Document Ed98eVym3dXeRpKjyLgDz4qo4

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3 FRANCES E. KENNER, e t . al. ) ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 VS. ) NO: 30-L-970 ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 3 9 10 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 Before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH 12 JURY TRIAL 13 April 15, 1935 (morning session) 14 15 APPEARANCES: 16 Mr. Rex Carr 17 Mr. Jerome Seigfreid On Behalf of the Plaintiffs; 18 Mr. John Musgrave 19 Mr. Joseph Nassif On Behalf of the Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 Debra M. Musieiak, CSR, CM Official Court Reporter 1 1 nm x 2 3 WITNESSES CALLED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: 4 1. PHOCIOU PARK (2-1102) 5 Cross E x a m i n a t i o n ................. .. 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 PAGE 2 1 BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the 15th day of April, 2 1985, the same being one of the regular judicial days of said 3 court, the above-styled cause came on regularly for hearing 4 before the HONORAB L E RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, one of the 5 Judges at the St. Clair C ounty Building, 10 P ublic Square, in 6 the City of Belleville, County of St. Clair, State of 7 Illinois. Whereupon the following proceedings were had: 8 COURT CONVENED: 9 10 P HO C10 Ii_PAR K 11 (being called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, under 12 Section 2-1102, having been previously sworn, having resumed 13 the stand, continued to t e s tify as follows) 14 CROSS EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. REX CARR 16 Q. Doctor, I have left with you a copy of P laintiff's 17 Exhibit 1275, didn't I? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And that is the m e m o r a n d u m that you w r o t e relative 20 to the `TSCA meeting that you held and relative to the memo 21 that you had written on May 14th, 1979, isn't that correct, 22 sir? 23 A. Let's see, meetings were held on May 11 and May 22, 24 and this was subsequent to a memo dated Hay 14. 2 1 Q. Nov/, Mr. Park, the c o n c l u s i o n s that your committee 2 reached at that time, the number one conclusion reached as 3 reported here for your May 22nd meeting, was that the 4 information that you had received does not support a 5 conclusion that the 2,4-dichlorophenol presents a substantial 6 risk of injury to health or the environment, and that in 7 order to prevent possible misuse of the product by a 3 customer, it is recommended that the responsible business 9 group send a letter to its customers for this product. Is 10 that correct, sir? 11 A. It does say the information evaluated was actually 12 something published in the F e d e r a l - R e g i s t e r . 13 Q. Now, what misuse did the com m i t t e e consider that 14 this 2,4-dichlorophenol might be put to by its customers? 15 A. I's sorry, I cannot recall specifically what it 16 would have been. I think they just felt that even though 17 this study had been published in the Federal Register which 18 is the official publication of g o vernment doc u m e n t s that it 19 would be well to inform customers about that information that 20 had been in the Federal R e g i s t e r . 21 Q. Well, I take it the meaning of this is that there 22 was some misuse that the product could be put to even though 23 you may not recall just what the m isuse is at this time, is 24 that correct, sir? 3 1 A. I guess it's always pos s i b l e for a product to be 2 misused. 3 Q. My question, Mr. Park, you c o n s i d e r e d that there 4 were possible misuses to which this product might be put, did 5 you not, by you, I mean this commiittee? 6 A. I can't recall the extent to which we would have 7 considered the possibility that a customer would have 3 specifically misused the product. 9 Q. Well, it was important enough that it was one of 10 the two final conclusions or recommendations that you 11 reached, isn't that correct, sir? 12 A. Right, well, the second conclusion was that -- 13 Q. My -- 14 A. The customers be informed. 15 Q. My question it was one" of the two c o n c lusions or 16 recommendations that your committee reached, isn't that 17 c o r r e c t , sir? 13 A. The recommendation that customers be informed, yes. 19 Q. Answer to my question is yes, it was one of your 20 two conclusions? 21 A. Well, I'm concerned about did you say it vas one, 22 the recommendation that the customers be informed was one of 23 our two conclusions. 24 Q. That's what I've asked you. And, Mr. Park, it v/as 4 1 important enough that you believed that the customers should 2 be notified, isn't that correct, sir? 3 A, Well, again, we recommended -- 4 Q. Could you answer that question, Mr, Park? 5 A, I cannot go beyond the recommendation. 6 Q. Respondin g to my questions? 7 A, We recommended that you say be notified, I don't 8 understand quite what you mean, you are not using the words 9 that we used in this memorandum, Mr. Carr. 10 Q. You made a conclusion and your conclusion was that 11 you should prevent possible misuse of the product by a 12 customer, that's a conclusion reached, was it not, sir? 13 A., No, that's not how it's stated, Mr. Carr. 14 Q. Did you reach the conclusion that there could be 15 possible misuse of the product by a customer? 15 A. That's not stated either. 17 Q. Excuse me, my question is did you reach the 18 conclusion that there could possibly be misuse of the product 19 by a customer? 20 A. I don't recall such a conclusion. The conclusion 21 22 Q. Excuse me, did you not say that the May 22nd 23 meeting ended with the following conclusions and 24 recommendations? 5 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. And that number tv/o was in order to prevent 3 possible misuse of the product by ,a customer it is 4 recommended so forth and so on? 5 A. That is correct. 5 Q. And you, therefore, did you not, it follows, did it 7 not, that you concluded that there was a p o s s i b i l i t y .that a 3 customer might misuse this product? 9 A. Vas that statement, Mr. Carr, or a question? 10 Q. No, Mr. Park, that's a question. 11 A. I don't recall that specific conclusion. This 12 appears to be a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . 13 Q. Mr. Park, I'm not asking you to recall. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Your specific -- because you stated you have no 16 memory, I'm asking you to interpret this document that you 17 wrote in -- on June 6th, 1979? And did you not r.each a 13 conclusion in that meeting, that it w a s p o s s i b l e that 19 customers could misuse the product and y o a w a n t e d to prevent 20 it? 21 A. I don't read this as indicating that conclusion, 22 Mr. Carr. 23 Q. Did you recommend that something be done to prevent 24 possible misuse? 6 1 A. Yes, we did. 2 Q. Then why would you recommend that something be done 3 to prevent possible misuse if you had not concluded that that 4 was something that needed to be prevented? 5 A. I thought that was an appropriate recommendation. 5 Q. Could you answer that question, please, Mr. Park? 7 A. Yes, we felt it was an appropriate recommendation 8 to make. 9 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 10 to answer the question as I posed it to him. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Park, you have to answer the 12 question as it's posed, you are so directed. 13 A. Your Honor, I felt that I had. 14 THE COURT: I don't believe that you have. Nov/ 15 answer the question, please. 15 A. Well, your question was how did we come to this 17 recommendation? . 18 MR. CARR: Could you read the ques t i o n to him, 19 please? 20 COURT REPORTER: "Then why w o u l d you recommend 21 that something be done to prevent possible misuse if you had 22 not concluded that that was something that needed to be 23 prevented." 24 A. (pause) My answer is this seemed like an 7 1 appropriate recommendation to make to our customers. 2 Q. And why, sir? 3 A. Information that could be of use to t h e m in 4 preventing -- 5 0. Why, sir? O/* A. Misuse of the product. 7 Q. Then you did conclude that there could be a misuse 3 of the product? 9 A. Mr. Carr, I don't see a c o nclusion to the extent of 10 the conclusion in Paragraph 1 of the memorandum. 11 Q. I'm talking about P a r a g r a p h 2, numb e r e d 2, Mr. 12 P a r k . 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. You know I'm talking about p a r a g r a p h number 2, I'm 15 not talking about paragraph number 1. D irect your attention* 16 please, to paragraph number 2, sir. 17 A. Paragraph 2 -- 18 0. You wanted to prevent possible misuse, did you not, 19 sir? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And what possible misuse is it that you wanted to 22 prevent? 23 A. I cannot recall any misuse. 24 Q. What possible misuse could there p o s s i b l y be, 8 I possibly? 2 A. I cannot recall. 3 Q. To what use -- well, then, at least there was a 4 misuse, could be a misuse of this product, isn't there, sir? 5 A. There could be a misuse of any product. 6 Q. And the misuse, what is this p r o d u c t used for, this 7 2,4-dichlorophenol? 3 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr, that's not in my line. 9 Q. Do you not consider that, sir, w h e n you determine 10 whether or not it should be reported to the EPA? 11 A. Yes, we do. 12 Q. And did you not consider it at that time, sir? 13 A. I'm sure we did. 14 0. And are you telling this jury that you do n o t*know 15 a single use to which 2,4-dichlorophenol is put by your 16 customers and the ultimate use of 2 , 4-dich l o r o p he n o l 17 products? 13 A. Mr. Carr, there is an earlier m e m o r a n d u m that's 19 referred to here. I think the earlier m e m o r a n d u m may have 20 des c r i b e d some of the uses of the product. 21 Q. Would you direct the witness to answer that 22 q u e s t i o n . 23 THE COURT: Please answer the question that was 24 p o sed to you. That was not an answer to the question. I'm 9 1 directing you to answer the question posed to you. 2 A. May I refresh my memory by looking at theother 3 memorandum? 4 Q. Mr. Park, are you telling the jury at this point in 5 time that you have no knowledge of what uses 6 2 , 4-dichlorophenol is put w i t hout looking for a mem o r a n d a to 7 refresh your memory? Is that what you are telling this jury, 8 Mr. Park? 9 A. Mr. Carr, those meetings took place five years ago. 10 Q. Mr. Park, is that what you are telling this jury? 11 A. Let me respond to your question, please. 12 Q. I'm asking you, are you telling this jury that you 13 cannot respond in your mind, you have nothing in your mind 14 that lets you know or makes you think of what possible uses 15 or to what uses 2,4 -dichlorophenol is put, are you saying 16 that, sir? 17 A. Mr. Carr, there are very few prod u c t s that I have 18 familiarity with on a continuing basis. 19 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 20 to answer? 21 THE COURT: Mr. Park, answer the question that's 22 asked of you. 23 A. Off the top of my head at this m oment I cannot 24 recall the uses that this product was put -- 10 1 Q. Not a single use, is that correct, Mr. Park? 2 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, he's asked a question and 3 the witness has answered it. Now he's c o ntinuing to ask the 4 same question. The witness said -- 5 MR. CARR: He said uses, I want to see if there is S a single use that he can recall. 7 THE COURT: Okay, your objection is overruled. Go 3 ahead. 9 A. I guess I cannot recall a single use at this time. 10 Q. And, you understand, Mr. Park, that you are under 11 oath and you are telling this jury that you have forgotten 12 the uses that we discussed just last Friday andyou didn't 13 have any memo and you didn't need to refer to a memo then? 14 Have you forgotten what we discussed just last Friday as to 15 the uses to which 2 , 4 -dichlorophenol is put by the customer, 16 is that what you are telling this jury, Mr. Park? 17 A. No, I'm not telling the jury that, Mr. Carr. 13 Q. Then, if you haven't forgotten it, if you are not 19 telling the jury then, then you have not forgotten, have you, 20 sir, you do indeed remember the uses to which, or some of the 21 uses or one of the uses to w hich 2 , 4-dichlorophenol is put, 22 don't you, sir? 23 A. Mr. Carr, what I tried to say -- 24 Q. Mr. Park, you do indeed remember some uses to which 11 1 2,4-dichlorophenol is p u t r don't you? 2 A. At this moment I'm sorry X cannot remember the 3 uses. 4 Q. You have forgotten all of those uses, can't recall 5 a single use that we discussed last Friday, is that what you 6 are saying, Mr. Park? 7 A. Uses we discussed last Friday, those described in 8 the other memorandum, Mr. Carr. 9 Q. Is what what you are saying to the jury? 10 A. No, Mr. Carr. 11 Q. Then please use your memory, use the resources that 12 you have in your mind to think back on what the uses of 13 2 , 4-dichlorophenol are, sir? 14 A. You w o n 't allow me to look at iny other memo r a n d u m ? 