is it fair to say that by this point 19 in time the company had decided to get out of 20 the PCB business, at least the Krummrich 21 facility? 22 A I believe so. 23 Q Did you have any involvement in the 24 decision to discontinue the manufacture of 25 PCBs? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 322 WATER PCB-SD0000053236 323 1 A No. 2 Q Do you know who was involved in that 3 decision-making process? 4 A No, I do not. 5 Q Do you know if Mr. Papageorge was 6 involved? 7 A He may have been. 8 Q Do you know why the decision to stop 9 manufacturing PCBs was made? 10 A I really don't know the whole decision 11 process. 12 Q Do you know anything about it? 13 A I mean, I know there were lots of 14 discussions and lots of implications on PCBs, 15 but I don't know the full sense of the 16 conversations or discussions. 17 Q Can you tell me what you do know? 18 A Well, I mean I think I just did. 19 Q Do you know how high up within the 20 management of the company the decision-making 21 process went? 22 A No, I don't. 23 Q Did you have any involvement in the 24 decommissioning ofthe PCB plant at the 25 Krummrich facility? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 323 WATER PCB-SD0000053237 324 1 A Not firsthand. Again, it was -- the 2 environment here was more in the sort of 3 policy aspects of what would we do, not how 4 would it be done. 5 Q When you say the policy aspects of 6 what we would do, do you mean in terms of 7 actually -- well, what do you mean by that, 8 the policy and implications of what we would 9 do? 10 A Well, there were questions with 11 respect to the fleet. Do we sell the cars? 12 Do we not? Do we clean them and put them in 13 service? A whole series of questions about 14 how do we manage the fleet cars, the 15 department, and all the rest of it. And I was 16 involved in those discussions as to making at 17 least recommendations on what should be done. 18 Q Did you have a recommendation as to 19 what to do with the tank car fleet? 20 A My sense is, without reading each of 21 those lines, was that this group was pretty 22 much in concurrence with what was being laid 23 out here. 24 Q The decision was made to basically 25 dismantle the PCB manufacturing plant; is that Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 324 WATER PCB-SD0000053238 325 1 correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Why was that decision made? 4 A Well, to me, I mean that's a natural. 5 You have decided to go out of the business, 6 and you have got to take the department down. 7 The other option is to leave it stand. And I 8 mean we wouldn't do that. 9 Q Was the -- did the company cease 10 manufacturing PCBs at the Anniston plant as 11 well? 12 A I know they did, but again, I don't 13 know anything about the timing or that 14 decision process. 15 Q Did the -- was the PCB manufacturing 16 plant at Anniston dismantled as well? 17 A I believe it was, but I'm not -- I 18 don't recall those details. 19 Q Did you have any involvement in the 20 development of guidelines for dismantling the 21 department in Anniston? 22 A No. I don't believe I did. 23 Q Was Anniston within your jurisdiction 24 as manager of environmental protection? 25 A No. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 325 WATER PCB-SD0000053239 326 1 Q Why is that? 2 A I believe we talked about that two 3 days ago. It was in a different division. 4 Q Okay. If you could refresh my 5 recollection as to what division you were in 6 versus what division Anniston was? 7 A Well, it was within the ag company, 8 and I was within generally the chemical 9 company. 10 Q Did you have a counterpart in the ag 11 company? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Who was that? 14 A I'm not sure who it was during this 15 time period. 16 Q Did Monsanto continue to sample for 17 PCBs into the village sewer system after the 18 PCB department was shut down? 19 A I believe we did. 20 Q Do you know how long after the 21 shutdown you continued to sample? 22 A My recollection was that there was 23 still sampling in conjunction with the village 24 outfall permit. That went on for quite some 25 time, but I don't recall if it is still going Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 326 WATER PCB-SD0000053240 327 1 on or not. I just don't know. 2 Q Was this sampling of the influent to 3 the waste water treatment plant? 4 A I don't recall. 5 Q Do you know if this was sampling by 6 Monsanto or by the village? 7 A I don't recall who was taking the 8 samples and who was doing the analyses. 9 Q Did you continue to get PCB hits in 10 the sewer samples after the PCB department 11 shutdown? 12 A I don't recall the specifics. I know 13 that there was a permit requirement at one 14 time to get zero or nil or something. And I 15 know we debated that because there were still 16 very low concentration levels. I don't recall 17 the time period of that. 18 MR. RICCI: Let's go off the record 19 for a second. 