Document B826xOp300Ynaa1YGRdzwDpYw

frli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ROWAN CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL BRANCH -------oOo-------- TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, ) Plaintiff, ) vs . ) MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. ) CA 93-CI-90145 VOLUME I DEPOSITION OF JAMES E. SPRINGGATE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1995 pages 1-207 Court Reporting One Embarcadero Center, Suite 360 SanFrancisco,CA94111 (415) 362-6666 Fax (415) 362-0907 LEXOLDMON007777 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Deposition of JAMES E. SPRINGGATE, taken on behalf of Plaintiff, at the SFO Hilton Hotel, Bayshore Freeway, San Bruno, California, commencing at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, November 30, 1995, before Deirdre F. Cram, C.S.R. 9339. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007778 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: FOR PLAINTIFF: HEDLUND HANLEY & JOHN BY: KEVIN B. DUFF, ESQ. Sears Tower, Suite 5700 Chicago, Illinois 60606 FOR DEFENDANT: SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE BY: ROLLY L. CHAMBERS, ESQ. 227 North Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007779 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 JAMES E. SPRINGGATE, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. DUFF: Q. Good morning, sir. A. Good morning. Q. How are you? A. Fine. Q. Mr. Springgate, my name isKevin Duff, and I represent Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company in this matter. Would you please state your full name for the record and spell your last name. A. James E. Springgate, S-P-R-I-N-G-G-A-T-E. Q. Where do you reside? A. 13060 East Sunset Drive, Los Altos Hills, California. Q. What is your Social Securitynumber? A. 491-26-2877, I think. (Discussion off the record.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. Would you please state your educational INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007780 5 .1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 background, beginning with when you graduated from high school? THE WITNESS: I will in just a moment. 491-26-2877. Is that the number I just gave you? THE REPORTER: Yes. THE WITNESS: My educational background after high school?Was that the question? BY MR. DUFF: Q Yes, please. A . I have a B.S. in chemical engineering from the University of Missouri, and I have a master's in chemical engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. I have advanced management training from Stanford University. Q When did you receive your B.S. from the University of Missouri in chemical engineering? A . In 1950. Q When did you receive your master's from Washington University in chemical engineering? A. In 1955. Q When did you take the advanced management training studies at Stanford University? A . In 1974. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007781 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Mr. Springgate, have you ever had your deposition taken before? A . Yes, I have. Q. How many times? A. I believe on two prior occasions. Q. What cases did you give depositions in? A. One of those was on a PCB case for Monsanto and, prior to that, was on a 2,4,5-T or Agent Orange case that Monsanto was involved in. Q. When did you give a deposition in the PCB case? A. Approximately three years ago. Q. Do you recall the name of that case? A. I think that was -- I think that was the Texas Western Pipeline case. Q. Transwestern? A. I'm sorry. I don't recall specifically. Q. Did that case involve Texas Eastern, if you know? A. I don't recall, but I also probably didn't have that information at the time. I do not recall. Q. Where did that deposition take place? A. In San Francisco. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007782 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Do you recall the name of the lawyer who represented you? A. Yes. Chuck Preuss, which I believe was spelled P-R-E-U-S-S. Q. When did the deposition take place relating to Agent Orange? A. Approximately twelve years ago. Q. Do you recall what case that took place in? A . I ' m s o r ry ? Q. Do you recall the name of the case? A. I couldn't give you the formal name of the case. I'll give you a description. There was a class action suit of Vietnamese Army veterans who sued Monsanto and other producers of 2,4,5-T. Q. I'd like to cover some ground rules, if you will, for today's deposition; and, as you know, this deposition may continue to tomorrow. I'll be asking you a series of questions today to which I'll need you to give verbal answers because our court reporter is here to take down everything that is said, and she will not be able to pick up anything that is a nonverbal response. So I would ask you to not nod in response to a INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007783 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 question or use a gesture which would not be picked up by the record. Do you understand that? A. I understand. Q. If, during the course of your deposition, you don't understand a question that I ask, please feel free to ask me to clarify the question, or if we need to, we can ask the court reporter to repeat the question for you. Do you understand that ? A . I unders t and. Q. At times, Counsel may offer an objection. After he offers his objection, unless he instructs you not to answer, I would ask that you then proceed with your answer. Do you understand that? A. Right. Q. When did you begin working for Monsanto? A. In September of 1950. Q. Was that your first job out of college? A. Yes, it was. Q. What was your first position with Mons anto ? A. I was a member of an engineering group INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007784 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 in the Queeny plant in St. Louis, Missouri. Q. What were your responsibilities? A. We were designing modifications and improvements to chemical manufacturing plants. Q. What was your title at that time? A. I don't recall. Q. What type of chemical manufacturing did your design modifications relate to? A. Do you mean the products involved? What's the question? Q. The type of equipment or machinery, if you wi11. A. Chemical production equipment. Q. Did that involve air compressors? A. Air compressors were probably one of many equipment items that we worked with. I do not recall specifically an air compressor. Q. What type of products did your work re late to ? A. That particular manufacturing plant produced pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals, as well as some higher-vo1ume general chemicals. Pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals included caffeine, aspirin, phenophaline, benzoic INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007785 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 acid. Then, in the broader line, it included things like phthalic anhydride and maleic anhydride. Q Did your work at that time relate in any way to polychlorinated biphenyls; ? A. No. It did not. Q - Did it relate to the product ion of Aroclor? A . No, it did not. Q. What is Aroclor? A . Aroclor is the trade name for a group of Monsanto products that were chlorinated biphenyls. and I believe terphenyls, under the name of Aroclor Q How long did you work in the engineering group at the Queeny plant? A . About two years. Q. What position did you hold next ? A . My next position was a supervisor of a manufacturing department within the Queeny plant. Q What type of manufacturing did you supervise at that time? A . This was chemical manufacturing also, and the specific product we were manufacturing was INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007786 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 benzoic acid. Q. How long did you hold that position? A. I believe it was about three years. Q. During that three-year period, did you -- were you the supervisor for the manufacturing of any other products? A. No. I think only that product. Q. What position did you hold next? A. Next, I moved to a department within the Queeny plant that was responsible for the maintenance and construction of chemical equipment. The title of that job was maintenance supervisor. Q. What year was that that you moved into that position? A. I'll have to do some arithmetic here to answer your question. That was about 1955. Q. What products did that position involve? A. That position, we were responsible for individual projects within the Queeny plant from either a maintenance or a new construction point of view. During that three-year period, I probably worked on every product in the Queeny plant at some time or another. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007787 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Did that include Aroclor? A. I don't recall. If there were Aroclors used or manufactured in the Queeny plant, I don't recall it. I don't recall. May I note to you that this is now 1995? The time of your questioning is 40 years ago. Q. I appreciate that, and I also appreciate your time here and your answering these questions. A. Well, there will be -- you will hear "I do not recall" from me a lot today because we're talking about a time frame that is many years ago, and as you will soon find out, I've been through many other jobs since that time. Q. Well, I would ask you to answer to the best of your ability. A. Sure. Q. During the period that you were maintenance supervisor, did you ever do any work on air compressors? A. I do not recall. Q. Have you ever done any work on an air compressor in a maintenance capacity? A. I would say I probably did, but I do not INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007788 recall a specific item or Q. Are you familiar with how air compressors operate? A . Generally, yes. Q. What is your familiarity with air compressors and how they operate? A . As a chemical engineer, air compressors would have been one type of equipment that we studied. Within a chemical manufacturing plant, there were several processes that I can think of that used high volumes of compressed air. All chemical manufacturing plants at that time operated on instrumentation that used compressed air, so that it would only be logical for me to assume that, during that point in time, I probably supervised some work on air compressors, but I do not recall a specific piece of equipment or a specific instance. Q. During the period that you were maintenance supervisor, how many air compressors were located in the Queeny plant? A. I do not recall that. Q. Do you recall if it was more than five? A. I have no idea. Again, back to my prior INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007789 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 comment. I know that there were some chemical processes that used air compressors, including the benzoic acid process that I started out with. That was an air oxidation of toluene. We used compressed air. I don't happen to recall where that air compressor was or what it looked like. Q. Did the air compressors that were used at the Queeny plant require a fire-resistant lubricant ? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall if air compressors at the Queeny plant used any type of industrial lubricant? A. I cannot recall that either. I cannot recall any one specific air compressor in the Queeny plant. Q. How long did you hold the position of maintenance supervisor? A. About three years. Q. What position did you hold next? A. The position was called maintenance superintendent, which is in the same department, but it's the next level of supervision. Q. Was that in 1958 that you became maintenance superintendent? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007790 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A . I be 1ieve it was , yes . Q How long did you hold that position? A . For four years . Q Was that also in the Queeny plant? A . Yes , it was. Q What were your respons ibilities as maintenance superintendent? A. Supervising a group of six to eight engineers who, themselves, were maintenance supervisors, as I had been previously. My real recollection of that period was spending many, many hours negotiating with the union board, which I remember as consuming three-fourths of my time. Q. During that four-year period? A . Yes. Q. What position did you move to next? A . Next , I transferred to a c hemic a 1 manufacturing plant of Monsanto's in West Virginia. The town was Nitro, West Virginia. I transferred there as a production superintendent. Q. For which products were you production superintendent? A. The products were rubber chemical products; specifically, chemicals used in the INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007791 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 manufacturing of automotive tires. Q. How long did you hold that position? A. For two years. Q. From 1962 to 1964? A. Correct. Q. During that time period, did you do any work that involved air compressors? A. Not that I recall. Q. Do you recall if air compressors were used in the production of rubber chemicals at the Nitro, West Virginia plant? A. I don't recall. Q. What position did you hold next? A. I became plant manager of that manufacturing plant. Q. That was in 1964? A. Correct. Q. How long did you hold that position? A. For four years, until the summer of '68. Q. While you were plant manager, did your responsibilities involve any products other than rubber chemicals? A. Yes. As plant manager, your include all products manufactured INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007792 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 at that plant. So, in addition to the rubber chemicals that I had previously, we had a series of agricultural chemicals; herbicides, specifically. In addition to that, there was some agricultural chemicals that were feed supplements to animals. I believe there were also some petroleum additive products manufactured there. Q. With respect to the herbicides that were manufactured at that Nitro plant, did those herbicides include any Aroclors? A. Herbicides and Aroclors are two different categories, in my mind. By herbicides, I mean weed killers. So I don't believe we manufactured anything in the Aroclor family. Q. How would you determine the effectiveness of a herbicide? A. Well, that would have been done by a research or development group, not by the manufacturing plant, in the first place. But in broad terms, the way you find the effectiveness of a herbicide is you try it out. You spray it on some weeds and see what happens. But that would have been done by a research and development group. That would not have been done at the Nitro INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007793 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 plant. Q. As plant manager at the Nitro plant, did you have a research and development department that reported to you? A. Not for new product development, no. Q. For existing product development? A. We had some chemists who worked on existing product improvements, and we had some engineers who worked on process improvements within the Nitro plant, but we would not have worked on any new products. Q. During the period that you were plant manager at the Nitro facility, did you have any researchers who reported to you who were involved in determining the effectiveness of existing herbicide products manufactured by Monsanto? A . No . Q. Were you responsible for any of the work done by such individuals? MR. CHAMBERSt Object to the form. When you say "responsible for," what do you mean? It's vague. BY MR. DUFF: Q. In terms of a direct or indirect INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007794 19 1 reporting relationship within a corporate '' 2 s true t ure. 3 A. Would you go back and start the question 4 over, please ? 5 MR. DUFF: Would you please read the question 6 back to the witness? .7 (The pending question was read.) 8 MR. CHAMBERS: I'll add to the objection that 9 I guess it lacks foundation since he just testified 10 there weren't any such people who reported to him. 11 How could he be responsible for them if they did 12 not report to him? $ 13 MR. DUFF: Indirectly. 14 Q. In other words, if another individual 15 reported to you who was responsible for work of % 16 such individuals. 17 A. I would consider that still directly 18 responsible, but the answer to the question is 19 still no. 20 Q. Thank you. 2 1 What position did you hold next within 2 2 Mo n s a n t o ? 23 A. Next, I transferred back to St. Louis to 24 Monsanto's headquarters, and the title of the job INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007795 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 was project director. The project that I worked on was the building of a new plasticizer facility in Texas City. Q. Texas City, Texas? A. Correct. Q. You supervised the building of that facility from St. Louis; is that right? A. That's right. Q. Was there an existing plasticizer facility in Texas City at that time? A. No, there wasn't. Therewas an existing Monsanto chemical manufacturing plant, but we had no plasticizer operation there. This was a new, large manufacturing operation at the Texas City plant. Q. What was the intended capacity of that new plasticizer facility in terms of manufacturing A. My recollection is that that was a 100 million pounds per year manufacturing operation. Q. Did the manufacture of plasticizers at that time include Aroclor products? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. You mean INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007796 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the manufacture at this facility or anywhere? BY MR. DUFF: Q. At this facility. A. At that time, at the Texas City, Texas plant there were no plasticizers manufactured. The facility that we were constructing at that time was the first plasticizer manufacturing operation at Texas City. It was called Santicizer 711, and it was not related to the Aroclor family of products, not chemically related to the Aroclor family of products. Q. So none of the plasticizers that were to be manufactured at the Texas City facility were to contain PCBs; correct? A. That is correct. Q. Were there other plasticizer facilities that did produce products containing PCBs? A. Well, at that point in time, PCBs or Aroclors were manufactured somewhere in Monsanto. They existed at that point in time. Is that your ques tion? MR. DUFF: Would you please read the question back for the witness? (The pending question was read.) INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007797 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY MR. DUFF: Q. Do you understand the question? A . No, I don't. Q. Did Monsanto manufacture plasticizers that contained PCBs in 1968? A. Yes, Monsanto did. Q. Do you know where Monsanto produced those products that contained PCBs? A. My recollection is we produced that product in Anniston, Alabama. I have a vague recollection that we produced Aroclor products somewhere in Europe, probably in the UK. That's my recollection of where we produced those products. Q. How long did you hold the position of project director in St. Louis for building the new plasticizer facility in Texas City, Texas? A. Let me -- well, I'll answer it this way . Sometime in 1970, I changed from that project director job to a job that was called plasticizer business director, and I don't remember the specific date. Q. That was in 1970, though? A. Somewhere in 1970. May I go a notch INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007798 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 farther and you'll understand my confusion in times. Q. Was there a change in your responsibilities from the time that you became project director to the time you became plasticizer business director? A. Yes. Q. When did that change -- did more than one change occur during that time period in your responsibilities? A. No. Well, in 1970, I became the plasticizer business director, sometime in 1970. Now, when I became the plasticizer business director, I was then responsible for the research and development, manufacture, sales and profitability of all of the plasticizer products. So the project that we were working on at Texas City then was one of a series of plasticizers that I was responsible for. I was responsible for the whole series. Q. Prior to the time you became plasticizer business director, and while you were project director, was there a change of your responsibilities during that time frame? In other INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007799 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 words -- let me ask the question this way. From the time that you became project director in the summer of 1968 until you became plasticizer business director, was your sole responsibility for overseeing the building of the new plasticizer facility in Texas City? A. Correct. Yes, it was. Q. You did not have any other responsibilities during that time period? A. No. Let me go back and change the date a little bit as to when I became plasticizer business director. Previously I said 1970. I think that was probably sometime in 1969. My timing, my ability to remember specific times, is affected by the following: 1968, I went back to St. Louis for the project director job. Sometime a year or so later I became the business director of plasticizers. Sometime within the next two years I became the general manager, plasticizers and general chemicals. Sometime within the next two years I became the general manager, detergents and phosphates; and, in 1975, I moved to the West Coast as the general manager of electronic materials. So my problem is INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007800 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I went through about four jobs in five years and my dates are not clear in my mind. Could I give that sequence to you again? Would that be helpful? Q. I think that I have it. A . Okay. Q. Although I'llappreciate your patience if I need to work through it a little bit as we go through things today. A. Al1 right. Q. Prior to thetime youbecameplasticizer business director, did you have any responsibilities for any products that contained PCBs ? A. I did not. Q. So it was when you became plasticizer business director in 1969 that you first had such responsibilities? A. That is correct. Q. When you became plasticizer business director, who did you report to? A. A man named Ernie Robson, R-O-B-S-O-N. Q. What was his position? A . He was the general manager of INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007801 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 plasticizers and general chemicals and possibly something else. Q. Do you know who he reported to at that time? A. No, I don't recall. Q. During the period that you were plasticizer business director, did you report to anybody other than Ernie Robson? A. I don't think so. I think only Ernie Robs on. Q. How long did you hold the position of plasticizer business director? A. I believe about three years. Q. To approximately 1972? A. Correc t. Q. I'm going to return to that time period in a moment, but I just want to complete your history at Monsanto quickly. You said in approximately 1975 you became general manager for electric materials; is that right ? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. I think it was electronic rather than electric materials. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007802 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. DUFF: I'm s o rry. I have here in front of me in an interrogatory response from Monsanto. I'm sorry if I was mistaken. Q. Is that right, that you were general manager for electronic materials in approximately 19 75 ? A. Correct. Q. How long did you hold that position? A. Essentially the same position until I retired in 1989, with one caveat; that sometime about 1985 we changed the title to president of Monsanto Electronic Materials Company, but the assignment was not significantly different. Q. So, from 1975 to 1989, you essentially ran the electronic materials company; is that right ? A. That's correct. Q. Did you retire fromMonsanto in 1989? A. Yes, I did. Q. Have you been employed inany other capacity since you retired from Monsanto? A. One year after I retired, I had a consulting contract with Monsanto; and then continuously, since that time, I have been a member INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007803 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 of the board of directors of a small company where we are paid for those services. But other than that, I have not been employed. Q. What type of consulting work did you do for Monsanto during the year after you retired from Mons anto ? A. When I retired in 1989, we sold that business to a German company, so my consulting work with Monsanto was cleaning up odds and ends as a result of the sale of that business to Monsanto. So it had to do with electronic materials. Q. When did you become a member of the board of directors for this small company you referred to? A. About 1982. Q. That was while you were working for Monsanto? A. Correct. Q. What's the nameof that company?' A. Asyst Technologies, A-S-Y-S-T, Technologies. Q. Are you still a member of the board of directors for Asyst Technologies? A. Yes, I am. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007804 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Do you have a position on that board of directors ? A. Well, on a board of directors, to the best of my knowledge, you're either a chairman of the board or a member of the board. I'm a member of the board. Q. What type of business is Asyst Technologies in? A. They manufacture equipment for the semiconductor industry. Q. I'd like to return to the period when you became general manager for plasticizers and general chemicals. Was that in 1972? A. Yes, I believe that's correct. Q. How long did you hold that position? A. For two years, until 1974. Q. What position did you hold next, after t hat ? A. 1974, I became general manager detergents and phosphates. Q. Did you hold that position until you became general manager for electronic materials? A. Correct, in 1975. Q. Did you attend the advanced management INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007805 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 training courses at Stanford while you were general manager for detergents and phosphates? A. That's correct. Q. Did you receive adegree from Stanford? A. No, you don't. It's an executive business course. Q. I'm going to backtrack on education again. When you received your master's from Washington University in St. Louis, did you prepare a thesis? A. Yes, I did. Q. What did your thesis relate to? A. It related to the factors affecting the fluidization of fine particles, which is beneficial in certain chemical processes. Q. Could you explain what "fluidization of fine particles" means? A. Yes. In some chemical processes, you use fine particles, which are catalysts, in certain types of reactions, and you want these fine particles, either in an air stream or a gas stream, to behave like a fluid rather than like a solid. So if you put enough air or enough gas through a INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007806 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 bed of these fine particles, they behave more like a fluid. Q. What type of particles did your work relate to? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. When you say "work," are you talking about the thesis? MR. DUFF: Yes, I am. MR. CHAMBERS: Okay. THE WITNESS: The particles I was working with was the medium that is normally used to dry air. If you wish to dry a large volume of air, this is the medium that would normally be used to dry air. The reason I was using that particular medium is, the way I was checking the effectiveness was to measure the water content of the air that was going through my fluidized column, check the- water content in and check the water content out, and you were measuring the effectiveness of this fluid bed. So the particles I was using was chemically -- I don't remember what the name of it was, but it's the kind of particle you would use if you wanted to dry large volumes of air. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007807 32 1 Q What type of equipment did you use? ) 2 A . Columns of -- glass columns, so you 3 could see the effectiveness of different flow rates 4 of air through the column; measuring equipment for 5 volumes of air in and air out; measuring equipment 6 for the humidity of the air in and the air out. 7 Q What type of measuring equipment? 8 A . What type of measuring equipment? 9 MR. CHAMBERS: By name? 10 BY MR. DUFF: 11 Q Not necessarily by product name, but if 12 you recall the generic description of the 13 equipme nt. 14 A. Well, in the case of measuring moisture 15 content of air, you use a hydrometer. 16 In measuring air volumes, I don't recall 17 what I did now . 18 Q Did you do any work with gas 1 9 chromatography? 2 0 A . I did not. 2 1 Q. Did you do any work with mass 2 2 spectrometry? 23 A . I did not. 24 Q- What level of measurement -- strike INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007808 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that . What quantities did you measure particles in? A. I'm sorry? Q. What quantities did you measure particles in in conjunction with your work? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. When you say "what quantities," are you referring to how they measure the size of the particles? BY MR. DUFF: Q. In other words, were you able to measure particles in parts per million, parts per billion or any other type of quantity? A. No. In the work that I was doing, I was measuring the effectiveness of a fluidized bed, but measuring it in grams of water in, grams of water out, and in rather gross terms, if you will. What I was trying to do was to develop a mathematical model of what the effect of various flow rates of air would be in a glass column filled with very fine particles. In order for a fluid bed to be effective, you have to have air flows going through that are high enough to fluff up all this solid material. If your air flows get too high, INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007809 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the air goes through too fast and the bed is not affected. So I was working on a mathematical model of what are all the factors that affect the fluidized bed. Fluid bed chemical reactions are most commonly used in the petrochemical industry, petroleum refining. That's the most practical use. Q. When you became plasticizer business director in 1969, what responsibilities did you have with respect to PCBs? A. My overall responsibilities had to do with the research and development of plasticizer products, the manufacturing of the plasticizer products, the sales of those products and the profitability of those products. Now, the PCBs or the Aroclor family of products was one of the series of products that we had as plasticizers. We had probably 30 different products in the plasticizer line, and we had several Aroclor products within that group of 30. My recollection would be that the Aroclors constituted 10 percent of our total plasticizer produc t 1ine. Q. What plasticizer products contained Aroclors at that time? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007810 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. What products? I'm sorry. MR. CHAMBERS: By trade name? BY MR. DUFF: Q. You said that there were approximately 30 different plasticizer products; correct? A. Correct. Q And you said that some of those products contained Aroclors; correct? A . Some of those plasticizer products were Aroclors Santicizer 711, the plant that I built in Texas, different chemistry, has nothing to do with Aroclors. We had a very large one in New Jersey called butyl benzyl phthalic; nothing at all to do with Aroclors. We had a series of phosphate ester plasticizers; nothing to do with Aroclors. In total, we had probably 30 different plasticizer products. Some of the 30, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the plasticizer products were Aroclor products; and in the plasticizer business, we did not mix product A with product B. We sold reasonably pure compounds as plasticizers. Q. What plasticizer products were Aroclors? A. My recollection was that we had some Aroclor number so and so, or in some cases these INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007811 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 were also called Santicizer number so and so, that were Aroclors. But I don't recall the specific number of the Aroclor that was used as a plasticizer. Q. Do you recall any of the names of any of the plasticizers that were Aroclors? A. Well, my recollection would be that we sold Aroclor 1240, or whatever the number may be, we sold it that way, Aroclor 1240, and it went into a plasticizer use in the end market. Q. So, for instance, a product might be called Aroclor 1254. Is that what you're saying? A. Yes. We would sell it -- I don't remember the numbers or the nomenclature, so I can't verify what you're telling me there. I just don't remember. But we would sell it as an Aroclor number so and so, whatever it was, to the customer. That's my recollection. Q. For what applications did you sell Aroclors as plasticizers? A. Right. The uses that I remember were carbonless carbon paper usage. In other words, the Aroclors were mixed with the ink and put on the back of paper for carbonless carbon paper. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007812 There were some uses in what they called hot-melt adhesives. So if you were manufacturing a cardboard box, you would use an adhesive with a hot melt, so the Aroclors were used in that glue, if you would. I remember Aroclors being used with plastic, combined with plastic materials to form sealants for windows, glass windowpanes as a sealant . Some strange, unusual uses, like there is a table lamp called a Lava Lamp that looks like it has flowing lava in it. The little bubble slowly goes up, and the little bubble slowly goes down. That was an Aroclor plasticizer. Q. Do you recall any other applications for Aroclors as plasticizers? A. I remember one other application. It was a paint application. It was used in heavy-duty paint like the stripe on a highway. But I don't recall others. Q. Other than as related to the research and development and manufacture and sales and profitability of plasticizers, including Aroclor used as plasticizers, how else did you have INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007813 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 responsibilities relating to PCBs when you were plasticizer business director? A. Would you repeat that? Q Certainly. MR. DUFF: Would you please read the question back to the witness? (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: I guess I still don't understand, because I was the business director of plasticizers, and I was therefore responsible for all elements of that business as the Aroclors were used for plasticizers. So I apparently don't understand what you're getting to. MR. CHAMBERS: I don't understand it either, so don't feel like the only one. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did there come a point in time when you learned that Aroclors or PCBs -- strike that. Did there come a point in time when you learned that PCBs were an environmental contaminant? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. Well, there was a period of time INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007814 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 somewhere in the 1969-'70-'71 period when we first heard of the peregrine falcon on the West Coast and the thin eggshells and the baby chicks that did not hatch properly. So that started, or that was one of a series of things that happened over the next couple of years. The next thing that happened was there were some university laboratories that were looking for environmental contaminants, specifically herbicides, and were finding compounds at the part per billion and part per million levels that they were not able to identify, so there was then an ongoing series of discussions with those laboratories, series of communications with those laboratories, and with the U.S. government, between Monsanto people and those discovering some unknown material in the environment. So, over this period of time, Monsanto proceeded to investigate this system also, to try to understand what it was that was being found. I remember we worked with a lot of laboratories. We sent samples of Aroclors back to the laboratories so they could compare with what they were finding. They shared information with us; we shared INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007815 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 information with them. Over a period of time, we became convinced that there was some environmental contamination as a result of some PCBs . Now, all that took a period of time. Q. Was there a committee formed to look at the environmental problem relating to PCBs? A. Yes. Early on, there was a task force put together because the Aroclors were being sold by two different business units of Monsanto. So there was a task force put together representing both of those business units, and Monsanto's medical and toxicity groups were involved. This task force assumed the responsibility of looking into this problem and then reporting back to the two business units involved as to what they were finding and what they believed. Q. Were you a member of that task force? A. No. A member of my group was on that task f orce. Q. Who was that ? A. I believe it was our director of research, Martin Farrar, F-A-R-R-A-R. Q. What were the two business units that were represented by the task force? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007816 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Well, ours was the plasticizer business unit, and I'm not sure of the name that was used on the other unit at that time. It was probably functional fluids, but I'm not sure of that. MR. DUFF: Mr. Springgate, I'd like to show you a document that's been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 172. This document is dated March 6, 1969 and bears production numbers TRAN 058343 through 45. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 172 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q. This is a document that you received from W.R. Richard on or about March 6, 1969; A. I don't recall your quotation of the man sending it, and the fact that I'm one of the copyees is correct, but I don't recall the memo. Q. You're a copyee of this memo; correct? A. That's what it says here. Q. Was it the custom and practice in INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007817 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Monsanto at that time to deliver documents to everybody who it was addressed to? A. I would think that's true, yes. Q. Was it your custom and practice, when you were business director for plasticizers, to read all documents that were addressed to you? A. I don't believe that can be answered yes or no. I did try to read all documents that were sent to me that I thought were of some significance or required my action. In business, you obviously get some documents that you scan, and you get some that you read critically. Generally, I at least reviewed everything that came to me. Q. Was the presence of PCBs or Aroclor in wildlife a significant issue to you in March of 1969? ' A. It became a significant issue to us over a period of time. I don't recall the dates. Q. Was this a document that you would have expected to have reviewed carefully at the time it was sent to you? A. Again, it's not quite a yes or no because early on we did have a task force that we had assembled and we were in a period of scientific INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007818 43 1 evaluation, trying to understand what the situation 2 was. So, depending on whether it was a scientific 3 dissertation, I would have expected someone in my 4 group who was the scientist to handle this 5 subject. 6 So I don't recall how I would have 7 looked at this memo in 1969. 8 Q. To the extent that a document sent to 9 you in 1969 related to sales or research and 10 development or marketing or manufacturing or 11 profitability of plasticizers, would that have been 12 a document that you would have reviewed carefully? 13 MR. CHAMBERS: I object to the hypothetical 14 form of the question. If you're asking as a 1 5 general proposition, I suppose that's fair. \ 16 THE WITNESS: Should I answer that? 17 MR. CHAMBERS: Yes. You should respond. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, generally I did review such 19 documents. 20 BY MR. DUFF: 2 1 Q. Does this document refresh your 2 2 recollection regarding what your position was in 2 3 March of 1969? 24 % A. No, it doesn't. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007819 44 1 Q. Seeing your name on this document as a 2 copyee in this context, does this suggest to you 3 that you were plasticizerbusiness director at this 4 time? 5 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Anybody 6 can read the document andinterpret it. )7 You can respond. 8 MR. DUFF: This witness has the benefit of his 9 own experience. 10 MR . CHAMBERS: You know, if it refreshes him 11 as to what that was, fine. Then he should s hare 12 that refreshed recollection with us. 13 MR . DUFF: That's the question. 14 MR . CHAMBERS: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: That doesn't help me in that ) 16 regard, so no, I don't recall. 17 BY MR. DUFF: 18 Q What was the problem that faced Monsanto 19 with respect to the accumulation of Aroclors in 20 wildlife in 1969? 2 1 A. What was the problem? 22 Q. Yes. 2 3 A. That faced Monsanto. 24 MR . CHAMBERS: I object to the form o f the INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007820 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 question, but if you're able to respond, go ahead. THE WITNESS: What was the problem that affected Monsanto. I don't see how I can answer that. I can only answer what I thought I faced. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Please answer in that way, then. A. We had indications, again, from the peregrine falcon case and from the university laboratories, that they were picking up compounds in the environment that appeared to be PCBs. We needed to find out if these were truly PCBs, because if they were, we would either have to change the methods or the distribution methods by which we were selling PCB. In other words, limit certain areas, if that was necessary. But we needed to solve the problem. Now, Monsanto is a science-based company. We needed to understand the science behind, number one, were these really PCBs, and number two, if they were, how did they get there. Then, number three, what were we going to do about it. So we needed to solve all those problems. Now, in the meantime, as we went down this road, at first, we even doubted that these INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007821 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 were truly PCBs. We thought they were probably some naturally occurring substance that was winding up in the waterway, because we had been in this business and had been manufacturing Aroclors for a long time and had never had any problems with them, and we couldn't understand why, all of a sudden, they seemed to be appearing in the environment. So we had to find out what the problem was, and then, if it was truly an environmental contaminant, we would have to take whatever steps are necessary to reduce that contamination or eliminate it. Q. You say that Monsanto was surprised that PCBs were showing up in waterways; is that right? A. I can't speak for Monsanto. I can only speak for where I was and what I was doing at the time. But I can answer from my point of view, if you wou1d . Q . Certainly. A. We were surprised because PCBs are extremely insoluble in water, and we could not understand how the PCB would wind up in waterways. So wg were required to do a lot of work to try to understand how to get from point A to point B, and INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007822 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 we had to do a lot of work for a good reason. We had a series of customers, and these customers were in business, and we were the supplier of a raw material. When you're a supplier of a raw material to a customer, you cannot ethically, arbitrarily, shut them off. You have to, if you go back on the other hand and say, "This is a problem product because," then you can work with your customer and tell them that you're going to have to go out of business, if necessary. But you can't do that arbitrarily. You have to have the reason to do it. You can't ethically shut off your customer arbitrarily. Monsanto is a very ethical company, very conservative company. They wanted to do things right. So we had to go through all the steps to find out is this truly a PCB, how did it get there, and then what can we do about it. That's what we spent -- I don't remember whether it was months or a couple of years doing. But that's what we did. Q. Prior to this time, do you know if Monsanto had ever checked waterways to see if PCBs were present previously? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007823 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I don't knnooww.. I would comment, however, that at this point in time, most of the PCBs that were originally detected, the work was done by people who were looking for herbicide contamination. Herbicides meaning DDTs and the 2,4,5-Ts, and they were looking at extremely low levels, parts per billion, parts per million. So they stumbled on it, if you would. There was nobody out there specifically taking samples of the Mississippi River to find out what any contaminant may or may not be there. Q. So, is it your understanding that Monsanto had never checked waterways for the presence of PCBs before this time because that question had not been posed? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks foundation and assumes facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: I don't know what Monsanto had done previously. It's a big company and a lot of people doing a lot of things. All I do know is, within my particular business group, we had not checked waterways looking for PCBs . BY MR. DUFF: Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007824 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 second page of this document. Specifically, a paragraph in the middle of this page that begins "We can take steps..." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Did you discuss with others working with Monsanto's larger customers to minimize pollution, from their plants, of Aroclors? A. My background is only with the plasticizer end of the business. I can only speak to that. In the plasticizer end of the business, the answer to your question would be yes. We either discontinued the sale of the product, but we also had customers who still had some of the product. So we had to set up a system of disposal of the product. So, from the plasticizer's point of view, the answer is yes, we did that. Q. Did you work with all of your plasticizer customers that were purchasing PCB-containing plasticizers? A. To the best of my knowledge, we did. Q. As the business director for the plasticizer group, was it your opinion at that time that the responsible thing to do would be to work INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007825 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 with all of your customers relating to minimizing pollution of Aroclors from their plants? A. From the plasticizer point of view, that's what we attempted to do was to work with each of our customers; but, as you might expect, the customer himself took the final steps rather than Monsanto. Q. Was it important, at that time, to work with each customer or only some customers? A. We attempted to work with every customer. Q . Why is that? A. Well, we thought that it was necessary to work with every customer, who had purchased the material, to understand the problem and, if they had any PCBs, to properly dispose of them. So we had no reason to skip a customer. Q. Would it have been irresponsible to have purposefully skipped customers at that time? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Hypothetical. Assumes facts not in evidence. It's vague. THE WITNESS: I would say that's not Monsanto's way of doing things. We're a very much INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007826 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 aboveboard and ethical operation. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Do you recall the work of a man named Robert Risebrough relating to PCBs about this time? A. I have seen that name in some papers, either this one or some I reviewed casually yesterday. But, without that review, I do not recal1 that, no . Q. In this memo that Bill Richards sent to you on March 6th, 1969, he discussed Risebrough's work at the bottom of the second page; is that correct ? A. Yes, apparently that's correct. Q. Risebrough published a paper in Nature magazine in December of 1968; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Objection. THE WITNESS: That's what it says here, but I don't recall it. BY MR. DUFF: Q. In this memorandum, Bill Richard told you that there is no question of identification with respect to the work of Risebrough; is that right? A. I don't recall that, but if that's what INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007827 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 this paper says, I don't know. I haven't read it in that detail. Shall I read it in detail? Q. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. A. Number one is I don't recall any of this. Number two is I don't reach the same conclusion as you do. The last sentence says, "This is a rough one because it could mean loss of business on empty and false claims by Risebrough. " Q. In connection with Risebrough's work, did Bill Richard say, "It is timely, perhaps imperative, that this paper and its implications be discussed with certain customers"? A. I do not personally recall that. If that's what this paper says -- where is that wording ? Q. He said that in the last full paragraph on the second page; correct? A. I agree that that's what this paper says, but again, I don't recall this. Q. Why not discuss Risebrough's paper with all customers? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form to the extent you're asking him to speculate about what INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007828 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Dr. Richard had in mind when he wrote this; but, if you're able to respond, go ahead. THE WITNESS: I can't respond to that. I don't know what Bill Richard had in mind. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you discuss Risebrough's paper with all of your plasticizer customers at this time? A. I don't recall that one way or the other. I don't recall. Q. Did you tell Bill Richard that Monsanto should talk with all of its customers relating to Risebrough's work? A. I don't recall the subject of this paper or that conversation with Bill Richard. I don't recall. Q. Did you ever tell Bill Richard that Monsanto should talk with Tennessee Gas relating to Risebrough's work? A. I do not recall. On that particular subject, I have no reason to have had a conversation in regard to a customer of the other marketer of Aroclors. I had -- I'm quite sure I had no input as to how the functional fluids group handled their customers. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007829 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Was Tennessee Gas ever one of your cus tomers? A. Not to the best of my knowledge. Q. Was Tenneco ever one of your customers? A. I don't remember Tenneco ever being an Aroclor customer. I remember Tenneco Chemical being a customer of ours and a supplier of ours, but when I was in one of these other businesses, not in regard to plasticizers. Q. With respect to what business was Tenneco Chemical a customer and/or supplier? A. I think it was probably when I was general manager of the general chemicals group, plasticizers and general chemicals. Q. Do you recall what Tenneco Chemical purchased from Monsanto? A. No, I don't. I do recall the names of a couple of people there that we met with from time to time. Q. What are their names? A. One of them was a man named Larry Wigdor, W-I-G-D-O-R. Now I can't recall the name of the second gentleman, but I met him again five years ago and spent a lot of time with him, because INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007830 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 he wound up being an intermediary in the business that we sold. At this moment, I can't recall his name . Q. Do you recall any conversations with either of those gentlemen in the nineteen -- at any time prior to 1980? A. I know I've met with those people prior to 1980. Q. Do you recall any specific conversations with them? A. No, I don't. I would also think it was not related to the Aroclor or PCB business. I have a vague recollection it had to do with the general chemicals family that I was with. Q. Do you recall what Tenneco Chemical supplied Monsanto with? A. No, I don't. Q. Getting back to Exhibit 172, on the last page of this document, the last full sentence. Bill Richard asked you for comments; is that right? A. I don't recall that, but that's what the paper says. Q. Do you recall if you -- strike that. Did you ever give Bill Richard any INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007831 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 comments on the information set forth in this memorandum? A. I don't recall that one way or the other. MR. CHAMBERS: Can we go off the record? MR. DUFF: Yes. (There was a brief recess.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. Mr. Springgate, during the break, did you recall the names of the individuals who you were familiar with at Tenneco Chemicals? A. Yes. The second name that I couldn't think of was Joe Fath, F-A-T-H. Q. Were there any other names that you recall? A. Not that I recall. Q. Do you recall any conversations with Joe Fath relating to Aroclor? A. I do not. Q. Do you recall any discussions with Joe Fath relating to PCBs? A. I do not. Q. Do you recall any conversations with Joe Fath relating to products purchased by Tenneco INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007832 57 1 Chemicals or supplied by Tenneco Chemicals to 2 Mons a nto ? 3 A. I recall conversations with him, but I 4 cannot tell you what the specific product was. 5 Q. Do you recall the general subject matter 6 of any of the conversations you had with him? 7 A. The subject matter would have been 8 either selling Monsanto products to him or buying 9 products from him. 10 Q. Do you recall anything more specific 11 than that? 12 # 13 A . No, I don't. MR. DUFFs Would you please mark this document 14 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 401. 15 '' 16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 401 was marked for identification.) 17 BY MR. DUFF: 18 Q. Mr. Springgate, this document has been t. ' 19 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 401. It bears 20 production numbers TRAN 057762 through 66. 2 1 Let me ask you at the outset if you 22 recognize the handwriting anywhere on this 23 document. 24 A . No, I don't. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007833 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. A. Okay. Q. Does your name appear at the top of the first page of this document? A. That is my name on the document,, yes . Q. And these appear to be handwritten notes from a meeting that took place which you attended; is that right? A. That's what it appears to be. Q. Do you recall the meeting that is reflected by these notes? A. No, I do not. Q. Do you recall any meetings that you attended in 1969 relating to the PCB pollution prob1em ? A. I don't recall any specificmeetings. Q. Do you recall that you didattend such meeting s ? A. I recall that we had meetings on the subject, yes. Q. When you refer to "we," who are you referring to? A. Myself; my research director, whose name INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007834 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 was Martin Farrar; the research director of the fluids group, who was Bill Richards; and the representative from the medical and toxicity group, who is Elmer Wheeler. Q. What was Paul Hodges' position at this time? For time frame, I'm talking in 1969. A . I don't recall. Q. Do you recall what Don Olson's position was in 1969? A. I believe he was the director of marketing of the fluids group. Q. Who was Howard Bergen? A. I believe he was the director of the fluids group. Where I was the director of the plasticizer business group, he was the director of the fluid business group. Q. Who was T. Ford? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall an individual named Tom Ford ? A. The name sounds familiar, but I don't recall that person. Q. Who was E. John? A. I think that was Ed John. I believe he INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007835 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 was a member of the public relations department. Q. Were the individuals whose names are reflected at the top of the first page of this document on a PCB committee in 1969? A. I don't recall that. I recall the PCB task force that we had in operation, but it was somewhat different than this list of people. Q. How did the PCB task force come into being? A. Since we had two different business units selling PCBs, we were trying to determine whether we truly had an environmental contamination, and if so, where did it come from. Rather than two units operating independently, we formed a task force that consisted of Wheeler, from the medical department; Martin Farrar from our plasticizer group -- he was our research director; Bill Richards from the fluids group, a research director; and I believe Ed John was on it, representing public relations depa rtment. There were probably others, but those are the ones I remember. Q. Were they appointed to that committee? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007836 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A . Yes . Q. Who appointed them? A. My recollection would be that I appointed part of them, representing the plasticizer group, and Howard Bergen appointed part of them, representing the fluids group. Q Did you appoint Martin Farrar? A . Yes, I did. Q. Who else did you appoint? A . I don't recall. Q. Martin Farrar reported directly to you at this time; correc t ? A . That's correct. Q. He was the director of research for your plasticizer group; is that right? A . That is correct. MR . DUFF: I'd like to show you a document that has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 311. This document is dated August 25, 1969 and bears production number TNGS 009432. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 311 was shown to the witness and is annexed INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007837 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 hereto.) THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q. This is a document that you received from Ed John on or about August 25, 1969; correct? A. That's what the paper says. I don't happen to remember that. That's what the paper would indicate. Q. You're indicated as a recipient of this document; correct? A. That is true. Q. This document was sent by Ed John, who was a member of the PCB task force that you were referring to; correct? A. That's what this paper says, even though I don't recall that. Q. He sent this document to the other members of the PCB task force; correct? A. That's what this paper says. Q. He copied this document to others, including yourself; correct? A. That's what this paper shows. Q. Who was R.J. Stratmeyer? A. Ray Stratmeyer was in the manufacturing INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007838 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 department of this unit of Monsanto, and at the time he left Monsanto, he was the director of manufacturing of the -- I believe what was called the organic chemicals division. He was a manufacturing manager. Q. When you refer to "this unit," do you mean the organic chemicals division? A. Yes. Q. Who was J.J. Spano? A. I don't recall. That's a familiar name, but I don't recall. 1 Q. The PCB task force was given the responsibility of outlining a future program to be pursued by Monsanto in the manufacturing, marketing and consumer use of Aroclor; correct? A. That's what this paper says. MR. CHAMBERS.* Let me object to the form. I think you said "consumer use" rather than "customer use," as the document is worded. THE WITNESS? That's what this paper says, even though I don't recall that personally. Let me expand a bit. I do recall that there was a task force assigned to this particular problem. That, I do recall. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007839 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY MR. DUFF: Q. Is the assignment that was given to that task force, which is reflected in this document, consistent with your recollection of what that task force assignment was? A. Yes, I would say that's consistent. MR. DUFF: Please mark this document as Exhibit 402. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 402 was marked for identification.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. Mr. Springgate, this document has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 402. It is dated August 25, 1969 and has the indication "Draft 8/25/69" at the top of the page as well. It bears production number TNGS 009431. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. A. All right. Q. Do you recognize any of the handwriting on this page ? A . No, I don't. Q. Do you recall a draft of this document was circulated to you before it was sent out? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007840 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. No, I don't recall that. MR. DUFF: I'd like to show you a document which has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 312. (Previously marked Exhibit 312 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. This document has the date 8-25-69 and bears production numbers TNGS 009429 through 30. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. A. Okay. Q. Did you attend the meeting as reflected by these notes? A. I don't recall. MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. When you say attend a meeting as reflected by these notes, is there something you're looking at that reflects Mr. Springgate's presence at this meeting that I'm missing? Otherwise I would object on the grounds that the document does not reflect Mr. Springgate's presence at such a meeting. BY MR. DUFF: INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007841 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. You said earlier that you appointed Martin Farrar to a PCB task force; correct? A. That's correct. Q. On the second page of this document, it is indicated that a decision was made at the meeting reflected by these notes to put together a committee which was given the assignment of putting an overall program on paper. Martin Farrar was made a member of that committee; correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. Did you attend the meeting at which Martin Farrar was made a member of the committee that was appointed to put an overall program relating to PCBs on paper? A. I do not recall that, no. I do not recall, period. Q. Did you attend a meeting where Elmer Wheeler discussed inquiries that Monsanto had received relating to the PCB problem on or about August 25th, 1969? A. I don't recall. Q. Did you attend a meeting on or about August 25th, 1969 at which Elmer Wheeler discussed a study by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Fund? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007842 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A . I do not recall. Q. Did you attend any meetings when the PCB problem was discussed? A. Yes. I attended lots of meetings where the PCB problem was discussed. Q. Do you recall any of those meetings? A. I beg your pardon? Q. Do you recall what was discussed at any of those meetings? A. Only in general terms. Q. What was discussed? A. Back to the things that I do recall, it would be that PCBs were being found, usually by university groups, in some waterways of the United States; and, at one point in time, I remember PCBs were being found in milk as a result of some cattle being fed from silage that contained PCBs, I remember some discussions of contacts with governmental agencies, and a lot of discussions with university laboratories. I remember discussions of the need to add equipment to Monsanto's own analytical laboratories and the need to develop some new procedures on identifying extremely low levels of PCBs. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007843 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I remember those subjects in the meetings, but I don't remember specific dates or attendees. Q. Do you recall what was discussed with respect to the identification of PCBs in waterways by university groups? A. Again, only in general terms. General terms meaning there was a family of PCB products, different degrees of chlorination of the biphenyl. Most of these products were not 100 percent pure, meaning Aroclor 1250 was not 100.000 Aroclor 1250. It had a little bit of the higher chlorinated chain and a little bit of the lower chlorinated chain. So if you found PCBs in the environment, you still weren't sure which product it might have come from . There were different I remember conversations about the biodegradation of PCBs. Some products were more degradable than others or would degrade more quickly than others. I remember that kind of subject matter in conversation, but in , not specifics. Q. Do you recall what Aroclors were considered to be biodegradable as opposed to INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007844 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Aroclors that were not considered biodegradable? A . No , I don't. MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. I think the testimony was there was discussion about some of the products that degraded faster than others, but no testimony about anything being considered biodegradable or not. May have been. Just, I don't think there was a good foundation for your question. THE WITNESS: I don't remember the specifics of the biodegradation data. The answer is no, I don't remember the specifics. BY MR. DUFF: Q. What do you recall -- strike that. What conversations did you have relating to communications with governmental agencies with respect to PCBs? A. What I recall is a man named John Mason who had contacted several governmental agencies to inform them of what we were finding and to get their input. What I recall is that John Mason, who was a citizen of the UK at the time, became better acquainted with the agencies of the U.S. Government than most of us who were born and raised and lived INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007845 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 full time in the United States. He was finding his way through the government agencies. I remember that very clearly; Q. What did Monsanto tell the governmental agencies it was finding? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks foundation. MR. DUFF: He just said that. THE WITNESS: I don't recall specifically what those conversations were about. I did not have firsthand knowledge of the conversations. BY MR. DUFF: Q. What discussions were had with university laboratories relating to PCBs at this time? A. Again, I can't recall specifics. I do recall reading reports where various university agencies, university analytical laboratory groups, had requested samples of the Aroclor products from Monsanto, and Monsanto had responded by sending them samples of the various products so that they could compare what they were finding with what Aroclors were as provided by Monsanto. Q. Do you recall anything else? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007846 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A . No . Q. What additional equipment needed to be added to Monsanto's analytical labs? A. either. I don't recall the specifics of that The generality that I recall was that they were trying to identify compounds that were appearing in the fish or wildlife in extremely low levels, meaning parts per billion or a few parts per million. This took equipment and techniques that were different than were normally used by the analytical group in Monsanto doing this work. Q. Do you have any experience with analytical chemistry yourself? A. Extremely little. Q. A. What experience do you have? Analytical chemistry is a requirement for chemical engineers. Q. Did you take a course in analytical chemistry when you were receiving your Bachelor of Science degree? A. Yes. Q. Beyond that, do you have any other training or experience in analytical chemistry? A. No . INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007847 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. What procedures did Monsanto need to develop with respect to low levels of PCBs? A. I don't have firsthand knowledge of that, and I don't recall that. But also I probably never had firsthand knowledge of that. Q Who was Swisher? A . What's the name? Q Swis her , referred to on the second page of this document. A. I don't recall. MR. DUFF: I'd like to show you a document which has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 313. This document is also dated August 25, 1969 and bears production numbers TNGS 009421 through 2 8. (Previously marked Exhibit 313 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. Let me ask you at the outset if you recognize any of the handwriting in this document. A. No, I don't. Q. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007848 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Okay. Q. This document reflects notes of a meeting of a PCB committee on August 25th, 1969; correct? A. That's what itsays, yes. Q. Directing your attention to the last page of this document, do you have that in front of you? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you seewhereit says "PCB committee " ? A. Yes. Q. And then there are individuals listed to the right of that? A. Correc t. Q. Your name is one of those names; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Does that refresh your recollection regarding whether or not you were on a PCB committee in August of 1969? A. It does not. I think the PCB committee is probably the group of six. Q. You're talking about the PCB task force? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007849 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A . Yes . Q. There's a reference to task force on this page as well; isn't there? A. Yes . Q. And there's a second column of names under that; is that right? A. I agree there is a second column of names. I don't remember something called a PCB committee. Q. Does this document refresh your recollection regarding whether or not you attended a meeting where the PCB problem was discussed on August 25th, 1969? A. No, it doesn't. I don't recall that. Q. Directing your attention to the first page of this document, do you have that in front of you ? A. Yes, I do. Q. Did you ever discuss contacting all customers to assure them there is no way to contaminate without detection? A. I'm sorry. Would you try that again? MR. DUFF: I'm looking at the bottom of the first page of this document. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007850 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Would you please read the question back, for the witness? (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: I am quite sure I never discussed contacting Therminol customer one way or the other. That was outside the scope of my plasticizer business. That was the fluids business, and I'm sure I didn't discuss their customer contacts at all, one way or the other. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you ever discuss contacting all plasticizer customers to assure them that there was no way to contaminate the environment with PCBs without detection? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. MR. DUFF: Independent of this document. THE WITNESS: I don't believe we ever contacted customers with that specific message. In the plasticizer business, we tried to keep our customers informed of where we were on the investigation of PCBs; but in the plasticizer business, we eventually discontinued the product. The point of contaminating without detection was never an issue that I ever remember discussing. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007851 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY MR. DUFF: Q. How did you keep plasticizer customers informed regarding where Monsanto was in the investigation of PCBs? A. My recollection was that the subject of PCBs was appearing in the public press and in the scientific press. So we were questioned by our customers as to where we were, or sometimes we would voluntarily tell them where we were. This was primarily with our largest customers, meaning the carbonless carbon paper people, the larger, more sophisticated companies. There was one use that had to do with a table lamp that was extremely -- an unsophisticated customer, and I doubt that we ever contacted him about the status of PCBs. Q. Why didn't you contact Monsanto's less sophisticated customers who were using PCBs? A. Because we didn't, at that point in time, know which direction we were going to go. We didn't know where all this was going to take us. Some customers were simply not capable of tracking where we were and where we speculated we were going to wind up. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007852 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Where people were large customers with sophisticated research groups, they would read in the press that there was a question about PCB contamination, and they would talk to us, and we would talk to them in return. Q. Did you discuss where Monsanto was on the investigation of PCBs with plasticizer customers to help those customers appreciate the significance of allowing PCBs to escape into the environment? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me - THE WITNESS: You lost me. MR. CHAMBERS: Let me ask to have that question read back again. MR. DUFF: Please read the question back for the witness and for Mr. Chambers. (The pending question was read.) MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. I'm still not sure I have it, but if you're able to respond, you may. THE WITNESS: Let me work on the last two phrases. In order to let them understand the significance of escape into the environment, the answer to your question is no. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007853 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY MR. DUFF: Q. Wasn't it important at that time for your customers to understand how PCBs were getting into the environment? A. I think the answer to that is we, ourselves, were trying to understand how PCBs were getting into the environment. So, until we reached the point in time that we were convinced that we understood where the PCBs were coming from, we didn't really have a recommendation for our customers. That's the problem. May I elaborate a bit? When we started out and originally found PCBs in the environment, we lined up the most probable cases and the least probable sources. Now, this was a changing picture over time because originally we weren't sure there were PCBs at all. Then we became convinced there probably were PCBs, so the question is which ones. Over this time frame, you start to speculate on how does this wind up in the environment. Originally we thought that some closed systems, like those used for transformers, probably did not escape into the environment, and INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007854 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 therefore that was reasonably safe. We looked at things like the sealant around a window and said that's not likely to escape into the environment. Originally we thought that the use for carbonless carbon paper was not escaping into the environment, but over a period of time, we found out that the causes of PCBs that wound up in the environment was considerably different than we originally thought. We found out that that carbonless carbon paper, number one, was spread around as carbon paper. Number two, it was collected and sent back to the mills to be made into cardboard boxes. It was recycled. On the second time around, some of the PCBs were being washed out of that paper and were honestly going into streams. So in the carbonless carbon paper that we originally thought was not distributing the material into the environment, as time went on, we found that that was probably one of the biggest distributors of PCBs into the environment. So all of this occurred over a period of about a year and a half or something, and our INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007855 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 thoughts were changing during this period of time. But we were trying to get to the point that we could determine whether we did have a problem and would have to discontinue the product, or we did not have a problem, would have to discontinue some products but not others. We were trying to figure out where all this was going to take us. Now, you can't arbitrarily go to a customer and say, "I'm going to discontinue the product tomorrow" because he has a system set up to use the product and he needs it for his business purposes. So until you have a good reason to discontinue a product, ethically, you can't arbitrarily shut it off. Also, this is not the first product that Monsanto ultimately shut down. We've been through shutdowns before. I can think of one specific one, that I got involved in later, in our rubber chemicals business at the Nitro plant that turned out to be carcinogenic to the human being. When we found that out, we shut it down quickly. Once you decide it's carcinogenic to the human being, people were in contact through both manufacture and INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007856 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 use of it, we shut it down very quickly. Q. What is quickly? A. Quickly, in that particular case, where it can be that harmful to a human being, quickly is a matter of days or weeks. When you get your mind around the fact that this data is real, that's it. You shut it down, and we shut it down. So shutting down products is -- was not a new thing to Monsanto. We had had problems before, of some type or other. So what we were trying to do here was to find out what is the problem. How do you get from A to B; and, if it is a problem, then we can go to our customers and say this is the problem. That's what we eventually did. We went to the customers in the plasticizer group and said, "This is a problem. This is a persistent product, one of the benefits in the first place, but it is a persistent product that is being distributed into the environment, and the Monsanto Corporation has decided to discontinue this product." You look the customer in the eye and say that's the business reason and that's what we're going to have to do. Q. When Monsanto knew that PCBs were highly INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007857 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 toxic to some forms of marine and aquatic life, why didn't Monsanto shut down the PCB business at that time ? A. Let me differ with you. I don't think PCBs are considered highly toxic. I think PCBs are way down the list of compounds in terms of toxicity. PCBs are very safe to the individual. Q. My question was in relation to aquatic and marine life. MR. CHAMBERS: I'll object to the form of the question because it lacks foundation. I think that's what Mr. Springgate is pointing out. THE WITNESS: My recollection of what happened was that, when we finally got to the point that PCBs were truly being identified in fish and shrimp in the waterways, we very quickly thereafter did s hu t it down. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Was it within a matter of days or weeks? A. Yes. Q. And that was the responsible thing to do; is that right? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: The decision was -- all I can INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007858 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 say is how it looked to me. It appeared so to me. BY MR . DUFF : Q As a business director of the :izer group; is that right? A . That ' s correct. Q. Directing your attention to the second and third pages of the document that's in front of you, which is Exhibit 313, do you -- strike that. Did you discuss plant effluent that had escaped from Monsanto's Pensacola plant into the Escambia River in 1969? A. I have a vague recollection of testing the outflow from the Pensacola plant, but I don't remember that in any detail. Q What do you recall? A . I think I just told you everything I recall about that. Q. Did state officials visit the Pensacola plant in 1969? A . I don't recall. Q Do you recall discussing, at a meeting, that, following a visit from state officials at the Pensacola plant, there was a feeling that they had not asked any searching questions? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007859 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: I don't recall that subject at all . BY MR. DUFF: Q. Was there a sense within Monsanto that the lid had been kept on with respect to the pollution that escaped from the Pensacola plant in 1969? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form to the extent that question calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: Well, I can't respond to what Monsanto thought, whatever Monsanto is, so I can't comment on that. I personally have no recollection of that. BY MR. DUFF: Q. What type of Monsanto product was escaping into the Escambia River in 1969? A. I have no recollection of that. Q. Do you recall that it was Pydraul AC? A. I have no recollection of that. MR. CHAMBERS: Let me note an objection as well. To the extent the questions you are asking are based on this document, the handwriting on that INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007860 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 second page with respect to questions does have the word "satisfied" after it. For the sake of completeness, I'm going to note that. Let's move forward. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you discuss with anyone that the Pensacola plant felt that it could be in for a lawsuit by shrimp fishermen in the Pensacola Bay following the escape of Pydraul AC into the Escambia River from the Pensacola plant? A. I don't recall that. Q. Do you recall that PCBs that escaped from Monsanto's Pensacola plant were associated with the death of shrimp in the Escambia Bay? A. I don't recall that. I have some recollection of the detection of some PCB in shrimp, but I don't know where or when. I don't rec a 11 that. Q. Did you ever state, at a meeting relating to PCBs, that your overall impression of the PCB problem was that researchers and the press would put Monsanto out of the Aroclor business? A. I don't recall ever saying that. It doesn't even sound like something I would say. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007861 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Did anyone else ever say that to you? A. Not that I can recall. Q. Did you attend a meeting where the alternatives for the future course of Monsanto's Aroclor business were discussed? A. Yes, I'm sure I have. Q. Let me direct your attention to the fifth page of this document. Do you see at the top of this page where it says, "Subject is snow balling"? A. Yes, Ido. Q. And it says, "Where do we go from here." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And there are three alternatives listed on this page. Do you see those? A. Yes, Ido. Q. And the first alternative is to go out o f busines s ? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. Do you recall adiscussion of that alternative? A. Yes, I do, at a date when we were INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007862 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 preparing a presentation for our executive management group. We prepared several alternatives. At that time, I remember discussing alternatives. Q. Did you discuss a second option as selling the hell out of PCBs as long as we can and do nothing else? A. No, I don't recall that option. Q. Was the option that you ultimately pursued to try and stay in the Aroclor business? A. The option that we ultimately pursued was to not remain in the Aroclor business for the plasticizer group. My recollection is -- I can only speak for plasticizers. The functional fluids group was somewhat different. In the plasticizer group, the option we ultimately pursued was to discontinue the manufacture and sale of plasticizers. Q. So you went with alternative number one here, getting out of the business; is that right? A. In the plasticizer group, we went out of the business, but I have no way of knowing -- I don't know who the writer was of this particular paper. He shouldn't be very proud of himself. So INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007863 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I don't know where this paper came from or who generated it, but it doesn't speak for my business, nor Monsanto as I knew it. Q. And that was from your perspective as director of the plasticizer group; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Was the big question at the time, in August of 1969, what should Monsanto tell its c u s tome rs ? A. I would not say that was the big question. The big question was what should Monsanto do about the business. Are we truly polluting the environment? And if the answer to that is yes, some of the following steps take care of themselves. So the question is what should Monsanto do. Is it truly an environmental contaminant, and if so, what should Monsanto do? Q. Directing your attention to the next page, do you see the two items listed at the top of that page ? This page bears production number TNGS 009426. Do you have that page in front of you? A. Yes, I see that. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007864 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Do you see the two items listed at the top of that page? A. Yes. Q. One is "Have alternate products. " Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And two is "or help customers clean up their use." A. I s ee that. Q. Did you discuss developing alternate products or helping customers clean up their use with respect to PCBs? A. Again, I can only speak from the plasticizer business. From the plasticizer business, once we decided -- once the corporation decided we were going to discontinue the sale of Aroclors as plasticizers, we did help customers find alternate products. We did that. Helped customers clean up their use did not apply to the plasticizer business unless you had excess material you needed to return. Q. Some of the ways that your customers used Aroclors allowed Aroclors to get into the environment; correct? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007865 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: Monsanto's ultimate conclusion was that Aroclors sold into certain markets did, indeed, wind up in the environment. BY MR. DUFF: Q. And some of those applications included use of plasticizers that were Aroclors; correct? A. That is correct. Q. So some of those customers -- strike that . Those customers that used Aroclors in applications that allowed PCBs in the environment needed to clean up their use of those products; correct ? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I guess I don't understand what you mean. We were going to discontinue the manufacturing and sale of the products as a plasticizer. So I don't understand what you mean. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Aroclor was used in carbonless copy paper; correct? A. That is correct. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007866 91 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. How does one use -- strike that. How did one use carbonless copy paper back in 1969? ' MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form to the extent you're calling for speculation. BY MR. DUFF: Q. I'm asking in the context of your knowledge of your customer's application, specifically here carbonless copy paper. A. To the best of my knowledge, carbonless carbon paper, copy paper, was being manufactured and sold broadly for thousands of applications. I'm not an authority on paper farms and so forth. Q. Was carbonless copy paper used to create multiple copies of a document by merely pressing a pen on top of the first page and then the copy would appear on subsequent attached sheets? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. That was an application where carbon paper was not necessary; correct? A. That is correct. Q. That's why it was carbonless copy paper; correct? A. Correct INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007867 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. And it was the carbonless copy paper at this time that contained Aroclor; correct? A. Yes, or technically, I guess, probably a thin layer on the back of the paper. Q. And after somebody used a sheet of carbonless copy paper, would those sheets typically be thrown out in the garbage? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Hypothetical. THE WITNESS: My recollection was that most carbonless carbon paper is actually used by businesses and offices where they collected excess paper and recycle paper. That's what I think happened. That's my understanding of what happened to the carbonless carbon paper. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you also understand that some of the carbonless paper went into garbage? A. I would say I guess that's logical that that happens; yes. Q. Was that your understanding at that time in 1 9 6 9 ? A. No. In 1969, when we started looking for the sources of PCBs, we didn't originally INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007868 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 believe that carbonless carbon paper was a method of distributing PCBs. It was only after many months of work that we started to reach the conclusion that that was one of the distribution methods of PCBs. Q. Once you realized that, was it then necessary to clean up that use of carbonless copy paper ? A. We discontinued the sale of the product to the manufacturer of carbonless carbon paper. I might also add we didn't run around the world trying to burn all the carbon paper that had ever been made. We didn't consider that our problem, our responsibility. Q. So when you discussed helping customers to clean up their use, it was only with respect to returning unused fluid; is that right? A. Your reference is off of a line off of this sheet; and, frankly, I don't know what the author of this sheet had in mind when he wrote that line. I don't know what he had in mind. To the plasticizer group, clean up their use doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what that means. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007869 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Actually, you used the term "unused material" earlier, and that's what I was picking up from. When you said that, were you referring to the return of unused Aroclor to Monsanto? A . Correc t. Q. So you were not talking about material, that had been used by customers, that had already gotten into the environment. A. No. That is correct. Back to the carbonless carbon paper. If National Cash Register had several tons of carbonless carbon paper, we considered that their problem, not ours. MR. DUFF: I'd like to show you a document which has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 316. This document is dated October 2, 19 6 9 . (Previously marked Exhibit 316 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. This document bears production numbers TNG S 00 9 4 7 5 through 87. Please take as much time as you need to INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007870 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 review this document. A. Okay. Q. Does this document reflect the report of the PCB task force? A. That's what the document says, even though I don't recall this specific document. That's what it says. Q. This is a document that was sent to you on October 2, 1969; correct? A. That's what it says, even though I don't recal1 it. Q. Do you recognize any of thehandwriting in this document? A. No, I don't. Q. Directing your attention to the third page of the document which has the number 1 at the top of the page and the title "Objectives," do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do these objectives --strike that. Are these the objectives that were recommended to you by the PCB task force? A. I think they probably do, yes. Q. Was the PCB task force also known as the INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007871 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ad hoc committee? A. I don't remember the term "ad hoc committee." I remember the PCB task force, but the people appear to be the same. Q. One of the objectives was to protect continued sales and profits of Aroclors; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. The document states that the objective of the committee was to recommend action that will, number one, protect continuedsales and profits of Aroclors. BY MR. DUFF: Q. One of the actions recommended by the task force was to protect continued sales and profits of Aroclors; correct? A. That appears to be - MR. CHAMBERS: Well, I'm going to object to the form of that. What it says is that the objective of the committee was to recommend action that will protect continued sales and profits of Aroclors, not that the objective of the committee was to recommend protecting continued sales and profits of Aroclors as you've suggested. That's a misreading of the document, in my view. BY MR. DUFF: V#/ INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007872 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. You may answer. A. The paper says, "The objective of the committee was to recommend actions that will: 1. Protect continued sales and profits of Aroclors; 2. Permit continued development and new uses and sales, and 3. Protect the image of the Organic Division and the Corporation as members of the business community recognizing their responsibilities to prevent and/or control contamination of the global ecosystem." That's what it says. Q. Were those the objectives of the PCB plan? A. Sounds generally correct, even though I don't remember that specifically. Q. The probability of success of this plan was discussed -- is discussed on the page that has the number 2 at the top; correct? A. Apparently; that's what it says. Q. At this time, was the identification of PCBs in the environment confirmed? A. I really don't recall that. Q. Do you see the handwritten points at the bottom of this page? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007873 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A . Yes. Q. The second one says "toxicity towards certain species is high." A. Yes. Q. Is this person mistaken when he says that? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I don't know what species he's referring to. When you do toxicity testing -- BY MR. DUFF: Q. Were PCBs highly toxic to some forms of marine and aquatic life? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you know in 1969 that PCBs were persistent? A. Persistent, yes. That's one of the benefits of the product in the first place. Q. Did you also know in October of 1969 that the likelihood of natural origin or degradation of PCBs was remote? MR. CHAMBERS: Would you read that question back, please ? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007874 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (The pending question was read. ) MR. CHAMBERS: I object to the form, but you should respond. THE WITNESS: I don't recall that at all. BY MR. DUFF: Q. The recommendations of the task force to you and Mr. Bergen are set out on the third and fourth pages of this document or the pages that have the numbers 3 and 4 at the top; correct? A. I don't remember any of this. That's what it says. I'd like to also point out to you that this looks like a draft copy of something. It doesn't look like the final report. Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the last full paragraph on the page that has the number 6 at the top. Do you see that? This is in a text called "Basis for Recommendations"? A. I see that that's what it says, yes. Q. Do you see the discussion in the last full paragraph of this page of uses of PCBs in the plasticizer area? A. Yes, I see that. Q. Are the uses that are discussed here INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007875 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 consistent with your recollection of the uses of Aroclors as plasticizers when you were business director of the plasticizer group? A. It would be my recollection that this was one use of Aroclors. This is a very small use, but it is one use of Aroclors. Q. Used in rubber-based paint or surface coating? A. Yes. Q. Another use is referred to in the next paragraph as use as highway marking paints; is that right? A. I recall that, yes. Q. Did youknow that Aroclors werealso used as caulking compound and sealants? A. Yes, I did. Q. I'd like to direct yourattention to the bottom of the page that has the number 7 at the top . Do you see the last full paragraph on that page? It begins "In August, a laboratory..." A. Yes, I see that. Q. Does this document refresh your recollection regarding Pydraul AC that escaped from INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007876 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Monsanto's Pensacola plant in 1969? A. No, it doesn't. I don't recall that. Q. This document indicates that the Department of the Interior of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in Florida reported that five parts per billion of the Aroclor 1 2 5 4 killed baby- shrimp in 18 days; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form and ask you to read that question back. (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: Where are you reading that? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form and just read that last paragraph, which states, "In August, a laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of Interior, at Pensacola Florida, reported finding..." and so forth. BY MR. DUFF: Q. You may answer the question. A. I don't recall that, no. Q. That's indicated in this document; correct ? A. You're correctly reading the document; but I don't recall any portion of this. Q. Do you recall efforts to reduce losses INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007877 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 of Aroclor in Monsanto plants in or about 1969? A. Yes, I do recall that. Q. What do you recall? A. Simply that, just as you stated it. There was an attempt to be sure that Aroclors were not escaping from the plant in the water systems from the plants that manufactured Aroclors. Q. Directing your attention to the page that has the number 8 at the top and specifically the section that's numbered 4, "Losses from Monsanto Plants. " Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall that an investigation showed that the waters in receiving streams below the Anniston plant contained significant parts per million concentrations of PCB? A. I see that it says that, yes. remember that? No. Do I MR. CHAMBERS: Wait. I need to see where we are . THE WITNESS: The first paragraph under 4. MR. CHAMBERS: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. DUFF: INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007878 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . Q. Did you realize, at that time, that more ominous, perhaps, was the fact that sediment in the bottom of these streams miles below Monsanto's plants may have contained up to 2 percent Aroclor? A. I don't recall that. You are correctly reading from the paper, but I do not recall that. Q. Directing your attention to the last paragraph on this page, did you realize, when you learned about the loss of PCBs from Monsanto's Pensacola plant, that all Monsanto plants using Aroclors should be made aware of the potential problem and efforts to eliminate any losses? A. I don't recall that. Q. This document indicates that one to three gallons of PCBs were being lost at the Pensacola plant per day. Is that right? A. You are correctly reading the document. I don't have any recollection of that. MR. DUFF: Off the record. (The luncheon recess was taken at 12:47 p.m.) INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007879 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: (P.M SESSION) KEVIN B. DUFF, ESQ. ROLLY L. CHAMBERS, ESQ. REPORTED BY: DEIRDRE F. CRAM, C.S.R. 9339 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007880 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (The deposition of JAMES E. SPRINGGATE was reconvened at 1:53 p.m.) JAMES E. SPRINGGATE, having been previously duly sworn, testified further as follows: MR. DUFF: Mr. Chambers, I would like to address an issue with you on the record before we return to questions for Mr. Springgate. MR. CHAMBERS: Okay. MR. DUFF: This morning, Mr. Springgate indicated that he had given a deposition in the Transwestern litigation, and I believe that's borne out by his testimony. I do not believe that a transcript from Mr. Springgate was produced by Monsanto to Tennessee Gas Pipeline, and I would ask that that be provided. MR. CHAMBERS: Was one asked for? MR. DUFF: Yes, one was. If you look at Tennessee's first request for production, request No. 12, you'll see that Tennessee asks for all deposition transcripts of former or current Monsanto employees in that case; that case being INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007881 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Transwe stern. MR. CHAMBERS: Okay. If that has been the case, we'll certainly get you a copy. MR. DUFF: If at all possible, I would like to get a copy today so that we can conclude this deposition tomorrow. MR. CHAMBERS: Since it's now five o'clock, east coast time, I think that's a pretty unreasonable thing to expect. We certainly will get it to you in due course as best we're able, if it hasn't been given already. MR. DUFF: Do you need to take a break to make a phone call before business closes? MR. CHAMBERS: If your expectation is that that thing can be sent out this evening, I don't think that's going to be workable, even if we break now at this point in the day. MR. DUFF: I would note that it's only 4:00 p.m. in St. Louis right now. MR. CHAMBERS: I'll call, but I'm very pessimistic that that thing can be provided within the time frame you're talking about. MR. DUFF: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007882 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. DUFF: Q. Mr. Springgate, I'm handing you a document that's been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 369. This document has the printed date with the heading of October 1969 and has a date in the upper right-hand corner of November, and the date -- specific date is unclear. It bears production numbers TRAN 058372 through 7 3. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 369 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q. This was a document that you received from the public relations department at Monsanto in or about October 1969; correct? A. It says it's a report from the public relations department. I don't remember the report, but the report does say it's a public relations report from October 1969. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007883 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. And you're indicated as a recipient; correc t ? A- Yes, that's the way it appears. Q- Do you recognize any of the handwriting on this document? A. No, I don't. Q. In October 1969, a memo was sent to plant managers, communicators and field offices alerting key Monsanto personnel to the growing PCB controversy; correct? A. That's what it says here. I don't remember that, but you're reading of the statement is correct. Q. Also in October 1969, an updated position statement on polychlorinated biphenyls was prepared and copies were provided to the PCB committee and task force members; correct? A. I don't remember that either. That's what this particular report says. Q. Also, in October 1969, the PCB task force reported -- sorry. Excuse me. Also in October of 1969, the PCB task force report on the future of Aroclor was completed; correct? A. That's what this says, but I don't INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007884 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 recall that. Q. What was the bird kill in the Irish Sea that took place in October 1969? A. I don't recall. Q. I'd like to go back to the bottom of the first page of this document. What was the position statement that was updatedin October 1969? A. I don't recall. The report says, "updated position statement on polychloronated biphenyl was prepared during the month," but I don't recall that. MR. DUFF: I'd like to show you a document that's been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 319. This document is dated November 10, 1969 and bears production numbers TNGS 009488 through 9 3. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 319 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) MR. CHAMBERS: While the witness is reviewing that, let me state that my production records INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007885 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 indicate that the deposition transcript you've inquired about was in Box 123 at Folder 738. I would suggest you have your folks look carefully for that. MR. DUFF: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. Have you had an opportunity to review Exhibit 319, Mr. Springgate? A. Not quite. Just a moment. Okay . Q. This is a document that you received from Ed John on or about November 10, 1969; correct? A. I did not recall that. On the other hand, that's apparently what the paper says. Q. This document was transmitted to you along with a statement from Monsanto company dated October 29, 1969; correct? A. I did not recall that, but that's what the paper says, yes. Q. This is the position statement that was referred to in Exhibit 369, the public relations report; correct? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007886 Ill 1 MR. CHAMBERS: I object to the form. Calls 2 for speculation. 3 THE WITNESS: I'm confused. The question was 4 what ? 5 MR. DUFF: Would you please read the question 6 back for the witness? 7 (The pending question was read.) 8 MR. CHAMBERS: Same objection to the form. 9 Calls for the witness to speculate. 10 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that. I don't 11 recall this paper. I don't recall this paper, so I 12 don't see how I can answer that. I don't recall # 13 this. 1 4 BY MR. DUFF: 15 Q. The individuals who are listed on the 1 16 left-hand column of Exhibit 319 were all members of 1 7 the PCB task force; correct? 18 % ' 19 A. Yes, I believe that is correct. Q. Were the members -- strike that. 20 Were the individuals -- strike that. 2 1 In the right-hand column, four 2 2 individuals are listed; correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And that's Bergen, Springgate, Spano and INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007887 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Dahlstrom; correct? A. That's correct. Q. Were those the members of the PCB committee? A. I don't remember - MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form of that question. Lacks foundation. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I don't recall the term "PCB committee." I do recall the term of "PCB task force," AS the names of the people on the left. I don't recall the use of the term "PCB committee. " I would believe that the names on the right are the people responsible for the business of which Aroclors are a product. That's true of Bergen. That's true of Springgate, and Dahlstrom was our manager in Europe. I believe I answered previously that Spano doesn't ring a bell with me. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Dahlstrom was manager for what in Europe ? A. I think my recollection is that Dahlstrom was the organic division's representative for all of its products in Europe. Q. Directing your attention to the INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007888 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 attachment to Ed John's November 10, 1969 memorandum, was this a press release issued by Monsanto in October 1969? A. I don't know what this paper was. I don't recall this. Q. Directing your attention to the second paragraph in this document, this paragraph states, "Monsanto manufactures po1ych1oronated biphenyl and markets it under our Aroclor trade name, " correc t ? A. That's what it says. Q. And then the second full sentence, excluding a parenthetical, says, "We, therefore, would like to present some additional facts. " Correc t ? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. What additional facts did Monsanto want to present? A. I don't know, since I don't recall this particular memo. Q. Was it important to deal with the press in an accurate and truthful manner in 1969? A. I'm sorry. that again? What was the first part of INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007889 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. DUFF: Would you please read the question back for the witness? (The pending question was read.) MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. Argumentative. THE WITNESS: From my point of view, from my position, yes. That was very important, and I think my view of Monsanto, then and now, is that it was always important to deal accurately with the press. BY MR. DUFF: ' Q. Is that, in part, because the press is the medium by which everyday citizens get their in forma tion ? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: It was our position to be accurate in everything we did, and dealing with the press accurately was not any different than dealing with our customers accurately or our suppliers accurately. We tried to be as accurate as we could. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Directing your attention to the second page of this statement, do you have that in front INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007890 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 o f you ? A . Yes. Q. Do you see the third paragraph on this page where it says, "The common uses of commercial PCB would not normally lead to its release into the natural environment"? A. Yes,I see that. Q. Was that a position that Monsanto took in 1969? A. As I believe I'vesaid earlier, our belief, when people first thought they were finding PCBs in the environment, was just this, that the normal uses of PCBs, we did not believe led to releases in the environment. Q. By normal -- strike that. By common use, did you mean that, if the commercial PCB was used as it was intended, then it would not constitute a potential environmental contaminant ? MR. CHAMBERS! Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I believe what we thought is fairly well stated here, that the common uses of commercial PCBs would not normally lead to a INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007891 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 release into the environment. I believe that's reasonably well stated. BY MR. DUFF: Q. By that, did you mean that, if a product was used as intended, it would not become an environmental contaminant? A. To the best of our knowledge, if it was used as intended, it would not be an environmental contaminant. That's right. Q. In the paragraphs following that statement, the use of PCBs in different applications is discussed; correct? A. That is correct. Q. In the next paragraph, the use of PCBs as insulating fluids for transformers and capacitors is discussed; correct? A. I don't remember this, but the line says, "A principal market for PCB is in electrical applications where they are used as insulating fluids for transformers and capacitors." Q. And this statement from Monsanto indicates that that type of use is in a completely sealed system? A. The next sentence says, "In this use. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007892 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the chemical is completely sealed in metal containers." Q. And that is considered to be a closed system; correct? A. I think the line stands on its own. Q. In fact, it uses the term "closed system" in the next sentence; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. "Another market is for heat-transfer applications where the PCB fluid functions in a closed system." It doesn't have anything to do with transformers and capacitors. MR. DUFF: Fair enough. MR. CHAMBERS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q. There's another application discussed in the next sentence. A. The sentence that says, "Another market is for heat-transfer applications where the PCB fluid functions in a closed system. " That's what it says. Again, I don't recall it. That's what the sentence says. Q. At the top of the third page, there is discussion of PCBs which appear as solid material INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007893 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 in different applications; correct? A. The line says, "PCBs are also used in several applications where the chemical is incorporated into polymer as an integral part of the solid material." That's what the line says. I don't remember this memo. Q. And the next paragraph says that PCBs "are not sprayed or dusted on crops, woodlands or any other areas, as are pesticides"; correct? A. That's what the line says, yes. Q. And in the three paragraphs following the sentence that "The common uses o f commercial PCB would not normally lead to its release into natural environment, " there i s no reference or discussion -- no reference to or discussion of open system applications of PCBs, is there? A. I don't know what you mean by "open system applications." PCBs which are incorporated into polymers are certainly open systems. They're not closed. Adhesives, elastomers, surface coating . Q. Let me ask the question this way. In the three paragraphs following that sentence, INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007894 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 there's no discussion of PCBs in a liquid form used in systems that are not considered to be closed or completely sealed; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: As I said earlier, I don't recall this memo at all. If you are saying those words do not appear in either one of these three paragraphs, I would have to agree with you. I guess those words do not appear in any one of these three paragraphs, if that's the point. BY MR. DUFF: Q. The next paragraph says, "Therefore, conclusions as to the source of PCB found in the environment are difficult to make"; correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. When this statement was prepared, Monsanto -- strike that. When this statement was prepared, you knew that Pydraul AC had escaped from Monsanto's Pensacola plant; correct? A. No. I said earlier I didn't recall that . Q. When this statement was prepared, you INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007895 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 knew that PCBs had escaped from Monsanto's Pensacola plant into the Esc ambia Bay; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I didn't recall that. BY MR. DUFF: Q. At the time this statement was prepared by Monsanto, you knew that it was possible to determine the source of some PCBs found in the environment; correct? A. I don't recall what I thought at this point in time. Q. You knew that carbonless copy paper could get into the environment; correct? A. At some point in time we came to the conclusion that carbonless carbon paper could wind up in the environment. That's true. Q. And you knew that certain paints and sealants that contained PCBs were in the ~ environment; correct? A. That's a real stretch. That is like saying the paint on this wall is in the environment. Under those terms, everything is in the environment. So it's hard to say the paint on a stripe on a highway is an environmental INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007896 12 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 contaminant. That's a big stretch, in my opinion. Q. In the next paragraph, this statement from Monsanto says, "It has also been implied that polychloronated biphenyls are 'highly toxic' chemicals. This is not true." Correct? A. That's what it says. Q. But in fact that statement was itself not true. A. No - MR. CHAMBERS! Object. THE WITNESS: I don't agree with that at all. To this day, I still believe polychloronated biphenyls are not highly toxic chemicals. Toxicity, again, is a range. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Are you saying that PCBs are not highly toxic to any species? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Let me ask you to read the witness' response back. (Record read as requested. ) MR. DUFF: Then read the question back. (The preceding question was read. ) BY MR. DUFF: Q. You may answer. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007897 12 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. The term "highly toxic" generally means highly toxic to human beings and upper levels of mammals. You go from human beings on the upper extreme to the simplest form of aquatic life in the lower. The term "highly toxic" is generally used to mean compounds that are highly toxic to human beings or animals. Q. At the time this statement was prepared, Monsanto knew that PCBs were highly toxic to certain species of fish and marine or wildlife; correc t ? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. There's no foundation for that. just arguing with Mr. Springgate about it. You're THE WITNESS: I'll just say I do not recall. The previous statement is yours, not mine. MR. CHAMBERS: You can argue as much as you want, but I don't think that's going to change the witness' testimony. BY MR. DUFF: Q. In this same paragraph, there is a statement that "PCBs are not hazardous when properly handled and used. " Do you see that? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007898 12 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I see that, yGS. Q. Do you agrGG that this statement is true when products containing PCBs are used as intended? MR. CHAMBERS: Object. THE WITNESS: Yes. I agree, that statement is true . BY MR. DUFF: Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the fourth page of this document. Do you see the paragraph that begins "Monsanto has always ..." A. Yes, I see that. Q. page . It's the last full paragraph on the A. Yes. Q. The first two sentences say, "Monsanto has always cooperated on a regular basis with federal, state and university laboratories in their analysis of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues. We will continue to do so." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Did you know that other individuals within Monsanto, in this same time frame, were INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007899 12 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 hoping to defend Monsanto's Aroclor business by making the government and universities prove that PCBs are bio-harmful? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. Assumes facts not in evidence, lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: And I would only respond, I don't know what you're talking about. I have no recollection of that set of factors. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you ever discuss PCBs with Bill Richard? A. Yes, I'm sure I have. Q. Do you recall any conversations that you had with Bill Richard? A. Not any specific conversation, no. Q. Did you ever discuss defending Monsanto's Aroclor business with Bill Richard? A. Not that I recall. Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the last sentence in this statement. Do you see where it says, "It will take extensive research on a worldwide basis, to confirm or deny these scientific conclusions." INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Do you see that? A . I see that. Q. Are you familiar with the work of the Swedish scientists Soren Jensen and Gunnar Widmark? A. The question was am I acquaintedwith the work of those gentlemen? Q A. Yes . I think the answer is no. Seeing some of these documents refreshed my memory on the names of those two people, but I do not know the details of their work. I do not recall the details of their work, and I'm not sure I ever did understand the details of their work. Q. In October 1969, did you know that there had been research prior to that date that indicated that PCBs accumulated in the environment and in the tissues of certain life forms? A. Try the question again, please. MR. DUFF: Please read the question back for the witness. (The pending question was read.) MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of that question. When you say "accumulated," do you mean present in or are you talking about built up? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007901 12 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 THE WITNESS: You're also -- Monsanto, at some point in time, concluded that the material being found, the residue being found in certain types of marine life was, indeed, PCB. You're concluding that that was a foregone conclusion in October of 1969. I do not have a recollection that that was a foregone conclusion in October of 1969. I'll go further. I'll even doubt that that was a conclusion at that point in t ime . BY MR. DUFF: Q- I f that conclusion had been made , then this last sentence is mis leading; correc t ? MR . CHAMBERS: Object to the f o rm . It's argumentative. BY MR. DUFF: Q You may answer. A . Try the question again. MR . DUFF : Please read the question back for the witnes s. Actually the last two questions and the answer in between there. (Record read as requested.) MR . CHAMBERS: Ob j ect to the form of the ques tion. It ' s hypothetical. I don't understand INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007902 12 7 1 what part of the phrase you are asking or 2 suggesting is misleading. I don't know what your 3 question goes to within that last statement. 4 THE WITNESS: I would have to ask you to 5 restate the question because I don't understand 6 your question. 7 MR. DUFF: Mr. Chambers, I'll note for the 8 record that I believe your objection goes beyond 9 what is permitted under the Kentucky Rules of Civil ') 10 Procedure, but I'll ask the question again. 11 MR. CHAMBERS: And I will note, for the 12 record, I think you need to know what the nature of # 13 my objection is so you can decide whether to do 14 something about it or not. 15 BY MR. DUFF: ' 16 Q. If the initial scientific conclusions 17 that PCBs were turning up in marine life residue 18 were correct, then this last statement was ' 19 misleading; is that right? 20 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. That's a 21 misreading of this statement. It's not clear what 2 2 the phrase "these initial scientific conclusions" 2 3 is even referring to, whether it's the conclusion ,, 2 4 you're talking about or some other one. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007903 12 8 1 If you can respond, you sure should. * 2 THE WITNESS: I do not recall this paper at 3 all. However, I do not find anything about that 4 last sentence that is misleading. 5 BY MR. DUFF: 6 Q. What was the Corporate Development . 7 Committee within Monsanto in 1969? 8 A. The Corporate Development Committee was 9 an executive committee, if you would, of : 10 higher-level officers of the corporation who formed 11 a committee to review business plans, budgets and 12 appropriation requests. In other words, rather 1 13 than having one person, such as a president or a 14 chairman, review all of these things, there was a 15 committee that consisted of the highest level 16 officers of the corporation who -- they used 17 different titles at different times. 