15 Q. That's correct, Mr. Park, because I don't believe 16 you are telling us the truth. That's the reason I won't let 17 you look at that memo. 18 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to counsel's statement, ask 19 the jury be instructed to disregard it. It's improper. 20 THE COURT: Overruled, it was in response to the 21 witness' request for clarification. 22 A. Mr. Carr, I'm sorry I cannot recall now the uses to 23 which this product was put. 24 Q. You said uses again, I'm asking you you cannot 12 r recall a single use? 2 A. I cannot recall a use, any use. 3 Q. A single use? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And, Mr. Park, does Monsanto -- has Mons a n t o known 6 in the past that your memory, that you cannot remember things 7 from Friday until Monday? 3 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to that totally improper 9 question. 10 0. Is this something ne w that has come up since this 11 case started, your faulty memory? 12 MR. M U S G R A V E : Object to that a g a i n for the same 13 reason, as also badgering the witness. 14 THE COURT: No, I don't think so, objection is 15 overruled. I think it's proper cross examination. 16 A. Mr. Carr, unlike you, I didn't study this just 17 before we. started today. My m e m o r y I think is at least 13 average, hopefully in general it might be -- 19 Q. Then what you are displaying today is not something 20 new. This is the w a y you have been since you went through 21 law school, I take it? 22 MR. MUSGRAVE: I object to that also, Your Honor, 23 may my objection to this entire lining of questioning about 24 commenting on Mr. Park's memory be a continuing objection? 13 1 2 noted. THE COURT: It may be a continuing objection. So 3 Q. Is this the kind of m e m o r y that you had in law 4 school, Mr. Park? 5 A. Hr. Carr, I found I have so many things to 6 remember, that if I write t h e m down then I need not remember 7 them, then I refer to my notes. 8 0. Mr. Park, when you take an e x a m i n a t i o n in law 9 school, you are not allowed to refer to notes, are you, sir? 10 When you passed the bar exam, you w e r en't allowed to refer to 11 notes? 12 A. No, that's correct. 13 Q. You remembered at that time t h ings you had learned 14 in the first year of law school, didn't you, sir? 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. And you passed the examination in Missouri and 17 Texas, didn't you, sir? 18 A. Yes, I did. 19 Q. Nov/, has your m emory failed since you passed the 20 bar exam in Missouri and Texas? 21 A. No, it hasn't, Mr. Carr. 22 Q. Mr. Park, then you know v/e dis c u s s e d a number of 23 uses to which 2,4-dichlorophenol is put, didn't we, sir, just 24 Friday, did we not discuss it, sir? 14 1 A. I don't recall that discussion in depth, Mr. Carr. 2 Q. Notwithstanding what we dis c u s s e d then and I didn't 3 ask you about in depth, notwithstanding the number of years 4 that you served on this TSCA committee, notwithstanding the 5 things you discussed with the toxicologists, notwithstanding 6 the requirement that you have to know tire uses to which the 7 product is put, if by your d e finition you are going to meet 8 TSCA, you are telling this jury today that you have forgotten 9 all of the uses to which 2,4-dichlorophenol can be put by 10 your customers and by their customers, is that what you are 11 saying, Mr. Park? 12 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, this has been asked several 13 times now, Your Honor. It's been answered. 14 THE COURT: It has been asked and answered. 15 S u s t a i n e d . 16 Q. Now, Mr. Park, not w i t h s t a n di n g your p r e sent lack of 17 knowledge, your committee at least knew that there were uses 18 to which it might be put by a customer, is that correct, sir? 19 A. That's correct. 20 O. And it considered that if they m i s used it that 21 might create a hazard to the customer, did they not, sir? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And that hazard would be based upon the content of 24 the trichlorophenol as you understood it at that time, isn't 15 1 that correct, sir? 2 A. Both the government study and the 3 2,4,u-trichlorophenol content. 4 Q. And it was based upon that that your committee 5 believed that there could be hazards to the customer, what 6 kind of^hazards could there be to your customers, if they 7 misused '2,4-dichlorophenol? 3 A. There could be exposure to customers or the 9 environment as the general rule. 10 Q. No, I'm asking the h azard -- 11 A. But Mr.,Carr, I've alre a d y stated that. 12 Q. I want- to know the result of the exposure, sir, 13 what hazards you considered might result f r o m being exposed 14 to 2,4-dichlorophenol? 15 A. You never want a customer to m isuse a product. 15 Q. Would you answer that question, Mr. Park? 17 A. I can't recall the specific, uses or misuses. 13 Q. I know you can't. I'm not asking you that. 19 A. That were discussed five years ago. 20 Q. I'm not asking you that now, Mr. Park, what I'm 21 asking you is about the hazard. The hazard that you wanted 22 the customers to avoid by not misusing the product. I've 23 left the uses of it. I'm h o w d i scussing w i t h you the 24 hazard. What hazards were involved to the customers if they 16 1 misused the product? 2 A. Mr. Carr, I can't now recall the specific hazards 3 but there is always concern about hazards to the customers. 4 Q. You recall the only h azard that the committee 5 discussed in May of 1979? 6 A. I assume it would relate to exposure but I cannot 7 rule -- 8 Q. Exposure is not a hazard, exposure is the means by 9 which the hazard develops, Mr. Park, and you know it. The 10 hazard is the health effect. That's the h azard involved, 11 isn't that correct, Mr. Park? 12 A. Wo, the hazard would be exposure. 13 Q. What would result from the exposure? 14 A. Health effects. 15 0. That's what we are talking about. Now, what 15 hazards would result from exposure to 2,4-dichlorophenol that 17 your committee considered? 18 A. Well, it wasn't the effects, it w o u l d have been 19 possible misuse resulting in exposure. 20 O. And, well exposure by itself is meaningless. You 21 could be exposed to water, you can swim in water all day 22 long, there is no h azard unless you drown, unless you get in 23 your over head. Yo u are not discussing swimming in 24 2,4-dichlorophenol. You are discussing at that time, Mr. 17 1 Park, the health effects from exposure to 2 2,4-dichlorophenol. Now, I want to know what health effects 3 was it that your committee considered might result from 4 exposure through misuse of the product by the customer? 5 A. I cannot recall without some notes or something, 6 Mr. Carr. 7 Q. You don't recall that we discussed .at length, Mr. 8 Park, the single health effects that your committee 9 discussed? 10 A. Can I see a m e m o r a n d u m or note to that effect? 11 Q. You don't recall that it was cancer and we 12 discussed it for hours last week, your com m i t t e e had cancer 13 and you related the 2,4-dichlorophenol to one part per 14 billion of 2,3,7,8 as far as carcinogenic effects, you recall 15 that, Mr. Park? Surely you do recall that? 16 A. In our discussion, or your di s c u s s i o n with other 17 w i t n e s s e s , M r . Carr? IS Q. Our discussion, Mr. Park? 19 A. I could remember our discussing cancer. 20 Q. In relation to this memo and this meeting, can't 21 you, sir? 22 A. Not specifically. Would you give me some 23 specifics, please, Mr. Carr. 24 Q. Mr. Park, do you recall that we ha d the memo that I 18 1 suggested to you was written by Dr. W i l s o n and you read it, 2 we read it over and over and over as recently as F r i d a y in 3 which it said the carcinogenic effects of exposure to 4 2,4-dichlorophenol the amount fed the rats and the mice and 5 the NCI study was equivalent .to one part per billion of 6 2,3,7,8-TCDD, you recall that? 7 A. I do recall a discussion of that memorandum, Mr. 3 Carr. 9 Q. Now, that's the h azard that you dis c u s s e d in those 10 meetings, isn't that correct, sir, and you have 1275 in front 11 of you, sir. I've been referring you to it, t h a t 's the 12 hazard, the carcinogenic effects, isn't that correct, sir? 13 A. Mot that I recall, sir. 14 Q. The hazard is right in front of you, Mr. Park, 15 w o uld you look at Exhibit 1275, the quote f r o m Dr. Paget? 16 A. W ould you like me to read it? 17 0. Just to yourself, so that your m e m o r y can be 18 refreshed with the hazard you all discussed was cancer. Nov/, 19 is your memory refreshed, Mr-. Park? 20 A. I'm not prepared to say that the h azard we 21 discussed was cancer. 22 Q. Mr. Park, my question was, is your m e m o r y 23 refreshed? 24 A. To the extent of this memorandum, it is, Mr. Carr. 19 1 Q. And cancer was the h a z a r d that you discussed, 2 wasn't it, sir? 3 A, Apparently at this meeting that's written up here, 4 we discussed Dr. Paget's evaluation of this Federal Register 5 notice. 5 Q. Mr. Park, what I'm asking you, cancer was the 7 hazard discussed, wasn't it, sir? 3 A. I'm not prepared to say that, Mr. Carr. 9 Q. What other hazard was dis c u s s e d except cancer? 10 A. Mr. Carr, I can't remember off the top of my head, 11 but this material may have a, may well have acute toxicity 12 that would have been discussed. 13 Q. Let me show you P l a i ntiff's Exhibit 1239, see if 14 that refreshes your memory as to the hazards that were 15 discussed? 15 A. Mr. Carr, this is someone's h a n d w r i t t e n notes that 17 the author is not known, apparently, nor is it dated. 13 Q. Let me show you 1290, then, w h i c h is dated May 19 22nd, '79, and it refers to you at that m e e ting and we 20 discussed 1290 already, haven't we, sir? 21 A. I recall some discussion of Plaintiff's Exhibit 22 1290. 23 Q. tthat hazard is discussed in Exhibit 1290? 24 A. Those are someone's handwritten notes, Mr. Carr, 20 1 and it's not at all clear that the matters mentioned here 2 were discussed at the meetings. 3 HR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 4 to answer the question I posed to him. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Park, that was not responsive to 6 the question. Please answer the question that was posed to 7 you. 3 A. This doesn't indicate w h e ther it was discussed or 9 not. 10 Q. My question what h a zard is referred to in that memo 11 1290? 12 A. It does mention that TCP -- 13 Q. My question is what h a z a r d is discussed. 14 A. I can see the word, the w o r d s ext r e m e l y weak 15 c a r c i n o g e n . 16 Q. And do you recall that the NCI report discussed 17 lymphomas and adnornas, you recall that, sir, you had the 13 exhibit there, I think it's May 11th exhibit, I don't know if 19 you have it now. 20 A. You took all my copies of exhibits. 21 Q. Exhibit 1288, sir, does that help you, sir, to come 22 to the present memory as to what hazards you discussed at 23 that meeting, the second paragraph of that memo, sir, where 24 you discussed the fact that it was carcinogenic to F344 rats 21' 1 inducing lymphomas or leukemias, carcinogenic hepatocellular 2 carcinomas or adnomas, you recall we discussed that at some 3 length, Mr. Park? 4 A. Yes, that was the subject of -- 5 Q. Were there any h a z ards other than cancer discussed 6 at that meeting, that you can recall? 7 A, May I read this memorandum, Mr. Carr? 3 Q. To refresh your memory, Mr- Park, yes. 9 THE COURT: What number is that memorandum? 10 MR. MUSGRAVE : 1283. 11 MR. CARR: Let me give you Exhibit 1292, maybe that 12 can help you. 13 A. May I retain this one? 14 Q. Let me see, we have got -- we have got two exhibits 15 that are -- I don't know ho w it happened, Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 1288, I know how it happeed, 1292 is the one that has your 17 notes to it, sir. 1283 and 1982 are exactly the same except 13 1292 is 1283 with Mr. Park's notes attached to it, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Thank you. 21 A. The only health effect I see referred to in this 22 would have been this weak carcinogenic effect in the rats or 23 m i c e . 24 Q. And, then, the only h azard then that could be 22 X referred to in your notes, your memo of June 6th, 1979, would 2 be the risk of cancer, is that correct, sir? 3 A. It's the only one mentioned in the memorandum. 4 Q. And you have no m emory of any other hazards, do 5 you, sir? 6 A. That's correct. 7 O. Then, the'hazard that your com m i t t e e w i s h e d to 8 avoid insofar as your customers misuse of the product is 9 concerned would be the hazard cancer, is that correct, sir? 10 A. Mr. Carr, there may have been others that I cannot 11 r e m e m b e r . 12 Q. I understand that,, but as far as you can remember 13 right now, this is a hazard that you w a n t e d to p r e vent if 14 there were misuse that took place, isn't that correct, Mr. 15 Park? 16 A. I don't really remember, that specifically, the 17 memoranda do speak of the weak carcino g e n i c effects in test 13 animals from the trichlorophenol. 