Document Ed28k1XEVbQ5On0JyOrjXKo74

STATE OF ALABAMA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ETOWAH (Transferred from Calhoun County, COUNTY Alabama) SABRINA ABERNATHY, et al. , Plaintiffs, versus MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., . CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-2001-832 (Consolidated) De f endant s . ________________________________________________ / CONTINUATION OF THE DEPOSITION OF GERALD MILLER The continuation of the deposition of GERALD MILLER, was taken before Deborah Salers Garrett, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter, as Commissioner, commencing at 9:10 a.m. on October 29, 2001, by the Plaintiffs, at the law offices of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, The Clark Building, 400 North 20th Street, Birmingham, Alabama, pursuant to the stipulations set forth herein. Regional Reporting Service, Inc. 755 Walnut Street Gadsden, Alabama 35901-0755 HARTOLDMONO017490 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 For the Plaintiffs: 3 DONALD W. STEWART, Esq. 1131 Leighton Avenue 4 Anniston, Alabama 36201 5 For the Defendants: 6 WILLIAM G. COX, III, Esq. 7 LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC The Clark Building 8 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35203 9 10 1 1 INDEX 12 Stipulations 13 Reporter's Certificate 14 15 1 6 EXAMINATIONS 1 7 witness: GERALD MILLER 18 By Mr. Stewart 19 20 21 22 23 Page 4 82 Page 5 REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017491 3 1 EXHIBITS 2 Plaintiffs ' Marked Offered 3 One 18 4 Two 20 5 Three 24 6 Four 32 7 Five 36 8 Six 36 9 S even 49 1 0 E ight 54 11 Nine 66 12 Ten 74 13 14 No other exhibits were marked for identification, offered, or attached as 1 5 exhibits hereto. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017492 4 1 STIPULATIONS 2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by the 3 parties, through their counsel, that the 4 continuation of the deposition of GERALD 5 MILLER, may be taken before Deborah Salers 6 Garrett, CSR, RPR, as Commissioner and Notary 7 Public, Alabama at Large, at Birmingham, 8 Alabama, on October 29, 2001, at 9:10 a.m. 9 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that the 1 0 signature to and reading of the deposition by 11 the witness is waived, the deposition to have 1 2 the same force and effect as if full 1 3 compliance were had with all laws and rules of 1 4 Court relating to the taking of depositions. 1 5 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that it 1 6 shall not be necessary for any objections to 1 7 be made by counsel to any questions except as 1 8 to form or leading questions and that counsel 1 9 may make objections and assign grounds at the 2 0 time of trial or at the time said deposition 2 1 is offered in evidence or prior thereto. 2 2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that notice 2 3 of filing by the Commissioner is waived. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017493 5 1 STATE OF ALABAMA, BIRMINGHAM, OCTOBER 29, 2001 2 3 GERALD MILLER. 4 after having been first duly sworn, was 5 examined and testified as follows: 6 7 EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. STEWART: 9 Q. Mr. Miller, you will recall that you and 1 0 I were taking your deposition last time 1 1 and going over some things with you 12 about your job there. Have you since 1 3 had an opportunity to look at anything 14 or to look at any other documents since 1 5 the deposition? 1 6 A. No. . 1 7 Q. You haven't reviewed any? As I recall, 1 8 in the deposition that we took you 1 9 indicated that you had left the company 20 sometime,when, in '72? 21 A. I think that's correct, yes 22 Q- And your position with the c omp any was 2 3 - - first you were c onne c t e d with, I REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017494 6 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 1 5 A. 1 6 Q. 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 21 22 23 A. guess, the chemistry department? Laboratory section. Laboratory section? Uh-huh (indicating yes) . And you had indicated in connection with that position that you all just did tests on the Aroclor or the products that y'all put together; is that correct? MR. COX: Object to the form. Is that correct? That's correct. And that was for the purpose of checking the quality of the material? That's correct. Whether or not it met specs? Correct. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Miller, that you were a little bit more involved than that in the work that was done in connection with the testing for Aroclors i n the environment ? We did some of that. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017495 7 1 Q. 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 1 7 A. 18 1 9 Q. 20 21 22 2 3 A. Okay. The last time you indicated that that was done by a lab that was located off-premises, is that right, on Wilmer? The majority of it, yes. When is it -- You indicated y'all did some of it. When is it y'all started doing that work? I don't remember. Would it have been sometime in the '60s? Obviously. It was? Yes . Sometime in the '60s. And by y'all I mean in the lab there in Anniston, not off the premises on Wilmer, but actually on-premises in your lab? I imagine that we did. I don't specifically remember. When you say we, you are talking about the people who were located on-premises and who had the capacity to do that kind of work? Correct. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017496 8 t 1 Q. 2 3 4 5 A. 6 7 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 12 13 A. 14 15 1 6 Q. 1 7 A. 18 19 2 0 Q. 2 1 A. 2 2 Q. 23 Who all was located in that lab and assisted you in doing that work in the '60s? MR. COX: Object to the form. I can't remember everyone's name. It seems like there were maybe a dozen, fifteen people. In the lab there inside the plant? Yes . Were they under your supervision, or did you work under the supervision of somebody else? Both cases. They were under my supervision, and I was under someone else's supervision. Who was it that supervised you? In the beginning it was Mr. Fuhrmeister. And after Mr. Fuhrmeister I don't remember the guy's name. Another person? Another person. And were they the chief chemist? Is that what they were called? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017497 9 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 A. 12 Q 13 A . 14 Q 15 16 A. 17 18 19 2 0 Q. 21 22 2 3 A. No. They were department heads. And what was your title during the time frame y'all were doing the testing? At that point in time I was probably the chief chemist. Did y'all do soil tests? I don't remember any. Did you do sediment tests in the creeks or tributaries leading away from the plant? Not that I remembe r. Well, what actually did you test, then? I don 11t r emembe r. But you do remembe r doing tests off the plant site - - I remember -- It seems as though there were some tests done in the plant lab immediately prior to setting up the off-site laboratory. Well, y'all had the capability then to analyze samples that were taken off the plant site in the plant lab, didn't you? There was -- When you say plant lab. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017498 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 A. 6 7 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 1 3 A. 14 15 1 6 Q. 17 18 A. 19 Q 20 A. 21 Q 22 23 what do you mean? The one inside - MR. COX: The one inside the gate of the plant. Not really. That is the reason one was set up off-site with different type of equipment. . Is it your testimony here today that you all during the time you were there never had that capability? You left in '72. And what we are talking about now is in the early '60s -- I mean, in the '60s. The capability to do environmental analysis was installed off-site on Wilmer in the late '60s. And it is your testimony that was never installed or -- No . I said it was installed. I ' m talking about inside the plant. No . So if Mr. Scott Tucker says you all had the capability t o do that analysis. would you agree o r disagree with him? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017499 11 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 1 8 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 12 A. 13 14 15 16 1 7 Q. 1 8 A. 1 9 Q. 20 21 A. 2 2 Q. 23 Who is Scott Tucker? Scott Tucker is a gentleman that was involved or employed by Monsanto. State your question again. I'm saying if he said you had the capability to analyze for PCBs there inside the plant lab in the time we are talking about, late '60s, early '70s, would you agree or disagree with him? I would tend to disagree with him. Why is that? The reason for establishing the off-site laboratory was to bring electron capture detection gas chromatography to the Anniston area to do environmental s amp1e s. When was thatbrought there? Late '60s. They had the capability to do the testing? They did, didn't they? Yes . Now, Mr. Miller, this capability was something that was -- had been around REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017500 12 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 A. 6 7 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 12 A. 1 3 Q. 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 A. 2 3 Q. for some time, had it not? No . Which part of it do you say had not been around, gas chromatographs - Gas chromatography had been around for some time, but electron capture detection was fairly new. It predated the '60s, didn't it? I don't know. Well, were you familiar with the testing that was done for DDT? No . To your knowledge was Monsanto? Not to my knowledge. Is it your testimony here today that based on your experience with Monsanto that they had no knowledge of the testing that was done to determine whether or not DDT was present environmentally? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't know what Monsanto knew. Well, based on your knowledge. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017501 13 1 A. 2 3 Q. 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 13 1 4 A. 15 16 1 7 Q. 18 1 9 A. 2 0 Q. 21 22 23 I do know where the lead lines for analyzing for PCBs came from. From where? From ghost peaks that were reported in DDT analysis. I guess what I'm asking is, did Monsanto make DDT? Not to my knowledge. Were they familiar with how to test for it prior to the late '60s, early '70s? I don't know. Who told you those ghost peaks showed up in the DDT? I don'tremember specifically who told me. It was probably someone from research. When you say research, do you mean research for Monsanto? Yes . Is it not a fact, Mr. Miller, that some of your colleagues and perhaps even you were sent to St. Louis to determine how to test for --test environmental REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017502 1 2 3 4 A. 5 6 7 Q. 8 9 10 11 12 A. 13 Q. 14 1 5 A. 16 17 18 1 9 Q. 20 21 22 23 samples to determine the presence of PCBs ? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't remember having been sent to St. Louis for that purpose. However, I don't know if other people were sent. If Mr. Tucker says there was some training of people from the Anniston plant that took place during this time frame, is there any reason you would have to agree or disagree with him? I have no reason to disagree with him. So you are saying it could have happened? Uh-huh, yes. MR. COX: You need to answer yes or no . THE WITNESS :Yes . Now,in our last deposition or when we talked about this matter you indicated to me that -- in the course of your deposition that there were some people from Japan who came over. Do you recall REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017503 15 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 1 2 A. 13 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 A. 18 Q 19 A. 20 Q 21 22 2 3 A. that testimony? Yes. Okay. And do you recalltelling me that you thought they came over for purposes of studying or learning how to develop a product at that time? MR. COX: Object to the form. Yes . Were y'all goinginto business inJapan? Is that what you understood y'all were doing? I had nounderstanding of what was going on in Japan. Okay. You don't remember what was going on and don't have any recollection of what was occurring in Japan? No . I have no 2 iction. Do you remember a Mr . R. H. Munch? Yes, sir. Do you remember doing any work for Mr. Munch in connection with the Japanese project? Not specifically. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017504 16 1 Q 2 A. 3 Q 4 A. 5 Q 6 A. 7 Q 8 9 10 11 Q 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 Q. 18 1 9 A. 20 21 2 2 Q. 23 Sir? Not specifically. Do you know a Mr. J. T . Bell? Yes. What are terphenyls? Four benzine rings linked. Is that polychlorinated biphenyls or a form of something y'all made there that have PCBs in it? (Discussion held off record. You were telling me then that you didn' know what was done -- MR. COX: I think you were asking about terphenyls. I think there was a question pending, if you want to read it back. About terphenyls, what do you know about that? Terphenyl is a homolog of the biphenyl family,biphenyl having tworings, terphenyl having four. Didn't y'all have the capability to determine -- or test that particular REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017505 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 1 0 A. 11 12 13 1 4 Q. 1 5 A. 16 17 18 1 9 Q. 20 21 22 2 3 A. product when you were there? Terphenyls? Yes. Yes. And of course you have already indicated earlier you had the capability to test polychlorinated biphenyls, didn't you? Uh-huh, that's correct. What was it you used to do that? There were numerous pieces of equipment, the majority of which were quality control pieces of equipment, to test chlorinated biphenyl. You had a gas chromatograph, didn't you? We had a gas chromatograph that I believe was equipped with either thermal conductivity or flame ionization detection. And you indicate that you don't remember or recall what you were doing -- or they were doing with the Japanese folks; is that correct? The Japanese people showed up to receive REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017506 18 1 2 3 4 Q. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 A. 14 1 5 A. 1 6 Q. 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 2 1 A. 2 2 Q. 23 training, and I don't know what the arrangement with the Japanese was beyond that. Okay. Let me show you a series of letters here, and I can have them marked. The first one, this is an October 2nd, 1969, letter and is' sent to Mr. P. G. Benignus. Up at the top there is a listing of G. W. Miller. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number One was marked for identification.) Uh-huh (indicating yes.) MR. COX: Say yes. Yes. That would be you, wouldit not? That's me. Does that refresh your recollection about the situation as far as the work that you did? Yes, this refreshes my memory. Had the Japanesebeenover here before Plaintiffs' Exhibit One was sent from REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017507 19 1 2 3 A. 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 10 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 A. 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 1 1 Q. 18 19 2 0 A. 2 1 Q. 22 2 3 A. Tokyo to Mr. Benignus on October 2nd of '69? I don't remember exactly, but I would guess they had been here prior to that. So they were over here to do what, to learn how to manufacture PCBs or that particular - The thing I remember them in particular being here for was how to manufacture biphenyl. How to manufacture biphenyl? Yes. Is 1242 a biphenyl? It is a chlorinated biphenyl, yes. So it is PCBs? Yes, sir. So what they came over here to do is to -- apparently from this letter, they were making 1242 in Japan? It would imply that they are. That would be in conjunction with you all, with Monsanto? Apparently it is Mitsubishi Monsanto REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017508 20 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 A. 6 7 Q. 8 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Chemical Company on the letterhead. This is after y1 all started this environmental testing here in the lab in Anniston, correct? As I remember the time frame, this would have been very near or after. So basically what Monsanto was doing was expanding into Japan; is that correct? MR. COX: Object to the form. That is what it would appear to be, yes. And you in fact tested this material, did you not? It says it was mailed to my attention at Anniston for testing. You tested it, did you not? I don't remember. Okay. Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit Two and ask you to take a look at that. Do you remember sending that letter? (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Two was marked for identification.) REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017509 21 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 10 1 1 A. 12 13 1 4 Q. 15 16 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 2 1 A. 22 23 No, I don't, but obviously I did. And who is that letter to, Plaintiffs' Exhibit Two ? It is to R. H. Munch. And who is Mr. Munch? Mr. Munch was in the Monsanto research department in St. Louis. What is this dielectricconstant that you are concerned about or what you express some concern about? I don't remember what the dielectric constant was. It was one of the test results. Both of those are Monsanto documents, are they not, internal documents from Monsanto? Yes. What were you finding out in these environmental tests you were doing at that time, Mr. Miller? I don't remember any specific information that I found out from the environmental testing other than there REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017510 22 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 1 5 A. 1 6 Q. 17 1 8 A. 19 20 2 1 Q. 22 23 was product getting out of the plant. Why is it y'all were concerned about the product getting out of the plant? We had received direction from up the chain of command to address the issue. And what was the issue? Product getting out of the plant. And that is all you had been told? The best I remember that's all I had been told. Well, had you been told anything about any studies that had been done to indicate it was persistent in the environment ? That was presumptive. Tell me what you mean by that was pr e sump tive. Based on the facts, it remained undegraded in the DDT analysis. That is where it was discovered. Didn't your company know that this was a persistent product or pretty stable product ? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMON0017511 23 1 A. 2 3 Q 4 5 6 A. 7 8 Q 9 10 1 1 A. 12 Q. 13 1 4 A. 15 1 6 Q. 17 18 19 2 0 A. 2 1 Q. 22 2 3 A. Yes. They knew it was a ve ry stable p ro du c t . And they knew that long before the '60s d i dn 't they? MR. COX: Object t o the form. The inherent stability o f the c omp ound was known probably in the '30s and '40s Which would mean that i t would resist degradation, would it not ? MR. COX: Object t o the form. It was a very stable compound. Which means it would resist degradation, does it not? That is what the conclusion would be, yes. And that was known in the same time frame you just mentioned, in the '30s and '40s? MR. COX: Object to the form. It was known early on, yes. Now, these test results were ultimately sent on to Japan, weren't they? These results you referred to in Exhibit REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE INC . HARTOLDMON0017512 1 2 Q. 3 A. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Q. 10 11 1 2 A. 13 Q. 14 15 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 2 0 A. 2 1 Q. 22 23 Two ? Yes. I presume they were. MR. STEWART: Mark that if you would. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Three was marked for identification.) You are listed on Plaintiffs' Exhibit Three as a recipient of Plaintiffs' Exhibit Three, are you not? Correct. And in that, that is a letter to a Mr. T. Katayama, I think is the way you pronounce his name, from Mr. Munch? Correct. On the basis of his tests -- or your tests, I assume, he sent this letter; is that correct? That appears to be the case, yes. In the first paragraph of the letter he says, "Standard Specification Test Data," the first sentence, "and gas REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMON0017513 25 1 2 3 4 5 6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q 17 18 A 19 Q 20 A 21 Q 22 23 Q chromatographic analyses for the three samples of your Aroclor 1242 sent here for test purposes have been obtained." That gas chromatograph was in your lab there in Anniston, wasn't it? There was one in Anniston, yes. MR. COX: He is talking specifically about gas chromatographic testing analyses reported in this letter, I think. Donald, aren't you? MR. STEWART: I'm just asking him the questions, if you don't , mind. And the gas chromatograph you had available to you, did you not - Yes. -- in Anniston - Yes. -- to perform the test - MR. COX: Object to the form. -- that is referred to in Mr. Munch's REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC HARTOLDMON0017514 1 2 A. 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 A. 9 10 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 A . 1 5 Q. 16 A. 17 18 19 2 0 Q. 2 1 A. 22 23 letter? There was a chromatograph in Anniston that could have performed thetable two analyses in the letter we are discussing. Are you telling me you did not perform those tests in Anniston? I'm telling you I don't know where those tests were performed. It could very well have been performed there. Go back to Plaintiffs' Exhibit Two and tell us if the results indicated that you actually did that. No . Sir? No . MR. COX: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that, Donald. I will keep my mouth shut. What kind of tests did you do? It would appear that the tests attached to Plaintiffs' Exhibit Two were done in Anniston. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMON0017515 27 1 Q 2 A. 3 Q4 5 A. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 Q. 2 2 A. 23 What kind of tests were they? Routine quality control test p ro c e dure s What did you use to test that ? What kind of instruments did you use? The data attached to Exhibit Two would have used -- color comparative, an acid titration; specific gravity determined by barometer; refractive index with a refractometer; chlorides via titration; HST by titration; pour point by pour point apparatus; moisture with a Karl Fischer titration; resistivity, dielectric, and power factor determined with electrical testing equipment set; standard distillation with a distillation apparatus. And I don't remember the thermal chemical tests or the Monsanto stability. Those tests were obviously performed in Anniston on Exhibit Two. All right. Which I believe are reflected in Exhibit Three under table one. The table two in REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMON0017516 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q. 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 16 17 1 8 Q. 1 9 A. 2 0 Q. 21 2 2 A. 2 3 Q. Exhibit Three discusses isomer concentrations or homolog concentrations which came from gas chromatography and chromatographic analyses, which could have been produced in Anniston or could have been produced in research, and I can't - - Does it indicate where it was produced? There is no indication to me as to where it was produced. Does the first letter indicate it was sent to you for analysis? Yes, sir. Samples were sent to me for analysis. Okay. Would you assume that you did those? MR. COX: Object to the form. And by those, I mean chromatograph. I don't know whether I did them or not. You had the capability to do it, did you not? Yes . Now, let me show you two letters and ask REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMON0017517 29 1 2 3 4 5 A. 6 7 8 9 Q. 1 0 A. 11 12 Q. 1 3 A. 14 Q. 15 16 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 A. you -- Well, I will hold that. Sorry. What was your position with the company in 1970? Were you still in the lab? I don't remember exactly when I moved out of the lab, but I think in '70 I did move out of the lab and into production supervision. And what was your position there? Production supervision, Aroclor department. Running the Aroclor department? Yes. And in that capacity did you work with a T. E. Lackey or a J. E. Mundy? Yes . In the capacity you had in the chemistry department and also in the supervision of production of Aroclors at the plant, did you participate on a regular basis in work to stop Aroclor losses at the Anniston plant? I was involved with it, yes. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMON0017518 30 1 Q. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 A. 11 1 2 Q. 13 14 15 16 1 7 A. 18 19 20 2 1 Q. 22 23 Now, you have indicated previously that you all were doing environmental testing before that time. You were also aware, were you not, Mr. Miller-, of the losses or the effort to stop the losses at the Anniston plant before 1970? Were you not? Do you recall having meetings before then to stop the losses at the Anniston site? I don't recall meetings, but I'm sure we did . I was asking you earlier why this was taking place, and I don't believe you gave me an answer. I want to know if you recall why it was taking place. MR. COX: Object to the form. There was a corporate effort underway to reduce or curtail discharges of polychlorinated biphenyl from the Anniston facility. Why exactly, though, were y'all doing that? MR. COX: Object to the form. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMON0017519 31 1 A. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q. 8 9 1 0 A. 11 1 2 Q. 13 14 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 1 9 A. 20 21 2 2 Q. 23 Here again, I can only speculate. One, it was a directive from higher up in the corporate structure; and two, the associations that had been previously made with PCBs being found in DDT analysis, analytical procedures. Wereyou not concerned about the effect it would have on the environment? MR. COX: Object to the form. Obviously they were concerned about the effect on the environment. When you say they, who are you referring to? Monsanto management. And did they communicate that to you in any way, either through the plant manager or through people from St. Louis telling you about that? It was communicated to the plant personnel through directives to reduce and control emissions of PCBs. And that was because of environmental concerns? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017520 32 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 A. 2 3 Q. Yes. Was not one of those environmental concerns that PCBs had a persistence and did not biodegrade? MR. COX: Object to the form. I would assume that to be the case, yes, sir. That is what you referred to earlier; is that right? That's correct. When you talkedabout the stability of the product? Correct. Let me show you what we will mark as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Four and ask you to take a look at that, and I want to ask you some questions about it. Have you had an opportunity to look at that? (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Four was marked for identification.) I'm about done with it. Okay. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017521 33 1 A. 2 Q 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A. 12 13 Q 14 A . 15 Q16 17 A. 18 Q 19 20 A. 21 Q22 23 A. Okay . Let me ask you a question. You had previously indicated -- about Exhibit Two, you previously indicated that the electron capture equipment was located in the deal off the plant site. This letter says -- Plaintiffs' Exhibit Four, which is a May 12, '69, letter to Paul Hodges from W. T. Taffee -- By the way, who is Mr. Taffee? Mr. Taffee was a supervisor in the technical services area of the plant. Of the Anniston plant? Yes. And this is a Monsanto document, isn't it ? Yes. And your name is listed, G. W. Miller, as one of the recipients? Yes. Were you in the lab at that time, by the way, in '69? I don't remember exactly where I was in REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017522 34 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 1 0 Q. 1 1 A. 12 13 1 4 Q. 15 16 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 21 22 23 '69. I could have been. You were familiar with what the lab had, weren't you, by way of equipment? Yes, sir. This says, according to Mr. Taffee, electron capture equipment exists at Anniston. That is in the plant, isn't it ? MR. COX: Object to the form. That's in the third paragraph down. Yes. I read that. It specifically states that electron capture equipment was in Anniston. It says they are reshuffling the Anniston laboratory plant, in the sentence just above that, doesn't it? Yes, sir. Now, what is low color Aroclor 5460 sample preparation? What is that? In that sentence just above the one I read to you about the electron capture equipment being in existence in Anniston, it says, "Items two through REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017523 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 9 Q 10 11 12 A. 13 Q 14 15 16 A. 17 18 Q 19 20 21 A. 22 23 four require reshuffling of the Anniston laboratory plans and will be discussed with W. A. Kuhn and J. E. Smith, since low color Aroclor 5460 sample preparation is affected." What is t hat ? I don't remember. I have no idea. I don't remember. Would that be a quality test for a certain product, 5460? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't know what that means. It is not an environmental test, is it, that he is referring to there, is it? MR. COX: Object to the form. It doesn't appear to be, but I don't remembe r. Would it have something to do with production, Mr. Miller? MR. COX: Object to the form. I can only read you what it says, and you have read it as well as I have. It says reshuffling laboratory plans will REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017524 36 1 2 3 Q 4 5 A. 6 Q7 8 9 A. 10 Q 11 A. 12 Q 13 14 15 A. 16 Q 17 18 A. 19 20 21 22 Q 23 interfere with or affect low color Aroclor 5460 sample preparation. Which you have indicated doesn't sound like an environmental test? That's correct. So that is a test that might be applicable to the quality of the product, or is it? That would appear to be the case. What is 5460? Chlorinated terphenyl. Well, y'all were looking at equipment at that time in that particular area for analysis of terphenyl, were you not? Not to my knowledge. Did that come later? Would that have come later perhaps? Perhaps. (Plaintiffs' Exhibits Numbers Five and Six were marked for identification.) Take a look at Five and Six and just tell me very simply put if Mr. Bell is REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017525 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 13 14 A. 15 16 1 7 Q. 1 8 A. 1 9 Q. 20 21 22 23 asking for equipment that would be used for surveillance of polychlorinated terphenyls in plant effluents to Mr. E. S. Tucker. The first letter appears to be a letter dated March 4, 1971, from Mr. Bell to Mr. Tucker? That's correct. The next letter appears to be a letter back to Mr. Bell from Mr. Tucker. This says polychlorinated terphenyls. Would that indicated PCBs are in those products? MR. COX: Object to the form. I can't say that PCBs would be in them or not be in them because they are really PCTs. Were they toxic substances? I have no idea. But you were looking for some - Mr. Bell was apparently looking for some kind of equipment, was he not, to find out if they were in the effluent leaving the plant site? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017526 38 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 1 3 A. 14 Q. 1 5 A. 16 17 1 8 Q. 19 2 0 A. 21 2 2 Q. 23 That is obvious from the letter. But that is not what is being discussed in Plaintiffs' Exhibit Four, is it, in that paragraph of low color Aroclor 5460 sample preparation? No. This predates Exhibits Five and Six by several years. So what you are actually talking about here is quality -- In Exhibit Four you are talking about a quality check, and in the other you are talking about trying to find it in the effluent? I don't think that is quite correct. Well, tell what you - The reference to equipment in Exhibit Four saying the electron capture equipment exists in Anniston -- No. I'm talking about the low color Aroclor 5460 sample preparation. I have no idea how they are related or if they are related. Now, there is a plan set out here in Exhibit Four, and it said obtain gross REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017527 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 15 1 6 A. 17 1 8 Q. 1 9 A. 2 0 Q. 21 22 2 3 A. samples of Snow Creek for visual checks to determine presence of discrete non-aqueous liquid phase in pools or other stream bottom areas. In plain and simple terms -- and that was to be started on 5-1-69 and concluded by 7-1-69. They were actually looking for PCBs which they could see with the naked eye ? Yes . Now, Mr. Miller, you all were fully aware of the fact that PCBs that could beseen with the naked eye were leaving the plant for some years, the waste? MR. COX: Object to the form. PCBs had been discharged from the plant for some time, yes. Manyyears before '69? Yes . Can you tell us how many you all had been aware of that? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't have any idea. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017528 40 1 Q. 2 3 A. 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 A . 1 7 Q. 18 19 2 0 A. 2 1 Q. 22 23 You had been aware of it, obviously, since you had been there, had you not? I'm sure I became aware of it shortly after I went to work at Monsanto. And that was leaving the plant site in the discharge points? MR. COX: Object to the form. Yes . And getting in the creeks and getting in the streams? MR. COX: Object to the form. Yes . And this says that they are also doing some tests in Snow Creek. Is that right ? Yes, sir. In addition to that, they have obtained samples of mud and water and also Choccolocco Creek; is that right? That's what the document says. Now, you all had been aware of the fact that Snow Creek went into Choccolocco Creek for years, hadn't you? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017529 41 1 A. 2 3 Q. 4 5 A. 6 Q. 7 8 9 10 1 1 A. 1 2 Q. 13 14 15 16 17 18 A. 19 Q 20 21 A. 22 Q 23 For all eternity as far as I know it has gone into it. And thePCBs have; isn't that correct? MR. COX: Object to the form. That's correct. And then they ask on page two for mud and water samples. Now, watersamples would be an aqueous phase test; is that MR. COX: Object to the form. Yes. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen what that is? I mean, how is that different from the tests you would make in sediment or mud? Is it performed with the same instrumentation, I guess is what I'm asking? Yes. So a gas chromatograph and an electron capture device? At that point in time, yes. Now, there are no test results here that are attached, but I would assume -- Are REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017530 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 9 Q. 10 11 12 A. 13 14 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 A. 21 Q 22 23 you familiar and does this refresh your recollection that there was a finding that PCBs were leaving in the aqueous phase, leaving the plant site in aqueous phase? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't remember what the results of this were. Do you remember if there were substantial levels of PCBs found in the sediment ? I remember that there were a considerable amount of PCBs leaving the plant. On a regular basis? MR. COX: Object to the form. As far as I remember. What about in the atmosphere, in the air? Don't know o f any information. Now, there is a -- On page two, at the bottom of the page of Plaintiffs' Exhibit Four, there is "Investigate the REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017531 43 1 2 3 A. 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 10 1 1 Q. 12 A. 1 3 Q. 14 1 5 A. 1 6 Q. 17 18 1 9 A. 2 0 Q. 2 1 A. 2 2 Q. 23 means of disposal of Aroclor scrap." What is Aroclor scrap? I would presume that Mr. Taffee was referring to still bottoms. Could it also be a batch that just went bad? MR. COX: Object to the form. The best I remember, there were methods to recover bad batches and convert them into goodbatches. What were those? Rework the product. If you couldn't rework the product, what happened to it? I don't remember. Is there a possibility that it was placed in the landfill? MR. COX: Object to the form. Could have been. Could have been? Could have been. Do you recall during the time you were there in '71 or '72receiving some scrap REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017532 44 1 2 3A 4Q 5 6 7A 8 9 10 Q 11 A 12 Q 13 A 14 15 Q 16 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 Q 21 22 A 23 Q Aroclor from facilities other than Annis t on? No . Do you know whether or not you all had an incinerator at this plant at the time you were there? I don't remember any incineration, associated with the Aroclor facility. There was an incinerator. Where was that? In the parathion department. What was that used for? The best I remember, it was waste sulfur incineration. Can you tell me if you recall what manufacturer made did particular - Yes. No, I have no idea. Have you ever heard of a company called John Zink? Yes. And why is it that that company's name REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017533 1 2 A. 3 4 5 Q 6 A. 7 Q 8 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 1 9 A. 20 21 22 2 3 Q. rings a bell? John Zink has been in business for years making various and sundry production equipment. Would an incineratoi: be one of those? I don't know. Do you know whether or not the incinerator that was used in the parathion department was made by Zink? I don 1t know. Did y1 all have an incinerator that you used at the dump? Not that I know of. Now, was there any Niran production going on at the plant at this time? Yes. Was there a boiler involved in the Niran production? There is -- If my memory serves me, there was a main steam boiler that supplied plant steam to the entire plant . Was there some type of process involving REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017534 46 1 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 12 13 1 4 A. 15 1 6 Q. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 burning or ing a portion of the byproduct that was produced on the Nir an ? Not to my knowledge. What kind of fuel did you all use to operate in your productionprocess? Natural gas. Did you everuseanything else? They had some standby propane supply. How did y'all get rid of this waste matter that was coming off the manufacturing processes or Aroclor? How did y'all get rid of those? If memory serves, they were drummed and placed in the plant landfill. Take a look atpage two,and it indicates where some ofthese were c oming from. MR. COX: I'm sorry. Are you talking about paragraph five? MR. STEWART: Just let him take a look at it, if you don't mind. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017535 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 10 11 A. 12 1 3 Q. 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 1 7 A. 18 1 9 Q. 20 21 2 2 A. 2 3 Q. MR. COX: Okay. Okay. Now,which of these, getting into paragraph five, would be liquid and which would be solid? Which would be a liquid and which would be a solid? Yes. Aroclor, when it would be leaving the plant site -- You can go to the next page if you want to. A substantial amount of it I know was associated with HC1 off-gassing. Would be liquid? Yeah. When you say substantial, what are you talking about? One of the substantial sources of PCB leaving the process. And this indicates youall were to recover that and bury it in the landfill? That is what it implies. And that would be liquid; is that REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017536 48 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 1 0 A. 11 1 2 Q. 13 14 15 16 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 2 1 A. 2 2 Q. 23 correct? No question? It would be liquid. And do you recall that being buried as is said, as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Four indicates, in the landfill? I don't recall it specifically. But you assume that it would have been if Mr. Taffee said it was to be? MR. COX: Object to the form. I would assume that it was done as it was outlined in this correspondence. And does the catch tank and membrane type coalescer to be installed to remove organics from the absorbed HCl -- Are those the areas you are talking about on paragraph one on page - Yes . Now, it talks about aTherminol system that was drained. The Aroclor scrap would be liquid, wouldn't it? Yes, or semisolid. Do you know of any place to put that on the plant site other than in the REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE INC . HARTOLDMONO017537 49 1 2 A. 3 4 Q 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A . 13 Q 14 15 A. 16 Q 17 18 19 20 A. 21 Q 22 23 landfill? It is my understanding that is where it went, to the landfill. Let me show you what we will mark as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Seven. Now, this is adocument dated July 21st, 1970. And it's -- your name is at the top on the right-hand side, G. W. Miller? (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Seven was marked for identification.) That's correct. It shows a continuation of the -- This is a Monsanto document, is it not? Yes. This talks about Aroclor losses during the time frame -- about the same time frame we are talking about. Y'all were reporting some losses at that time? Yes. And the Aroclor concentrations are listed on the pages that follow; is that correct ? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017538 50 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 A. 1 8 Q. 1 9 A. 20 2 1 Q. 22 2 3 A. Yes. It also indicates Aroclor concentrations in mud and water on Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek on the last page. Have you had a chance to look at that document ? Yes . Now, this indicates on page -- the first page of the document, it talks about future work, and it -- under that paragraph it says, under or just past number three, sample and analyze ambient air and tank vents for Aroclor content. You all had the capability to do that at that time, didn't you? MR. COX: Object to the form. Not to my knowledge. Was that ever done? If it was, I don't know anything about it . Now, this came from -- Is it E. G. Wright ? I presume. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017539 51 1 Q. 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 14 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 1 8 A. 19 20 21 22 23 Is that Bunky Wright? Yes . What was his position at the time? Best I remember, he was on a task force to address this specific issue. The PCB losses from the plant? Yes, sir. Where would PCBs be lost to the air off the manufacturing process? To be honest, I don't know. You do not know? You don't know what they would be? Gasses fromchlorination were scrubbed down at the HC1 facility. It would leave there? I'm sorry? It would leave there through the air? There is a chance that some could leave there. The distillation process was under reduced pressure, and as a result anything that came off the still would have been scrubbed down into the water REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017540 52 1 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 11 12 Q. 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 18 A. 1 9 Q. 20 21 2 2 A. 2 3 Q. there. Probably the biggest loss to the atmosphere would be during the drumming operations or tank car filling operations. Where were the Montars or -- is that the same as still bottoms? Montars are still bottoms. Where were they stored? They were disposed of at the plant landfill. As far as being stored, I don't remember specifically storing any. Where were they dumped up? Immediately below the stills. Now, in this same time frame that we are talking about, when you say the landfill, is that the landfill that now would be south of 202? Yes. Were there tributaries leading away from that landfill, ditches, water? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't know. I assume there were. And to your knowledge, did that in fact REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017541 1 2 3 A. 4 Q 5 A. 6 7 Q. 8 9 1 0 A. 11 1 2 Q. 13 1 4 A. 15 1 6 Q. 1 7 A. 18 1 9 Q. 2 0 A. 21 22 23 those tributaries lead into Snow Creek? It is in the Snow Creek range area. So your answer would be yes? 11 would appear to be the case . They were within the Snow Creek area. Now, were there PCB materials buried above the landfill on Coldwater Mountain? I don't know. I remember only one 1andfill site. Which would be at the base of Coldwater Mountain? As best I remember, it would be on the current north side of Highway 202. On the north side of 202? The plant side. Isn't that the north side? Yes . I don't remember exactly. I know it was across old Highway 202 from the plant and slightly to the right of where the main office building of the plant sits. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017542 54 1 2 3 Q. 4 A. 5 6 7 8 9 Q. 10 11 A. 1 2 Q. 13 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 A. 1 8 Q. 19 20 2 1 A. 2 2 Q. 23 How far up there it was, I don't remembe r. And is that where the PCBs were buried? Yes. MR. STEWART: Mark that, please. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Eight was marked for identification. ) This is a letter from Mr. Hodges to a Toby Bell of Anniston? Yes. And you are listed on there as G. Miller. It is dated September 18, 1970? That'scorrect. Mr. Miller, do you recall receiving this letter? No . It indicates that there had been a poor trend in that there had been an increase in the losses from the plant site? That what itsays, yes. Then it goes on and says, "From the legal standpoint there is extreme REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017543 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A . 14 15 Q 16 17 18 A. 19 Q 20 21 A. 22 Q 23 A. reluctance to report even the relatively low emission figures because the information could be subpoenaed and used against us in legal actions. Obviously having to report these gross losses multiples enormously our problems because the figure would appear to indicate lack of control." Do you recall discussing that with either Mr. Bell or Mr. Hosmer or Mr. Jessee or Mr. Landwehr or Mr. Corder? I don't remember discussing it with anybody. Do you remember reporting the losses from the plant in anything other than the gross figures? I didn't report any of the losses. Do you remember anybody from Monsanto doing that? You mean falsifying data? Yes. Not to my knowledge. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017544 56 1 Q. 2 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 12 13 A . 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 1 8 A. 1 9 Q. 20 21 22 23 How else would you report losses from the plant other than in gross numbers? I have no idea. Well, if you lost a certain amount on the scrubber and a certain amount from the sewer and a certain amount from your discharge point and a certain amount from the landfill, would you just total it up ? One would think. That is what one would think they would do ? Yes. Do you know what he means, Mr. Hodges meant, Mr. Miller, and did you discuss it, about the legal actions that that might cause? Didn't discuss any legal actions. Okay. He says in the next paragraph there is a possibility that sampling practices are responsible for wide variations, and you might try duplicate effluent samplers in this area. Do you REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017545 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 A. 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 17 18 1 9 Q. 2 0 A. 21 22 2 3 Q. know if any of that was done? No . He says, "Are there any practices in the manufacturing area which might result in the peak losses?" Do you know if there was any effort made to explain the increase of losses by saying something happened in the manufacturing to Mr. Crockett? Not to my knowledge. Did you know who Mr. Crockett was? Mr. Crockett? Yes . It is a familiar name. Sir? Are you talking about Crockett with AWIC? I think that is what he used to be . How did you know Mr. Crockett? I think I met Mr. Crockett through the Alabama Academy of Arts and Sciences or some professional organization. Okay. And did you ever attend a meeting REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017546 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 9 Q10 11 A. 1 2 Q. 1 3 A. 14 15 16 1 7 Q. 1 8 A. 19 2 0 Q. 21 2 2 A. 2 3 Q. with him with anybody from Monsanto? Yes. And when did that take place? I don't remember, but I'm sure you have it in your hand. Sir? I don't remember, but I'm sure you have it in your hand. Well, I might surprise you. I just wonder if you remembe r or recall that It was in the '60s, as best I remember What was the purpose of that meeting? To inform the Water Improvement Commission on information that Monsanto knew about the PCB issue at that point in time. Who all was involved in that meeting? I remember going myself. I don't remember who else went with me. And why is it that you set that meeting up? Did you set it up? Most likely. Who asked you to do that? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017547 59 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 6 7 Q. 8 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 1 5 A. 1 6 Q. 1 7 A. 18 19 2 0 Q. 21 22 2 3 A. Probably Mr. Fuhrmeister. Why is it that he asked you to go talk to Mr. Crockett? Monsanto wanted to bring AWIC on board with information that we had available at that time. And what information did you impart to Mr. Crockett at that time? That PCBs were being discharged from the plant facility. And that was in the '60s, I believe you said? Yeah. Was it early '60s? It was late '60s. What else did you tell him? Itseems like we talked about the persistence of PCBs, by them being discovered in DDT analytical procedures. Now, you already knew, as you indicated earlier, about the persistence of PCBs? MR. COX: Object to the form. Yes . REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017548 60 1 Q. 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 10 11 1 2 Q. 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 1 5 A. 16 1 7 Q. 18 1 9 A. 2 0 Q. 2 1 A. 2 2 Q. 23 And you already knew, as you indicated earlier, that they had been discharged from the plant? That 1 s correct . But you chose in '66 to go see him -- or late '60s; is that right? MR. COX: Object to the form. I was directed to go and tell him, probably within the first month of my employment -- or year, excuse me, year of employment. All right. Anything else you told him? I don't remember. Did you meet with him again after that? I only remember meeting with him one time. Who else met with him after that if you remember ? I don't remember. Where did the meeting take place? I think it was in Montgomery. Were you aware at the time of the nature of the work that AWIC was doing? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017549 61 1 2 A. 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 9 10 A. 1 1 Q. 12 A. 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 17 1 8 A. 19 2 0 Q. 21 22 23 MR. COX: Object to the form. At that point in time, here again, as I remember, AWIC was a brand new state entity, and I was not particularly aware of any work they were doing. Were you aware of any law or regulation that had been passed before AWIC that required you to report discharges from your plant? No . Discharges that might enter a stream? No . And no one from Monsanto had informed you about any laws or regulations that Alabama had on the books that would have required you to say anything about what was leaving the plant site? No. I don't remember any conversation about discharge regulations. Did anybody from Monsanto ever tell you anything at all about what their own industry had to say about the standards that were to be followed in disposing of REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017550 1 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 9 Q. 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 A. 16 1 7 Q. 18 1 9 A. 20 2 1 Q. 22 23 waste from the manufacturing process such as PCB s ? MR. COX: Object to the form. No . Did they tell you about any federal statutes that covered their operation? I don't remember any conversation about any statutes. And did they tell you anything at all at Monsanto about their own internal requirements about what effect or how they should treat either the environment or their neighbors as far as discharges are concerned? I don't remember any conversation about it . And you didn't have any with anybody from St. Louis? I don't remember any conversations about it . Either with anybody from St. Louis connected with Monsanto or from a plant manager in Anniston? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017551 1 A. 2 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 9 A. 10 1 1 Q. 12 13 14 1 5 A. 16 17 18 Q 19 A. 20 Q 21 A. 22 Q 23 A. The first conversations I remember about it were when the PCB issue came upon the table. And if I remember correctly, at that point in time there still were no regulations in place about discharges. Tell me if you would if you recall anybody talking specifically about what the company policy was. I don't remember any specific company policy. Do you remember anything about hogs that might have been purchased or found on the 1andfill? MR. COX: Object to the form. Do I remember anything about hogs? I heard a story. That is all I know about hogs . From whom? I'm sorry? From whom? I don't remember who told me Was it a Monsanto emp1oye e ? Yes. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017552 64 1 Q. 2 A. 3 4 Q. 5 A. 6 7 8 Q. 9 A. 1 0 Q. 11 A. 1 2 Q. 13 1 4 A. 1 5 Q. 16 17 18 A. 1 9 Q. 20 21 2 2 A. 23 What was the substance of that story? There were some hogs that had been purchased and slaughtered. Why? I think to prevent anybody from eating them because they had supposedly been exposed to PCB runoff. The hogs had? Yes. Do you recall when that took place? No . Would that have been sometime in the late '60s or early '70s? I presume. Did whoever told you tell you how they knew that the hogs had been exposed to PCB runoff? No . Did they tell youwhen they were purchased or wherethey had been raised, rather? In the Snow Creek drainage is all I know . REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017553 65 1 Q. 2 3 A. 4 5 Q 6 7 8 A. 9 Q10 11 12 13 A. 14 15 Q 16 17 18 A. 1 9 Q. 20 21 22 2 3 A. In the Snow Creek drainage or in the drainage that led into Snow Creek? Well, to me they are both the same thing. And were they raised on Monsanto property, on property that was adj acent t o Mons ant o ? I don 1t know. Do you recall at that time anybody informing the people from whom they bought the hogs about why they bought them? I don't know anything about what they were told. Do you recall anybody f rom the c omp any telling the general public about why they bought the hogs? No . Would it be fair to say that to your knowledge no one told the general public? MR. COX: Object to the form. I'm sorry? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017554 66 1 Q. 2 3 4 A. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q 12 13 A. 14 Q 15 16 17 A. 18 Q 19 A. 20 Q21 22 A. 23 Would it be fair to say that based on your knowledge no one told the general publie ? I don ' t know. MR. COX: Can we take a quick break? (A break was taken.) (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Nine was marked for identification.) Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nine. Okay . This refers to a problem that you had. Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nine is to G. W. Miller . That is you, isn't it? Yes. It is dated June 23rd, '71? Yes. This is a document that you recall seeing 7 I don 1 t recall seeing it, but I see it now . REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017555 67 1 Q. 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 6 Q. 7 A. 8 9 Q. 1 0 A. 1 1 Q. 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 1 4 A. 15 1 6 Q. 17 1 8 A. 1 9 Q. 20 2 1 A. 22 23 Does it refresh yourrecollection? Very little. Who is Burns Severson? Burns was an employee at the plant at that time. What was his position? I believe at that point in time Burns was still working in production. What is Montar 10? I don't remember. Is that still bottoms? All Montars were still bottoms. From the PCB process? I don't remember what Monitor 9 or 10 were, if they were PCBs or PCTs. Polychlorinated terphenyls or polychlorinated biphenyls? That's correct. What is the problem they are talking about here in lay terms? It appears to be associated with the discharge line going to the Montar pit having steam leaks associated with that REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017556 68 1 2 3 4 Q. 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 1 1 A. 12 Q. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 A. same line and vapor rising and making a fog as Montars are discharged from the still to the pit. It also talks and coating surrounding areas five to three hundred feet with Montars? That's what it says. And part of that would have been still bottoms from the PCB process? MR. COX: Object to the form. It appears to be, yes. Now, this refers, on page two in paragraph E, to some possibilities for taking care of the problem. The first one is listed on the first page over there. But what I'm interested in is D. It says, "The density of fog increases noticeably the last five minutes of the ten-minute pump-out. This occurs as the line is heated and the discharged Montar 10 is near three hundred eighty-five degrees centigrade," correct? Correct. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017557 69 1 Q. Why was the line heated? 2 A. Here again, I don't know what Montar 10 3 was. But the line had to be heated to 4 keep the Montar 10 from setting up or 5 becoming a solid in the line. 6 Q. And that is what still bottoms of 7 polychlorinated biphenyls would do, 8 isn't it, unless they were heated? 9 A. As I remember, the higher chlorinated of 1 0 homologs are semisolid or solid. 1 1 Q. So in other words to keep these from 1 2 setting up in the line, you had to heat 1 3 the line? 1 4 A. Correct. 1 5 Q. Now, do you know what it would take in 1 6 terms of temperature to incinerate PCBs? 1 7 A. I have no idea. 1 8 Q. Would it be more thanthree hundred 1 9 eighty-five degrees centigrade? 2 0 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. 22 And do you know what happened to Montars or still bottoms from the PCB process if 2 3 , they were heated at less than what it REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017558 1 2 3 A. 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 1 0 Q. 11 12 13 A. 14 1 5 Q. 1 6 A. 1 7 Q. 18 19 2 0 A. 2 1 Q. 22 23 would take to incinerate them, at a temperature less than? Well, you would increase the vapor pressure above the material. And it would become part of the air, be released into the air? MR. COX: Object to the form. There would be increased vapors above the material. And would there not be also some byproduct of the heating at less than w h at it would take to incinerate it? No reason to be suspicious of a bypr oduc t . What about dioxin or dibenzofuran? I have no idea. Aren't PCBs subject to, if they are burned, have as a byproduct dibenzofurans? I have no idea. Now, in ideas from the group, it says incinerate only the following particles, smoke rising from the discharge. There REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017559 71 1 2 3 4 5 A. 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 1 7 A. 18 1 9 Q. 2 0 A. 21 2 2 Q. 2 3 A. is something from Mr. Wright saying I like this one. Where would you have incinerated that? MR. COX: Object to the form. Where would I haveincinerated it? Right. I have no idea. You had indicated earlier that there was an incinerator on the plant site in the phosphorous area? MR. COX: Object to the form. Yes. Would that have been what you would have used and what you would have done it with, maybe pipe it off and incinerate it there? I don't know. It obviously was not done that way. Howdo you know that? There was no connection between the Aroclor department and the incinerator. Where were these Montars buried? They were all buried in the plant REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017560 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 9 1 0 Q. 1 1 A. 12 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 A. 2 1 Q'. 2 2 A. 23 landfill. In number four under E it says reduce fog by passing the discharge Montar 9 stream subsurface into molten Montar 9 and overflow the pond. What are they talking about there? Obviously they are talking about making a subsurface discharge into the Montar 9 pit as opposed to an air discharge. What was Montar 9? I don't remember. One of the Montars. That is all us know. Two there says, "Provide an interim storage, allow to cool and pump to pond at low rate. This should be tested using the Santowax melter to determine if fumes can be made acceptable at any temperature and rate." What is the Santowax melter? I don't remember. Was that used to heat - Obviously to melt Santowax, but I don't remember what it was. REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017561 73 1 Q. 2 A. 3 Q. 4 ,A . 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 1 1 A. 12 13 14 15 Q 16 A. 17 Q 18 A. 19 20 Q21 A. 22 23 Q What was Santowax? Terphenyls, I believe. Something other than PCBs? Yes . But the Montars were still bottoms from quite possibly PCBs? MR. COX: Object to the form. Could be . What were PCBs used for generally to your knowledge? Main uses that I remember are for the electrical industry, transformers, capacitors, some plasticizer applications. Some what? Plasticizer. Applications? Applications. And I think it had s ome uses as a solvent. What was Aroclor 1254 used for? Primarily for electri cal applications. as I remember it. Was it ever used in a plasticizer? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017562 74 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 16 17 A 18 19 Q 20 A. 21 Q 22 A. 23 Q- I don't remember. MR. STEWART: Mark that as Ten, please? (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Ten was marked for identification.) Do you recall receiving a call from Mr. Boyd Cook, who is a field representative for the Maryland Milk Association? No, sir. To your knowledge did anybody other than you make notes on this other than Mr. Bergen and Mr. Kuhn make notes on it ? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't know of anything other than this document that you have given me. That i s not your handwriting, is it? None o f these on here are mine. This i s a Monsanto document, is it not Yes. Who i s Mr. H. S. Bergen? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE INC . HARTOLDMONO017563 75 1 A. 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 6 7 Q. 8 9 10 A. 1 1 Q. 12 1 3 A. 1 4 Q. 15 16 17 18 A. 1 9 Q. 20 21 22 2 3 A. I don't know. This is a letter dated September 19th, 1969, from a Mr. W. A. Kuhn. Who is he? It seems to me like Kuhn was the technical representative from St. Louis in charge of the Anniston facility. That says Aroclor wildlife problem up at the top. Do you know whose handwriting that is? No . And do you whether or not Mr. H. S. Bergen was Howard? I assume he was. Were you familiar enough with Mr. Kuhn's handwriting to know whether or not that is his handwriting at the bottom of the page there? No . Do you recall making the call to Mr. Kuhn and telling him what you had told Mr. Boyd Cook, who was the field representative there? I don't remember anything about this REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017564 1 2 Q. 