Document LJdg15zKwOw91QpmOeMrpL6Mz

1\ l V:. C V./ nJ 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 T U-I^EH <r]rn2.r?r^3 ITn Q r1 ^ n"1 c o rj ^ t-t 77* n * t r I s ^t o ^ t '' n t a " ?\ 2ND I ANAPOL IS DITTI7IO'T the CITY OE H LOOT. I no TO N, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE HOARD OE ) B LOOT'. I MG TON , INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATI ON,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, ' ) ) ________ ____ _ _ _ _ _1 ` . Civ Ho. I? 03-0-C The continued deposition of T7. B. PAPAGTO icp, called for examination by the Plaintiffs, n-u r * u a n. a to notice and pursuant to the provisions of -she Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Courts, pertaining tc the c a k i r>. r of depositions for the purpose of discovery, take' before Arnold N. Golds tine, a Notary Public anc. Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 13 12- Merchants Bank Building, Indianapolis, Indiana, commencing on June 26, 1906, at the hour of nine o'clock a.m, , - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago vl- STLCOPCB4029917 1 APPEARANCES: Hr. James G. McConnell 3 Bell, Boyc a Lloyd Three First National Plaza A 7 0 Test ilaciscn Street Suite 3200 5 Chicago, Illinois 60602 . - 6 -and- 7 Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner Lav/ Offices of Geoffrey M. Grodner o One City Centre Suite 100 9 Bloomington, Indiana 47401 10 appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; 11 12 Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald Barnes & Thornburg 13 1313 Merchants Bank Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 14 appeared on behalf of Defendant 15 Monsanto Company. 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 10 3 0 Chicane- STLCOPCB4029918 X1 I N 2 n ILL I A" B. PAPAGEOr.es 3 Continued Direct S ; a rn i n a t i o n By Mr. McConnell 4 r? \r 5 BlQ2XiD2Qn-22Q2iiQB-E23* 6 137 7 138 139 8 140 141 9 142 '. 143 ' 10 144 145 . 11 146 147 12 148 149 13 150 * 151 and 152 14 153 154 15 155 156 16 Group 157 158 17 159 160 18 151 - 162 19 16 3 164 20 21 22 23 24 2 33 291 309 319 326 329 336 339 34G 352 354 350 364 373 375 373 330 393 395 328 329 391 392 397 392 393 4-01 403 0^ Longoria S Goldstine 236 103 0 C hio a r o STLCOPCB4029919 1 MR. MC CONNELL : Rack on the record 2 This is the rocumtion th 3 of Hr. Papageorge. 4 17. R. PAPAGEORCE, 5 having been previously duly sworn, 6 was examined and testified as follows: 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 3 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 9 Q. And you recognize that you are still 10 under oath? 11 A. Ido. 12 Q . Okay. 13 Mr. Fruehwald has produced the 197 0 areas 14 release that Mr. Karaganis requested yesterday 15 consisting of four pages. Why don't we mark this 16 as the next exhibit, 137. 17 . (The document above-roferrec to 18 was marked Bloomington Deposition 19 Exhibit Mo. 137 for identification.) 20 Would you take a look at the press 21 release the court reporter has marked as Exhibit 22 137, Mr. Papageorge. I will ask you if you 23 recognize that? 24 A. I do r-ecognize it. Longoria & Golastine 236 1330 i caoo STLCOPCB4029920 1 Q Okay 2 The date it bears is July 1 97 0 . Do ju 3 have any recollection of July 15? 4 A. There is a July 16 date also. 5 Q. Okay. - 6 Was this press release issued bv dcr.ssr.sc 7 on or about the 16th of July 1970? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 The first statement in the press release 11 is that Monsanto is the sole US producer of 12 polychlorinated biphenyls. 13 You mentioned yesterday that you did sere 14 investigation to determine whether or r.cs it could 15 be established that there had been one or two 16 other producers in this country at one time. 17 Do you recall whether this press release 1 0 was issued before or after that inconclusive 19 investigation that you mentioned yesterday? 20 A. Before. 21 Q. Before. Okay. 22 The action that is referred to in the 23 quote attributed to Mr. Minckler in the seconc 24 paragraph, unilateral action to restrict i-s use. Long'oria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic a no STLCOPCB4029921 1 Does that refer to the disco:: c 2 sales to the plasticiser users and he h v : . u i 1 3 fluid users? A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. .. 6 So that action was taken at sometime 7 before this press release was issued? 