19 Q. And it was the carcinogenic effects that you were 20 concerned about and that you w a nted to prevent, isn't that 21 correct, sir? 22 A. I would say so. 23 Q. And now aid you tell the cus t o m e r s that if they 24 misused your product that cancer could result? 23 1 A. I w o uld not have been involved in customer 2 contacts. 3 Q. Do you have any knowledge that any customer of 4 2 , 4-dichlorophenol was told that if they m i s used the product 5 cancer could result? 6 A. Mr. Carr, I'm not involved in dealing with 7 customers. 8 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 9 to answer that question? 10 THE COURT: Mr. Park, you have to answer the * 11 question. Your answer was not responsive. s 12 A. I'm sorry. 13 MR. MUSGRAVE: You are asking hi m personally, M r 14 Carr, whether he did? 15 THE COURT: The question is clear. Go ahead and 16 answer the question, Mr. Park. 17 A. Since I am not p e rsonally involved in customer 10 contacts, I am not p e rsonally aware of the manner of customer 19 i n f o r m a t i o n . 20 0. And you, Mr. Park, did not -- well, we h a v e already 21 established that. The EPA was not given the noti f i c a t i o n and 22 you have ho knowledge whether or not the customers were given 23 notification, is that right, sir? 24 A. Yes, there was no substantial risk of injury to 24 1 health or the environment here, and so there was no need -- 2 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'd ask the -- 3 A. You asked me two questions, Mr. Carr. 4 MR. CARR: -- answer be stricken and jury be 5 instructed to disregard it. 6 THE COURT: So ordered, not responsive. The answer 1 is stricken. Jury is ordered to disregard it. You may 8 proceed, M r . Carr. 9 Q. And, Mr. Park, you had other m e e t i n g s relating to 10 2 , 4-dichlorophenol, did you not, sir, and directing your 11 attention specifically, you had meetings in J a n uary of 1981 12 discussing 2 , 4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n o l , did you not, sir? 13 A. I believe that's correct. I would like to see the 14 memorandum, Mr. Carr, if I may. 15 Q. And I intend to give you that memorandum, as soon 15 as I can find it. It's an exhibit that's alre a d y in 17 evidence. You had one Exhibit 1281, I'll give you, it's a 18 memo dated December 30th, 1980. And the other exhibit is 19 undoubtedly in this stack. Jerry, do you have the number of 20 the January *81 memo? The original must be in with the 21 Clerk. I'll find the blow-up, be easier to find it, Your 22 Honor. It gives the initial number to start with. Would be 23 Exhibit 1241 if you have it. It would be -- start from the 24 front? All right, I've had it all the time, Your Honor. Put 25 1 w here it should be. Sorry. 2 THE COURT: That's okay. 3 Q. Mr. Park, referring now to 1241, if you would, it 4 is the report that you wrote relative to the 5 2,4-dichlorophenol that was discussed in a memo dated October 6 the 10th, 1980, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 1279, which I'll 7 also hand you, sir. Have you had an opportunity now to 3 refresh your memory, Mr. Park? 9 A. Let me have another minute or two, please, Mr. 10 Carr? 11 Q. All right. 12 THE COURT: While you are doing that, gentlemen, 13 could I see you at the bench for a moment? 14 (The following Side Bar conversation was had outside the 15 hearing of the j u r y . ) IS THE COURT: I don't know about this motion but I'd 17 like to have it argued after court today. IS MR. MUSGRAVE: Okay. 19 THE COURT: So, whoever, you know, let them know. 20 If it's you congratulations, I'll see you after court. 21 MR. M U S G R A V E : Pine. Thank you. 22 (The following proceedings were had in open court.) 23 A. Okay, I've read through most of it, Mr. Carr. 24 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Park, the p r o duct in question 20 1 was 2,4-dichlorophenol, was it not, sir? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And, you received a m e m o dated Dece m b e r 30th, 1930 4 from -- 5 A. Mr. Carr, I'm searching here, I hate to -- it says 6 dichlorophenol, I guess I'm at a little bit of a loss, 7 because of 'unfamiliarity w i t h the c h e m i s t r y here, I'm not 3 sure whether that's 2,4-dichlorophenol or whether it isn't, 9 I'm sorry. I don't know if that's significant to your 10 question or not. 11 Q. I've given you the memo dated December 30th, 1980, 12 have I not, sir? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And have I also given you a memo dated October the 15 10th, 1980? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And, do you see, sir, that t h e . s u b j e c t matter is 13 2 , 4-dichlorophenol in those memos, sir, among others? 19 A. I don't yet. 20 Q. Do you know that the num e r i c a l s ystem for Monsanto 21 is the 7,000 stands for 2 , 4-dichlorophenol? 22 A. No, I do not. 23 Q. Well, is your memo d i scussing dic h l o r o p h e no l s then, 24 sir? 27 1 A, Yes, 2 Q, And it is also say that D i a mond Shamrock uses 3 dichlorophen'ol to make 2,4-D? 4 A. Yes. 5 0. And, you dis c u s s e d whether or not the T CDD 6 contamination in dichlorophenol was such that required the 7 notification under TSCA to the EPA, isn't that correct, sir? 8 A. Yes, -- I didn't completely hear as you were 9 walking away the first part of your question, you say -- 10 Q. Did you discuss at the Janu a r y 6th meeting that 11 resulted in your January 7th, 1981 memo, Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 1241, the levels of TCDD found in the dichlorophenol as to 13 whether or not that required a notice to the EPA under TSCA, 14 isn't that correct, sir? 15 A. Y e s , s i r . 16 Q. And w hat was the level of 17 tetrachlorodibenzo - p - d i o x i n that was discussed at that 18 meeting in the dichlorophenols? 19 A. One to three parts per billion with one analysis 20 indicating a higher level. 21 Q. And what was the higher level that was discussed? 22 A. It's not indicated in this memo, Mr. Carr. 23 Q. Well, if you look to the -- you discussed the memo 24 dated October the 10th, 1980, did you not, sir? 28 1 A. Right. Yes. 2 Q. And I've given you that memo, sir, will you refer 3 to that memo? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And what were the levels of tetras, TCDD found in 6 the dichlorophenols, sir. I have on the boaird here T able 2 7 in that exhibit dated October the 10th, 1980; could you turn 8 to Table 2 that I directed you to earlier, Mr. Park? 9 A. It does appear that this sample 7003, I guess' there 10 is a question as to what it was, but it could have b een 9.5 11 parts per billion, if I'm reading this correctly here. 12 Q. And you discussed that at this meeting and you 13 concluded that since those low levels are going to be diluted 14 by customers operations that it would be unlikely to cause 15 any health environmental hazard, didn't you, sir? 16 A. That's right. 17 Q. And it was on that basis that you d e termined to not 18 notify the EPA, isn't that correct, sir? 19 A. Well, that and no one at the m e e ting was aware of 20 any other possible harm that could have come from the 21 p r o d u c t . 22 Q. Where is the other h a r m other than the h arm that 23 might be connected to TCDD discussed? 24 A. Well, it would have been for any other use, I'm 29 1 just reading the second sentence of that third to last 2 paragraph, Mr. Carr. 3 Q. It refers to TCDD, doesn't it, sir? 4 A. That's right. 5 0. It doesn't refer to d i c h l orophenol, refers to TCDD 6 level in that dichlorophenol, doesn't it, sir? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And, that level was one to three parts per billion 9 with one analysis indicating nine and a half parts per 10 billion, is that correct, sir? 11 A. It is not clear to me whether that means a 12 p ossibility.of four and a half to nine and a half. 13 O. It has been testified to me that is the nine and a 14 half, that is the part that coelutes with 2,3,7,3 TCDD. The 15 4.5 I think is included in the 9.5, but that's not important 16 at this point in time. That was the level you discussed, 17 wasn't it, sir? 18 A. Well, we discussed the entire analysis. 19 Q. All right. And this entire analysis, the highest 20 level for the tetras was 9.5, w a s n 't it, sir? 21 A. According to your chart there. 22 Q. No, according to the memo that you have in front of 23 you dated October 10th, 1980, which you discu s s e d ? 24 A. Yes. 30 1 Q. And you determined that that would not constitute a 2 risk p articularly when further diluted by c u s t o m e r 's 3 operations, did you, sir? 4 A. T h a t 's right. 5 Q. You consider that a customer w o u l d take the 6 2,4-dichlorophenol and put it in a product w h ere perhaps it 7 would be diluted by a factor of 50 percent or by a factor of 8 90 percent, something of that sort, i s n 't -- didn't you, sir? 9 A. It would have been diluted to some degree, yes. 10 Q. And you consider that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And that was important in your consideration, 13 w a s n *t it, M r . Park? 14 A. That was an important factor, yes. 15 Q, And, you decided then that since they are going to 16 perhaps this 9.5 might get as low down to one part per 17 billion or below it, that that woul d n ' t present a hazard, 18 didn't you? 19 A. The consideration ma y have even gone beyond that, 20 Mr. Carr.' 21 Q. Nov;, you are speculating, Mr. Park, aren't you, you 22 are not going to pretend you got a m e mory for particulars at 23 that meeting- when you can't remember what you discussed last 24 Friday, are you, Mr. Park? 31 1 A. If you let me finish occasionally it would be clear 2 what I'm saying. 3 Q. Do you have any m e m o r y of that meeting, Mr. Park, 4 any whatsoever? 5 A. Which meeting, Mr. Carr? 6 Q. The meeting we are discussing, M r . " P a r k ? 7 A-. I cannot remember the meeting, no,'off the top of 8 my head without reference to notes. 9 Q. Mr. Park, you are fully -- you were fully aware 10 when you came to the courtroom that I was going to ask you 11 questions about that meeting, weren't you, sir? 12 A. ilo, I was not so aware. 13 Q. You were not, you did not discuss this w i t h your 14 attorneys? 15 A. I discussed certainly my appearance with my 16 a t t o r n e y s . 17 Q. You didn't discuss the subject matter of your 18 appearance? 19 A. Vie felt it would probably relate to my p o s i t i o n as 20 a member of this group that sits down to discuss TSCA Section 21 8(e) . 22 Q. And they didn't tell you or did tell you, I'm sure, 23 that Exhibit 1241 had been admitted into evidence on March 24 27th 32 1 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to asking questions about 2 conversations with counsel. 3 Q. Three weeks ago. 4 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. 5 A. T here are thirteen hundred P l a i n t i f f ' s exhibits 5 now7 they did not discuss every one of those with me. 7 THE COURT: Wait a second. Gentlemen, could you 8 approach the bench for a minute? 9 (The following Side Bar conversation was had outside the 10 hearing of the jury.) 11 THE COURT: When we get into specifics, I think we 12 might be getting into some attorney-client problems. I 13 sustained your objection at this point as far as the 14 s p e c i f i c s . 15 MR. CARR: As far as what he's dis c u s s e d with Mr. 15 Musgrave? 17 THE COURT: W i t h Mr. Musgrave. 18 MR. MUSGRAVE: Or any of the attorneys. 19 MR. CARR: Y e a h . 20 MR. MUSGRAVE: Yeah. 21 22 (The following proceedings v/ere had in open court.) 23 Q. (by mr. Carr) Now, Mr. Park, you were aware of the 24 fact that you had been asked to, and you did produce your 33 1 files relating to the TSCA meetings and dioxin, isn't that 2 correct, sir? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. There has only been about three, isn't that right, 5 sir? Or even two? 6 A. Section 3 Ce) meetings? 7 Q Yes 3 A. No, we have held a number, I would say, total 9 meetings of any subject? 10 Q. No, Mr. Part, you know what I'm talking about, 11 dioxin content in chlorinated phenols? 12 A. I think there have been, I would guess, four. 13 Q. Four meetings dealing with c h l o r i n a t e d p h e n ol s for 14 TSCA? 15 MR. M U S G R A V E : You said dioxin, Mr. Carr. 15 Q. Dioxin in the c h l o rinated phenols. 17 MR. MUSGRAVE: Different question. 18 THE COURT: Overruled. 19 A. I believe that's correct. 20 Q. Sir? 21 A. I believe that's correct, yes. 22 Q. When were those meetings held, sir? 23 A. I'd have to refer to my notes. 24 Q. Could you please? 34 1 A. Well, I don't have those notes w i t h me. 2 Q. Because the only thing that I have, the only notes 3 that I have would be one for December 1981, and the one for 4 March '79 that we have been discussing, and this one now that 5 we are on for January '81? 