20 (Recess) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, with 22 respect to the decommissioning ofthe PCB 23 plant, do you recall if any steps were taken 24 to ensure against further emissions of PCBs 25 from the sewer in that department? For Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 327 WATER PCB-SD0000053241 328 1 instance, with respect to PCB contaminated 2 sediments that might still be there and rain 3 water infdtration and things like that? 4 A My recollection is part of what I 5 assumed was indicated here is that the 6 dismantling was done down in and included 7 removing of some of the surface dirts and 8 hauled off to an approved landfill. 9 Q What about was there anything done 10 with respect to the underground sewer lines in 11 the department? 12 A I don't recall specifically. 13 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 27 14 marked for identification.) 15 Q (By Mr. Ricci) I will show you a 16 document that's been marked as Exhibit 27 to 17 your deposition. This is a document with 18 Bates No. CER 013190. It appears to be an 19 October 18, 1976, memo from a Mr. Hunter to 20 Mr. Buckley. And you appear to be copied on 21 the document; is that true? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Who is Mr. Hunter? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q The reference of September 29, 1976, Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 328 WATER PCB-SD0000053242 329 1 to a Mr. Heisler from Mr. Buckley, who is 2 Mr. Heisler? 3 A He was a general superintendent at the 4 Krummrich plant that I believe during this 5 time frame had responsibilities for the 6 environmental program. 7 Q Do you know ifthese sample results, 8 as set forth in this memo, relate to the 9 sampling requested by the EPA as documented in 10 the memo that we had previously marked as 11 Exhibit 25? 12 A I don't know whether they are or not. 13 They could be, but I'm not certain. 14 Q The memo indicates a hit of 1.9 parts 15 per billion hexachlorobenzene in the Krummrich 16 effluent. 17 A Which memo? 18 Q I'm sorry. The memo that we have 19 marked as Exhibit 27. Do you see that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Do you recall any discussions in the 22 wake of this memo as to the possible source of 23 that hexachlorobenzene? 24 A No. 25 Q Do you have any idea of what the Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 329 WATER PCB-SD0000053243 330 1 source of that hexachlorobenzene could have 2 been? 3 A No. Again, I would say these are 4 extremely low numbers. I don't know that one 5 would ever know where to go to begin to look 6 for something that small. 7 Q The pentachlorophenol numbers appear 8 to be translated into -- the concentrations 9 appear to be translated into a pounds per day 10 figure. Is that your handwriting there? 11 A No. 12 Q Do you know whose handwriting it is? 13 A No, I do not. 14 Q There are again some new names that 15 are included in the ccs of this document. Do 16 you know who Mr. Basill is? 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Basile. 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Basile. 19 A He was, I believe, in the 20 environmental control department at the plant. 21 Q Are there any individuals that you see 22 on this list that were not Krummrich personnel 23 at the time? 24 A The mail zone code would indicate all 25 names with the No. 1740 after them were at the Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 330 WATER PCB-SD0000053244 331 1 plant. 2 Q Okay. 3 A And the others were not. 4 Q Okay. Who is M. W. Dietrich? 5 A I recall that name from an analytical 6 perspective. 7 Q How about J. P. Mieure? 8 A I think he was also in the analytical 9 section. 10 Q R. S. Nelson, is that Mr. Nelson who 11 was your superior? 12 A I believe so. 13 Q How about W. E. Scruggs? 14 A I believe he was in engineering. 15 Q Corporate? 16 A I believe so. 17 Q And J. C. Weber? 18 A He was I think somewhere in the 19 product acceptability function in one ofthe 20 business groups. 21 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 28 22 marked for identification.) 23 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 24 show you a document that's been marked as 25 Exhibit 28 to your deposition. This is a Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 331 WATER PCB-SD0000053245 332 1 document with Bates No. CER 013186. And I 2 would ask you to take a look at it. It 3 appears to be a memo from Mr. Basile to 4 yourself. Do you recall having received this 5 memo? 6 A Vaguely. 7 Q Do you recall ifthis memo was 8 prepared at your request? 9 A I don't recall what precipitated it. 10 Q Do you recall the circumstances that 11 necessitated the compilation of the 12 information that's attached to the memo? 13 A No. I really do not. 14 Q Do you have any knowledge of the data 15 which region five has on file as reported by 16 W. Papageorge in December of 1975? 