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 13 14 A. 15 1 6 Q. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 incident. In this inquiry here, Mr. Cook apparently asked if PCBs were used -- what they were used for. And you stated at that time you told him only two, capacitors and heat transfer. Yes. You were familiar, were you not -- You have just previously told us at the time this letter was written, September 19, 1969, that they were used in plasticizers. MR. COX: Object to the form. It says that I supposed it was possible to be used in plasticizers. But youindicated earlier that the use for it was transformers and capacitors and also used as plasticizers? MR. COX: Object to the form. I think his testimony said he wasn't sure before - MR. STEWART: That is not an objection. That is not an REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017565 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q. 13 14 15 1 6 A. 17 1 8 Q. 19 2 0 A. 21 22 2 3 Q. objection, Buddy. That is a speaking objection, and you are trying to tell the witness what to say. MR. COX: I'm just trying to repeat what he said. You got it wrong. MR. STEWART: Just quit it, Buddy. That is all I ask you to do. If you want to make an objection, make it properly. You indicated earlier that you understood that PCBs were used in transformers, capacitors, and plasticizers; is that not correct? And said I think it has been used as a plasticizer. And you knew that in September of '69, did you not? I was asked had it been used as a plasticizer, and I think I said it could be . And you knew in fact it was used in REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017566 1 2 A. 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 A. 9 1 0 Q. 11 1 2 A. 1 3 Q. 14 15 16 17 1 8 A. 19 20 2 1 Q. 22 23 plasticizers? I think I said I supposed it was possible. That's my exact words, or that is what I was reported as saying. But at the time you knew that it was more than possible, that it had been used as plasticizers? I don't remember exactly what I did know precisely in 1969. How long had you been with the company at that time? About four years. To your knowledge did anybody, either Mr. Kuhn or Mr. Bergen, ever make Mr. Cook aware of the fact that it had been used in materials that were perhaps used on silos? I'm not aware of any conversation Mr. Kuhn or Mr. Bergen had relative to this. Now, when you went to work at Monsanto did you know of any other areas that were used as waste disposal sites? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017567 79 1 A. No . 2 Q. Did anyone ever tell you as the main 3 chemist who was involved in the 4 environmental sampling that other waste 5 sites were located on that plant? 6 MR. COX: Object to the form. 7 A. To my knowledge, I only knew of the 8 plant landfill. 9 Q. Were there people at the plant at the 1 0 . time you went to work there who had been 1 1 there for some period of time? 12 A . Were there people there? 13 Q - Yeah, that worked there. 14 A . Sure . 15 Q Was a Jerry Brown there? 16 A. Not when I went to work there. 17 Q 18 A. And Mr. Wright was there for s ome time? I think he had been there maybe a year 1 9 o r t wo. 2 0 Q. Okay. There were people who worked like 2 1 Mr. Bell and Mr. Fuhrmeister and others 2 2 who had been there for some period of 2 3 time? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017568 80 1 A. 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 A. 10 11 12 Q. 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 A. 19 2 0 Q. 21 22 23 Mr. Bell had not been there. In fact, I hired Mr. Bell and Mr. Brown. Mr. Fuhrmeister had been there maybe a year or two. Were there old hands who would have known where waste disposal sites were who were working there at the plant when you went there? There were people that had worked for many years there that would be aware of a lot more than I was. Do you recall at any point in time anybody in management determining that there were other waste -- PCB wastes disposed of other than in the landfill that you have previously referred to? MR. COX: Object to the form. I don't remember any inquisition of alternate disposal sites. Do you remember anybody saying anything about property that was located west of the plant that might be used for PCB disposal waste? REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017569 81 1 A. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 No . MR. STEWART: I have. I believe that's all (The deposition concluded at 11:15 a.m.) REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017570 82 1 I do hereby certify that the witness 2 whose attached deposition was taken before me 3 was by me first duly cautioned and sworn to 4 tell nothing but the truth in the cause 5 aforesaid; that the testimony contained herein 6 was by me reduced to writing in the presence 7 of said witnesses by means of stenography and 8 afterwards transcribed by means of computer 9 aided transcription. The foregoing is a true 1 0 and accurate transcript of the whole of the 11 testimony given by said witness, as aforesaid. 12 I do further certify that I am not 13 connected by blood or marriage with any of the 1 4 parties or their attorneys or agents and that 1 5 I am not an employee of any of them, nor 1 6 interested in the matter of controversy. 1 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 1 8 my hand and affixed my notarial seal at 1 9 Gadsden, Alabama, County of Etowah, this 16th 2 0 day of November 2001. 21 Deborah Salers Garrett 2 2 Certified Shorthand Reporter Registered Professional Reporter 2 3 Notary Public, Alabama-at - Large My Commission expires: 3-6-05 REGIONAL REPORTING SERVICE, INC. HARTOLDMONO017571 MITSUBISHI MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY FROM LOCATION REFERENCE Tokyo October 2, 1969 . ` AROCLOR 1242 FOR MATSUSHITA Messrs. :j G. W. iiiiier-Anniston J. R. Durland-Tokyo J. Bryant-St. Louis TO : Mr. P. G. Benignus St. Louis Dear Papa-san: As you know, MMK have a sales contract with Matsushita for 200 metric tons of Aroclor 1242. 'aii'S'iaary. fcave. So metric tons Of your Aroclor 1242 out of our inventory, starting July. The imported 1242 inventory we have in Yokkaichi 50 metric tons which will last until mid-December for the shipment scheduled to Matsushita. Thereafter, we hope to switch to our own Aroclor 1242 made in Japan. To do this, we need Matsushita finish testing to give us their quality approval. Unfortunately, their test will not be perhaps completed before midDecember, in spite of our effort. Therefore,, we are now being pressed time-wise. We would Hike very much to ask for your special favor in this regard. What we need is your certificate of our 1242 quality being comparable v/ith or equal to yours. Would you please send tis a formal certificate of this nature signed by your authority? DSW 179010 HARTOLDMONO017572 MITSUBISHI MONSANTO U--MICAL COMPANY In case you should need testing, re are airmailing three 3 litre bottles of our Aroclor 1242(3 different lots) to the attention of Hr. G. W. Miller at Anniston. Since our Aroclor is made by the same process as yours at Anniston, how can it be different in intrinsic quality from yours? It is only necessary to have Matsushita people confide in this fact through your letter of authorization. Best regards. P.S. Attached is our analysis reports on the three samples being sent. DSW 179011 HARTOLDMONO017573 MHK Laboratory Test Report (Arolor 1242) U Property Lot No. : i 94208 Result , 94217 94219 1 Monsanto Specification Color, AFEA 5^ 5^ 5^ 40 Max. Condition Sp. Gr. @25/15.5C Total' Acid. `ivumber clear <?7 1.388 , t, . ' U.tjiij. ' clear ^ <9 ^ 1.389 ^ - w.0'01 clear--' 1.391 ^ 0 .Wi " clear 1.381 - 1.392 0.010 Max. Mg. KOH/g Inorganic chlorides, Dielectric constant ! ppm : <2100 C, 50 c/s c- r 0.01, 0.01 V. 9T- 4.89 4.91 t_ 0.01 tfv 1 4.92 0.05 Max. 4.70 - 4.90 (@100C,lk c/s) Resistivity @100C, ohm-cm Refractive Index @25 C Pour Point, C Water, ppm 71 40,OOOx 109 w 1.6241 i7 -17.5 17 ri Xl 60,OOOx 109 350,OOOx 109 1.6245 ^ _ / -17.5 1.6246 -17.5 15 18/L 500 x 109 Min. 1.6240 - 1.6260 -14 or lower 35 Max. Distillation. C. corrected Z.V. 10% by wt 325 S0% by wt 346^ MST, ppn Cl 0.04/ IV 327 347^ 0.03 r zl 327 75 347 0.03 L/ 325C Min. 360C Max. 0.40 Max. BST, ppm Cl 0.1 -7 0.1 ~'J 0.1 " 0.5 Max. Biphenyl, % -- - - Powere Factor ' @100C, 50 c/s 0.26 0.10 0-1^' 0.14 O.TI 1 - DSW 179012 HARTOLDMONO017574 ERENCE : 0 ' . R. H. Munch The Anniston laboratory has completed testing on three lot samples of Aroclor 1242 produced by MMK. These samples were shipped to my attention by Mr. Katayama. I have attached a copy of Mr. Katayama's letter for your information. Apparently, this testing was required to assure latsushita that MMK quality is consistent with Monsanto Company. I also understand from Paul Benignus that he would like you to write a letter of certification stating that MMK quality is good. I ;' The analytical data attached for the three lot samples indicate good quality as fax as we can tell. Only on dielectric constant was there any deviation from Monsanto Company specifications. "I can offer no reason for the divergence. In general all check results agree nicely when the poor electricals on lot 94219 are attributed to a leaking sample container. /bs Attachments G. W. Miller osMl *** HARTOLDMONO017575 Lot 94208-B . Color, APHA 5. Condition i, Acid No., nig KOH/g Clear 0.001 Sp. Gr. @ I 5C 1.387 Refractive Index @ 25C 1.6244 Chlorides, ppm 1 Hydrolysis Stability Test, ppm Cl 0.009 0.07 Pour Point, C -17 Moisture, ppm Resistivity @ 100C, ohm-cm @ 500 VDC 19 31,000 x 109 Dielectric Constant @ 100C, 4.91 1000 cycles . Power Factor (? 100C, 1 KV 60 cycles 0.027 0.14 Distillation, C, Corrected 10% 90% 324.0 349.0 Thermal Chemical Test, ppm Cl 0.18 Monsanto Stability, ppm Cl 0.01 ' Lot 94217 5 Clear 0.001 1.389 1.6245 0.009 0.14 -17.5 15 27,000 x 109 4.92 0.03 0.14 328.2 350.0 0.28 0.05 Lot 94219 5 Clear 0.001 1.391 1.6248 0.009 0.11 -18 16 3,000 x 4.87 0.065 0.71 329.3 347.8' 0.42 - 0.21 DSW 179009 HARTOLDMONO017576 om inamc (i location i R. H. Munch- St. Lo ui s 'O r gajoic_Ile s e a r c h - u. o uth S e co n cl S t r e c t --t' .* u . xc-xeriuxxg. aniiUu.sj - xIs'rD-ui--' x, D . A . Ols^n - DOLSO Standard specification test data and gas chromatographic analyses for the three samples of your Aroclor 1242 sent here for test purpose have been obtained. The standard specification data are given in Table I along with similar data for a typical sample of U.S. production. Table II gives gas chromatographic analyses of your lots and a typical U.S. production lot. Using the standard soecifications we would say that the MMK product is comparable to the U.S. product within the precision of the test methods except for the following items: 1) The electrical properties of Lot 94219 were somewhat poor. This might be due to the fact that the sample container arrived here in a leaking condition. ' 2) The thermal chemical test on all three MMK samples, par ticularly Lot 94219, is on the high side compared to U.S. material. 3) The Monsanto stability test on Lot 94219 is significantly higher than U.S. standard material. However, all three samples meet the standard specifications for Aroclor 1242, Electrical Grade. The gas chromatographic analyses show differences which are real but which would make no difference in a fluid to be used for capacitor im pregnation with one exception. Lot 94208B shows 0. 88% biphenyl. While there is no specification on the biphenyl content of Aroclor 1242, Electrical Grade, 0. 88% would be unacceptable to a capacitor maker. It probably would cause a capacitor maker trouble by vaporizing and condensing in the vacuum pumps and piping making it difficult or im possible to get as good a vacuum as he should get prior to impregnation. The biphenyl would also lower the flash point. This would not be im portant to a capacitor maker but is in some other uses. We should have a specification limiting biphenyl to less than 0. 1 or 0. 2%. DSVV 178998 HARTOLDMONO017577 -2- On the basis of the data given with this memo, I would say that only Lot 94217 could be considered to be equivalent to U.S. production. . If I were purchasing agent for a capacitor manufacturer and had this information, I would accept that lot without question. Lot 94219 I would accept if I had to in order to keep my plant running. Treatment with an adsorbent would raise its electrical properties to a satisfactory level. Lot 94208-B I would reject because of the high biphenyl content. Best regards, js attachments / ' i .! t R. H. Munch SW 178999 HARTOLDMONO017578 lruj o-/Xj j. :,iRoclor 1242 (japan) ANALYTICAL iJ.\TA . / */ * ', t - 4 -. ' ... ... - , " . ;/./. 