6 A. Then there was one, I'm sorry, I forgot the dates 7 you mentioned, but there was one in J a n uary of '79, I 3 believe, that related to the Sturgeon spill itself. 9 Q. That was the T S C A meetings? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then there were four indeed then? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And no others? 14 A. Relating to dioxin in chlorop h e n o ls ? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. No, I think that's correct. 17 Q. And you knew, didn't you, sir, that I'm going to ( 18 ask questions about this meeting? 19 A. I d i d n ' t 'know for sure that you would, no. 20 Q. Well, I didn't ask you if you knew for sure, you 21 knew that was a topic, didn't you, sir? 22 A. I -- 23 Q. You didn't refresh your m e mory as to what I might 24 ask you about, the levels, what you discussed? J 35 1 A. Mr. Carr, this whole thing we are in is kind of a 2 new experience for me. I, frankly, did not know what to 3 expect, sir. 4 Q. Mr. Park, would you now refresh y our m e m o r y as to 5 whether or not you have any memory whatsoever as to what was 6 discussed other than as related in those memos at your 7 meeting o f 'J a n uary the 6th, 1981? 8 A. I can't recall anything beyond what is in the 3 memoranda, Mr. Carr. 10 Q. And, that m e m o r a n d u m refers to the tetra, TCDD 11 content of the dichlorophenol in question, doesn't it, sir? 12 A. That's correct.. 13 Q. And you considered that 9.5 w o u l d be diluted when 14 it got to the customer, doesn't it, sir? 15 A. What I was going to say, Mr. Carr -- 15 Q. Mr. Park, could you listen, kind of try to listen 17 to what, and kind of try to answer the question that I'm 18 asking you? 19 A. Either that or that it ma y have been a blip, may 20 have been an incorrect reading. 21 Q. And you considered it might have been an incorrect 22 finding at that time? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, is that somewhere in this memo? That's 36 1 something that you remember, isn't it, sir? 2 A. I notice in the December 30th, 1980, memorandum 3 there is some criticism of the, appears to be criticism of 4 the analysis. 5 Q. Well, did you consider then that it might have been 6 a mistake then when you decided not to notify the EPA? 7 A. Mr. Carr, I can't recall off the top of my head, 3 I'm trying -- 9 Q. I'm asking you not to do it off the top of your 10 head, Mr. Park. Dig into the b o t t o m of your head, dig into 11 the memos. 12 A. I am. 13 Q. Mow, having dug into the b o t t o m of your head and 14 into those memos, is that one factor that you considered when 15 you decided not to n otify the EPA? 16 A. That that might have been an error. 17 Q. Yes. I would think that w o u l d be one factor. 13 Q. - N o w , if it had been, if it was in fact, if you 19 hadn't had that doubt in there,, would that have made a 20 difference in you notifying the EPA? 21 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr. 22 Q. Well, think about it, Mr. Park. 23 A. I guess I doubt it. I see here there were 31 24 samples, one had indicated a possibility of 9.5 parts per 37 1 billion. The use of the product being one where in fact it's 2 apparently the major uses as an intermediate product. 3 Assuming that would be a correct reading, I doubt that would 4 have been sufficiently significant to have warranted 5 informing the EPA. 6 Q. All right. Then you have a doubt, though, you are 7 not sure, is that right, sir? 8 A. No, I can't recall the specific discussions, Mr. 9 Carr, that took place. It's clear that it was concluded that 10 notification was not required. I feel p r e t t y certain that 11 all relevant factors were discussed at the meeting as is 12 generally the case. 13 Q. And, Mr. Park, when you discussed ail those 14 relevant factors and you discussed the fact that this might 15 have been an accident, a c cidental thing, and that all the 16 other findings just showed one to three parts per billion? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Now, if you di s c o v e r e d that it was not an isolated 19 finding, would that have made a difference, sir, it w a s not 20 an accident, not an artifact, not a blip? 21 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, it's been asked and 22 answered, he already testified to that. 23 THE COURT: I think it's in a different context. 24 Overruled. 38 1 A. X d o n 't think that wou l d of made any difference. 2 Q. What level would make a >difference, Mr. Park? 3 A. I have no idea. 4 Q. Mo idea at all? 5 A. No. 6 Q.. What about the 250 parts per billion for total 7 dioxin content that we discussed 'last Friday, w o uld that have 8 made a difference? 9 A. I d o n 't recall that we discussed that, Mr. Carr. 10 Q. You d o n 't recall that we discussed 250 parts per 11 billion as a total dioxin c o ncentration last Friday in the 12 products? 13 A. I can simply recall you asking me a question. 14 Q. Mr. Park, you d o n 't recall that we discussed at 15 considerable length the 250 parts per billion average finding 16 and tetra ethyl? 17 A. I can recall -- 10 Q. Of total dioxins, sir? 19 A. I can recall some discussion of that. 20 Q. All right, then you do have some m e m o r y of w h a t we 21 discussed last Friday? 22 A. Viith regard to the -- 23 Q. Sir? 24 A. Yes, with regard to the, whatever it was, 250 parts 39 1 per million average. 2 Q. 250 parts per billion? 3 A. 3illion, yeah, average analysis in the tetrathal. 4 Q. And what if you had concluded there were 250 parts 5 per billion not 9.5 for tetra but for total dioxins, that 6 there were 250 parts per billion of dioxins in this product, 7 sir? 8 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, speculation and conjecture* 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 A. Mr. Carr, it's important that h e r e we are talking 11 about TCDD and in the tetrathal we are not. 12 0. And w h a t 1s important about that, Mr. Park? 13 A. The TCDD is gen e r a l l y held to be far and away the 14 most toxic of the various dioxins. 15 Q. Yes, and that *s important then to take that into 16 consideration along with the toxicity of the other dioxins, 17 isn't it, sir? So if you have T C D D 1s in the product, that's 18 a level of toxicity to be concerned and you add to that the 19 concern that you'd have about total d ioxin in the product, 20 wouldn't you, sir? 21 A. Well, some various dioxins very v e r y low, v ery 22 little toxicity, I understand. 23 Q. Could you answer my question, please, sir? 24 A. I'm sorry, I guess I thought I did, Mr. Carr, 40 1 toxicity of TCDD. 2 Q. Could you read the question to the witness, 3 please? 4 COURT REPORTER: "And that's important then to take 5 that into consideration along with the toxicity of the other 6 dioxins, isn't it, sir?" 7 A. Recognizing the toxicity is ex t r e m e l y low, if at 8 all in the other ones, the answer is yes. 3 Q. Could you answer my question? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You do -- it is important to take into effect the 12 toxicity of the other dioxins along w ith the toxicity of the 13 TCDD dioxins, isn't that correct, sir? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Because when they are added together, along with 16 the toxicity of the product without a contaminant, you are 17 then -- that's what you consider for total toxicity, that's 13 being shipped out of that Monsanto plant, isn't that correct, 19 sir? 20 A. You are asking me questions now, Mr. Carr, that 21 really are beyond my realm of knowledge and training. I am 22 not a toxicologist. 23 Q. And when you meet and draw up those memos and make 24 those recommendations, you are not considering the total 41 1 toxicity of the product including dioxins that's therein, Mr. 2 Park? 3 A. We certainly do. 4 Q. And, Mr. Park, that's what I ' m asking you here now, 5 because that's what you consider in your function in this 6 committee and that's exactly what I'm asking you now, not 7 asking you any question different than what you would 3 consider in those EPA notification meetings. Now, Mr. Park, 9 it is important that you consider the total toxicity not just 10 of the product without the dioxin content but the tox i c i t y of 11 the product itself, plus the toxicity that's added to it by 12 the TCDD component, plus the toxicity that's added to it by 13 the other dioxin component, isn't that correct, sir? 14 A.., Mr. Carr, you are trying to put words in my mouth 15 again.. The other -- 15 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 17 to answer that question? I thought it was fairly -- 13 THE COURT: Mr. Park, I think you have to answer 19 the question as posed and your answer was not responsive. 20 A. Okay. 21 THE COURT: Please answer the question as posed to 22 y o u . 23 A. We do consider the toxicity of the entire product. 24 Q. Is that a yes to my answer, Mr. Park, to my 42 1 question? 2 A. To the extent that other dioxins than TCDD have 3 toxicity, that would be considered. 4 Q. Then that is a yes to my q u e stion? 5 A. On that basis, yes. -J6 0. You consider the toxicity of the p r o duct without 7 dioxin content, you consider the toxicity of the product 3 including the T CDD toxicity if it has it therein, you 9 consider the toxicity of that product, plus the toxicity of 10 the TCDD, plus the toxi c i t y of the other dioxins, isn't that 11 correct, sir? 12 - A. I think that is correct. 13 Q. N o w , Mr. Park, did you make any effort at the 14 Janu a r y 1st, *81, meeting to consider w h a t other dioxins 15 might be present in some of those p r o d u c t s ? 15 MR. M U S G R A V E : January 5? 17 Q. January 6th. 18 MR. MUSGRAVE: You said the 1st, I just wanted to 19 be sure what you were talking about. 20 A. I noticed that the the analyses that are attached 21 to the October 10, 1980 m e m o r a n d u m do indicate, as I read it, 22 that the analyses included a search for the other dioxins in 23 whether they appear there on the chart. 24 Q. And they had, did they not, for the sample in 43 1 question, 108 parts per billion of tri-dioxin, 553 parts per 2 billion of a di-dioxin, 15 parts per billion of a 3 mono-dioxin, isn't that correct, sir? In addition to the 4 tetra that we have discussed? 5 A. It does appear on the chart. 5 Q. And, did you consider the toxi c i t y of tri-dioxin? 7 A. Mr. Carr, I can't recall. I would assume that we 3 did. 9 0. And you, of course, do recall that 10 tribenzo-p-dioxin is n early as toxic as tetras according to 11 the memo that you have from the, dated May 22nd, 1979 12 meeting, isn't that correct, sir? 13 MR. M U S G R A V E : ' Object, that's a m i s r e p r e s e n ta t i o n 14 of the evidence, there are many isomers of tri- also, Mr. 15 Carr, you know the references to a specific isomer. 16 MR. CARR: You also know if you can identify it, 17 your company goes by the rule, is to assume it's the most 13 toxic and that's been testified to by a number of your 19 w i t n e s s e s . 20 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Answer the 21 question, p l e a s e . 22 A. I d o n 't recall t h a t , M r . C a r r . 23 Q. Well, would you refresh your memory and look at the 24 May 22nd, 1979 memo, I think you have it in front of you 44 1 Exhibit 1290 2 A. Well, it is not a memorandum, Mr. Carr. 3 Q,. The notes of the May 22nd, '79 meeting, Mr. Park? 4 A. My notes. 5 Q. What my question referred to? 6 A. Those unknown, those anonymous notes. 7 Q. By some member of your committee? 8 Q. Not very anonymous, an employee of Monsanto. It 9 appears to be the handwriting of Dr. Wilson? 10 A. I see a note on his -- this h a n d w r i t t e n thing here, 11 Mr. Carr. 12 Q. That's my request referring to you, sir, that the 13 t r i d i b e n z o-p-dioxi n is nearly as toxic as the 2,3,7,8, 14 according to that note by one of the members of your 15 committee in '79, isn't that correct, sir? 16 A. I cannot add any dignity to this thing b eyond what 17 it has on it, Mr. Carr. 18 MR. CARR: W o u l d -- Your Honor., would you direct 19 the witness to -- 20 THE COURT: Mr. Park, that was not an answer to the 21 question. Answer the question. 22 A. The answer is I don't know. 23 Q. Mr. Park -- 24 A. This will have to speak for itself, Mr. Carr. 45 i 1 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I ask the Court to direct 2 the witness to assume that last week we established that this 3 memo pointed out that trichiorodibenzo-p-dioxin is nearly as 4 toxic as 2,3,7,8 and that this witness last week agreed, yes, 5 that's v/hat the memo said. 6 THE COURT: So ordered. 7 Q. Now, Mr. Park, assuming as the Court has ordered 8 you to assume, this particular batch of dich l o r o p h e no l has in 9 it a 108 parts per billion of something that's nearly as 10 toxic as 2,3,7,8, isn't that correct, sir? 11 MR. M U S G R A V E : Object, that's an improper 12 hypothetical. There is no evidence as to what it is. 13 THE C O U R T : O v e r r u l e d . 14 A, On the basis of the Court's instruction, it does 15 have that reference. 