17 A I don't. 18 Q You don't know what that reference is 19 to? 20 A No. Bill was, as I had said, kind of 21 a point person. But I don't know what the 22 information flow was. I don't recall. 23 Q Referring to the attachment, the plant 24 concentrations are in milligrams per liter; is 25 that correct? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 332 WATER PCB-SD0000053246 333 1 A Yes. 2 Q Is that the same as parts per million? 3 A I believe it is. 4 Q And then there is a column that sets 5 forth total plant flow in GPM is the second 6 column? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Or actually the third column, the 9 first column being the date. GPM stands for 10 gallons per minute? 11 A I believe so. 12 Q Do you know how that 5300 GPM was 13 arrived at? 14 A No, I don't. 15 Q Do you know if that was the correct 16 volume of the Krummrich plant flow as of the 17 time of the sampling events set forth herein? 18 A I would assume so, but I don't know 19 that for a fact. 20 Q Is there a method -- withdraw that. 21 Is it possible to convert the plant 22 concentrations into pounds per day with the 23 information that's provided in this memo? 24 A It should be doable. 25 Q How would you do that? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 333 WATER PCB-SD0000053247 334 1 A You would have to multiply the two 2 numbers together and then put in the 3 appropriate conversion factors for volume and 4 weight relationships, and then you would have 5 to factor in the time elements depending upon 6 whether you wanted pounds per minute, pounds 7 per hour or pounds her day, month, week, year. 8 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 29 9 marked for identification.) 10 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I'm 11 handing you a document that's been marked as 12 Exhibit 29 to your deposition. This is a 13 document with Bates No. CER 008156, and it is 14 dated October 3, 1980. 15 Now, in October of 1980,1 believe it 16 was your testimony that your position with the 17 company was division of regulatory -- director 18 of regulatory management for water? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q And in that position you did not have 21 any involvement with the Krummrich facility in 22 particular? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q This document discusses a meeting 25 between employees of Monsanto and members of Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 334 WATER PCB-SD0000053248 335 1 the Illinois EPA and the State of Illinois 2 Attorney General's Office. 3 You are free to review the document in 4 as much detail as you want. I have just some 5 general questions about it though. The first 6 question is at the time that you got -- at 7 that time that you became involved in 8 discussions with employees from Marmon or 9 Cerro after early 1986 regarding Dead Creek, 10 were you aware that discussions between 11 Monsanto and the IEPA had occurred in or 12 around October of 1980? 13 A I don't believe I had conversations 14 about that. 15 Q Were you aware that any such 16 conversations or contacts had occurred? 17 A Not particularly. I could recall that 18 there were things in the newspaper about Dead 19 Creek that had happened years ago, but that's 20 the extent of my recollection. 21 Q Are you familiar with a Jim Kelty or a 22 John Renkes from the Illinois EPA? 23 A No. 24 Q How about a Reed Neuman from the State 25 Attorney General's office? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 335 WATER PCB-SD0000053249 336 1 A Doesn't sound familiar. 2 Q How about a Stan Parsons? 3 A No. 4 Q Were any ofthe Monsanto employees 5 identified on this memo that we have marked as 6 Exhibit 29 involved in the discussions that 7 you were involved with with Marmon or Cerro in 8 1986? 9 A Are you referring to this group of 10 people? 11 Q Anybody, either the people in 12 attendance at the meeting or the people cc'd, 13 the author or the direct recipients of the 14 memo? 15 A I think I had mentioned that perhaps 16 Jack Molloy was at some point involved. The 17 others I don't believe so. 18 Q Do you know who Mr. Sinise was? 19 A I recall him as an engineer in the 20 environmental group. I don't think he was 21 around very long. 22 Q Your responsibilities in 1980 were 23 such that you would not necessarily have had 24 any reason to be aware of these discussions; 25 is that correct? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 336 WATER PCB-SD0000053250 337 1 A That's correct. 2 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 30 3 marked for identification.) 