3 A. Yes. 9 Q. Looking at the second page, there is a 10 reference in the first paragraph to a recent 11 report that peb can induce birth defects in 12 animals. 13 Do you know specifically what that reft 14 to? 1 5 A. Primarily the work of Dr. P.isebrough in 16 California, with the inability of bird's eggs tc 17 ha.tch and with soft- shells and other defects. IS Q. Do you know whether as of July 1', 197', 1 9 Monsanto had undertaken any studies in bird 20 species to test the information that was reported 21 by Dr.. Risebrough? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you know what the results of those 24 studies were? Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029922 ]_ A I remember moat of the 0 -o 2 Q. Okay. 3 What is youc recollection? 4 A. There were three of the Arcclors tea ire.. 5 Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor "1270. 6 The animals that were used in the tears 7 were rats, dogs and chickens. The levels of OO exposure as I recall were, I am not real cere air. 9 anymore, ten,, a hundred and a thousand parts nor 10 million. There was a range of exposures. 11 As far as the rats were concerned, and 12 the dogs, the livers were larger in the exposed 13 animals than in the control animals, the 14 unexposed. The weight gain at the higher level:: 15 of exposure -- the weight gain of the exposed 1-5 animals was not as large as those, the weigho 17 gained by the unexposed. 1 8 For the chickens there was a reproduction 19 problem observed at low levels of exposure of tho 20 Aroclor 1242. 21 The tests were repeated and it was 22 established at about 3 parts per million and 23 above, t.he chickens would lay thin egg shelled 24 eggs and the eg*gs would not hatch as well as these Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029923 - ,-\ _ .. . 2 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Or> 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 of the control animals. And the dogs as I remember, thev exhibited a gastric irritation. Their s t o m a c n a r. i intestines were affected by the exposure of rho high levels of the higher chlorinated p.cb's. Q. All right. A. That is all I recall at the moment. Q. Me will go into some of chose reports in more detail later. I was just interested in tec reference here to birth defects. Monsanto tested that in its chic her. studies, at least as a test having what Dr. Risebrough had reported? A. That is correct. Q. Looking at page 3 of the Exhibit 137, in the second paragraph on the page, there is a statement again in quotation attributed so Mr. Minckler. And I will read it in to the record. It says, quote: "Uith rigid control over where the product goes, how it is handled and disposed of, we believe the safety function of the product can Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029924 1 continue to serve society anc. 2 the environment can be 3 protected. " And it says, tlinc Icier sain. 5 I take it the product that is roferrec. to 6 in that quotation is the pcb's manufactured by 7 Monsanto? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. _ 10 Was this statement that I just rear, to at 11 is attributed to Mr. Minckler in Exhibit 137 a 12 statement of Monsanto's corporate policy with 13 respect to the sale of pcb's? 14 A. I don't know that I would call it a 15 policy, so much as a conclusion arrived at from 16 knowing the application, knowing the product and 17 knowing the need for the product. 13 Q. Would it be accurate to say that this 19 represents a statement of Monsanto's intention 20 that such rigid control be exercised? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Do you know if there was a specific storv 24 or incident tha.t this press release was issued i Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029925 "5 O 0 1 response to? 2 A. I don't recall any article that trigccrcri 3 this . 4 It followed the corporate committee's 5 approval of the restricted sales plan which v/ a: 6 mace in May. I just don't recall any specific 7 article or incident other than the approval of the nO plan that triggered this. 9 0. Okay. . 10 You don't recall it being in response to 11 interview or a press conference- of Congressman 12 Ry an ? 13 A. Congressman Ryan had been critical of 14 Monsanto almost on a regular basis. I don't knew 15 that there was any particular action on his cart 16 that triggered this particular release. 17 Q. The reason I ask that, there is a 1 0 reference in the first paragraph on the first page 1 9 to recent political charges. 