16 Q. Did you at this meeting consider this meet i n g on 17 J a n u a r y the 6th, 1981, consider the toxicity of 108 par t s per 18 billion of this tridibenzo-p-dioxin? 19 A. I would assume that v/e had. 20 Q. And, not having any independent recollection, it is 21 an assumption on your part without any knowledge, isn't that 22 correct, sir? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Did you discuss the toxicity of 553 parts per 46 1 billion of dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin? 2 A. Again, I would assume that we did. 3 Q. And again you have no specific m e m o r y of it and you 4 don't know, isn't that correct, sir? 5 A. T h a t 's c o r r e c t . 6 Q. Wow, Doctor, /-- 7 MR. CARR: I'm -- does the Court -- I note I'm past 8 11. I'll be glad to go on if the Court wants. 9 THE COURT: Okay, I had missed it to. Vie will take 10 a short break at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, I wou l d 11 admonish you, and this will go for any other breaks that we 12 take today, that you are not to discuss this matter among 13 yourselves, with anyone outside the jury panel or as of yet 14 form any opinions or conclusions about the matters on trial. 15 Court will be in short recess. 16 (Following a recess, these proceedings were had in open 17 c o u r t .) 18 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Mr. Park, Ma y 1979 meeting, the 11th 19 and the 22nd resulted in the June memo, dealt with something 20 that was publ i s h e d in the Federal R e g i s t e r , is that correct, 21 sir? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And, of course, the F ederal.Register has been used 24 in the past by the EPA to publish notices as well, has it 47 1 not, we referred to the rules and, or the interpretation and 2 policy that were published in the F e d e r a l -Register? So they 3 surely presumed to know that which is contained in the 4 Federal Register that they use themselves, is that correct, 5 sir? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And, Doctor, you testified last week that you need 3 not notify the EPA about things that they know about 9 themselves, that was one interpretation that you put at one 10 point in time upon the T S C A Section 8(e), isn't that correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Why did you then meet in M a y of '79 to consider 13 whether or not notific a t i o n should take place to the EPA, 14 since obviously it was in the Federal R e g i s t e r , they get the i 15 Federal R e g i s t e r , they know of the contents of the Federal 16 R e g i s t e r . why did you even consider you are obl i g a t e d to 17 meet? 18 A, The m e e t i n g s are requested by other people. I do 19 not call the meetin g s myself. And we hold mee t i n g s w h enever 20 anyone feels that the meeting should be held. 21 Q. My questi o n is w h y was this meeting held if the EPA 22 obviously, ever y b o d y at that meeting knev; that it was in the 23 Federal Register beca u s e that's the subject of the meeting, 24 the 1979 meeting. I just can't recall, it may have been that 48 1 for that reason it was actually not necessary to hold the 2 meeting, but we did hold it. 3 Q. Mr. Park, you k n o w .in point of fact simply because 4 the EPA may know something or is in the Federal Register or 5 they may know about a particular chemical, does not excuse 6 you at Monsanto from having those meetings, isn't that 7 correct, sir? Q MR. MUSGRAVE : Your Honor, I believe we have been 9 through this same question, has been asked several times 10 before that whole topic of the interpretation of 8(e) and 11 this witness' interpretation has been gone into at length, I 12 believe this is repetitive and I object to it. 13 THE COURT: Overruled, I don't think those Federal 14 Register aspects w ere gone into before. You may continue, 15 Mr. Carr. 16 A. No, in my opinion it is not nec e s s a r y or 17 appropriate to hold a m e e ting to consider 8(e) reporting if 18 the information is a l r eady known to the EPA.. 19 Q. And is there any law, any policy, any statement put 20 out by the Government that agrees with your interpretation of 21 the requirements and the chemical company's? 22 A. I think the law itself d o e s . 23 Q. Point it out, p l e a s e , sir? 24 A. X don't have it right here, but the lav/, Section 49 1 8(e) . 2 Q. I want you to point it out, Mr. Park. 3 A. Well -- 4 Q. Those are in what order from now, they are stacked 5 on top of one other, what order are they in now? 6 THE CLERK: Which exhibit do you need? 7 MR. CARR: Exhibit 300, Monsanto's, and 881. 8 A. Monsanto's policy was in this bunch that was here 9 on the desk Friday. 10 Q. H e r e 1s 881. 11 A. Thank you. This is Section 8(e). 12 MR. M U S G R A V E : What exhibit do you have, Mr. Park, 13 please? 14 MR. CARR: 881 I just handed to counsel. And here 15 is Monsanto Exhibit 880. 16 A. Thank you. In its entirety, Section 8 (e) of the 17 Toxic Substances Control Act reads, "Any p erson who 18 manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce a ' 19 chemical substance or mixture, and who obtains information 20 which reasonably supports the conclusion that such a 21 substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury tc 22 health or the environment, shall immediately inform the 23 administrator of such knowledge, unless such p e rson has 24 actual knowledge that the administrator has been adequately 50 1 informed of such information." 2 Q. All right. Now, do you have actual knowledge, sir 3 4 MR. MUSGRAVE : Mr. Park, I believe you misread 5 that, I think it says "of such information" unless the person 6 has actual knowledge. 7 A. I'm sorry. 8 MR. MUSGRAVE : "That the administrator has been 9 adequately informed of such information." You said 10 knowledge, I think information is used con s i s t e n t l y 11 throughout. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Nov/, my question is, Mr. Park, do you at Monsanto 14 know, do you have actual knowledge, that the E P A has been 15 informed of those things that's published in the Federal 16 R e g i s t e r ? 17 A. This poli c y statement in Section VII includes a 18 number of sources of information which it is assumed the EPA 19 has knowledge of. 20 Q. V7ould you direct me to that Section VII of Monsanto 21 Exhibit 880? 22 A. Yes. In the -- 23 Q. Roman numeral VII? 24 A. Yes. 51 1 Q. All right, W o u l d you point out w h e r e it describes 2 the Federal Register, sir? 3 A. I don't see a reference to the Federal .Register 4 itself in this -- 5 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Park, will you point out to me 6 where the law exempts Monsanto from informing EPA of the fact 7 that a batch of its material has been found to be 8 contaminated with something that it didn't know was there 9 before? 10 A. We are back to the substantial risk of injury 11 question, Mr. Carr. 12 Q. No, as far as the knowledge of the EPA, you said 13 that they know about 2,4-dichlorophenol, is what you said. n 14 They know about it. I'm asking you, sir, you are required to 15 have actual knowledge that they know that your product 16 contains dioxin, isn't that c o r r e c t , sir? 17 A. Well -- 18 Q. If dioxin has a substantial health risk? 19 A. If the EPA has knowledge of some information then 20 certainly no reporting obligation exists with respect to that 21 information. 22 Q. And my question is, sir, do they have actual 23 knowledge that the batch referred to here in J a n uary 7th, 24 1931 memo, Exhibit 1241 A, do they have actual knowledge that 52 1 that batch contained nine and a half parts per billion of 2 tetra, 103 parts per billion of tri-, 553 parts per billion 3 of dichlorophenol dibenzo-o-dio.xin? 4 A. So far as I am aware, they don't. 5 Q. And is there any place in the Statute that exempts 6 you from giving that information where you know they don't 7 have actual information? 3 A. If I understand you correctly, no, the only 9 exception to the obligation is where the EPA has the 10 information. 11 Q. Yes. And you considered in J a n u a r y of *81 the 12 possible exposure, didn't you, sir? 13 A. I just don't recall the exact discussion, Hr. Carr, 14 I would assume that we would. 15 Q. Your memo discusses customer dilution, doesn't it, 16 sir? 17 A. Yes. 18 - MR. MUSGRAVE: Your Honor, we have been through all 19 this before. He's asked him this guestion tv/o or three times 20 already this morning. He's answered does discuss it. 21 Q. That's exactly the point, it does d i s cuss possible 22 customer dilution and e x p o s u r e , d o e s n 't i t , sir? 23 T H E COURT: Objection is overruled. 24 A. It discusses customer dilution. 53 1 Q. And that relates to what they will or will not be 2 exposed to, isn't that correct, sir? 3 A. It doesn't say this, Mr. Carr. 4 Q. Isn't that the meaning of it, sir? What difference 5 does it make if it's diluted or not diluted, if they are not 6 going to be exposed to it, you consider risks involved in the 7 exposure of this diluted substance, didn't you, sir, this 8 diluted chemical? 9 A. Mr. Carr, as I stated, I cannot remember the exact 10 discussions that went on. 11 Q, I didn't ask you to remember the .exact discussions, 12 what I'm saying is this memo shows that you on that committee 13 considered the actual exposure that customers might be 14 presented by this low level of TCDD in your product, isn't 15 that correct, sir? 16 A. I don't remember.-17 Q. I'm not asking you to remember, doesn't this memo 18 show that because you concluded that it.-was going to be 19 diluted that it refers to customers exposure? 20 A. It doesn't say that, Mr. Carr. 21 Q. You don't take that to mean that, Mr. Park? 22 A. It says the extremely low levels of T CDD will be 23 further diluted by customer operations. 24 Q. And was p a r t i c u l a r l y when further d i l uted we would 54 1 be unlikely to cause any health environmental effects, isn't 2 that correct, sir? 3 A- Yeah. 4 O. Sir? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So, you did consider ana this memo points out that 7 you considered exposure to the customer of this diluted 8 chemical, isn't that correct, sir? 9 A. Mr. Carr, I just cannot remember the discussions. 10 Q. Mr. Park, I am not asking you to remember, I'm 11 asking you to give me the plain sense of those words that 12 I've just read to you, that you used in your memo of J a n u a r y 13 7th, 1981? 14 A. The p l a i n m e a ning as I see it is that a n y levels of 15 TCDD in the aichlo r o p h e no l w o u l d be so low after customer IS dilution as to present no hazard. 17 Q. And the exposure w o u l d be to say as to p r e s e n t no 18 hazard, isn't that correct? 19 A. I don't see the word exposure. 20 Q. Isn't that the meaning, sir, when you are 21 discussing the customer dilution, the ultimate use of the 22 product? 23 MR. M U S G R A V E : O bject to this, Your Honor, the 24 witness has answered the question, he's referred to the 55 1 sentence that Mr. Carr has asked hi m to, answered it 2 interpreting what he feels it means, referring to levels, and 3 it's very clear what he testified to and Mr. Carr insists 4 upon asking the same question. I object to it, it's 5 repetitive. This is the same topic going over and over 5 again. 7 THE COURT: Overruled. 8 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr. 9 Q. You don't know what the meaning of this p a r a graph 10 involves considering customer exposure after the chemical has 11 been diluted? 12 A. I assume it. 13 Q. You don't know that, Mr. Park? 14 A. I assume it means just what it says. 15 0. I'm sorry? 16 A. I assume it means just what it says. 17 Q. What does it say relative to customers health, are 18 they going to be at greater risk because it's d i l uted or be 19 at lesser risk bec ause it's diluted? 20 A. It doesn't specifically state. 21 Q. What does it state, are they going to be at greater 22 risk or lesser risk after it's diluted, what is the plain 23 meaning of that, Mr. Park? 24 A. It implies that any TCDD levels in the p r o d u c t will 56 1 be reduced when the product is diluted by the customers 2 operations. 3 Q. And that when one is exposed to this reduced or 4 diluted TCDD, what does that do with the health risk, does 5 that increase the health risk or decrease the health risk? 6 MR, MUSGRAVE: Object, that's a 7 mischaracterization. It's not reduced TCDD, it's reduced 8 level,, and that's what the witness is testifying to. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 A. It just doesn't state, Mr. Carr. 11 Q. Mr. Park, I'm asking you what this means, are you 12 now swearing in front of this jury that this paragraph does 13 not consider customer exposure to the product? 14 A. 1-Jo, I'm not so swearing. 