4 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I'm 5 handing you a document that's been marked as 6 Exhibit 30 to your deposition. This is a 7 document with Bates No. CER 037285. And it is 8 just some handwritten notes that were produced 9 in the course of this deposition. Do you 10 recognize the handwriting on this? 11 A No, I don't. 12 Q If you look at the last page, there is 13 a copy of what appears to be a note pad of 14 some sort that has printed on it, "From the 15 desk of Earl N. Brasfield." Do you see that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know who Mr. Brasfield is? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Who is he? 20 A He is a retired employee. 21 Q Do you know when he retired? 22 A Sometime in the last year or so. 23 Q What was his position immediately 24 before he retired? 25 A He was a corporate vice president. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 337 WATER PCB-SD0000053251 338 1 Q For any particular division or any 2 title more specific than that? 3 A I don't recall. 4 Q Do you know what Mr. Brasfield's 5 position was in 1980? 6 A I'm not sure. 7 Q Do you know if he was in corporate, in 8 corporate headquarters at that time? 9 A I believe he was in one of the 10 chemical entities. 11 Q Do you recall Mr. Brasfield ever 12 getting involved in preparation of any kind of 13 chronology with respect to waste disposal 14 activities at the Krummrich facility? 15 A No. 16 Q Was the nature of his position such 17 that he had responsibility for the Krummrich 18 facility? 19 A I don't recall what his position was 20 right then. 21 Q Do you know if his position had 22 anything to do with environmental issues or 23 environmental control or anything like that? 24 A Not from a functional standpoint. He 25 was not an environmental vice president or Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 338 WATER PCB-SD0000053252 339 1 that sort of thing. 2 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 31 3 marked for identification.) 4 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Let me show you a 5 document that's been marked as Exhibit 31 to 6 your deposition. This is a document with 7 Bates No. CER 008162. The document appears to 8 be a memo prepared by a Sarah Gainer Collins, 9 and it appears to be a fact sheet on the 10 Krummrich plant waste disposal. Have you ever 11 seen the fact sheet that's attached to this 12 memo before today? 13 A I don't recall seeing this. 14 Q Do you know who Ms. Collins was? 15 A She was in the public relations 16 department. 17 Q Do you know who J. J. Spano, 18 S-P-A-N-O, is? 19 A He was also in the public relations 20 area. 21 Q How about C. P. Cunningham? 22 A He was an executive in the chemical 23 unit. 24 Q Do you know what his position was in 25 October of 1980? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 339 WATER PCB-SD0000053253 340 1 A I do not. 2 Q Is he still with the company? 3 A No. He is retired. 4 Q Do you know when he retired? 5 A Several years ago. 6 Q Do you know what his position was 7 immediately prior to his retirement? 8 A He was a senior corporate officer. I 9 do not recall his specific title. 10 Q What do you mean by senior corporate 11 officer? Vice president or higher? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Higher than vice president? 14 A Vice president or higher. 15 (Discussion off the record) 16 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Do you recall 17 Mr. Cunningham having any involvement in 18 questions relating to the cleanup of Dead 19 Creek in 1986 when you were involved in your 20 discussions with Marmon or Cerro? 21 A No. Repeat the question again. 22 MR. RICCI: Why don't you read it 23 back. 24 (The requested portion of the 25 record read by the reporter) Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 340 WATER PCB-SD0000053254 341 1 A The answer is no. 2 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Do you recall 3 Mr. Cunningham having any involvement at any 4 time with issues relating to the cleanup of 5 Dead Creek? 6 A No. 7 Q Do you recall him having any 8 involvement with the remediation of any sites 9 in Sauget? 10 A No. 11 Q Do you recall that Mr. Cunningham was 12 responsible in any way for environmental 13 issues for the company? 14 A Again, not from a functional 15 standpoint. 16 Q Do you know whether environmental 17 issues or concerns were incidental to any 18 position held by Mr. Cunningham with the 19 company? 20 A Well, if he was running businesses, 21 and therefore he would have had within his 22 organizations responsibility for the issues 23 that arose under him, but I don't know what 24 his personal involvement was in issues. 25 Q I didn't hear you. Did you say if he Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 341 WATER PCB-SD0000053255 342 1 was running businesses or he was running 2 businesses? 3 A I believe he was. 4 Q Do you know which businesses he was 5 involved with or which business groups? 6 A No, I don't. 7 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 32 8 marked for identification.) 