18 If that one -- if at that time it was 1 9 called the Corporate Development Committee -- I 2 0 know they used that term at one time -- that's what 21 it would have been. A committee of the 22 highest-level officers of the company to review the 2 3 various subjects. 24 Q. Was that committee also known at times INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007904 12 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 as the Corporate Management Committee? A. That would have -- in another -- yes. I would s ay yes. Q. Did you report to anybody on the Corporate Development Committee? A. In 1969, the answer would have been no. I was too far down in the organization to have reported to somebody who was on the Corporate Development Committee. Q. Who did you report to in 1969? MR. CHAMBERS: Objection. That's been asked and answered, I think. Tell him one more time. THE WITNESS: Ernie Robson. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Do you know who Mr. Robson reported to? MR. CHAMBERS: Objection. That's been asked and answered already. Tell him again. THE WITNESS: I really don't recall. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you ever attend meetings of the Corporate Development Committee? A. Yes, I have. Q. Was that a frequent occurrence? A. Yes. You may quote me as too frequent. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007905 130 1 From the time I was a business director of 2 plasticizers until the time I retired, I reported 3 to that committee or an equivalent committee -- 4' they used different names at different times -- 5 probably some number between four and six times per 6 year, times 20 years. 7 Q. From 1969 to 1989? 8 A . Yes, that' s correc t . 9 Q. During the time period that you were 10 business director for plasticizers; , what were your 11 reporting re s po nsibi 1 ities to the Corporate 12 Development Committee? 4 13 A. As business director of plasticizers, I 14 reported to Ernie Robson, who would have been a 15 general manager of plasticizers and general 16 chemicals and something else. He, in turn, would 17 have reported to a corporate vice president, and 18 that corporate vice president would have been one 19 of the members of theCorporate Development 20 Committee. 21 Does that answer your question? 22 Q. No. When you appeared before the 23 Corporate Development Committee, why did you 24 appear -- let me ask it that way. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007906 Why did you appear before the Corporate Development Committee when you were business director for plasticizers? A. Okay. We would appear before the Corporate Development Committee for appropriation requests for large capital expenditures. We would appear before them with our business plans. We usually had a long-range plan requirement of once a year. I think, at that time, those were probably the reasons I was appearing. Q. Did you also appear before the Corporate Development Committee to discuss the PCB problem in 1969? A. I don't recall whether I did or not, to tell you the truth. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall if you appeared before the Corporate Development Committee at any time to discuss the PCB problem? A . I don't recall a specific time, but I would not be surprised if I had. Q. Do you have any specific recollection of having appeared before the Corporate Development Commi11ee to discuss PCBs? A. I don't. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007907 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. DUFF: I would like to show you a document that has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 140. (Previously marked Exhibit 140 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. This document is dated 11/10/69 and bears production numbers STR 021938 through 61. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. A . All right. Q. Is this a draft of the PCB Environmental Pollution Abatement Plan that you helped to prepare in 1969? A. I don't know. I don't recall this particular document. And again, since I haven't said this for a while, this has now been some 26 years ago. I have been through three completely different assignments since that time. So I have no continuity in this subject at all. So there are lots of things about this point in time that I simply do not recall. (Interruption.) INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007908 13 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. DUFF: I'd like to show you a document that has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 135. You can keep Exhibit 140 handy, as I will be getting back to it. This is a document dated November 17, 1969, TRAN 091377 through 79. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 135 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q. These are minutes of a November 17, 1969 meeting of the Corporate Development Committee at which you were present; correct? A . That. appears to be minutes of such a meeting, but I don't recall the meeting or being there. Q The first page of this document indie ate s that you were present at that meeting; correct ? A. That 's what it says, yes. Q. And the minutes reflect that you gave a INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007909 134 1 presentation on a plan of action with respect to / 2 the PCB plan; correct? 3 A. That's the way it appears, yes. 4 Q. You gave that presentation with Howard 5 Bergen; correct? 6 A. Apparently -- yes, that's what it says. 7 Q. Do you recall that meeting? 8 A . No, I don't. 9 Q. Do you recall ever giving any ; 10 presentation to the Corporate Development Committee 1 1 with Howard Bergen, related to PCBs? 12 S 13 A . No, I don't. Q. At this meeting -- strike that. 14 Who is D.W. Miller? 15 * 16 A. I don't know. I don't recall. Q. At this meeting, Mr. Miller discussed 17 legal aspects of the PCB problem before the 18 Corporate Development Committee; correct? 19 A. That's what this paper says, although I 20 don't remember it. 2 1 Q. One of the things that Mr. Miller 22 informed the Corporate Development Committee of was 2 3 that, "...if a manufacturer knows or should know 24 that a product of its manufacture may cause damage INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007910 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 if not properly used, he has a duty to give adequate warning to customers and users"; correct? A. I believe that's what it says. MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form. What it says is, "Although the law is unsettled, the present general rule is that if a manufacturer knows or should know that a product of its manufacture may cause damage if not properly used, he has a duty to give adequate warning to customers and users." BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you finish your answer? A. My answer was I do not remember this meeting. In regard to what the paper says, it's specifically as Mr. Chambers just read it. Q. Mr. Miller also made a recommendation from the legal standpoint; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks foundation. He's already testified he doesn't remember anything about this meeting. THE WITNESS: I don't remember anything about this meeting at all. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Mr. Miller's recommendations are set out INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007911 13 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 in this document; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. There's no foundation for that. THE WITNESS: There are some words here, "Recommendations from the legal standpoint consist of." Q. And then there are three points below that; correct? A. There are three points below that, right. "Take steps to ensure that PCB's are contained and not discharged in plant effluent. " "Provide adequate warnings to customers and users, including advice as to disposal methods." "Establish testing program to determine precise effects of PCB's on birds, aquatic life and animals and to determine the possible escape of PCB's from None of which do I recall or remember. I'm simply reading the lines out of this document. Q. Was it important to warn customers - strike that. Was it important to give customers advice as to disposal of unused PCB-containing INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007912 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 fluids? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. Important to who? It's vague. THE WITNESS: After a later point in time, when plasticizers had decided to or had -- the decision had been made that we were going to discontinue the marketing of these products to plasticizer customers, we had some customers who had leftover materials, so we told the customers we would take the materials back and properly dispose of the materials. Does that answer your question? BY MR. DUFF: Q. Did you give customers advice regarding disposal of contaminated soil? A. I don't recall that. Q. Did you give customers advice regarding disposal of contaminated equipment? A. I don't recall that either. Q. Did you give customers advice regarding cleaning of contaminated equipment? A. I don't recall that either. Q. At this November 17, 1969 meeting of the Corporate Development Committee, you presented to INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007913 138 1 the committee a recommended plan of action with / 2 respect to the PCB problem; correct? 3 A. That's what this memo says, although I 4 don't remember it, any of this. 5 Q. Returning to Exhibit 140, and 6 specifically the fifth page of that document, which , 7 has the number 3 at the top of the page. 8 Do you see that page? The page has 9 Roman numerals II, III and IV. > 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. This document indicates that the problem 12 with respect to PCBs was damage to the ecological $ 13 system by contamination; correct? 14 A. That's what it says; correct. 15 Q. And the nature of that problem is 16 discussed under Roman IV; correct? 17 A. That's what the paper says, yes. 18 K Q. The environmental aspects of the PCB 19 problem were discussed at the November 17, 1969 20 meeting by Elmer Wheeler; correct? 2 1 I'll direct your attention to the second 22 page of Exhibit 135 for that point. 23 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the 24 question. Lacks foundation. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007914 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 THE WITNESS: Since I don't recall this, what you are insinuating is that this rough draft of November 10th, 1969 is what was presented to the Corporate Development Committee on November 17th, 1969. It may be; it may not be. I don't know. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 135, the minutes of the Corporate Development Committee on November 17, 1969 indicate that Elmer Wheeler discussed environmental aspects of the PCB problem at that meeting; correct? . A. I don't remember it, but I don't have any problem with that being accurately written. No, I don't have any problem. Q. So the record is clear, that's what this document indicates; correct? A. That's what that document indicates; that's correct. Q. Returning then to Exhibit 140, specifically the page with the number 3 at the top -- A. Uh-huh. Q. Elmer Wheeler's initials appear on the left-hand margin of this page; correct? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007915 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. The initials EW appear on the left-hand side of this page. That's true. Q. Next to Roman II where it says "Problem," it says "EPW, 5 minutes"; correct? A. That's apparently what it says, yes. I'd ask you, who is EPW? Q. I would say it's Elmer Wheeler. MR. CHAMBERS: Do you swear? THE WITNESS: BY MR. DUFF: As well as EW? Q. Do you know of an EPW, other than Elmer Wheeler, at Monsanto at this time in 1969? A. If I ran through the phone book, I would probably find one, but I don't know. I'd start off, I don't remember any of this, so my question for you really is how did you get from this document to this document? Or vice versa. MR. CHAMBERS: Well, he hasn't gotten there yet. That's been the nature of my objections. I don't think he can get there, but we're proceeding along, regardless. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Exhibit 140 indicates, under Roman INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007916 14 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 numeral IV, which is entitled "Nature of the Problem," that, "Professors Widmark and Jensen of the Institute of Analytical Chemistry at Stockholm, Sweden in November 1966, announced and confirmed findings of PCB in fish, birds, and eggs"; correct? A. That's what it says. Q. I'd like to direct your attention back to Exhibit 319, and specifically the last page of that exhibit. If the initial finding on the last page of Plaintiff's Exhibit 319 relates to Jensen and Widmark's work, then the statement on that page is inconsistent with this statement about Widmark and Jensen announcing and confirming their finding of fish, bird and eggs in Exhibit 140; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: I'll object to the continued misreading and mishandling of these documents. Things are being taken out of context. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, and it does n't work. To the extent you're able to respond to that, you're welcome to do so. THE WITNESS: I don't recall the details of their work; probably never did know the details of INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007917 14 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 their work. I don't recall the timing involved. The problem that you're in, that I don't agree with, is that you assume that, at a much earlier date, the world concedes that these people had found PCBs. The situation was they found something that even they didn't know what it was, and we spent most of the year, in the case of Risebrough, and longer, in the case of these people from Sweden, trying to identify what it was. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Who was Emmett Kelly? A. He was the head medical doctor at Monsanto. Q. Would you defer to Dr. Kelly with respect to understanding the implications of Jensen and Widmark's work in the 1960s? MR. CHAMBERS: I object to the form of that question. Hypothetical. You've left out material information that would be required to answer that. THE WITNESS: I would defer to Dr. Kelly on medical questions, not on analytical procedures. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Would you defer to Dr. Kelly with INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007918 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 respect to medical questions that involve questions of toxicity? A. I would think so, yes. Q. The last sentence on the page that has the number 3 at the top in Exhibit 140 states, "Monsanto confirmed the presence of PCB ' s in mid-1969 and confirmed the adequacy of work by Widmark and Jensen and others; truly, the PCB's are a worldwide ecological problem." Correct? A. That's what it says. Again, may I say, the date of this is like November 1969. Q. Have you ever considered any scientific research that related to products produced by Monsanto to be adequate before it was independently confirmed by Monsanto? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the hypothetical nature of that. MR. DUFF: It's not a hypothetical. MR. CHAMBERS: Then I object that there is a lack of foundation. You're assuming facts not in evidenc e. MR. DUFF: Would you please read the question back for the witness? (The pending question was read.) INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007919 14 4 1 THE WITNESS: I have no background or 2 experience that would let me answer that question 3 one way or the other. 4 BY MR. DUFF: 5 Q. You're a scientist; correct, sir? 6 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. 7 THE WITNESS: No, sir. I'm an engineer. I 8 have no experience that would let me answer the 9 question you just asked. You sound like it's a f 10 question between outside research and inside 11 research. I have no experience to be able to 12 answer that question. f 13 BY MR. DUFF: 14 Q. You have a B.S. in chemical engineering? 15 ' 16 A. Yes. Q. And you also have a master's in chemical 17 engineering; correct? 18 A. Uh-huh. 19 Q. During your career, did you keep abreast 2 0 of developments in trade publications relating to 2 1 chemical engineering? 2 2 A. Yes, I did. 23 Q. Did some of thearticles thatyou read 2 4 throughout your career relate todevelopments in INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007920 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 chemical engineering which, themselves, related to products that Monsanto was producing? A . No . Q. You never read an article in a trade publication that related to a chemical engineering issue that, itself, related to products that Monsanto was producing? A . No . Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the next page in Exhibit 140 which has the number 4 at the top of the page. Do you see that? A. I have a page -- yes. Q. Halfway down this page, there is a discussion of the seriousness of the PCB problem; correct ? A. That's whatit says, yes. Q. And it spells out the seriousness of that problem by listing four points; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Let me object to the form again. I think you said seriousness of the PCB problem. The document reads "The seriousness of the problem." BY MR. DUFF: INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007921 14 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. You may answer. A. I don't remember any portion of this report,' but there is an item on it that says, "Fish - Marine or aquatic species concentrate PCB in the fatty tissue. Toxic in small quantities..." I don't know what that means, "...down to 5 parts per billion to sensitive marine life such as shrimp." Q. Does that mean that PCBs are toxic to shrimp? MR. CHAMBERS! Object to the form of the question. Calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I don't know what that means. I don't recall this. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Do you recall that PCBs were considered, in November of 1969, to be toxic to shrimp in as small a quantities as 5 parts per billion? A. No, I did not remember that. I remembered PCBs were detected in shrimp, but I don't remember the toxicity subject or the data. Q. The second point under this area relates to birds; correct? A. Right. What it says is "Birds - INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007922 14 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Predatory species feeding on the marine or aquatic life can further concentrate PCB to possible harmful effects. Specifically in birds PCB can affect the calcium metabolism leading to eggshell imperfections which prevents proper hatch of the young. In fact, Monsanto has confirmed the eggshell by feeding chickens, a high order of the species, PCB's in controlled tests." Q. And this relates to an area that you had alluded to earlier today, correct, in terms of the effect of PCBs on eggshells of peregrine falcons? A. One of the first indications of a problem in the environment was the eggshell of the peregrine falcon; that's correct. Q. Was that a problem with thinning of eggshells? A. Yes, it was. Q. When you refer to the first sentence, "Predatory species feeding on the marine or aquatic life can further concentrate PCB to possible harmful effects," is that otherwise known as bioaccumulation? A. I don't know because I don't know what that term means. ' INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007923 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Are you familiar with the term "biomagnification"? A. I've heard the term, but I'm afraid I'm not acquainted with the meaning. Q. Do you understand the term "biomagnification" to be consistent with the first sentence in this section? A. No, since I just said I don't knowwhat "biomagnification" means. That was not a term that I used in my working career Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the page that. has the number 5 at the top , which is a t STR 021946 and has Roman numeral V, " Effect on Monsanto" at the top. Do you see that? A . Yes. Q This section sets out the "Business potential at stake for Monsanto on a wor1dwid e basis"; c orrect? A . That's what it says, yes. Q- Is it consistent with your understanding that the potential business that Monsanto had at s take in its Aroclor business in 196 9 was $22 million per year? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007924 14 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. That's what it says. It says $22 million per year sales volume. Q. And is that consistent with your understanding of what the sales volume was at that t ime ? A. Yes. I would guess that. As a matter of fact, my recollection, my guess would have been that it was bigger than that. I didn't realize it was that smal1. Q. Under the section noted as "Effect on Monsanto," there's also a section on "Legal Liability"; correct? A. Yes. That's what it says. Q. And this section states that "Direct lawsuits are possible." Correct? A . That ' s what it says. Q And it also states that, "The mater i a 1 s are already present in nature having done their 'alleged damage'"; correct? A. That's what it says. Q. If that was true, then cleanup of the materials that had done the alleged damage was crucial; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. What do INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007925 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 you mean by "crucial"? It's vague and confusing. THE WITNESS.- I think that's not correct. I think we're talking about three different things. There was a problem with the PCBs in the waterways of the United States and even in the Gulf Coast with the shrimp. So that's existing PCBs. Now, that's already present in nature; that's there. Secondly, there were PCBs that were in use, such as in capacitors and transformers of the electrical system of the United States. They exist; they are there. Then the third part of it is we were still in the business, still manufacturing and still shipping. Now, we're feeding into a system of PCBs in use, which in turn is probably feeding into the environmental contamination problem. So, as I would read this, what's already at the bottom of a river is there. That's alleged damage. But what exists in tanks and transformers is not in nature, and it could be recovered. BY MR. DUFF: Q. It was the materials that were in nature at this time that had done damage to the environment; correct? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007926 15 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of that question. Assumes facts not in evidence and lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: You could argue all day about how much damage had been done to nature. MR. CHAMBERS: If any. THE WITNESS: If any. But at this point in time, I believe Monsanto was agreeing that there was, somewhere in the waterways and systems, some PCBs that were being picked up by aquatic life. BY MR. DUFF: Q. As of November 10, 1969, all of Monsanto's customers using PCB-containing products had not been officially notified about known effects, nor did Monsanto's product labels carry that information; is that right? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. What do you mean by "officially notified"? THE WITNESS: And I can't answer that. I don't know. BY MR. DUFF: Q. That's what this document indicates; correct ? A. Where did you find that? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007927 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q - Under the legal sect ion. A . It says, "All customers using these products have not been officially notified about known effects nor do our labels carry this information." That's what it says. I don't remember it, but that's what it says. Q. When you notified your customers, did you tell them how to clean up PCB contamination? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: That's not a very practical situation. Our largest customer was National Cash Register, who had made carbonless carbon paper. We told them that this was becoming an environmental problem, and they were the distributor, and that we were going to discontinue the manufacture of the product, and National Cash Register, you have a problem. You have been distributing PCBs, and you may want to stop, and you'd better be concerned about your responsibility. National Cash Register, your res pons . INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007928 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY MR. DUFF: Q. So did you leave it to your customers to determine how to clean up PCB contamination caused by PCBs that Monsanto had supplied to them? A. And the customer had used, yes. Q. Did you supply your customers with all information relating to PCBs that was available to you ? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: You have a practical problem again. There's no point in supplying more information than the customer can handle or can use. So, again, at the point in time when we decided that we were going to have to discontinue this business, we had a program to notify the customers of what the problem was, how we got - what we thought about -- how we got to where we are, and the fact that we were going to discontinue the product. Now, up until that point in time, I'd say we had more or less conversation with different customers, depending on whether the customer came back and asked questions, because all of this had INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007929 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 appeared in the public press. Not to have heard about PCBs and the contamination, you would have had to have not read the trade journals and not read the newspapers, because this appeared. Some people asked more questions than others, and therefore we had more communication with some companies than others. MR. DUFF: Move to strike the nonresponsive parts of the last answer. MR. CHAMBERS: What parts do you consider nonresponsive? That might help clarify things for eve ry bo dy . MR. DUFF: Would you please read the answer back? (Record read as requested.) MR. DUFF: I move to strike the portion of the sentence with the language "depending on whether the customer came back and asked questions. " I move to strike from that point to the end of that sentence as nonresponsive. Q. Sir, do you see, also, on the same page, where there is the letter B with the title "Public Image"? A. Yes, I see that. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007930 15 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. This document states that -- I'm referring here to the second sentence under that section, "The evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond questioning." Do you see that? A. Yes, I see that. Q. Was that statement incorrect when it was made in November of 1969? A. I have no reason to question the statement. I don't recall this package, and I don't recall the factors at this specific point in time. Q. The next section is letter C, "Customer Relations." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. The first sentence indicates that, "Some customers who presently use these materials will be 'scared off' to other competitive products"; correct ? A. That's what it says. Q. Was that one of your concerns in INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007931 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 November 1969? A. Not that I recall. Q. You weren't concerned that, when customers learned that PCBswere environmental contaminants, they wouldswitch to competitive produc t s ? A. That was not a major item. It was not a large share of our total product line, and I don't remember that being a major problem with this. Q. Directing your attention to the next page, which has the number 6 at the top , do you that ? A . Yes. Q. Do you see the section which is Roman numeral VII, "Involvement With Other Producers"? A . Yes. Q. Do you see the language in the first sentenc e of that page where it indicates that "Monsanto is most probably responsible for the U.S. contamination"? A . I can read that, yes; that's correct. Q. made? Was that statement incorrect when it ' MR . CHAMBERS: Object to the form. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007932 15 7 1 THE WITNESS: I think the debatable question "2 would be what does the word "responsible" mean. 3 I'm sure that I don't have to pursue that with 4 you. Other people will do that. 5 BY MR. DUFF: 6 Q. You'll leave that to the lawyers. Is , 7 that what you're saying? 8 A. Correct; that's right. 9 Q. But that sentence does make that i 10 statement; correct? 11 A. It is written the way you read it. 12 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the $ 13 next page, which has Roman numeral VIII, "Sources 14 of Contamination." 15 ? 16 Do you see that? A. Yes. 1 7 Q. There is a section with the letter A, 18 titled "Open Pollution," correct? s 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And there are four items, fluids, 2 1 electrical, heat transfer and industrial; correct? 2 2 A. Correct. 2 3 Q. Fluids are indicated as "probably the 2 4 most open source of pollution because of their INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007933 mobility"; A . That's what it says, yes. Q- Was that consistent with your understanding in November 1969? A. I don't have a recollection of what my understanding was at that time. Q- Industrial is No. 4 here; correct? A. That ' s correct. Q. What are industrial PCB products? A . I'm going to beg off of this entire area. This was not the plasticizer business which I was responsible for. This is the other half of the business. I had no responsibility here. I had very little knowledge of their products and how they were used, so I am not informed here. I never was, but I'm certainly not now. Q. Did you know, in November 1969, that industrial fluids containing PCBs were generally sprayed down into drains, washed into sewers and generally regarded as harmless? A. I did not know that, even at that time, if that ' s true . Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the last two pages of this document. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007934 15 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Do you see those? There are two pages of graphs indicating profit and liability versus t ime . Do you see those? A. Okay. Q. Have you seen these graphs before? A. Not that I recall. Q. Do you recognize this handwriting? A. No, I don't. Q. Did you discuss, with anyone at Monsanto in 1969, what the effect of different alternatives for dealing with the PCB pollution problem would be ? MR. CHAMBERS! Object to the form of the question. It's vague. Confusing. THE WITNESS: I don't remember specifically doing that. MR. DUFF: Off the record. (There was a brief recess.) MR. DUFF: Mr. Springgate, I'd like to show you a document that's been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 136. (Previously marked Exhibit 136 was shown to the witness and is annexed INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007935 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 hereto.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. This document has the date November 17, 1969 at the top, and bears production numbers TRAN 024713 through 37. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. A. Okay. Q. Is this a copy of the PCB presentation that you made to the Corporate Development Committee on November 17, 1969? A. It apparently is, but I don't remember that particular presentation. Q. Your name is written at the top of the first page of this document; correct? A. That is correct. Q. As you sit here today, do you recall that you were one of the individuals primarily responsible for formulating Monsanto's overall PCB plan to manage the PCB pollution problem? A. I would say yes, I was. Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the page that has production number TRAN 024724. It has the heading "Sources of Fluids Pollution" at INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007936 16 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the top. A. Uh-huh. Q. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. This page indicates the sources of fluids pollution from greatest to least by application? correct? A. That's what it says. Q. And it indicates that the greatest source of -- strike that. It indicates that the application with the greatest source of fluids pollution is industrial fluids? correct? A. That's what the wording says. I don't recall this specific presentation, and furthermore, we're now talking about the fluids group where I had no responsibility and very little know-how. Q. This was the presentation that was given to the Corporate Management Committee on November 17, 1969; correct? A. That is correct. Q. And, on this page, it also indicates that industrial fluids have the greatest intensity of pollution because they are a direct pollutant to INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007937 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the environment; correct? A. I can only read the words. I don't remember the presentation; and, again, I had no responsibility for the fluids group. So I would not have put this page together or even reviewed it. This is the other half of the business. Q. That was part of the presentation that was made to the Corporate Management Committee on November 17, 1969; correct? A. Apparently. I have no reason to doubt that . Q. Directing your attention to the page that has the number 16 at the top and bears production number TRAN 024727, do you see that page ? A. Yes. Q. There is the handwriting at the bottom that says "Turn over to Jim Springgate"; right? A. Correct. Q. Is it your understanding that the program or floor was turned over to you at this point? A. That would be a reasonableassumption, yes. Even though I don't remember that, that's a INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007938 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 reasonable assumption. Q. This was the end of the discussion of the fluids business; correct? A. Apparently, yes. Q. And the following pages indicate a discussion of plasticizers; A. That appears to be Q. That was the area that you were business director for; right? A. That is correct. Q. If you would -- I direct your attention to the page that has TRAN 024729 at the bottom. A. Okay. Q. This page has distinctions from functional fluids on it; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this section lacks the type of narrative that appears in the earlier pages discussing fluids; correct? A. Correc t. Q. At this point in the presentation, you told the Corporate Development Committee how the plasticizer group was different from the functional fluids group; correct? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007939 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: Apparently that's what it says, although, again, I don't remember this. BY MR. DUFF: ' Q. One of the points that you made was that 50 percent of domestic Aroclor 1254 and 1260 sales were through distributors; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: That's what it says, but I don't happen to remember that. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Were 50 percent of your domestic plasticizer sales in 1969 of Aroclors 1254 and 1260 through distributors? A. I think, what the line says, 50 percent of the domestic A-1254 and Aroclor 1260 sales were through the distributors, difficult to police. That's what the line says. I don't happen to remember that. Q. Do you remember any of your distributors of Aroclor 1254 or Aroclor 1260? A. No, I don't. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007940 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Why was it difficult to police sales of Aroclors through distributors? A. I don't recall what the thought was there. Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the page that has TRAN 024733 at the bottom. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. This page has "Recommended Action Plan" at the top; correct? A . Correc t. Q. And this page, together with the following page, has twelve points; correct? A. Yes, that appears to be a correct -- Q. This was a joint action plan developed by the functional fluids and plasticizer business groups and the medical and law departments; A. That's what it says, yes. Q. One of the parts of this plan was to notify all Aroclor customers of the PCB problem; correct ? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. And that was to happen within 60 days; INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007941 16 6 1 correc t ? ) 2 A. That's what it says. 3 Q. Which would be by the middle of January, 4 1970; correct? 5 A. Well, 60 days from November 17th, 1969. 6 Q. And another point was to relabel , 7 containers; correct? Under point No. 2? 8 A. Correct. That's what it says, relabel 9 containers within 60 days. ! 10 Q. How were the containers to be relabeled? 11 A. I don't recall that. 12 Q. Do you know what type of label Aroclor 13 containers had on them prior to this date? 14 A. I do not recall that, no. 15 Q. Directing your attention to the fifth 16 point on this recommended action plan, do you see 1 7 that? 18 A. Yes, Ido. 19 Q. That says, "Educate customers for need 20 for a clean-up at their plants - within 4 months"; 2 1 is that correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Did you do that? 24 A. I don't recall that specifically, but INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007942 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 anything we told the CDC we were going to do, we did . Q. Did you educate customers on the need for cleanup at their plants? A. Again, I don't recall specifically. Again, I would say, if we said we were going to do it, we did it. This is our top management. Q. Why did you recommend this point? A. I don't recall that. Q. Directing your attention to the page with the number TRAN 024735 at the bottom, do you see that page? A. Yes, Ido. Q. This page says "What Could We Expect From This Program" at the top; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this page contains estimates regarding retaining or converting a good portion of Monsanto's business and profits; correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. That was based on whether or not the PCB problem could be confined to Aroclor 1254 and 1260 as opposed to spreading into the 1 ower-ch1 orinated Aroclors; correct? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007943 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Apparently. That would be the impression I have from reading this, although I don't remember that. Q. Point 3 on this page is "Clean up the major contributing PCB pollution factors"; correct? A. That's what it says. Q. What were the major contributing PCB pollution factors at this time? A. I don't recall what the thought was behind that line. Q. The next page of this document indicates what the proposed PCB management plan would result in; correct? A. Apparently, yes, in terms of costs and publicity and customer discontent. Q. One of the things that Monsanto recognized in this document, arising out of the plan that was proposed to the Corporate Development Committee on November 17, 1969, was that there would be possible lawsuits; correct? A. The line says, the program would, among other things, "Expose us to continued adverse publicity and possible lawsuits." That's what it says, even though I don't recall that. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007944 16 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. You don't recall what type of lawsuits it would expose Monsanto to? A. No, I don't. Q. The summary of this PCB presentation to the Corporate Development Committee is stated on the last page of this document; correct? A. Yes, it appears to be. Q. One of the statements that's made in the summary is that the PCB pollution problem is a worldwide ecological problem; correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. You knew the PCB pollution problem to be a worldwide ecological problem as of November 17, 1969; correct? A. I don't recall what the thought was behind that line. I assume that's what we thought or we wouldn't have written that line. I don't recall. Q. Mr. Springgate, this document has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 370. It has the printed date December 1969 at the top of the page with the heading and bears production numbers TRAN 058368 through 69. Please take as much time as you need to INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007945 17 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 370 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) THE WITNESS: Okay. I've reviewed that. BY MR. DUFF: Q. This is a public relations report that you received on or about December of 1969; correct? A. That's apparently correct, although I don't remember the document. Q. Your name is indicated on the first page as a recipient; correct? A. That is correct. Q. This document was prepared by Ed John; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Lacks f oundation. THE WITNESS: Apparently it was. BY MR. DUFF: Q. His name, in fact, appears at the bottom of the second page of this document; correct? A. Yes, it does . Q. What happened on the English coast in or about December 1969 relating to an unusual increase INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007946 in the number of seal deaths? A. I do not recall. Q. Do you recall that incident? A. No, I don't. Q. Directing your attention to the second page of this document, and particularly the first paragraph on the second page, do you see that? A. Yes . Q. Does this refer to the Santicizer plant that you oversaw the construction of in Texas City? A . Yes, it does. Q. Did you hold a press conference in New York City in or about December of 1969 related to that facility? A. It says we did, but I don't happen to remember that either. Q. Do you see the two lawsuits that are referred to in the next paragraph? A. Yes, I see that. It says, "Working with the legal department, one preparedness s tatement and a news release were drafted during the month in connection with two lawsuits underway. The news release will be issued to news media simultaneously with a filing of a lawsuit in January. " INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007947 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Do you recall those lawsuits? A. No, I don't recall. Q. Who was Bill Papageorge? A. Bill Papageorge was the plant manager of the Anniston, Alabama plant. He was brought in to the headquarters to help with a PCB task force, since his background is in manufacturing of Aroclors at Anniston, and he joined the group task force, if you will. I think in that last presentation to the CDC, we said we were going to form a larger project group to handle the PCB contamination problems, and he joined that group at that time. Q. Did you bring Bill Papageorge in to oversee Monsanto's management of the PCB pollution problem? A. That's very close to my recollection, yes. We still had a group of research people, marketing people; but Papageorge was brought in to help handle Monsanto's own contribution to the pollution problem, meaning that, if we had any PCBs escaping in our own manufacturing plants. Then, I remember he got into the subject of how do you dispose of Aroclor products that were sent back to INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007948 17 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mons anto. So yes, he was in the general area of how do you reduce environmental contamination of PCB . Q. Is it correct to say that he was brought in to coordinate the overall effort of Monsanto with respect to the PCB pollution problem? A. I don't recall that specifically, but I think that's a bit of an overstatement. I think his contribution had to do with -- from the manufacturing point of view and from a disposal of Aroclors after we went out of the business, because we still had research people working on the subject. We had the toxicologists working on the subject, meaning Wheeler. So -- and we had the marketing people doing their own thing. So I think Papageorge originally was brought in to handle more of the manufacturing, engineering end of it. I think I should also specify that that's my recollection of the way it was in late '69, early '70. Papageorge stayed with it over an extended period of time, and I didn't. By 1974, I was away from that scene, and I don't know what he did after that. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007949 17 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Was there an effort to notify Monsanto's customers of the PCB pollution problem in the beginning of 1970? A. There was an effort to notify them. Again, I'm vague about the time frame. Those papers we just looked at indicated that would be early in 1970. So I assume that is correct. I'm vague as to time, but yes, customers were notified. Q. Did Monsanto notify all of its PCB -- strike that. How did Monsanto go about notifying its customers related to the PCB problem? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Are you referring to plasticizer customers now, or are you asking him to speak to customers across the board? THE WITNESS: My first qualification was going to be I can only respond with regard to plasticizer customers because I had no responsibility for the functional fluids and they had their own program, whichever it was, and I don't remember what it was . In the case of plasticizers, though, I remember that we did notify customers of the PCB problem sometime in, say, early 1970. I couldn't INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007950 17 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 give you a lot of detail about how we did it, but we did it. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Was there any effort to coordinate the message that was going out among different product groups to those customers? A. You mean the fluids group versus the plasticizer group? Q. Was there any -- let me ask the question this way. Was there any effort to coordinate the message that went out to, for instance, the plasticizer group and the functional fluids group, to the customers of those groups? A. I don't recall that. I don't recall. Q. Did some customers receive more information relating to the PCB problem than others? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form, to the extent it calls for speculation on Mr. Springgate's part about what somebody else received or didn't receive. MR. DUFF: Let me rephrase the question. Q. Did Monsanto send different information INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007951 17 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to -- strike that. Did Monsanto send more information to some of its customers than others? A. I can only speak for the plasticizer end of the business, because I didn't have firsthand knowledge of the functional fluids end. In the plasticizer end of the business, we notified customers and we provided them with some information about PCBs, but then you say did you provide more information to some than others. The answer is probably yes, because some companies came back and simply asked more questions than others. So you probably had -- I would have recalled that we had greater amounts of information with certain customers than with others because they asked for more information. Q. I'd like to show you a document which has been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 159. This document has the date February 27, 1970 written at the top and bears production numbers TNGS 004288 through 95. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 159 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007952 17 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto . ) THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q Was this a letter that Monsanto sent to its direct plasticizer customers on February 27, 19 7 0 ? A . It appears to be, although I don't remember the specific letter. Q Do you recognize the handwriting on the first page of this document? A . No, I don't. Q The author of this letter -- the individual who signed this letter is W.E . Schalk; correct? A . That's correct. Q- Was he your director of sales for plasticizers ? A. Yes, he was. Q Did he report directly to you ? A . Yes, he did. Q. Did you work with Mr. Schalk to prepare this letter? A . I don't recall that, one way or the INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007953 17 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 other. Normally, this letter would have been written by Mr. Schalk with input from the PCB task force, and I would have reviewed it. That would have been the normal approach, but I don't really recall specifically. Q. Did you approve this letter before it went out? A. I don't recall, but I most likely did. Q. Was this letter shown to the legal department before it went out? A. I don't recall, but it most likely was. Q. The first page of this letter indicates that recently several newspaper and magazine articles have been published indicating that PCBs have been discovered at some points in some marine, aquatic and wildlife environments; correct? A. That's what it says. Q. There's no reference in this paragraph, or anywhere else in this letter, to any published reports that appeared in any scientific publications; correct? A. It doesn't say that, and I don't know. I can only take it on face value. It says what it says. I don't recall anything else. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007954 17 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. There's no reference in here to the work of Soren Jensen and Gunnar Widmark; correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I also haven't bothered to read the detail of the attachments. I don't know what the attachments say. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. A. Your question again was what? (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: Apparently not. Not directly, no. That's apparently true. BY MR. DUFF: Q. In the second paragraph of this letter, it says, "It is claimed that the PCBs fond strongly resemble polychloronated biphenyl containing 54 percent and 60 percent chlorine by weight"; correct ? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. In fact, by this time, hadn't Monsanto confirmed that PCBs that were 54 and 60 percent chlorine by weight were present in the INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007955 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 environment ? MR. CHAMBERS j Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I can't either confirm or deny that. I don't know what information they had at this point in time. BY MR. DUFF: Q. This letter has an attachment, which is an article from Chemical Week dated October 29, 1 9 6 9 ; correct ? A. Yes, it does. Q. Are PCBs mentioned anywhere in this attachment ? A. I don't know. I'm looking through it to see if they are. Q. This article really only relates to water quality standards; correct? A. Apparently that's what the first couple of paragraphs refer to. Q. As far as you can tell, there's no reference to PCBs anywhere in this article; right? A. If there is, I have not yet found it. MR. DUFF: Mr. Chambers, to move things along, can you stipulate that Mr. Springgate won't find any reference to PCBs in this article? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007956 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHAMBERS: Well, having not reviewed it myself, I'm a little hesitant to even go that far. I agree, I don't see the initials PCB in there anywhere. MR. DUFF: Or polychloronated biphenyl? MR. CHAMBERS: I haven't seen it yet, if it's even there. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Mr. Springgate, you don't see any reference to PCBs or polychloronated biphenyls anywhere in this article, do you? A. No, I don't, but the last paragraph of Mr. Schalk's letter says, "This article reflects the view that good manufacturing practice in the future may require that no products used by any company be lost or discharged in such a manner as to ultimately be found in the waterways." That was apparently the reason he sent this. I don't remember the details. I'm just reading the words. Q. This was the message that Monsanto gave to its plasticizer -- strike that. This was the message that you gave to your plasticizer customers on February 27, 1970; INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007957 18 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 correct? A. It appears to be that, yes. It's a message on that date. Q. And Mr. Schalk signed this letter and sent it to your plasticizer customers with your approval; correct? A. Apparently. I'll point out you brought this letter to me. I didn't take it to you. I don't know where this letter came from, and there could have been two or three others. I don't know. I also don't remember; right? Q. Would it have been your custom and practice to approve a letter such as this before it went out to all of your customers? A. Right. But there may have been additional letters, too. Q. Prior to February 27, 1970, had you ever sent a letter to all of your plasticizer customers before? A. I don't recall. Any subject, you mean? The answer to that would be sure, we did. You notified all of your customers if you had a price change, for instance. If you had a new product, you notified all your customers. So there was some INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007958 18 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 mechanism to broadly notify customers. Q. Was Mr. Schalk responsible for overseeing your sales force? A. You mean did the salesmen, the specific salesmen, report to him or to his organization? Q. Yes. Were the sales representatives for the plasticizer group overseen by Mr. Schalk? A. Yes. BY MR. DUFF: Q. I'd like to show you a document that's been previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 251. This document bears production numbers TRAN 012547 through 71. Please take as much time as you need to review this document. (Previously marked Exhibit 251 was shown to the witness and is annexed hereto.) THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Have you had an opportunity to review this document? A. Right. Q. I'm sorry? Your answer? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007959 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Yes. Q. You have had an opportunity to review this document? A. Yes, I have. Q. This document is a presentation that was made to the plasticizer field sales force; correct? A. Apparently. I don't recall this specifically, but that seems to be what it was, yes . Q. And you approved the information that was given to Monsanto's plasticizer customers? correct? A. Yes, either directly or indirectly through Walter Schalk. Again, I don't remember it specifically, but that seems to be what this is. Q. On the first page of this document, there is a description of the PCB contamination problem; correct? A. It says, "There have been several newspaper and magazine articles in the U.S. in 1969 indicating that polych1oronated biphenyls (PCBs) have been discovered in some marine, aquatic and wildlife environments." Is that the sentence you had in mind? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007960 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. There is an introduction here to the PCB problem in general; correct? A. Yes. "There have been several magazine and newspapers articles published in the U.S. in 1969 indicating that PCBs have been discovered in some marine, aquatic and wildlife environments. " Q. And, in this presentation, the plasticizer sales force was also told about the letter that was going to Monsanto's Aroclor customers; correct? MR. CHAMBERS! Object to the form. Lacks foundation to the extent you're assuming this was actually presented; but certainly as to what the document says on it's face, it's fine to proceed with. THE WITNESS: It says, "Accordingly, a letter has been cleared by our Legal Department for mailing to each of our direct Monsanto customers." BY MR. DUFF: Q. Where are you reading from? A. I'm reading from the bottom of Page 2. I was trying to answer your question, is this the letter that went to customers. Q. Does that refresh your recollection INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007961 186 1 regarding whether or not the letter sent to your f 2 plasticizer customers was cleared with the legal 3 department ? 4 A. My recollection is we did send letters 5 to customers. I don't remember the details. It's 6 very logical that it would have been cleared by the . 7 legal department. 8 Q. One of the things that the field sales 9 force was told on the bottom of the first page of ) 10 this document was that Monsanto had a duty to alert 11 its Aroclor customers to a potential problem of 12 environmental contamination; correct? $ 13 A. Yes. It says that, "It was felt that 14 Monsanto, as responsible member of the business 15 community, had a duty to alert its Aroclor * 16 customers to a potential problem of environmental 17 contamination." 18 Q. And directing your attention to the 1 19 second page of this document, and specifically the 20 bottom of that page, it's stated that the letters 2 1 will be mailed from St. Louis at the end of 2 2 February; correct? 2 3 A. That's what it says, yes. 2 4 Q. It says that the letter will be INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007962 187 1 addressed to the Office of the President of your \ ' 2 plasticizer customers; correct? 3 A. That's what it says, yes. 4 Q. Directing your attention to Page 3 of 5 this document, specifically in the middle of this 6 page, the sales force was told, "It is not our 7 responsibility to alert our distributors' 8 customers." Is that correct? 9 A. That's what it says, but right above 10 that it says we will notify our distributors -- "We 11 will recommend that our distributors mail a similar 12 letter promptly to each of their Aroclor $ 13 customers. Copies of our letters will be made 14 available to our distributors in quantities 15 sufficient to meet their needs." ; 16 Q. Did Monsanto's distributors have the 1 7 technical knowledge and understanding, the same 1 8 technical knowledge and understanding of the PCB ' 19 problem as Monsanto had? 20 MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the 2 1 question to the extent you're asking Mr. Springgate 22 to speculate about what somebody else knew or 2 3 didn't know. 24 If you're able to respond to that, you INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007963 188 1 can. 2 THE WITNESS: I could not respond to that 3 clearly, except to say one of our distributors was 4 called Central Solvents Company in the Chicago 5 area. They were distributors of chemical product, 6 and they had reasonable know-how in terms of how to 7 handle and respect for chemical products. I don't 8 remember the other distributors. 9 BY MR. DUFF: ! 10 Q. Was it important to you, in the 1 1 beginning of 1970, that your distributors, such as 1 2 Central Solvents, had a technical understanding of $ 13 the PCB problem so that they could answer their 14 customers' questions? 15 A. I don't recall that specifically, but } 16 let me comment that we were providing some 1 7 information to the distributors, and a normal 18 activity would have been to say, "If you need more ' 19 detailed technical information, contact Monsanto's 20 plasticizer group." 2 1 Q. The letter is summarized at the bottom 2 2 of Page 3 and on Page 4 and the top of Page 5; 2 3 correct? 24 A. That's what it says. It says, "Let me INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007964 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 summarize what Monsanto's letter says." Q. And there are five points made relating -- summarizing the letter; correct? A. Yes, that appears to be correct. Q. And the first point that's made is that the primary function of the letter is to alert Monsanto's customers to the potential environmental pollution problem; correct? A. That is correct. Q. And then the sales force was told "Confidentially, our Legal Department believes this will minimize and, hopefully, eliminate claims made against us for environmental pollution damage"; correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. Directing your attention to Page 5 of this document, do you see the section 3 titled "Customer Reaction"? A. Yes, Ido. Q. The first sentence says, "Weexpect this letter will lead to customer reaction"; right? A. Correct. Q. What customer reaction did you expect to receive ? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007965 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I don't recall what I had in mind. Q. Directing your attention to the top of Page 6, this is still under the customer reaction s ec tion. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Was it important that Monsanto's customers react appropriately when they received this letter from Monsanto? MR. CHAMBERS; Object to the form of the question. It's vague, confusing, ambiguous. THE WITNESS; back ? Can I ask for that to be read MR. DUFF: Certainly. Please read the question back for the witness. (The pending question was read. ) MR. CHAMBERS: Same objection. THE WITNESS: I guess I don't understand the question. We were trying to notify the customers that there was potentially a problem. When you notify your customer that there is potentially a problem, you worry about several things. Will your customer be without a product to continue his business, or will your customer be able to find an INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007966 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 alternate so he can continue his business. Each of those has different implications, but the thought within Monsanto was that we owed our customers an update and information on possible PCB contamination. That's what we were trying to ac c omp1is h. BY MR. DUFF: Q. The sales force was told to remember that the letter was "...going to the 'Office of the President' so it may get down to his subordinates in a variety of different ways leading to a variety of reactions"; correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. And then the sales force was told the reason behind why the letter was sent to the office of the president; correct? A. Correc t. Q. And that reason was because Monsanto's legal department felt that, by sending the letter to the office of the president, that Monsanto would have really notified a company officially of the potential problem; correct? A. That's what the letter says, and my experience is that that's the only way to do INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007967 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 things. If you want to notify a company, you notify the CEO of the company. That's the formal, official, legal way to do things. Q. Is that because, if there is a -- I'm picking up on the language here again on Page 6 - "If there is any legal litigation later, the courts might feel that sending a letter to Joe Doe, Plant Purchasing Agent, was not legal notification because Joe Doe may not be an officer of the company"? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. MR. DUFF: Would you please read the question back for the witness? (The pending question was read. ) THE WITNESS: That is exactly what this paper says. I don't happen to remember the details of this presentation, this paper, but what you said is exactly what the paper said. BY MR. DUFF: Q. And that's the justification that was given for -- strike that. That's the reason that was given for sending the letter to the office of the president; INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007968 19 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 correct? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. Lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: I don't know what the reason was. I can only read it as it exists. I don't remember what any other reason might have been. BY MR. DUFF: Q. Well, the information that was given to the sales force here was that sending a letter to Joe Doe, plant purchasing agent, would not be legal notification if Joe Doe was not an officer of the company; is that right? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form of the question. You haven't established that this was ever given to the sales field force, for one thing. Again, if you're asking about what's written in the document THE WITNESS: I can only say that that's what is written in the document because I don't recall the details of this at all. MR. DUFF: Off the record for a moment. (Discussion off the record.) BY MR. DUFF: Q. Attached to this presentation to field INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007969 194 1 sales is a list of dos and don'ts for regional ') 2 managers ; correct ? 3 A. Yes, that appears to be true. 4 Q And also a list of likely customer 5 questions ; correct? 6 A. That appears to be true. 7 Q- And the information to be given to 8 customers was approved by yourself and by 9 Mons anto' 8 legal department; correct? 10 A. I don't recall specifically, but it's 11 logical that that's true. 12 Q- And, in fact, it says that on Page 7 of 13 this document; correct? 14 A. Okay, right. 15 ) 16 Q- Is that right? A . Right. 17 Q That's correct? 18 A . Yes, that's correct. 19 Q Directing your attention to the page 2 0 which has the title at the top, "Dos and Don'ts for 21 Regional Managers," do you see that? 22 A. Yes, I do. 23 Q. There are eleven things that regional 24 managers are told to affirmatively do here; INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007970 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 correct? A. Correc t. Q. How many regional managers did you have for plasticizers at this time? A. My recollection would be five or six. Q. Do you recall any of their names? A. Probably Joe McNamara in New York. Somebody in Chicago. We had somebody in Boston and somebody in Cincinnati. Tim Eddie,E-D-D-I-E, I think. They are the only names I can recall at the moment. Q Did your regional managers report directly to Walter Schalk? A. No, they reported to an intermediate sales manager at this time. I think his name was Jim Wright, W-R-I-G-H-T. Q. Did Jim Wright report to Walter Schalk? A . Correc t. Q. One of the things that the regional managers were told to do was to stick to the answers given to specific questions if these are the ones asked; correct? A. Which point are you here? Q No. 6. Do you see that ? INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007971 19 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Yes. That's what it says. Let me back up to the prior question. I gave you some names of people. Q . Okay. A. I got my businesses confused. Too many businesses over that period of time. There was a man -- Joe McNamara was, I think, maybe the Boston regional manager. The New York regional manager was a man named Ed Fording, F-0-R-D-I-N-G. Tim Eddie was in Boston, but in a different business. I give the names of the others. Q. Were you right about Jim Wright's position? A. Yes. Jim Wright is correct, and he reported to Walter Schalk. Q. Directing your attention to the second page of this list of dos, do you see numbers 7 through 11 listed on this page? A. Correct. Q. In No. 7, theplasticizer sales representatives were told to direct customer questions back to St. Louis; correct? A. Correc t. Q. No. 10, thepoint was tominimize calls INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007972 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to St. Louis relating to the customer-notification letter; correct? A. That's what it says, but I don't know why it says that. I don't remember the line of reasoning there. Q. It seems contrary to the previous point, does n't it ? MR. CHAMBERS: Object to the form. When you say "previous point," you're referring to No. 7? MR. DUFF: Yes, I am. Let me clarify that. Q. Point 10 seems to be contrary to point 7, doesn't it? MR. CHAMBERS: of that question. I'll still object to the form THE WITNESS: It does, but I don't remember the reason for that. BY MR. DUFF: Q. I direct your attention to the next page, which has a list of don'ts for regional managers; correct? A. Correct. Q. One of the things that regional managers were told not to do, and I'm specifically referring to point 2 here, was to "Bring up the subject of INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007973 19 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the Aroclor letter with their customers"; correct? A. That's what it says. I don't know why the writer suggests that. I don't know why. Q. As the director of the plasticizer business group, wouldn't you want your sales force to actively promote the information that was contained in the Aroclor letter to your customers? A. From where I sit today, I would think so. I don't have any idea what the background was of that 1ine. Q. Did Walter Schalk run this list of don'ts by you before he presented it to the plasticizer sales force? A. I don't remember it specifically, but it would be logical that he did. Q. Another point that was made in this list of don'ts for plasticizer regional managers was No. 8, where the regional managers were told to not give indications that Aroclor 1254 and 1260 will be discontinued; correct? A. That's what it says. Q. But the plan at this time was to eliminate that product; correct? A. I don't recall it. It's not logical. INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007974 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Apparently, at that point in time, the decision had not been made to eliminate those products. Apparently. Q. Yet the letter that went out to the customers told them that this is the potential environmental contaminant; right? A. That is correct. Q. Did you not want your customers to stop buying the product before you told them it was discontinued? A. I don't know. I don't recall what the line of reasoning was behind that. MR. DUFF: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) (Time noted: 5:25 p.m.) JAMES E. SPRINGGATE INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007975 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) SS. ) I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing deposition, JAMES E. SPRINGGATE, was by me duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in the within-entit1ed cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and place herein named; that the deposition is a true record of the witness's testimony as reported by me, a duly Certified Shorthand Reporter and a disinterested person, and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting by computer. I further certify that I am not interested in the outcome of the said action, nor connected with, nor related to, any of the parties in said action, nor to their respective counsel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my signature this 11th day of December, 1995. DEIRDRE F. CRAM, C.S.R. 9339 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007976 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 INDEX VOLUME I THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1995 WITNESS JAMES E. SPRINGGATE (BY MR. DUFF) EXAMINATION 4 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007977 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NUMBER 401 402 DEPOSITION EXHIBITS JAMES E. SPRINGGATE DESCRIPTION Handwritten notes of a Friday Meeting Nos. TRAN 057762-66 Letter - August 25, 1969 from E.V. John Prod. No. TNGS 009431 IDENTIFIED 57 64 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007978 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PREVIOUSLY MARKER DEPOSITION EXHIBITS JAMES E. SPRINGGATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED 172 Memo - March 6, 1969 from W.R. Richard to E. Wheeler Prod. Nos. TRAN 058343-45 41 3 11 Letter - August 25, 1969 from E.V. John Prod. No. TNGS 009432 61 3 12 Handwritten notes headed "Aroclor - Wildlife Meeting 8-25-69" Prod. Nos. TNGS 009429-30 65 3 13 Handwritten notes headed "PCB Committee August 25, '69 Prod. Nos. TNGS 009421-28 72 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007979 2 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PREVIOUSLY MARKED DEPOSITION EXHIBITS JAMES E. SPRINGGATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED 3 16 Multipage document dated October 2, 1969, Subject: "Report of Aroclor 'Ad Hoc' Committee " Prod. Nos. TNGS 009475-87 94 36 9 Two-page document entitled "Public Relations Report" dated October 1969 Prod. Nos. TRAN 058372-73 107 319 Memo - November 10, 1969 f rom E.V. John Prod. Nos. TNGS 009488-93 109 14 0 Multipage document headed "Outline - PCB Environmental Pollution Abatement Plan" Prod. Nos. STR 021938-61 132 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007980 2 05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PREVIOUSLY MARKED DEPOSITION EXHIBITS JAMES E. SPRINGGATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED 135 Three-page document entitled "Minutes of Meeting of the Corporate Development Committee" dated November 17, 1969 Prod. Nos. TRAN 091377-79 133 136 Multipage document entitled "PCB Presentation to Corporate Development Committee" dated November 17, 1969 Prod. Nos. TRAN 024713-37 159 370 Two-page document headed "Public Relations Report" dated December 1969 Prod. Nos. TRAN 058368-69 170 159 Two-page form letter to "Dear Customer" with attachment Prod. Nos. TNGS 004288-95 176 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007981 2 06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PREVIOUSLY MARKED DEPOSITION EXHIBITS JAMES E. SPRINGGATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED 251 Multipage document entitled "Presentation to Field Sales Personal and Confidential" Prod. Nos. TRAN 012547-71 183 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007982 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 JAMES E. SPRINGGATE DECEMBER 12, 1995 C/O ROLLY L. CHAMBERS, ESQ. 227 NORTH TRYON STREET CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 18202 Re: TENNESSEE GAS vs. MONSANTO DEPOSITION OF: JAMES E. SPRINGGATE, VOL. I TAKEN ON: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1995 Dear Mr. Springgate: The transcript of your deposition taken in the above matter is available at this office for your review. If it is more convenient, you may read your attorney's copy. In the event you have not read, corrected and signed your deposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, it may be used with the full force and effect as though it had been read, corrected and signed. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact this office. cc: ORIGINAL INTERIM COURT REPORTING cc: ALL COUNSEL CERTIFIED DEPOSITION REPORTERS ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 360 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 (415) 362-6666 INTERIM COURT REPORTING LEXOLDMON007983