15 Q. Then you know this pa r a g r a p h does consider customer 16 exposure, don't you, sir? 17 A. I think the m e m o r a n d u m should speak for itself, Mr. 18 Carr. 19 Q. W o u l d you answer that question, please, Mr. Park? 20 A. No. 21 MR. CARR: Your Honor, will you direct -- did you 22 answer the question, you simply -- 23 A. No, I'm answering your question. 24 Q. This does not refer to exposure or does it refer to _ 57 1 2 A. I just don't recall, Mr. Carr. 3 Q. No, Mr. Park, again I'm not a sking you to recall, 4 I'm asking you whether or not this paragraph contemplates 5 customer exposure to the product after it's been diluted, and o/-- after it?s been d i l uted that exposure it w o u l d be unlikely to 7 cause any health problems, did you not of necessity when you 8 considered that paragraph and concluded to put that paragraph 9 in there, did you not of necessity, consider customer 10 exposure to this product in its d i l uted state? 11 A. . M r . Carr -- 12 MR. MUSGRAVE; Object, this question has been asked 13 and answered. He has interpreted this sentence for Mr. Carr 14 to the best of his ability about two times now. 15 THE COURT: Object -- 16 MR. MUSGRAVE: I object, this is repetitive. 17 THE COURT: It has been asked, excuse me,, I don't 18 think it has been answered and your objection is overruled,. 19 It's properly asked again. 20 A. I don't see how I can add to the memorandum, Mr. 21 C a r r . \ 22 Q. Your Honor, would you direct the witness to 23 answer? 24 THE COURT: Mr. Park, you have to answer the 58 1 question as directly posed to you. 2 A. I'm sorry. 3 THE COURT: I've ruled it is a proper question. 4 A. Okay, could I impose on your clerk -- 5 THE COURT: What did you say? o A. Could I impose to read -- 7 THE COURT: You can read it Dack to hi m once. 8 COURT REPORTER: "No, Mr. Park, again, I'm not 9 asking you to recall, I'm asking you whether or not this 10 para g r a p h contemplates customer exposure to the p r o duct after 11 it's been diluted, that exposure, it would be unlik e l y to 12 cause any health problems. Did you not of n e c e s s i t y when you 13 considered that par a g r a p h and concluded to put that p a r a g r a p h 14 in there, did you not of necessity consider customer exposure 15 to this product in its diluted state?" 16 A. I don't know. 17 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 13 to answer this ques tion? 19 20 know. MR. MUSGRAVE: He has, Your Honor, says he doesn't 21 MR. CARR: I thin); he's contemptuous of the Court. 22 I think the questions that I've asked for the last five 23 minutes admit of only one conclusion and this w i t n e s s knows 24 that he dare not give the only conclusion that can be given, 59 1 and I think it's contemptuous that -- I think it's a mockery 2 of the system that I should go around phrasing the question 3 thirty different ways and then the witness comes up and says 4 I don't know that that's the meaning. He has the education, 5 he has the intelligence, he has the background to know that 6 that is the plain meaning of that paragraph. 7 I1R. I1USGRAVE: I object, Your Honor, to counsel's \ 8 speech. I object to counsel's insinuations. I request the 9 Court instruct the jury to disregard them. I ask that the 10 Court admonish Mr. Carr to stop theatrics and stop making 11 inappropriate and improper comments like that. The witness 12 has answered the question when he was asked didn't he 13 consider and he says I don't know. Is there a n y t h i n g wrong 14 with a witness in this court or any court in. the United 15 States not being able to answer question because he doesn't 16 know? Just because it doesn't satisfy Mr. Carr. This is 17 totally improper. I object for all of those reasons. 18 THE COURT: Your objections are overruled. I don't 19 think your answer is responsive to the question. The 20 question has been asked of you a number of times. It has 21 been read back once. I am directly ordering you to answer 22 the question posed to you. 23 MR. MUSGRAVE: Are the rest of my requests also 24 overruled for the record? 60 1 2 are. THE COURT: Yes, they are. They most certainly 3 A. Your Honor, are you instructing me that I must 4 answer either yes or no? 5 THE COURT: I most certainly am. 6 A. Even though it contains what I consider to be 7 improper limitations and premises? 3 THE COURT: I have ruled that the answers that you 9 have given are not responsive and that the question posed to 10 you is proper. Answer. 11 A. You will not allow me to answer that I don't know? 12 THE COURT: I will not allow that kind of answer, 13 it does not call for that kind of answer. 14 A. Then within those constraints, I would respond that 15 along with m any other considerations, exposure to the product IS would proba b l y have been considered. 17 MR. CARR: Your Honor, rhat again is not a response 18 to my question. My q uestion is as to the plain meaning of 13 this paragraph, not whether probably would have been 20 considered. He can answer that question that of necessity 21 this para g r a p h contemplates discussion of, consideration of 22 exposure by custom e r s after the product is diluted, does it 23 not, M r . Park? A. Among m a n y other things, yes. 61 1 Q. And Mr. Park, that follows because in the 2 preliminary paragraph to it, you pointed out the uses to 3 which the product is put, did- you not, sir? 4 A. Yes. 5 0. And the only reason you would consider the uses to 6 which it is put, is because you are going to consider the 7 exposure following from such use, isn't that correct, Mr. 8 Park? 9 A. There could be other reasons, Mr. Carr. That would 10 be one. 11 Q. And, you. have considered the fact.that 12 dichiorophenol is used to manufacture 2,4-D, d i d n 't you, sir? 13 A. i d o n 't remember t h a t . 14 Q- The memo states that you considered that. d o e s n 't 15 it, sir? 16 A. Yes, it does. - 17 Q. And you know what 2,4-D is, don't you, sir 18 A.- I'm not well informed on it, I believe it' s a 19 herbicide 20 Q. It's used on people's lawns to kill weeds and 21 dandelions isn't it, sir? 22 A. (shrugs shoulder) 23 Q. Don't put your hands up, you know that for a fact, 24 don't you, sir? 62 1 MR. HUSGRAVE: Object, he's arguing with the 2 witness. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 4 Q . ' You know that, don't you, Mr. Park? 5 A. I an not well informed on its -- Q. I'm not asking you if you are w e l l informed, you know that 2,4-D is used to kill dandelions on people's lawns, don't you, sir? A. No, I don't, Mr. Carr, particularly. I don't know what the ingredients of this can are that you put up here. Q. And I'm not asking you about that.can, Mr. Park, I'm asking you about 2,4-D. A. I don't know that people put it on their lawns. I believe I have heard that it is a herbicide. Q. And do you know -- A. Kills vegetation. Q. And do you know if it kills vegetation, it would kill dandelions on people's lavms, you know that, don't you, sir? A. I might be afraid it would kill the grass, I don't know, this is beyond my area of expertise. Q. When you discussed -- when this memo discusses tnat it's being used to m a n u facture 2,4-D, can you consider at that time what 2,4-D is going to be used for? 63 1 A. Mr. Carr, I cannot recall the d i s c ussions that went 2 on during the meeting, the discussions. 3 Q. You p o i n t e d out in this memo that in addition to 4 using it for other customers to use it to make 2 , 4 - D , others 5 incorporated into oil well additives, isn't that correct, 6 sir? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And you c o nsidered those uses at chat time, didn't 9 you, sir? As pointed out by the memo? 10 . A. Uh-huh, yes. 11 Q. And, you concluded, did you not, sir, that the 12 exposure in using this product in those methods v/ould not 13 constitute -- would be unlikely, when it's further diluted, 14 would be unlik e l y to cause any heaitn or environmental t 15 hazard? 16 A. - P a r t i c u l a r l y when it's for the -- 17 Q. Mow, w h e n you considered that, you did go beyond 18 the restraints of the law, didn't you, sir, the policy set 19 out by the EPA relative to that law, isn't that correct, sir? 20 A. Mot at ail. 21 Q. Did you consider that there was sufficient evidence 22 of exposure simply because it went into commerce? 23 A. I explained last week, Mr. Carr. 24 Q. Excuse me, my question is did you consider at that 64 1 time at this meeting in January of '31r that there v/ould be, 2 that the mere fact that it went into commerce was sufficient 3 evidence of exposure? 4 A. Mr. Carr, I can't recall the exact discussions that 5 took place, I said that several times now. 6 Q, And did I ask you to recall the exact discussions, 7 my question -- would you read back the question? 8 COURT REPORTER: "Excuse me, ray question is aid you 9 consider at that time at this meeting in J a n u a r y of '81, that 10 there would be, that the mere fact that it went into commerce 11 was sufficient evidence of exposure?" 12 A. Frankly, I do not recall. 13 Q. Now, Mr. Park, you didn't say that this dilution 14 would not cause a h azard to health, did you, sir? You simply 15 said in your memo after it's diluted it would be unlikely to 16 cause any h e alth problems, didn't you, sir? 17 A. T h at's correct. 13 Q. That means, did it not, sir, that it's possible 19 that there could be serious health effects by the use of even 20 diluted 2,4-dichlorophenol that contains 9.5 parts per 21 billion of TCDD? 22 A. I don't think so. 23 Q. And you are saying then that the -- this means that 24 there is no possibi l i t y of any bad effects or health effects 65 1 if using 9.5 parts per billion of TCDD in a diluted product? 2 A. Not being a toxicologist X would feel it would be 3 extremely unlikely to occur. 4 Q. You didn't even use the word extremely unlikely, 5 you used the words would be unlikely, didn't you, sir? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And that means that you cannot exclude the On p o s s i b i l i t y that someone would be injured by this T C D D even .S as it is diluted in the customer's use of it, isn't that 10 c o r r e c t , sir ? 11 A. I wouldn't read it that way, Hr. Carr. 12 Q- I'm sorry? 13 A. I w o uld not read it that way. 14 Q. Did you say there is no p o s s i b i l i t y that it would 15 cause any health or environmental harm, sir? IS A. Did not say that. 17 Q. You said it would be unlikely. Unli k e l y means not 13 likely but certainl y possible, doesn't it, sir? 19 A. I would say it means not likely. 20 0. And not likely means that it could occur, doesn't 21 it, sir? 22 A. Yeah, likely means it probably will occur. 23 Q. L i kely means it p r obably will occur, but you are 24 not even saying for sure that it will occur. Unli k e l y means 66 1 that it probably won't occur, isn't that correct? 2 A. I don't know, I guess I'd say likely n:eans it will, 3 unlikely, that it won't. 4 Q. Unlikely that it won't, that's a double negative, 5 you are now saying that it will. 6 A. You misunderstood what I said, Mr. Carr, I was 7 trying to give you my impression of the words likely and 3 unlikely. 9 Q. You just said a moment ago that likely means it 10 probably will cause harm? 11 A. Well -- 12 0. Isn't that correct? 13 A. Then I went on to say I guess likely would mean 14 that it will. 15 Q. I thought you said that likely means it probably 15 will? 17 A. I did at one time then I said on the other- hand 18 maybe likely means that it will cause harm. 19 Q. And now you are changing that because you know, Mr. 20 Park, that likely doesn't mean for sure that it will, but 21 simply that it probably will not a hundred percent sure tnat 22 it will cause it, but that it's your judgment that it 23 probably will cause this harm, isn't that correct, sir? 24 A. I really don't know, Mr. Carr. 67 1 Q. Can't you equate that if you are going through a 2 school zone where there are children present and the speed 3 limit says 20- miles per hour and if you go above 20 miles per 4 hour, 50 miles per hour, it's probable that you are going to 5 cause some harm, likely that you are going to cause harm, 5 isn't that correct, sir, if you speed through a school zone, 7 isn't it prob a b l e that you will cause harm, if there are 3 children present? 9 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr, it would be a v e r y improper 10 thing to do. 11 Q. Indeed it would., because that 20 mile per hour is a 12 speed limit and you are not supposed to go above that, they 13 set a safe limit, didn't they, sir, what they c o n s i d e r e d to 14 be safe, isn't that right, sir? 15 A. True, but Mr. Carr -- 15 Q. There is no question about that, is there, sir,? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. If you saw a sign that says 20 miles per hour in a 19 school zone when children are present, there is no question 20 in your mind but that that is a limit above which you should 21 not go, isn't that correct, sir? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And there woul d n ' t be any doubt in the minds, say, 24 of somebody that went to Harvard and had a Ph.D., anybody 63 1 that sees a speed limit sign that says 20 miles per hour in a 2 school zone when children are present, he must interpret that 3 to mean don't go above that because you may cause harm to 4 somebody if you go above that speed, under those 5 circumstances, isn't that correct, sir? 6 A. I would assume so. 7 Q- You w ould assume so, you know so, don't you, sir, 3 t h a t 1's the purpose of the sign p 9 A You are supposed to stay within the speed limit. 10 Q. In order to protect the safety of those children 11 that are in that area at that time , isn't that correct, sir? 12 A. Y e s . 13 Q. And there is no ques tion about that, is the re , 14 sir? Is there, sir? 15 A. Ho, about staying within the speed limit? IS Q. That 20 mile per hour is a speed limit that is set 17 for the sake of the safety of the children, isn't that 18 -correct, sir? 19 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 20 Q. Mr. Park, tne mere fact that you use the w'ord 21 unlikely in t m s memo means that you beli e v e it is not 22 probable that somebody's health is going to be harmed, isn't 23 that correct, sir? 24 A. I would read it co mean that health would not be 69 1 harmed, health nor 2 0. W h y didn't -- then Mr. Park w h y didn't you say it n 3 will not cause any health effects, why didn't you use that 4 word? You are skilled in the use of words, you've been to 5 law school, you use words with precision, you know what the 6 word unlikely means. Unlikely means it's not probable, 7 doesn't it, sir? It doesn't mean won't, it means not probable, d o e s n 't i t , sir? 9 A. I d o n 't know, M r . C a r r . 10 Q. And did you not know the meaning of the word 11 unlikely vihen you used it in this memo, sir? 12 A. Mo, I think I knev/ the meaning of the word. 13 0. And, did your idea of the m e a ning of that word 14 differ from the or d i n a r y meaning of that, did you have a 15 special meaning to that w o r d other than what w o u l d be in the 15 dictionary, sir? Did you have your own unique m e aning? 17 A . M o . 18 Q. You used that word the wa y others use it, didn't^ 19 you, sir? 20 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to counsel now asking this 21 witness to determine how others might use it in this 22 particular context. It requires this witness to draw 23 conclusions, speculate as to what others may or ma y not do. 24 MU. CARR: Let me with d r a w it. 70 1 Q. You meant this memo to be read by others and to be 2 interpreted by others, didn't you, sir? o A. This memo really describes the conclusions reached 4 by the group that met -- 5 HR. CARR: Would you direct the witness to answer 5 the question. 7 THE COURT: That was not responsive, you'll nave to 3 answer the question that's asked of you, Mr. Park. Please 9 answer. 10 A. Yes, it would u l t i m a t e l y be read by others. 11 Q. And you meant to c onvey to those others particular 12 meanings, didn't you, sir? 13 A 1 e s . 14 MR. CARR: Your Honor, it's noon. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we 16 will break for lunch at this time. We will resume again at 17 1:30. The a d m onish m e n ts that I've given you earlier will 18 apply during this lunch break also. Court is in recess for 19 l u n c h . 20 (Following a recess, these p r o c e e d i n g s were had in open 21 c o u r t .) 22 COURT ADJOURNED: 23 24 71 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, DEBRA ii. MUSI EL AX r certify the foregoing to be a 6 true and accurate transcript of the testimony and proceedings ,7 in the above-entitled cause. 3 Dated this ' in day of April, 1935. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 72 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 2 CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 3 4 JAMES M, ADKINS, A d m in is tra to r o f ) the E sta te o f Ralph E, A dkins, ) 5 Deceased, e t a l, ) 6 ) P lain tiffs, ) 7 vs; > 8 MONSANTO COMPANY, a D elaw are ) ) C orporation, ) 9) D efendant. ) 10 ) No.81-2098 11 12 APPEARANCES : M essrs. C a lw e ll, McCormick & 13 P e y to n , ch-by. W* S t u a r t C a lw e ll, J r . , E sq. For P l a i n t i f f s , 14 M essrs. Bow les, McDavid, G ra ff U Love, 15 by Thomas E . S c a r r , E sq . 16 a n d D eborah A. S in k , For D efendant. 17 18 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by an d b etw een 19 co u n sel f o r th e p l a i n t i f f s and co u n sel fo r th e d efe n d a n t 20 t h a t th e d e p o s itio n o f EDWIN L. HEAD ns y be ta k e n p u r 21 s u a n t t o R ule 2 6 (a ) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C i v i l P ro 22 c e d u re , on b e h a lf o f th e p l a i n t i f f s , on J u ly 7 , 19 8 3 , 23 a t th e R ad is son H o te l, Room 215, 9t h S t r e e t an d Conven 24 t i o n P la z a , S t , L o u is , M is s o u ri, b e f o r e M. JOY SPRINGER, 25 a N otary P u b lic w ith in and fo r th e County o f M adison, AMpe; MAY R E P O R T IN G S E R V IC E 'l 1 w ith Monsanto th a t caused you to be connected w ith or J 2 have any re la tio n sh ip w ith the N itro Plant? 3 A Not d ire c tly . I'v e not been a sso c ia te d 4 d ire c tly w ith any of the products of the N itro P la n t. 5 Q What a r e th e d u tie s o f your p r e s e n t jo b ? 6 A MIC i s th e b a s ic ch e m ic a l company a t 7 M onsanto. My jo b i s to d i r e c t th e m arket r e s e a r c h 8 a c t i v i t i e s , b o th f o r new grow th and e x i s t i n g m a rk e ts , 9 t r a d i t i o n a l m ark et r e s e a r c h . We have a s m a ll d e p a rtm e n t 10 t h a t does t h a t f o r th e ch em ical in d u s try . I a l s o have 11 th e a d v e r t i s i n g and p u b lic r e l a t i o n s f u n c tio n s f o r MIC. 12 Q Are you f a m i l i a r w ith an Ad Hoc g ro u p 13 o r Com mittee t h a t has come to be known a s th e N i t r o 14 Task F o rc e 7 15 A I'm f a m ilia r w ith th a t group, y e s . 1<S Q And w ere you a member o f th e N i t r o 17 T ask F orce? 18 A No, I was n o t. .19 Q Did you re c e iv e memoranda and be on 20 th e m ailing l i s t of the N itro Task Force? 21 A I g o t c o p ie s o f t h e i r m e e tin g s . 22 Q And why would you se e c o p ie s o f t h e i r 23 m eetings? 24 A A t t h a t p o in t in tim e my jo b w ith - r 25 M onsanto was n o t , n o t my p r e s e n t jo b , b u t I was D ir e c t o r JAM ES MAY REPORTING SERVICE i o f Planning fo r the D etergents and Phosphates D iv isio n a t Monsanto Company, w hich no lo n g e r e x i s t s . I t 's been in te g ra ted in to another u n it, Q And I assum e t h a t th e N i t r o P l a n t had som ething to do w ith d ete rg e n ts and phosphates? A No, I t d id n o t. . Q Why w ould you have b een on th e m a ilin g l i s t fo r th e m inutes of th is m eeting? . A I n t h i s p re v io u s jo b we w ere c o n d u c tin g a study of one o f our b u sin e sse s, a commercial and te c h n ic a l stu d y , o f one of th e b u sin esses of th a t g ro u p . One o f th e members o f t h a t s tu d y team , t e c h n i c a l member, was a l s o a member o f th e N itr o team and s u g g e s te d th a t th e re migjit be m ethodology evolving from th a t stu d y t h a t would be u s e f u l t o th e s tu d y we w ere c o n d u c tin g in the D etergent/Phospate D ivision. Q You had a h e a l t h s tu d y underw ay? A No, I t was a com m ercial and te c h n ic a l study of one of our processes and b u sin e sse s, Q And th e r e was a member o f th e N i t r o Task Force - A I ' m n o t s u re he was a member o f th e N itr o T ask F o rc e . He was a t l e a s t a n a d v i s o r t o t h a t Task Force and a ls o an ad v iso r to the o th e r Ih sk F o rce. The id e a was t h a t we m ig h t be a b l e t o u se some o f th e JA M ES MAY R E P O R TIN G S ER V IC E .. 1 methodology th a t they were u sin g in th e o th e r stu d y . =2 % : Q In the N itro Task Force study? 3 A * We m ig h t be a b l e t o u se th in g s t h a t 4 th ey were doing In terms of a n a ly tic a l p ro ced u res. 5 . Q What was th e N itr o Task F orce doing? r 6 A W ell, as b e st I r e c a ll th e m inutes of 7 the m eeting, they were looking a t th e environm ental 8 h e a l t h o r s t a t u s o f some o f th e u n i t s o f t h a t p l a n t . 9 ; Q A t l e a s t , somebody in th e company or i 10 you f e l t t h a t th e r e was some c o n n e c tio n betw een t h a t n undertaking and the und ertak in g you were in volved in? 12 ' A I t was recommended t o ms t h a t th e y 13 m ig h t be d e v e lo p in g some in f o r m a tio n an d m eth o d o lo g y 14 th a t could be u s e fu l to th e stu d y th a t I was c o n d u c tin g , 15 t h a t my team was c o n d u c tin g . 16 Q But your team had n o th in g to do w ith 17 h e a lth or hygiene? 18 A No. We w ere lo o k in g s p e c i f i c a l l y a t 19 a b u sin e ss t h a t was lo s in g money and a l s o had p o t e n t i a l 20 environm ental problems th a t would r e q u ir e in fu s io n o f 21 c a p i t a l lo n g te rm . 22 *-1 23 24 25 Q So i t was from th e p o t e n t i a l e n v iro n " m ental problems sta n d p o in t? A ' Yeah, and a ls o econom ic. Q Would th e se problem s have a n y th in g to 4 JAM ES MAY REPORTING SERVICE i . I do w ith chloracne or dio x in s? .J 2 3 A Dioxins were involved. Q And w hat p ro d u c t w ere you w o rk in g w ith ? 4 A M onsanto' s tr a d e name f o r i t i s . 5 Santophen, S -a -n -t-o -p -h -e -n . See i f I can r e c a l l w hat 6 i t is chem ically. I t rs ortho-benzyl-para-chlorophenol. 7 I t 's a c h lo rin a te d phenol compound, i t* s a d e riv a tiv e 8 of ch lo rin ated phenol, and in the process the p o te n tia l 9. f o r p ro d u c in g d io x in e x i s t s . 10 Q You w ere c h l o r i n a t i n g a b en zen e r i n g 11 in th e r e soma way? 12 A C h lo rin a tin g p h en o l.' 13 Q You knew w hat iso m er you th o u g h t you 14 m ight have a p o te n tia l problem w ith ? 15 A The p o t e n t i a l e x i s t s f o r a l l ty p e s o f 16 d io x in in t h i s d i s t i l l a t i o n p r o c e c s , a n d we w ere d e 17 v elo p in g a n a ly tic a l procedures to see i f th e y e x is te d , 18 and i f s o , w here. 19 Q Did you e x p e c t in your p ro c e ss t h a t 20 2 ,3 ,7 ,8 te tra ch lo ro d ib e n z o -p a ra -d io x in would be c re a te d ? 21 .A My t e c h n i c a l p e o p le t o l d me we had 22 the p o te n tia l o f producing th a t isom er. 23 - Q ' From your knowledge o f t h a t p r o j e c t , 24 was t h a t th e one you w ere most co n c ern ed a b o u t, o r d id 25 you make a n y d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n betv;ecn t h e iso m e rs? JAMES MAY REPO RTING SERVICE 7  1 J2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 25 * A I b e lie v e th a t th e re was more co n cern expressed about th a t isom er than th e o th e r isom ers. We were i n t e r e s t e d in e l i m i n a t i n g , i f th e y e x i s t e d , a l l forms of d io x in , b u t I b e lie v e I was a d v ise d t h a t 2 ,3 ,7 ,8 had g reater p o te n tia l h e a lth h azard s. Q And who a d v is e d you o f th a t ? A I c a n 't g iv e you a name. We had a number o f te c h n ic a l a d v is e r s . I t would be from Monsa n to 's Research Department* Q Anybody from the M edical D epartm ent? A We d id have a member o f th e M e d ic a l D epartm ent t h a t was n o t on th e team , b u t he d id d i s cu ss w ith u s^ a b c u t w hat was known in th e s t a t e o f th e a r t o f d io x in and i t s im pact on h e a lth . Q And w hat d id t h a t p e rs o n o r th e M edic a l Department t e l l you in th a t reg ard ? A They t o l d me that* th e im p a c t o r e f f e c t o f d io x in on human h e a l t h was n o t f u l l y d e f in e d . They had the p o te n tia l in c e rta in a p p lic a tio n s or c e rta in exposure co n d itio n s to be h arm fu l, th a t th e y have d e f i n i t e l y been proven to cause c h lo ra c n e in some c a s e s , i inclu d in g an in c id en t in I ta ly which they c ite d as the f i r s t re fe re n c e to i t , and th a t th e im pact on h e a lth in o th e r forms was b e in g s tu d ie d an d we d id n o t know them . Q Were you a d v is e d a s to w hat was s u s p e c te d JAM ES MAY REPORTING SERVICE :* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - In terms o f h e a lth problems w ith 2*3,7,87 A No. As I r e c a l l , I a sk e d th e q u e s tio n an d th e y an sw ered , "We d o n 't know y e t , " Q So you a s k e d , w e ll, you knew i t c a u s e s ch lo racn e, what e lse does i t do? A Yeah. Q And th e re sp o n se you g o t w as, "We d o n 't know"? A "We d o n 't know," Q Were you b r ie f e d a t a l l on th e c h lo r a c n e problem a t th e N itro P la n t in connection w ith your conversations about -- A I was n o t. Q Is Santophen a new p ro d u c t, an e x p e r i m ental product? A No. Santophen has been on th e m a rk e t f o r I d o n 't know how many y e a r s , a t l e a s t tw e n ty . I t ' s used in hard su rfa c e c le a n e r s . The most p o p u la r one i s L ysol, I t 's the d isin fe c ta n t in the d is in fe c ta n t L ysol. Q Where is i t m anufactured? A I t ' s m anufactured in M onsanto's Krunmrich P la n t in S auget, I l l i n o i s , Q And w hat was your m is s io n in v o lv in g Santophen? A My p r in a r y o b je c tiv e in our m is s io n was JAM ES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 t o make a recom m endation to M onsanto management a s to 2 th e f u tu r e econom ic v i a b i l i t y o f t i n t u n i t . We h av e 3 s in c e made t h a t recom m endation, and i t was to c l o s e 4 th e u n it. The problem is th e re is a low er c o s t d i s 5 i n f e c t a n t a v a i l a b l e on th e m arket to d a y . We do n o t 6 compete c o stw ise , and our major custom er sw itched to 7 a n o th e r p ro d u c t and th e v r r itin g was on th e w a l l . 