'xi > A ; Lot< . Lot 94217 XX A `1 / Lot 94219 ' . KL-4 016 ' Color j APHA . -V . -5 . . ' 5 '5 ' 10 Condition ' " Clear Clear Clear Clear" Acid No., mg KOH/g .. 0.001 ` 0.001 0.001 .001 Sp. Gr. G 25C ... , . 1*387 1.389 1.391 1.387 Refractive Index (? 25C 1.6244 1.6245 1.6248 1. 6249 Chlorides, ppm .. 0.009 0.009 0.009 ' .01 Hydrolysis Stability Test, ppm Cl 0.07 0`l4 0.11 . 11 Pour-Point, C ' -17 -17.5 -18 . ' *-18 ' PioioLurc., "'ppm' . . . -. ''K . t^'.T ' l:' .. - j; _ Resistivity G 100C, ohm-cm 500 VDC . 31,000 x 109 27,000 x 109 ' 3,000 x IQ9 9600 x 109 ' Dielectric Constant @ 100C, 1000 cycles . 4.91 , . '4.92 .4.87 ' 4. 81 .Power Factor @ 100C, 1 KV . . 60 cycles . Distillation, C, Corrected . ' . . .' ` ' . 107o ' ' ' -. ' ' ' . .90% ' ' Thermal Chemical Test, ppm Cl Monsanto Stability, ppm Cl 0.027 ' ' 0.14 . 0.03 0.14 . ` ' . \ 324.0 ' 328.2 ' 349.0 . " 350.0 0.18 0.28 0.01 ' . 0.05 0.065 ' 0.71 ' ' 329.3 . . 347.8 . . 0.42 ' 0.21 . .010 . 180 329 . 353 10 -.06 Dsw 179000 HARTOLDMONO017579 TABLE II ' AROCLOR 1242 Lot 94219 Lot 94208B Monsanto USA Lot 94217 Lot AC-2BT 1 2 3&4 Biphenyl 2 -chloro 3&4 chloro 5 2,2' k 26 6 2,5 & 2, 4 7 2,3' . 8 2,4' k 2, 3 9 3,5 lO 3P4 ; 2, 5,2' 11 4,4' 12 13 2,3,2' 14 ' 15 16S;17 18 2,5,4' 3,4,2' 19 2,3,4' 20 22 23 * * 24 25 26 3,4,4' 27 28 29- 31 32 33 34a34a 35 36-46 . 3,4' ,, - '. o 00 -a. . 88 * . 11 . .34 .04 . 12 CO ro N . 2.70 .23 .34 .79 .92 5.86 6. 34 1.08 1.07 1L 78 11, 71 4.42 4.7 .83 . .84 6.88 . 6. 82 1.74 1. 69 ' .61 17.02 ' .60 " 16. 89 7.91 3.66 7. 76 3.56 ' 1.15 1. 15 3.39 . 3.42 ' 2.59 2.61 2.26 2.26 3.-44 3. 36 3. 73 3. 53 3.52 3.40 ` ' 1.01 .92 - .14 .11 . - 1. 54 , 1.42 ' 3.08 ` 2. 86 3.55 3. 31 . 3.49 3. 08 " 1.69 1.29 . 14 . 14 ' .05 2. 57 .27 . 86 6.23 1. 11 . 11. 84 4. 73 . 86 6.98 / `" L 72 -.65 . 17. 11 7. 90 .. 3.64 - . 1. 14 ' 3. 36 2. 57 2. 23 3.35 ` ` 3. 61 3.41 ` ' .94 - . 12 1.45 . 2.91 3. 37. 3. 22 . 1.55 .04 . 83 . 31 4. 16 ' 1.01 1. 68 8. 70 . 87 9'. 42 5.29 .77 5. 52 1.39 .61 14.34 6. 65 2.99 1.04 3. 58 2. 64 2.26 3. 36 3. 25 3.42 .79 _ .09 1.57 3.19 3. 77 2. 63 3.79 . ' ; DSW 179001 HARTOLDMON0017580 The Annlacon Plane plana for poly-eblorlaaead blpbanyl (PCI) daearainat loot In liquid waata aereaaa Including toureaa,quantltlaa and raeovundad actione ara Included. Wa da not plan Co look far ataoepheric loaaaa baaed on our praaaac sucual feeling that laaaaa to Che ataoaphara ara negligible. The eargat daeaa ara baaed as 1} ana aaa full elaa (I.C.Hrlgbt) eaapllng, correlating and raportlng ehaaa and achar aeudlaa; 2) ooa ehaslat for one to evo noathe and tufilelane analyte else thereafter; 3) that adequate aacboda ara developed and raducad to plant praeelea la tlaa; A) ehae adequate Ineeruoeots and lnatrusant elaa ara evalltbla. Itaaa evo through four require re shuffling of eba Anaiaeon Laboratory plena and *111 ba dlaeuaaad *leb U. A. Kuhn and J. t. Saitb (tinea low eolafr Aroclor 5*60 asp la praparaclon la tfftettd). A1 ao,a 1 chough* 1 eeeron eapeure aqulpaaac aalaea at Anaiaeon it la noe praaancly aae up and operating. Thla *111 aaka seating your propoead aebadule of being ready eo run PCS analyses by eba Tuekar nachod by June 2 unlikely. . Proooaed Plan 1. Obtain grnaa taaplii of Som Creak for ritual ebaeka tt datanlna praaanea of discrete, oa-aqoeoag liquid pbaae la poola or ocher itraaa bettas araaa. Coaplaelen determined *ban downatraa* lisle of dlaerata, non-aquaoae liquid pkaaa baa bean aaeabliakad. Start 5/1/69 Cosplate By 7/1/69 2. Obtain and analyte far PCS, sasplae of aud and *atar fros Snow Creak at evo potnca down* atraas of llnie aaeabliakad la (1). Ooa of eba stapling palnea *111 ba at eba outb of Snow Creak. T*o aata of aaaplee taken tun reeks apart *111 ba uaad. (Total ^ of I aaaplaa) Target Cosy let Ion 8/ 1/69 MONS 09729* HARTOLDMONO017581 5 Proposed PUa- (Cnc ' 4) 3. Ob tala cvo saaplsa of aud cad vater from Choeeolocco ' Ctik - aae oar Saov Ctuk eoafloeoca tad taeaad 9-10 alias dawn straea Mtr Jaekaoa Shoal*. ) frequency a* (2) abort (Total of 8 **plac). Targae Compiteion 4 4. further tetloa oa aud tad vetar saaplaa will be daeldad tfetr results f 1 thru 3 tra U. Decision t.r,,t g/l; 3. Coaf lata tha la-p laat survey now wadarray t identify aad quantify sources ( PCX Co eka saver. 8) Identify all dapereaaata atillslag er proceeding Ar odors. b) Audit Arodor aad 1C1 departaeats (pre viously ldeatlflad ta aajor sources) Co dataraise source aad aaouac af PCX leea te sever. ) XecumaMftd aeaas of recovering, elial* oat lag, or reducing losses froa"sources ldeatlflad La (h). d) Define raquireneats aad rough cost to assure ourseIres ehae lees if Arveler te Saov Creak (Solid aad LLguid Aroelers) Is Halted Co sdublllty losses. Establish continuing vealtorlag. systaas: Coa^leced 4/13/6* Target Completion 7/1/ Target Completion 8/l/> Target Collation 10/1 ) for loss of Liquid (or Solid) Arodor ea lau Croak (hopefully aero). Target 6/1/70 . b) For vmekly or aeathly PCX oa sur effluent ta teem Creek (aeUbllltv loaaae). Deflae Seeds 9/1/69 ) Xstabllsk uetar sampling statioa oa Choecdocce Creek Co aoalter PCX aad Parathlea. la Operation 6/1/70 7. Investigate aeaaa el dlspeeel of Iroclsr scrap. This vodld aead Ca be a cooperative reatura betveee Xeaeerch, Marketing, UCK, aealatoe aad CX9 slaea the problaa la eat unique to a stable Moaaaata location aad Is facing oar customers too. " Schedule for 1970/71 HONS 097295 HART OLDMONO017582 That cs^ltcu tha proposed plan. Thare are a few 9char polnta I'd Uka Co aeaeloa Chough. ' 1. Tha Ann la can Plane la procaadiag with projaces to reduce cha Aroc lor la rtcoverad MCI * loaa of which la severed. a) Tha 'catch-tank* la tha MCI off-gaa llaa haa haan suee.a.fuUy alerted up and la collacclag iom material. h) A aasbrana type eoalaaear la to ha lnaeallad la May co remove orgaalea from cha absorbed MCI. Aroclor from ehaaa evo tourcaa will be burlad la eha toste J__ -_ 2. Craaa sampling of Snov Creak aeartad tha weak s 4/28/69. Saaw Craak estfall haa baaa seaicorad for pi aad t BC1 far until yaara. (Potasaius aad mercury aoalyaaa ara no longer run) 3. Preparations ara wall underway to icare tha Aroclor/BC1 departmental audita. Actual ssnpllng ahould start within a vaek, If eha aoalyaaa eao ha rua. 4. Tha only dapartseacs using or processing Aroclor* at Aoalatoa are: a) PjpS. - a Tharolaol system. Th La La dra Load to druea whan rrplaemaant of Tharolaol La required. This haa baaa dona La this sennar since startup. b) Aroclor . Processing Too Tharolnol systems floor elaaalnga Spills BC1 off-gaa - So significant amount la lost fro tank car clsanlng slnea say notarial (Including heels) la drained Into druaa, clsanlng cloths ara pat la traah coacaInara. Boeh druaa of 1Iquld and rags ara seat to eha dusp. 5. Present estimate of PCI aaalysle else Ladlcacaa 2 to 3 aan-houra ara rsgsirad par sample. This say vail Halt ua to tvo to thrsa samples par day. 6. Praaaat guess oa future sonicating Is that v* vould need to add one man ta the laboratory staff sad buy aa lastrumaac (at about $10,000) to support 80 adequate progras. 7. Aa audit of tha Parathloa and PSP Departments will be carried out this aummar la addition to the propoaad program. This work la urgently Beaded to establish how eloao ve ara sou approaching eha ultlsaea capacity of eha biological eraatsant plane and ahathac or not reduction through aa Ln*plsne control program La faaslbla. Anavara are requited HONS 097296 HARTOLDMONO017583 -4- Point* (Coat'd) urgently because they lets mine Che course of action of the sulfur recovery lyscsa proposed for Psrsehlon ss well ss the ultlnac* production capacity of the Paraehloo Plane, Vhfl* Psrsehlon belongs to tha Ag Division the blalagieal traataenc plane belongs eo Che Organic Division. I hope this sussaary will serve your presanc needs. Ksny ehenka for che suggestions la your 4/21 nano. Aa you can aee eeny found chair way Into our prograa proposal. V. f. Taffse Jv MOWS 097297 HARTOLDMONO017584 dnsanto 3M (name a location! J. x. Bell - Anniston, Alabama March 4, 1971 E. S. Tucker One of the goals of the Anniston laboratory for 1971 is the purchase of the necessary equipment for routine surveillance of chlorinated terphenyls. As in the past, we may have to ask for training in St. Louis of one of our personnel in this method and of course we will appreciate your efforts to assirt ar In the interim, please supply us with an equipment list with special glassware requirements, the total instrument package which you recommend, etc. so that we may procede to get approval for the necessary expenditures, Our target date here is to have the Project for Expenditure prepared prior to 5/1 and we want to move faster if possible. Best regards, jw DSW 178788 HARTOLDMONO017585 ionsanto iom (name ik locationi . g. g. Tucker - Technology Department/Applied Sciences - St. Louis ite : J6JECT : EFERENCE : March 24, 1971 JTB:EST 3-4-71 CC: K. E. Keller ------- ^>W. B . Papageorge W. R . Richard E. M. Emery/F. M. Grogan Q : J. T. Bell ' Anniston In answer to your request, I regret to inform you that we are not in a position to recommend a preferred technique for the routine surveillance of polychlorinated terphenyls in plant ef fluents. The liquid chromatographic procedure being investi gated by Dr. F. M. Grogan (Physical Chemistry Group) is .uufpvteiwiS-ir.V vr-lill v*vry rrjvjuh in "the de'^slopmer.f- r.tr,gr.. Tt works well on laboratory prepared samples containing only the terphenyls of interest, but investigation of interference from other common environmental materials is yet to be studied. Additionally, I should comment that the method development work is currently at a standstill because of the press of other projects with higher established priorities. We will keep you posted on future progress. E. S. Tucker js DSW 178787 HARTOLDMONO017586 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL OTHER LOCATION GENERAL OFFICES p. B. Hodges ' ' F. J. Rolzapfel W. B. Papngeorge J. R. Sa'Vage ANNISTON J. T. Bell J. L. Brown J. L. Corder V. R. Haup t G. L. Jessee L. C. Lehman ^ J. C. Landwehr A. G. McCarty G j?.Miller/T.E.Lackey/J.E. Mund} B. 0. Severson * PROGRESS REPORT TECHNICAL SEP.VICES DEPARTMENT ANNISTON, ALABAMA PLANT JOB NO. 002-1025 REPORT 110. 2 DATE July 21, 1970 TITLE: OBJECTIVE: AROCLOR LOSSES AT THE ANNISTON PLANT To report all data which is available to data on Aroclor losses in the Anniston Plant. Also, to report all data on Aroclor residues in the Snow Creek - Choccolocco Creek Wa tershed. To summerize progress to date on Aroclor clcan-up efforts at Anniston. PERSONNEL: E. G. Wright, (J. T. Bell) REPORTED BY: SUMMARY: ' E. G. Wright Aroclor losses from the Anniston Plant for the period April 15 through June 30, 1970, averaged ~16 lbs./day. This is a considerable improvement over the losses of^250 lbs./day for a comparable period during 1969. This reduction has been primarily achieved by an education program and by changing operating habits. However, projects are being installed and evaluated which will further reduce these losses toward the Business Group goal of 10 ppb. FUTURE WORK: 1. Continue sampling and analyzing for Aroclor losses on a routine basis. 2. Continue to sample and analyze grab samples from Snow and Choccolocco Creeks for Aroclor content. 3. Sample and analyze ambient air for Aroclor content. 