20 Was there any other politician other than 21 Congressman Ryan that was critical of Monsanto? 22 A. No. 23 Q. All right. 24 When you became involved in the beginning Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicat; STLCOPCB4029926 r> nJ 1 of 1 970 with the coordination of Monsanto's 2 efforts to control the release of peb1 s i r c o the 3 environment, did somebody bring you un to bar:: a 4 the history of what had been done before? 5 A. Yes . .. 6 Q. Was thac one person or more than one 7 person? 0 A. Several people. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 Was that done by memorandum of seme 11 or in a series of meetings? 12 A. It was a series of one-on-one 13 discussions 14 Q. Okay. 15 Who did you talk :o? 16 A. I talked to Dr. Kelly, Wheeler, Dr. 17 Richard, Mr. Bergen, Mr. Springgate, Mr. 3c nig n u s 1 0 Mr. Johnson, Dr. Paton, Mr. Fallon, Dr. Keller, 19 Dr. Munch, Randy Graham, James Bryant. I believe 20 that is it. 21 Q. In other words, when you took over thac 22 responsibility or assumed that responsibility, I 23 guess there was was no one individual chat had it 24 before you did,* is that an accurate statement? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029927 1 A. That is true. 2 0. You wanted to talk to everybody who . 3 v/i th the problem in some way before to find our. 4 what the present situation was? 5 A. That is correct. . 6 Q. Okay. 7 That would be the first thing to do in 8 coordinating would be to find out where everybo: n is right now, is that essentially what you were 10 trying to do? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. 13 And I take it that you asked each cf t! 14 people you have listed to keep you advisee; of 15 additional contacts they had with customers or 1G regulatory agencies or the press that concerned 17 peb's? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q, Okay. 20 And did they to that? 21 A. As best they could. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 2 3 Can you just briefly summarize the - 24 this may be in .what you testified to yesterday - - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 STLCOPCB4029928 1 Dr. Kelly and i-!r. Wheeler and the medical 2 department peopl c v? e r o primarily involve:; in on : 3 medical studies and animal studies that r. - ha i 4 conducted by the company? 5 A. Primarily. No. They were'involved in 5 many things. 7 0. Their involvement in neb's v;a in tha t portion of it, is that accurate? A . They, were the principal i n 6. i v i d u a 1 s 10 involve a in those studies, yes. 11 Q. Okay . 12 And the people that were in the m 2 r 1' o r <7 13 department were the ones with the primary 14 responsibility for customer communication l i " :::;; c 15 correct? 16 A. Yes . 17 Q. Who was it that was primarily re K c r s ' r." 13 for dealing with the press in connection * i A, 19 peb1s? 20 A. Initially it was Mr. John. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. There were other individuals in fch a r o for 23 short periods of time. I have forgotten t h o* i r 24 names. Then fi-nally by 1 97 4 cr so, it w. r, ' r . "'or. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Cnicacc STLCOPCB4029929 303 1 Bishop. / 2 Q. 11 as he in the public relations 3 department? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That i sinSt. Louis? - 6 A. Yes. 7 o i * Mow, I notice that the press release r ;- 8 we just mar ke d as Exhibit 137, most of rho 9 quotations were attributed to Mr. Minckler. 10 I take it that release would have bo 11 prepared by th e public relations department i . . -- 12 Louis ? 13 A. They were the editor's authors, yes. 14 q. Okay. 15 So it was up to them to determine tc XI' 16 statements of that nature should be attribute J 17 n7\ I don 1 t know that take they made she t 1 S decision . I don't know who made it. But I would 19 be surprised if they made it. 20 Q. Let me ask the question in a bit of " 21 different way. 22 If a newspaper reporter recciveG Exh ibis 23 137 and saw the quotations in there attribute d t c 24 Howard Minckler* and called Howard Minckler fo r T: r. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaca STLCOPCB4029930 1 interview, what would haopen, w h a t w o u 1 d t h a 2 company's response or fir. inckler's resn: r. u - b , 3 according to company procedure? 4 A. !?e 11 , this varies from i n d i v i du a 1 to 5 individual. I can only speculate with what fir. 6 Minckler would have done. 7 He would have -- knowing the man he waul- 8 have made himself available but he 'would have 9 asked Mr. John to join him in the discussion. 