8 Q I th in k I can se e why you w ould have 9 been in c lu d e d on th e N itr o Task F orce m a ilin g l i s t b e 10 c a u s e t h a t p ro d u c t had th e p o t e n t i a l o f c r e a t i n g o r 11 th ro w in g t h i s isom er o f d io x in . 12 A The p ro c e s s has t h a t p o t e n t i a l . One 13 o f th e t h i n g s , o f c o u r s e , we w ere t r y i n g to d e te rm in e 14 i s w h eth e r to reconsnend w h eth e r we s t a y in t h i s b u s i n e s s 15 o r n o t f o r th e f u tu r e en v iro n m e n ta l i n t e g r i t y a s w e ll 1 a s econom ic. 17 Q And .was th e e n v iro n m e n ta l a s s e s s m e n t 18 in term s o f h e a lth and exposure on th e p a r t o f th e 19 w orker a f a c to r in your d e c isio n to d isc o n tin u e th e 20 p ro d u ct? 21 A T h a t 's h a rd to s a y , I can t e l l you i t 22 was n o t a m ajo r f a c t o r in my recom m endation. The d e 23 c i s i o n , th e recom m endation was made on th e f a c t t h a t 24 we w ere l o s i n g money and we saw no way o f r e v e r s i n g 25 th a t p o s itio n because o f our c o s t p o s itio n due to th e se JA M ES MAY R E P O R TIN G SER V IC E  1 com petitive products. '2 Q At th a t production u n it were you ex- 3 p e rie n c in g th e same o r any problem s w ith c h lo ra c n e or 4 the a sso c ia te d com plaints th a t the N itro P lan t had ex- 5 p e r ie n c e d in th e 16 0 's ? 6 A X d o n 't b e lie v e so . I d o n 't know an y 7 re p o rts of chloracne from th is u n it in the p la n t. I'm 8 not e n tire ly sure of th a t, but i t did not surface in 9 our rev iew . I t was n o t a problem th a t was c o n s id e re d . 10 Q Is th e e n t ir e p ro d u ct m anufactured a t 11 th e Krummrich P la n t? 12 A L e t 's see i f t h e r e ! s an y im p o rted raw 13 m a t e r i a l s . The raw m a te r ia l s f o r benzene - - I t ' s a 14 s e lf-c o n ta in e d u n it. 15 Q And a t th e in te rm e d ia te s te p -- 1 A W buy some c h l o r i n e . 17 Q But th e s te p in th e m anufacture of 18 Santophen w here you m ight c r e a te one o f th e s e d io x in s 19 ta k e s p la c e a t th e Krunmrich P la n t? 20 A I t does, yes. I t 's a d i s t i l l a t i o n 21 o p e r a tio n in th e u n i t . 22 Q Did p u rem ain on th e m a ilin g l i s t f o r 23 th e N itro Task F orce through i t s e n tir e - 24 A I 'm n o t s u r e how lo n g th e y w ere in 7 " 25 e x is te n c e , I d id n 't follow th a t a c tiv i ty because i t JAM ES MAY REPORTING SERVICE iV .. 1 w asn ' t my r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I sto p p e d r e c e iv in g t h e i r 2 r e p o r t s when we co m p leted our s tu d y . I know v?e com3 p le ta d our study before they were through w ith th e ir s . 4 I su sp e c t, don'ttnow , th e re were a d d itio n a l re p o rts I 5 did not receiv e. 6 Q When w ere you f i r s t a d v is e d a b o u t 7 d io x in ? When I s a y " d i o x i n ," I 'm .'g e n e r a lly r e f e r r i n g 8 to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 9 A I b e l i e v e t h a t my f i r s t knowledge 10 th a t th e re was even such a compound a s d io x in in an y n form came when I re a d a r e p o r t of. a Seveso in c id e n t 12 in I t a l y i n th e m id -170*3 seme tim e , I th in k a b o u t 13 1975 o r f 6 , I re a d a r e p o r t o f t h a t e r u p tio n and 14 fo llo w e d th ro u g h some o f th e problem s t h a t e n s u e d . 15 Q And was t h a t i n c o n n e c tio n w ith y o u r 16 work or j u s t a g e n e ra l re a d in g ? 17 A I t was g e n e ra l re a d in g . I th in k I 18 re a d i t in F o rtu n e m agazine. 19 Q And a s f a r a s M onsanto i s c o n c ern ed , 20 th e only b r ie f in g -- and w e 'l l c a l l i t b r ie f in g -- th a t 21 you had was in c o n n e c tio n w ith y o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f 22 th e Santophen p rocess ab o u t d io x in ? 23 A I can ' t say th a t fo r su re because i t 24 was c o n n e c te d t o S an to p h en in some w ay. I was a l s o 7 ~ 25 r e c i p i e n t o f some in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e S tu rg eo n s p i l l JAM ES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 f 1 because th a t p ro d u c t, o rth o c h lo ro p h e n o l, came o u t o f 2 th e same u n i t , and th e M anager o f th e D e te rg e n t and 3 Phosphates D ivision had a number o f b rie fin g s about 4 the Sturgeon in c id en t and the d io x in and co n ten ts of 5 th a t car* 6 Q Did you ev er work fo r Dr. C a llis ? 7 A I know D r. C a llis * I 'v e n e v e r w orked S f o r him* I worked w ith him* 9 r Q In th e p h o sp h a te s D iv is io n o r th e 10 o p e r a tio n a l d iv is io n t h a t makes p h o s p h a te s , i s t h a t H g e n e ra lly where you run in to th e o rth o ch lo ro p h en o ls? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Is t h a t w here you have s p e n t m ost o f 14 your c a re e r w ith Monsanto? 15 A Most o f my c a r e e r , a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t 16 o f my c a r e e r , h as been a s s o c i a t e d w ith in o r g a n ic ch em i17 c a ls , d e te rg e n t phosphates and a l k y l b e n z e n e s, s u r 18 f a c t a n t s , p ro d u c ts t h a t s e rv e th e d e t e r g e n t i n d u s t r y . 19 Q Many o f th o s e p ro d u c ts have th e c a p a 20 b i l i t y of throwing an isom er of d io x in , do th ey not? 21 A The o n ly one I 'm aw are o f - - I 'm n o t 22 an o rg an ic ch em ist - - th e o n ly one I'm aw are o f i s th e 23 orthochlorophenol u n it, I d o n 't b e lie v e th e c a p a b ility 24 e x is ts -- Almost a l l of our o th e r p ro d u cts a r e in o rg a n ic -- 25 and they are d e riv a tiv e s of w hite or yellow phosphorus. i JAM ES MAY REPO RTING SERVICE 1 The one ex cep tio n would be w h a t's csUed d e te rg e n t a lk y la te , which is an a lk y la te d benzene r in g , b u t I d o n 't th in k from my lim ite d know ledge o f c h e m is tr y - The s u r f a c ta n t in d e te rg e n ts lik e Tide and h e a v y -d u ty laundry d etergents are e ith e r an alkylbenzene or alco h o l. We do n o t make th e a l c o h o ls . We make a lk y lb e n z e n e - but I doubt i f there is any. Q In the work th a t you have done th a t may have in v o lv e d an o rth o c h lo ro p h e n o l, d id you r e c e i v e any in s tru c tio n or inform ation from M onsanto re g a rd in g the p o te n tia l th e re fo r throw ing a te .tra le v e l dioxin? A ' Yeah. I t ' s th e same s o u rc e , same p o te n tia l source as the one th a t would g e t in to th e S antophen. The o rth o c h lo ro p h e n o l, th e m a te r ia l t h a t was s p ille d in th e tr a in w reck a t S tu rg e o n , M is s o u ri, i s a b y p ro d u ct o f th e Santophen p r o c e s s . You c h l o r i n a t e phenol and you r e a c t i t w ith b en zy l c h l o r id e , you make Santophen. A byproduct is ortho ch lo ro p h en o l, w hich Monsanto so ld to makers o f p en tach lo ro p h e n o l. q Were you g iv e n an y i n s t r u c t i o n s o r cautions about the p o te n tia l in the byproduct o rth o chlorophenol fo r the dioxin contam ination? A I was n o t. Q And d id you le a r n i n c o n n e c tio n w ith your Santophen p r o je c t th a t th e re was in f a c t an ongoing JAM ES MAY R E PO R TIN G SER V IC E 1 body of knowledge th a t Monsanto had ab o u t p o te n tia l 2 fo r these 2 ,3 ,7 ,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-psra-dioxins in 3 connection w ith the orthochlorophanol? 4 A I d o n 't b e lie v e s o . My f i r s t know ledge 5 th a t th ere could have been dioxin in orthochlorophenol came from th e S tu rg eo n s p i l l , b u t X d o n 't know w h at 7 ex isted p rio r to th a t, 8 0 V?hen d id you lo s e c n n t a c t w ith th e 9 N itro Eask Force? 10 A I d o n 't know, I th in k i t m ust have 11 been th e f o u r th q u a r te r o f 1979, We w ere c o n d u c tin g 12 t h i s s tu d y in 1979, I b e lie v e we bad co m p leted i t 13 by the th ird q u a rte r and I would have had no f u rth e r 14 need. 15 Q Did you have any c o n ta c t w ith Raymond 16 S uskind in c o n n e c tio n w ith y o u r w ork -- 17 A No, I 'v e n ev e r met Dr. S u sk in d . 18 Q Any in q u ir y made o f you by th e M e d ic a l 19 Departm ent or Dr. Suskind or anybody e ls e re g a rd in g 20 any h e a lth problem s th a t th e w orkers in v o lv e d w ith th e 21 S antophen m ight have had? 22 A N ot o f me. 23 Q And you know o f no su ch i n q u i r y o r s tu d y ? 24 A I'm n o t aware of i t i f i t h a s . I 've 25 re a d t h a t D r. Suskind had done some work in v o lv in g th e JAM ES MAY R E PO R TIN G SER V IC E 1 ICrummrich P l a n t , b u t X d o n 't knew w hat t h a t w as. 2 Q Did you ev er a tte n d any o f th e m eetings 3 of the N itro Task Force? 4 . A Ho, I d id n o t, _ . 5 Q Did you ev e r ta lk w ith M ontie T hrodahl about it? 7 * A No, I d id n ' t , 8 Q In your c a re e r w ith Monsanto you ? never had any connection w ith 2,4,5-T ? 10 A No, Maybe an i n d i r e c t c o n n e c tio n 11 many y e a rs a g o . I was th e M ark etin g O n a g e r in s e l l i n g 12 an h y d ro u s ammonia and n i t r i c a c id an d some i n d u s t r i a l 13 n itr o g e n p r o d u c ts , and some o f our d i s t r i b u t e r s t h a t 14 h a n d le d my p ro d u c t s o ld 2 ,4 ,5 - T , b u t t h a t ' s n o t a 15 p a r t o f my b u s in e s s . l Q Were you e v e r made aw are o f th e 17 c h lo ra c n e problem a t N itro r e la te d to 2 ,4 ,5 -T b e fo re 18 you g o t in v o lv ed w ith t h is Santophen p r o je c t? 19 A No, I don' t b e lie v e I was aw are o f i t 20 u n t i l we s t a r t e d s tu d y in g th e c h lo ro p h e n o l b u s in e s s , 21 MR, CALWELL; A l l r i g h t , Mr. Head. 22 I t has been a pleasure ta lk in g w ith you today, 23 sir. 24 TIE WITNESS: Thank you. 25 Edwin L . Hoad JA M ES MAY R E PO R TIN G SER V IC E 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF MADISON ) 3 4 I , M. JOY SPRINGER, a N o ta ry P u b l i c , d u ly 5 commissioned and q u a lifie d in and f o r th e County o f 6 Madison, S ta te o f I l l i n o i s , do hereby c e r t i f y th a t 7 p u rs u a n t to n o tic e came b e fo re me on th e 7 th d ay o f 3 J u ly , 1983, a t th e R ad isso n H o te l, Room 2 15, 9 th 9 S tre e t and Convention P laza, S t. L o u is, M isso u ri, 10 EDWIN L. HEAD, who was by me d u ly sworn to t e s t i f y 11 to th e t r u t h and n o th in g b u t th t r u t h o f h i s know l 12 edge to u c h in g and c o n c e rn in g th e m a tte rs in c o n t r o 13 v e r s y in t h i s c a s e ; t h a t .he was th e re u p o n c a r e f u l l y 14 examined upon o a th , and h is ex a m in a tio n red u ce d to 15 w r i tin g u n d er my s u p e r v is io n ; t h a t th e d e p o s i t i o n I s 16 a tr u e re c o r d o f th e te s tim o n y g iv e n by th e w i t n e s s ; 17 and s ig n a tu re of th e w itn e ss was n o t w aived. 18 I FURTHER CERTIFY t h a t I am n e i t h e r a t t o r n e y 19 nor co u n sel fo r nor r e la te d to nor employed by and o f 20 th e p a r t i e s to th e a c tio n in w hich t h i s d e p o s i t i o n i s 21 ta k e n ; and f u r t h e r , t h a t I am n o t a r e l a t i v e o r em 22 ployee o f an y a tto rn e y - o r c o u n s e l em ployed by th e 23 p a r tie s h e re to , or f in a n c ia lly in te r e s te d in the 24 a c tio n . 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have h e r e u n to s e t my JAMES MAY R E P O R T IN G SER V IC E `i J *JL 2 0 i m A t t a c h e d is the t r a n s c r i p t of y o u r d e p o s i t i o n w h i c h was recently taken in the Nitro litigation. Would you please review the attached to make certain all your answers have been recorded accurately. If the t r a n s c r i p t is accurate, p l e a s e sign on the page indicated and return to me. If you have any q u estions, p l e a s e do not h e s i t a t e to call. TMB/vf/b6 Enclosure IN-IOC (REV. 2/78] l