4. Sample and analyze tank vents in the Aroclor department to pinpoint atmospheric loss points. Collect additional aquatic samples from Choccolocco Creek Watershed. Issue periodical reports on Anniston Plant losses and progress toward 10 ppb goal. - ' .. ` DSW175794 E. G. Wright HARTOLDMONO017587 Anniston Plant Progress Report #002-1026 (2) Page 2 DISCUSSION I. Aroclor Department Sewers A. HC1 Sewer Since the installation of a catch tank in the IIC1 gas line and a coalescer in tha acid stream, the Aroclor content in the waste acid stream has been greatly reduced (i.e., Approximately 200 pounds of organic material is being removed by these two projects.). During the sampling period, this sewer averaged 13.0 ppb of Aroclor. (See Data Sheet I.) Based on this data, the decision was made not to route this stream to the sump presently being installed. This resulted in a substantial savings on installing the sump. However, at times, the spent carbon from the HC1 carbon towers is dumped into this sewer. Alternate methods are being evaluated to eliminate this situation. B. Chlorinatcr and Still Room Sewers At times these sewers had a two phase flow. The quantity of the Aroclor phase could not be determined. However, these two-sewers are being routed through the Aroclor sump. When the sump is completed and put into operation, the Aroclor phase can then be quantified. The sump will, also, provide a means for recovering this second phase, which under present conditions eventually makes its way out of the plant. h'hen the sump is installed in these sewers, a daily sample will be taken and analyzed to determine the efficiency of the sump. Other projects are also scheduled which should result in a reduction of Aroclor in this process stream. . C. Via rehouse Sewer The major losses from this sewer are due to spills while drumming or flaking. These spills are then swept to the sewer during floor clean up. Presently, clean-up is accomplished by use of Du-Bois steam cleaning which considerably raised the solubility of Aroclor in water. Alternate methods of claan-up and disposal are presently being evaluated. D. Total Plant Effluent DSW 175795 During the period April 15 to June 30, 1970, the total plant losses averaged 1C lbs./day. This is excluding the period April 21 toJune 20, 1970, when the acid neutralization pit was being cleaned cut. During this period, the losses ran very high (See Data Sheet V.) due to the fact that the Aroclor which was trapped in the pit was being stirred and entrained into the plant effluent. VHn dlSCrSpCr. cy OPn f-Vt r* 1 y 1 Kr f 1 I fro"* r r <1 16 lbs./day losses reported from the plant effluent may possibly be due to two things: 1) Samples from the sewers did not include any of the Aroclor phase and 2) Due to the mixing and the velocity at the plant ' HARTOLDMONO017588 Anniston Flant Progress Report #002-1026 (2) Page 3 giving higher results. A closer correlation is hoped for when an accurate messuire cf the Aroclor phase can be accomplished. Close observation of the sump'should provide this information. E. Miscellaneous Samnles (Data Sheet VII) . These samples ware collected from Snow and Choccolocco Creeks at various times. They show that Aroclors are present in the Choccolocco Creak even above where the Monsanto effluent enters the creek. They also indicate significant amounts of Aroclor in the mud and water of Choccolocco and Snow Creeks a considerable distance (15-20 miles) downstream from the Anniston Plant. In fact, A.roclor concentrations can probably be found in the Coosa Pvlver system. Data Sheet VII contains a complete list of all the data to date on Snow and Choccolocco Creeks. Attached is a map of the watershed sbnwrrcg 'air '-rrmp irt ~1'crrp`rrrt 'tk*e ^plsri. COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL DSVV 175796 HARTOLDMONO017589 DATA SHEET I Sample Location: HC1 Department Sev?er Average Flow: 200 GFM . .Aroclor Concentration Date(PPB)(l/day) 4/15 12 4/16 7.8 4/17 8.3 4/20 18.5 4/21 tj.2 4/22 16.4 4/23 10.6 4/24 20.4 4/27 15.0 4/2S , 13.1 4/29 18.7 5/3 10.5 5/4 11.3 Aroclor Losses 0.030 0.019 0.020 0.044 ''U-.TJT5 0.039 0.025 . 0.050 0.036 0.031 0.045 0.025 0.027 Average: 13.0. 0.031 jE-'i i 1AL C-- DSW 175797 HARTOLDMONO017590 DATA SHEET II Sample Location: Warehouse Sewer Average Flow: 65 GPi'-i (Estimated) Da te 4/22 4/23 4/24 4/27 4/28 4/29 5/3 5/4 Aroclor Concentration (PPB) 2,800 . 2,860 . 1,250 1,520 1,300 2,130 1,320 1,480 Aroclor Losse (if/clay) 2.18 2.23 0.98 1.18 1.02 1.66 1.03 1.15 Average: 1,833 1.43 COtoFAfiY CONriDENHAL DSW 175798 HARTOLDMONO017591 Sample Location: Aroclor Still Room Sever Average Flow: 150 GPU (Estimated) Aroclor Concentration Aroclor Losses Date(PFB)(#/day) 4/22 12,500* 4/23 13.8 0.025 4/24 30.0 0.054 4/27 17.0 0.036 4J2R 12.2 0.022 4/29 4.8 0.009 5/4 20.0 0.036 5/6 11.0 0.020 5/8 23.4 0.042 Average: 16.5 0.031 * Co n tsrain a ted sample - not included in average. .COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL DSW 175799 HARTOLDMONO017592 LATA SUE IA' IV Sample Location: Aroclor Chlorinator Sewer Average Flow: 275 GPI-1 (Estimated) Aroclor Concentration Aroclor Losses Da te(PPB)(#/dav) ____ A/22 80.0 0.264 4/23 ' 46.5 0.153 4/24 35.0. 0.115 4/27 51.0 0.168 4/28 56.5 0.186 4/29 70.0 0.233 5/3 81.6 0.262 5/4 73.0 0.241 5/6 85.3 0.281 Average: . 64.3 . 0.212 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL ' DSW175800 HARTOLDMONO017593 DATA SHEET V Sample Location: Total riant Effluent Average Flow: 900 GPM Date 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/21 4/22 4/23 4/27 5/4 5/5 37b 5/7 5/10 5/12 5/20 5/25 6/2 6/3 6/5 6/6 6/7 6/8 6/9 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 6/14 6/15* 6/16 6/17 6/18 6/19 6/20 6/21 6/22 6/23 6/24 6/25 6/26 6/27 6/28 6/29 6/30 * Aroclor Concentration (PPB) Aroclor Losses (#/dav) 98 1.08 150 1.65 3,300 10,800^ 36.30 119.0(T\ 16,000 . 176.00 875. 9.62 13,750- 151.00 18,000 | 19S.00 3,300- 36.30- "9,*T5u*' iu /Abu " 9,900 109.00 3,300 36.30 1,327 14.60 2,650J 29.20,/ 68 - 0.75 216 2.38 880 - 9.70 148 1.63 360 ' 3.96 950 ". 10.45 315 3.46 3,100 34.10 ' 400 - ' 4.40 ' 760 8.35 1,540 - . 16.90 1,875 20.60 85 0.94 820 9.00 520 " 5.72 1,820 . 20.00 490 5.40 3,500 38.50 3,825 42.00 . 800 . 8.80 720 7.92 1.920 21.10 1,620 . 17.80 1,460 16.10 2,940 32.40 - 680 7.47 3,966 43.60 3,200 * 35.20 4,200 46.20 V08S2A M sQ "Average: 1,460 15.74 HARTOLDMONO017594 Sample Location: Snow Creek Sampling Station Da te 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/13 4/19 4/20 4/21 4/22 4/23 UU2 4 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28 4/29 5/1 5/2 5/7 5/8 5/9 5/10 5/11 5/12 5/13 5/14 5/18 5/19 5/20 5/21 5/22 5/23 '5/24 5/29 5/30 5/31 6/1 6/2 6/3 6/4 6/5 6/6 6/7 6/8 6 /0 Aroclor Concentration ________ (PPfc)___________ 1,800.0 233.0 124.0 499.0 - 5,435.0 - 1.500.0 800.0 1.540.0 . 12.5 . 5.0 14.8 25.0 . 16.4 oo ,0 14 .0 1,320 .0 140 .0 240 .0 ' 1G4 .0 430 n DSW 175802 HARTOLDMONO017595 DATA SHE1;? VI continued. Da te 6/12 6/13 6/14 6/15 6/16 ' 6/17 6/19 6/20 6/21 Aroclor Concentration . CPP3') 630.0 . 760.0- ' 254.0 1,470.0 - 41.5 ' 110.0 - 216.0 ' " 272.0 ' 480.0 . average;: "7o!o .V> ''Limestone pit being cleaned out included in average, '-r-'-' - CO[aF/^Y CO. iucNTIAL DSW 175803 HARTOLDMONO017596 DATA SHEET VII Date 10-8-69 Sample Location Snow Creek at Glenaddie. Aroclor Concentration QPPB) Mud Wa ter 2.36 x 107 23.3 10-8-69 10-8-69 10-8-69 11-23-69 Choccclocco Creek at Boiling Springs (upstream from Monsanto1s effluent) Choccolo'cco Creek at City Treatment Plant (1 block below confluence of Snow and . Choccclocco Creeks) ,-CbncncjLocr.o...Crnek..aJr. T ( " 20 miles downstream) Choccolocco Creek at Eureka Bridge (=25 miles downstream, mouth of Choccolocco into Coosa River) Snow Creek - 1 block below plant 78 738,000 7 ^nn 3,240 2.19 x 106 -11-23-69 Snow Creek at Glenaddie 1.84 x 106 11-23-69 11-23-69 11-23-69 11-23-69 Choccolocco Creek at Highway 9 (--15 miles upstream from the confluence, of Snov7 and Choccolocco Creeks) . Choccolocco CreeTc at Boiling Springs (upstream from Monsanto's effluent) . Choccolocco Creek at City Treatment Plant (1 block below confluence of Snow and Choccolocco Creeks) Choccolocco Creek at Jackson Shoals (=20 miles dovmstream) 1,536 26 470 8.1 ' < 2.0 < 2.0 20,300 1,435 11 10 58 10 .COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL' y psw 17S804 " HARTOLDMONO017597 HARTOLDMONO017598 '. 3. Hods; a a - St. Louis September IS, 1970 ': goer 5e.ll - Anniston J. a. Savage y. 3. 2- COsoar G. L. o eases G. Mi Her VJ Lar.dwehr J. L. Carder ~ -'3AVi - - Ar.r.i3' - Arnis' ~ Anr.i a - Arnia: CONFIDENTIAL In reviewing your* proposed letter to Joe Crockett with Legal, et al, we requested latest emissions data on the flaw to Snow Creek. Ve had hoped that it might, show an improvement over the 1st week in September and thus demonstrate a favorable trend to Crockett. Instead, the emissions are considerably increased with 9/13/70 at 6.25 PP (or about 90 ibs. of PCS for the day). From the Legal, standpoint, there 1s extreme reluctance to report even the relatively low emission figures because the information could be aubpenaed and used against us in legal actions. Obviously, having to report these gross losses multiplies, enormously, our problems because the figures would appear to indicate lack of control. Healizing the extreme efforts the plant has gone to in order to curtail loss of PC3*s, is there anything more that can be done to get the lessee down? Is chere a possibility that sampling practises are responsible for the wide variations shown (you might try duplicate efflu ent samplers)? Axe there any practises in the manufac turing area, which might result in the peak lasses? Obviously, w oannat solve the problems from 3t. Louis but we da want to emphasize the concern from here. Paul B. Hodges /np l.l 11.41 P) QSW 01*095 HARTOLDMONO017599 XI 'i/Jo/W A. The Moncar 10 fog is greatly improved following the removal of all steam leaking into the Moncar 10 line. June 15 (N.M.'/D.C.) B. Hltrogen or CO^ ehould be substituted for the final 15 sec, steam blow to eliminate chi, dense cloud of vaporized polyphenyl this blowout produces. Hake second trial run using COj or nitrogen from cylinder. If no problem then request automatic installation. July 15 (N.M./G.H.) C. A major pollution hazard still exists and an engineered fog abatement system should be put into use within a reasonable time (6 mas.). (Jim Kactern has submitted concept - J.L.C./C.M.) See Idea Section. D. Under no circumstances should the line be operated when steam is leaking into the Moncar lines so chat a dense cloud of "fog" reaches the public highway. Repeat, SO CIRCUMSTANCES: (G.M./U.M. ec al) Details: The following details are for the record and is compiled from the observations of those receiving this note. A. Steam leaking from the Jackeeed line or steam blow-out produces a dense fog over the 10 minute pump-out that: 1) Creates an in-plant health hazard. 2) Coats the surrounding area for up to 300 ft. with Monear. 3) Places dense fog over into South Shop and Chlorine dock area. A) Dense fog retches as far as Biphenyl control room. . 5) When wind carries fog inco pt.blie highway, traffic is piled up. Motorist in fog lose sense of direction. Visibility has been cut to front of Che car. This condition cannot be allowed to happen. / *4, HAR' 0 -2- B. A test placing a 2-1/2 inch fire hose stream from 12 feet into the "*0 G?H, 335*0, Hontar 9 did noe eliminate the Moncar fog. Both a fog and a straight water stream were tried. Effective contact was hoe made, the Hontar scream was deflected, not contacted. The fog that issued with the scream was not noticeably reduced. C. Complete drowning of the stream with water would resule in the following: ' 1) Require high volume of water 2) Require major installation . 3) Require water removal system 4) Produce an interesting pellet produced fora of Hontar 9. D. The density of the fog incr??cr noticeably the last five minutes of Che 10 minute pump-out. This occurs as Che line is heaeed and the discharged Hontar 10 is near 335*C. Cropping the temperature is a measure of reducing fog output. The'.effect on fog production of temperature and flew should be determined. Ideas from *e Croup: 1) Incinerate, only the fog particles (smolce) rising from the discharge. CoL MLl .J 2) Provide an interim storage, allow to cool and pump to pond at low rate. This should be tested using the Santevax meleer to determine if fumes can be made acceptable at any temperature and raee. The idle Santovax C sump tank could be see up for this use if this method is feasible. . 3) Eliminate the final fog producing steam blow by blowing with COj or nitrogen. This will be eested. 4) Reduce fog by passing the discharged Hontar 9 scream sub-surface into molten Hontar 9 and overflow to pond. 5) Sell more VCM to reduce pump-out and improved polyphenyl cost. 6) Findrmarket for Moncar 9 or 10: a) Japan can sell for automobile undercoat. b) Japan can sell for plasticiser. c) Examine synthetic wax market for speciality *. d) Ihe existing Snncowax mclt-cank..qon be modified to allow drumming operation. __ _ Bulms Severson *NM 1536871 :=d MW 55 * oa-c* S*nmz>r - Sncxczn M ac :* 3 d 55 S >rMf -1 > :2 ;2 O HARTOLDMONO017601 ( \ww u ..ato "* tl'KIHI TO ,, W, A, RUHh m 3T. LCUI5 SEPISOn 19. 1969 s.^^asN H. A^OCLO/Q. - \fTy\ f/0. Received a cell fret Jm Miller, Olef ChenlBt ac Anniston. Ha Has received a sell fro Boyd Oook, PI Aid Representative for the Maryland Milk Association- Oook says that tha P.0, A. has analyaad CM# all* fro tlx dairy herds, all located within a aix-wslle dlaafear of Martinaburg, W. Virginia. and Mas definitely ldantlflad 3 pan of pars. they have tentatively ldantlflad tha Pcs aa aroolar 1*54. (took acatad that ha thought tha p. 0, a, was certain to require that the Bilk ba duoped. Oook inquired about uaaa for Araalor and Jerry told hi only two -* capacitors and heat tranefar. Oook than aakad if Aroolar waa ever uaad in paatlalian and Jerry aald ha auppaaad it was possible. Oaak afeatad that alloa In th araa ware lined tath plaatio natarlala TM thara could ba eon eoonaation hara. Another aenieeture -- all elx herds crasa in tha eana ilnestona belt nay have eoiBBon water supply. . X called SUeer Wieeler and he already knew of the incident and aald that ha would call Boyd took, ^ ^ ^ M. A. xmw 4vy. t,$8 a FmiUC. tirt j*-g- HARTOLDMONO017602