10 Q. Okay. 11 . So it was a coordinated effort between, 12 the individual who was responsible for the prod net 13 and the public relations people? 14 A. Yes. Public relations is a staff 15 department supplying people like !! r. Minckler i h 16 services. 17 Q. I understand. 18 And presumably after you became 1 9 responsible for coordinating the peb efforts in 20 1970 ,, those two, Mr. Minckler and the public 21 relations people, would have advised you of any 22 press contact that came from the outside to Mr. 23 Minckler ? 24 A. Yes. Longoria h Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029931 305 1 0. Do you know if there was any each file.' 2 up in response to this particular release t h a t he s 3 been marked as 137? 4 A. I am aware of follow up from different 5 newspapers, journals and individuals. I dor.' : 5 recall the specifics they wanted details, 7 clarifications. uO Q. Specifically, was there any request O you can recall for detailed information about what 10 is referred to on pace 2 as comprehensive to:: it if 11 study sponsored by .Monsanto? 12 A. I don't recall that as a specific 13 request. 14 Q. Okay. 1 5 Was the medical department responsible 16 for communicating the results of Monsanto's 17 to.xicity studies to the various federal acc-nci 18 A, Yes. 19 0. Okay. 20 And to my knowledge there were at least 21 three federal agencies that were concurrently 22 concerned with this. That is the Food and Drug 23 Administration, the National Institute of 24 Occupational Sa-fety and Health, and the . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago. STLCOPCB4029932 1 Environmental Protection Agency. .j Here there any others? O A. It depends on what point in time. A Some of chose organizations wore still 5 being formed in early 1070. The Depa r t-n.e nt of 6 Agriculture was concerned at one time early on. 7 The EPA also had an interest. 8 Q. Right. I mentioned the Environmental a Protection Agency. . 10 A. The Environmental Protection 11 Administration -- Agency. The National Institute 12 of Environmental Health Sciences. I believe that 13 is a part of the National Science, Academy of 14 Science. 15 O. Okay. 10 A. The Center for Disease Control, which is 17 probably NIOSH in your comments. 1 0 Q. It is hard sometimes to keep track of who 19 is connected to whom, 20 A. I understand. The wildlife people. 21 Q. Fish and Wildlife Service? 22 A. Fish and Wildlife. There was a 23 laboratory in Maryland, wildlife research 24 laboratory, the*y were very interested. The fish, ' " Lonqoria&Goldstine 236 1030 Chic arc , STLCOPCB4029933 377 1 pesticide laboratory in Columbia, Missouri. 2 Q. Is that part of the Department of 3 Agriculture? 4 A. At that time I believe it w a s . It 5 pesticide oriented. ' (5 There is a laboratory down in Gulf 7 Breeze, Florida, a government laboratory, that w r. c R interested. That represented the commercial 9 fisheries, which I believe is part of tne 10 Department of Commerce, I am not certain. 11 Q. Okay. 12 The Department of Agriculture interest in 13 pesticides, did that result from the chemical 14 relatedness of peb's to DDT or did it result 15 because peb's were used in some way in pectici iis 16 applications? 17 A. I suspect both. 1 3 Q. Okay. 19 Were peb's used in pesticides? 20 A. There was at one point in time a 21 Department of Agriculture report on a study made 22 by someone for them. I believe it was mace by 23 their own people in Beltsville, Maryland in which, 24 they used peb's1 in a pesticide formula, for use - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029934 1 for indoor use for crawling insects to paint cr 2 spray or apply to shelving and the like, where th? 3 active ingredient would be effective longer 4 because peb's were present. 5 , That was a permitted or a registered 6 formulation approved by the pesticide regulators 7 who at that time were under the Department of 3 Agriculture, before SPA took over that function. 9 Q. 77as that a yse that was known to Monsanto 10 before the government told you about it? 11 A. 77e found out about it. Let's sec, how 12 did we. I don't recall. Someone informcc Dr. 13 Kelly that the Department of Agriculture hoc mode 14 this research and approved this use. 15 Dr. Kelly's department looked into it an:i 16 sure enough found reports and eventually Dr. Kelly 17 wrote to someone in the Department of Agriculture 18 recommending that that use not be permitted any 19 longer . 