9 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, I will 10 show you a document that's been marked as 11 Exhibit 32 to your deposition. This is a 12 document with Bates No. CER 008280 dated 13 October 28, 1980. 14 This document discusses sampling of 15 sediments from Dead Creek that apparently 16 occurred sometime in 1980. Are you familiar 17 with Monsanto engaging in sampling of Dead 18 Creek in or around 1980? 19 A I don't recall having known this. 20 Q Were the results of any sampling 21 efforts undertaken by Monsanto with respect to 22 Dead Creek revealed to you during the time 23 that you were involved in discussions with 24 Marmon or Cerro regarding Dead Creek? 25 A The only thing I recall understanding Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 342 WATER PCB-SD0000053256 343 1 then was the -- or seeing was the, you know, 2 the state work, but I don't recall that they 3 had had analytical information in it. 4 Q You don't recall if the state had 5 analytical information? 6 A Right. 7 Q You don't recall seeing any analytical 8 information from Monsanto? 9 A I do not. 10 Q Do you know who Robert G. Kaley is? 11 A Yes, I do. 12 Q Who is he? 13 A Bob was in analytical section. 14 Q Analytical section of what? 15 A Well, whatever this group was. It 16 looks like the MIC environmental science 17 group. 18 Q What's MIC? 19 A It was a notation for one ofthe 20 operating units. I think it was industrial 21 chemicals at the time. 22 Q Are you familiar with any of the 23 distributors as identified on the first page 24 of this memo? 25 A No. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 343 WATER PCB-SD0000053257 344 1 Q I'd like to go through some of the 2 other names that appear on this memo. At the 3 bottom there is a D. R. Bishop? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Do you know who that is? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Who is that? 8 A He is retired. He was in public 9 relations. 10 Q How about C. F. Callis? 11 A I know him. He was in research as I 12 recall. 13 (Recess) 14 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, the next 15 individual I'd like to ask you about is J. H. 16 Craddock. Do you know who that is? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Who is it? 19 A He is retired.He was a specialist on 20 PCB regulations. I don't know what his title 21 -- at this time I don't think that's what he 22 was doing. I think he was a product 23 acceptability person for one of the business 24 groups. 25 Q And subsequently he became a Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 344 WATER PCB-SD0000053258 345 1 specialist on PCB regulations? 2 A Yes. 3 Q How about R. G. Hord? 4 A Don't know that name. 5 Q How about R. L. Wasson? 6 A Not familiar with that one. 7 Q C. R. Sisco? 8 A No. 9 Q In the abstract on the first page of 10 this memo, there is a listing of the chemicals 11 that were analyzed for. Take a look at that 12 quickly. Does that list of chemicals have any 13 significance to you in terms of the operations 14 at the Krummrich facility? 15 A They appear to be materials that were 16 made there at one time or another. 17 Q Mr. Pierle, do you know if Monsanto's 18 worldwide environmental guidelines were in 19 effect in 1980? 20 A There were some. 21 Q Do you know if there were any 22 guidelines in 1980 related to remediation of 23 hazardous waste sites? 24 A I don't believe so. 25 Q Were you aware that in the fall of Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 345 WATER PCB-SD0000053259 346 1 1980 the Illinois EPA requested that Monsanto 2 participate in remediation of Dead Creek? 3 A No. 4 Q I assume then you were not aware that 5 Monsanto declined to so participate? 6 A No. 7 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 33 8 marked for identification.) 9 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Let me show you a 10 document that's been marked as Exhibit 33 to 11 your deposition and ask you to take a look at 12 it. This is a document with Bates No. CER 13 009054. It appears to be a November 18, 1980, 14 memo from Mr. Cunningham to a Mr. Mahoney. Is 15 R. J. Mahoney the chairman of the board of 16 Monsanto? 17 A I believe so. 18 Q Do you know if he held that position 19 in November of 1980? 20 A No, he did not. 21 Q Do you know what his position was at 22 that time? 23 A No, I do not. 24 Q I assume it was a senior management 25 position though? Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 346 WATER PCB-SD0000053260 347 1 A Yes. 2 Q And C. Preston Cunningham is the name 3 we discussed a few minutes ago? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Were you aware of any contacts between 6 anyone and Mr. Mahoney regarding conditions at 7 Dead Creek? 8 A No. 9 Q There is a list of people copied or 10 blind copied on this memo that I'd like to 11 review with you. Do you know who 12 Mr. L. Fernandez is? 13 A I believe that's Dr. Louis Fernandez. 