20 Q. That was not a use I take it that had 21 been promoted by Monsanto? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Unlike the hydraulic fluids and the 24 electrical industry use? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029935 -> ,') 1 A Hydraulic fluids was pronoted by 2 Monsanto. 3 Q. Right. 4 A. The electrical use was promoted by the 5 electrical equipment manufacturers. . 6 Q. Would you mark this as 138, -.'lease. 7 (The document a b o v e-r e f e r r e d to oo was marked Bloomington Deposit is n O Exhibit Mo. 138 for id e nt i fic a -ian.) 10 Would you take a look at the c o c u m o n t 11 that's been marked as Exhibit 138 which for the 12 record is a memorandum dated March 23 , 1 270 to "'r. 13 Wheeler or Mr. Wheeler, I guess it is, from - 14 A. From Mr. Garrett. 15 0. From Mr. Garrett. 16 Do you recall receiving a copy of that? 17 . A. Yes. 1 8 Q. And that refers to a meeting of some 19 scientists and.others in Duluth, Minnesota; is 20 that correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Garrett was goi;m 23 to attend that meeting before that meeting toe!-; 24 place? . Long.oria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029936 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And how did he come to be inviocu . r. rh . 3 meeting, if you know? 4 A. From previous contact with Dr. Fount. : 5 think the- working relationship had been, 6 established between Mr. Garrett and Dr. Mount. 7 Q. Okay. 3 What does the last statement in th a 1 a : 9 sentence on the first page mean to you, the than'. 10 Monsanto received at times was embarrassing? 11 A. I guess th.at was Mr. Garrett's reaction 12 to the many thanks that we, Monsanto 13 representatives at that meeting, kept getting a 1: 14 day and the evening dinner that we had with the 15 attendees of that session. 16 Q. Okay. 17 Did you go to that meeting or th a r. 18 session yourself? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who else besides you and Mr. Garre::? 21 . A. Dr. Keller. 22 Q. Okay. 23 What was the subject of the meeting? 24 A. It was* the presence of peb's in the Longoria & Goldstine . 236 1030 Chicago 'i.U STLCOPCB4029937 1 environment and, more specifically from, Dr . 2 Mount's viewpoint is analytical methods :h:: cc'lc. 3 be applied to water species. A Q. To analyze their tissues for the proser.cc 5 of pcb's? - 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. 8 There had been some controversy in the 9 late sixties,, I take.it, when the presence c: 10 peb's in wildlife tissues was first reported about 11 whether the analytical methods then in use '.-.'ere 12 sufficient to distinguish between peb's and other 13 materials. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. That is correct. 15 Q. And is it accurate to state that as the 15 manufacturer of peb's in the United States, 17 Monsanto was in the best position to make 1 0 available appropriate analytical techniques to 19 other researchers? 20 A. Eventually we were in the best position. 21 We had to work at it. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Would it be accurate to say that when the 24 problem first came to light, Monsanto analysts " Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chi cape .. STLCOPCB4029938 :12 1 v/er e among the f cw who know wha t the chomi ca 1 9 fingerprints of its products were? 3 A. Yes. 4 But it took a few month after we fir:: 5 heard of it to go to our laboratory, got the rig he 6 equipment assembled, work with several aoprcachcs 7 and find the best one and then confirm the 0 results. That took a few months. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 In other words, looking for peb's in 11 samples of. animal tissue requires a different 12 analytical approach than quality control in she 13 production process, is that an accurate s t a t o m o n r. ? 14 A. Exactly. 15 Q. So you have to develop techniques to 16 detect smaller amounts of the material? 17 A. Yes. In the presence of interfering 18 materials. 19 Q. Of other? 20 A. Other unknowns. 21 Q. Right. 22 And of the chemical components of the 23 animal tissues themselves? 24 A. That' s. right. Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 e i: i c a STLCOPCB4029939 3 13 1 Q . 0kay . 2 VIhat is the technique that was uiti::a_.iy 3 developed for this kind of pcb analysis of a n i na 1 4 tissues? ' 5 A. It involved an extraction process, 6 whereby the chemical of interest to the a na ly s t is 7 concentrated in a solvent, and in "onuance's O ! > process we recommended hexane as the extraccent. n Depending on the type of ms te r i a 1 us -c i , 10 there has to be some preparation of the sample 11 initially. For example, putting it in an 12 oster izer . 13 Q. To chop it up? 14 A. To chop it up and make it as small a 15 particle as possible. Than there are a specific 16 number of extraction steps that are made. From, 17 experience we have learned that if you do sc msny 18 you are going to get over 90 percent of the 19 material. I have forgotten the exact steps here. 20 The extractant then is concentrated to as 21 small a sample as you can, and that -- 22 Q. Is that done by heat? 23 A. Slow evaporation, so we don't vslatilin: 24 the unknowns. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Fkicecc STLCOPCB4029940 214 Then that extractant conccntrat: n o i introduced by hypodermic needle into a gas lioui: 3 chromatograph. This is a device that has a -- I 4 am not a designer of this equipment, but skis is 5 almost a layman's understanding. 6 There is an energv-emitting element in this unit that is affected by the presence of certain chemicals. And this effect is transmits9 into a plot on a graph paper. 10 Q. Different fractions come through the 11 column at different times, is that a layman's, a 12 good layman's understanding of what happens? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. And you get a graphic picture? 15 A. You get a reaction to that material 16 coming through, here it comes, bloop. And shore 17 is a pause. Here comes the next one. Another 1 8 peak, 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. So the chart then resembles peaks and 21 valleys. Each of the peaks isolate material 22 identified by the research analyst as being 23 associated with a specific kind of molecule. 24 Now to confirm that, there is another Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029941 _3 1 instrument called mass spectrograms, which 2 confirms that that material is of the right rise 3 in terms of its molecule, to weigh so m.uch, r.ni A has sg many carbons and oxygens and hydreg ons. 5 you confirm that that peak is very likely this 6 particular chemical. 7 0. So you need the combination of gas 1i~ui 8 chromatography and mass spectrometry to really 9 confirm the identify? 10 A. To confirm. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. Now, those peaks and valleys that arc- 13 charted then are compared to a peak and valley 14 chart that is deliberately made with known 15 material. And a match is made by the analyst. 16 He then reports his findings in terms of 17 Monsanto's Aroclor products, the one that moor, 18 closely resembles his unknown. 19 So when we see a report from the chemist 20 that says he found so much Aroclor 1242, what he 21 is saying is that this is the best resemblance I 22 can get. It isn't a perfect match. But most: of 23 the peaks and valleys seem to line up. 24 Q. And he* can tell from the graphic Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029942 ?1g 1 representation the quantity as well as the 2 identity? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. There are two methods, the heig.hr. of the 6 peak, or the total area under that curve for the 7 total amount. 8 Q. Are they of comparable accuracy? 9 A . No . . 10 The most accurate is the to cal arc a under 11 the curve. But that gives the total amount o f 12 pcb's. 13 If one wishes to know exac11v how 14 a particular pcb like dichloro pcb, you loo ;; at 15 the peak that represents that material and c i r. c 15 it is not a line, the bell-shaped curve may 1 c a a 17 to some inaccuracies. 1 8 There may be other things in there c n: t 1 9 create the bell. 20 Qo Right. 21 So, in any event, it is an appro::! nation 22 of the quantity, whether you are measuring fro 23 entire area or whether you are measuring ch 24 particular isom-er? Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029943 it 1 A. Well, standing alone it is an n approximation. But if it is compared to a 3 standard, which in itself is an approximation an:' A you know that this approximation, although you mu'' 5 calculate it as .0 parts per million ancrycu put 6 in one part per million, you adjust for that in 7 your reporting. 3 n. Okay. n So to the satisfaction of the analyst, 10 then, -this is an accurate method for determining 11 the quantity and identity of the particular pcs 12 mixture that is present in the animal tissues? 