14 Q And who is he? 15 A I don't know what his specific title 16 was then. He was one ofthe senior officers 17 at the corporation. 18 Q Were you aware of Mr. Fernandez having 19 any involvement or input with respect to 20 conditions at Dead Creek? 21 A No. 22 Q I guess it was Dr. Fernandez. Excuse 23 me. How about J. W. Hanley? 24 A Well, I believe that is John Hanley 25 who was the COE. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 347 WATER PCB-SD0000053261 348 1 Q Who was the COE in November of'80? 2 A I believe so. 3 Q How about M. Dmytryszyn? 4 A He was, I believe, a general manager 5 of technology. 6 Q Is general manager a position above or 7 below vice president? 8 A Below. 9 Q Do you know what area of 10 responsibility the general manager of 11 technology has? Or to be more specific, do 12 you know whether general manager of technology 13 had any involvement in environmental issues? 14 A I believe Mr. Papageorge reported to 15 Mr. Dmytryszyn. 16 Q How about Mr. Nolan? Do you know who 17 that is, J. T. Nolan? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Who is that? 20 A He was the head of a corporate public 21 relations department. 22 Q F. E. Reese? 23 A I believe at that time Mr. Reese was 24 head of the corporate staff for engineering. 25 Q And then Mr. Throdahl I believe you Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 348 WATER PCB-SD0000053262 349 1 testified yesterday was a senior vice 2 president ofthe company? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And he was your supervisor in 1980,1 5 believe? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Did you ever have any discussions with 8 Mr. Throdahl regarding issues relating to Dead 9 Creek? 10 A I don't recall any. 11 Q Did you have any discussions with him 12 relating to any of the Sauget sites? 13 A Not during this time frame. 14 Q At other time frames? 15 A Well, later on in '83 I think we had 16 conversations about the Monsanto landfill. 17 Q Are you aware of trichlorobenzene or 18 tetrachlorobenzene ever being manufactured at 19 the Krummrich facility? 20 A I don't recall. 21 Q Do you recall whether trichlorobenzene 22 or tetrachlorobenzene were ingredients in any 23 transformer fluids manufactured at the 24 Krummrich facility? 25 A I don't know that for a fact. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 349 WATER PCB-SD0000053263 350 1 Q Do you know if they were ingredients 2 in any heat transfer fluids manufactured at 3 the Krummrich facility? 4 A I don't know that. 5 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 34 6 marked for identification.) 7 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 8 show you a document that's been marked as 9 Exhibit 34 to your deposition. This is a 10 document with Bates No. CER 008105. It is 11 dated April 8, 1981. 12 This appears to be a letter from the 13 Attorney General of the State of Illinois to 14 Monsanto requesting information in part 15 regarding current or past discharges to Dead 16 Creek. Do you see that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Were you aware of Monsanto getting an 19 information request such as this one in or 20 around April of 1981 ? 21 A No. 22 Q Did you ever become aware that 23 Monsanto received an information request 24 regarding discharges into Dead Creek? 25 A I don't believe so. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 350 WATER PCB-SD0000053264 351 1 Q Is this the first time you have seen 2 this document, today? 3 A Yes. 4 Q I don't know ifthat last question 5 came out clear on the record, so I'm going to 6 ask it again. Is today the first time you 7 have ever seen the document that we have 8 marked as Exhibit 34? 9 A I believe so, yes. 10 Q I take it you had no involvement in 11 responding to this information request? 12 A I sure don't recall it. 13 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 35 14 marked for identification) 15 Q (By Mr. Ricci) I'm handing you a 16 document that's been marked as Exhibit 35 to 17 your deposition. This is a document with 18 Bates No. CER 008113, and I will ask you to 19 take a look at it. 20 This document appears to be Monsanto's 21 response to the document that we have just 22 marked as Exhibit 34. Have you ever seen this 23 document that we have marked as Exhibit 35 24 before? 25 A I don't recall seeing it. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 351 WATER PCB-SD0000053265 352 1 Q Were you ever made aware of Monsanto 2 responding to an information request from the 3 Illinois Attorney General relating to 4 discharges to Dead Creek? 5 A I don't believe so. 6 Q Do you know what investigation, if 7 any, was conducted by Monsanto prior to 8 submitting this response? 9 A No, I do not. 10 Q This document appears to have 11 originated with Phocion S. Park. Do you know 12 what the procedure was, if any, in 1981 in 13 responding to information requests such as the 14 one that we have marked as Exhibit 34? 15 A I don't believe there was. I don't 16 recall a written procedure. 17 Q Do you have any unwritten procedure as 18 to what was generally done? 19 A No. 20 Q Were you made aware of either the fact 21 of this response or the substance ofthis 22 response in 1986 when you were engaging in 23 discussions with people from Marmon or Cerro 24 regarding Dead Creek? 25 A No. Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 352 WATER PCB-SD0000053266 353 1 Q During the time that you were engaging 2 in discussions with Marmon or Cerro regarding 3 Dead Creek, did anyone from the company, other 4 than counsel, ever tell you that there were no 5 current or past discharges of waste materials 6 by Monsanto into Dead Creek? 7 A Again, my conversations were 8 pricipally around not the Dead Creek subject 9 but the subject of sort of a plan or programs 10 that could be broadly around the village. And 11 clearly any conversation about specific who 12 put what where during those initial 13 conversations, and I think what we talked 14 about two days ago, was that it was sort of 15 fait accompli. It was about Dead Creek, and 16 those conversations were pretty much taken up 17 with counsel and the plant people around what 18 are the specifics of what is in the report and 19 what are the -- you know, what are they 20 suggesting. 21 And then my personal involvement in 22 that, in those conversations, pretty much 23 ended, so I don't recall a detailed discussion 24 about Dead Creek and its contaminants. 25 Q Were you involved in any deliberations Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 353 WATER PCB-SD0000053267 354 1 within Monsanto regarding use of Dead Creek as 2 a storm water retention pond by the Village of 3 Sauget? 4 A I think we discussed this briefly. 5 Again, I don't recall that -- I don't recall 6 that as being a topic of discussion. 7 Q Do you recall issues arising in the 8 early to mid 1980's regarding what the Village 9 of Sauget was going to be doing with its storm 10 water? 11 A No. 12 Q Were you ever made aware of concerns 13 by people at the Krummrich plant regarding the 14 village's use of Dead Creek as a storm water 15 pond, again in the 1980's? 16 A No. 17 MR. RICCI: That's it. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 354 WATER PCB-SD0000053268 355 1 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, MICHAEL A. PIERLE, 2 and having read the foregoing transcript of 3 the deposition taken on the 30th day of June, 4 1994, acknowledges by signature hereto that it 5 is a true and accurate transcript of the 6 testimony given on the date hereinabove 7 mentioned. 8 ____________________ 9 Michael A. Pierle 10 11 Subscribed and sworn to me before this______ 12 day of, 1994. 13 My Commission expires: 14 15 16 17 Notary Public 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 355 WATER PCB-SD0000053269 356 1 State of Illinois 2 SS. 3 County of Madison 4 I, Tracey Balsitis, a Notary Public in and 5 for the State of Illinois, duly commissioned, 6 qualified and authorized to administer oaths 7 and to certify to depositions, do hereby 8 certify that pursuant to Notice in the civil 9 cause now pending and undetermined in the 10 United States District Court, Southern 11 District of Illinois, to be used in the trial 12 of said cause in said court, I was attended at 13 the offices of Cobum & Croft, in the City of 14 St. Louis, State of Missouri, by the aforesaid 15 witness; and by the aforesaid attorneys; on 16 the 30th day of June, 1994. 17 The said witness, being of sound mind and 18 being by me first carefully examined and duly 19 cautioned and sworn to testify the truth, the 20 whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the 21 case aforesaid, thereupon testified as is 22 shown in the foregoing transcript, said 23 testimony being by me reported in shorthand 24 and caused to be transcribed into typewriting, 25 and that the foregoing pages correctly set Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 356 WATER PCB-SD0000053270 357 1 forth the testimony of the aforementioned 2 witness, together with the questions 3 propounded by counsel and remarks and 4 objections of counsel thereto, and is in all 5 respects a full, true, correct and complete 6 transcript of the questions propounded to and 7 the answers given by said witness; that 8 signature ofthe deponent was not waived by 9 agreement of counsel. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel 11 or attorney for either of the parties to said 12 suit, not related to nor interested in any of 13 the parties or their attorneys. 14 Witness my hand and notarial seal at St. 15 Louis, Missouri, this 4th day of July, 1994. 16 My Commission expires January 24, 1995. 17 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 State of Illinois 20 21 22 23 24 25</Transcript> </TRN> Mike Pierle Vol 2; 6/30/94 Page 357 WATER PCB-SD0000053271