13 A. Yes. 14 ' The accuracy is also a function of the 15 experience of the analyst, the cleanliness of tns 16 laboratory, the way the sample was taken. r?ns i : 17 contaminated in the taking? There are many 1 8 factors that can influence the results from a 10 laboratory. 20 Q. In the course of, for example, the 21 studies that Monsanto commissioned, would you wane 22 the same analyst using the same piece of equipmer.c 23 to analyze the samples taken at various tines 24 during this stu-dy, in order to have cor.siccor.cv of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1330 Chicago STLCOPCB4029944 7i ^ I results? 2 A. That is one preferred way to go i f. 3 Another is to design validation scudios, zo 4 establish the variation between the chemists. :-r. 5 that each chemist's results are reported as olus 6 or minus rather than a rigid specific number. 7 Q. Right. 8 I am going to show you a document thee 9 was previously marked as Deposition Exhibit 10 for 10 identification and I will ask you if you recognize 11 that? 12 For the record it is a one-page memo 13 dated April 17, 1970 to Mr. Olson from Mr. 14 Benignus. ' 15 A. Yes, I recognize it. 16 0. Mere you present at the meeting, the 17 schedule of which is outlined in this memoranda? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. And that was a meeting of Mo n ca n r c people 20 and representatives from various Testing house 21 facilities; is that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 MR. FRUEHWALDs This memo was a subject of Longoria & Ooldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029945 2 1 "! 1 testimony yesterday and questions have been ;r:: ,:d 2 about the meeting. -3 MR. !IC C 0 M U ELL.: Okay. I though- it v::;. Mat 4 menotrepeatthat. 5 Would you mark this 13 9, plcr.sc . 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Dagos i tier. 8 Exhibit Ho. 139 for identification.) 1 Q. Talcing a lopk at w hat the court re pc r tar 10 has marked as Exhibit 139, Mr. Papagoorge, I mill 11 ask you if you recognize that memo? 12 A. Ido. 13 Q. Did you receive a copy of that shortly 14 after the meeting that is discussed in the memo? 15 A. Yes. On or about the date of its 16 publication. 17 Q. Okay. 18 And that was a meeting with Congressman 19 Ryan in the ongoing dialogue between Monsanto and 20 the Congressman? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Were you ever involved in a face-tc-fscc 2 4 meeting with Co-ngressman Ryan yourself? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 C h i c c. ~T ^ STLCOPCB4029946 1 A. Ho 2 0 . 0kay. 3 That was Hr. Mason's assicr.r.ert? 4 A. Ye s . 5 Q. Is there any particular reason, that you 6 are aware of, other than the absence of the other 7 gentleman, why John Mason encec up with the 3 assignment of dealing with Congressman Cyan? A. I can only speculate. 10 Q. Nobody ever discussed it with you? 11 A. Ho. . 12 Q. You were just told Mason is going to ta k 13 care of that, or words to that effect? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. Okay. 16 From whom did that information come to 17 y ou ? 10 A. Mr. Bergen. 19 Q. Okay. 20 To your knowledge, before he took on the 21 job of the dialogue with Congressman Ryan, had r . 22 Mason been involved in any other work on behal 23 Monsanto dealing with the Congress of the Unit 24 States? * Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029947 n 7] 1 A. No. n Q. Okay. 3 He wasn't your house lobbyist or ar.vr.hire 4 like that? 5 A . No. Mr. Mason had just a r r i v c-d ;:ror:. 6 Europe. 7 0. Did you ever talk to hin about how he 3 felt about being thrust into this assigneen:? c A. Yes._ . 10 Q. VJhat did he have to say about that? 11 A, He was amazed at the US way of doing 12 things compared to the European way. 13 Q. Was that favorably amazed or unfavorably 14 amazed? 15 A. Unfavorably. 16 0. Unfavorably amazed. 17 Had he been with Monsanto in Europe? 13 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. For how long? 20 A, Oh, twenty years or more, 21 Q. Okay. 22 Is he a European citizen or was he an 23 American citizen who went over to Europe to v;ork? 24 A. He is *a European citizen, who was brought Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029948 1 to the United States to learn more about Monsanto's United States operations. 3 Q. And this was part of his continuing 4 education? 5 A. I believe so. - 6 Q. Okay. 7 . When he went to meet with Conor es sman 8 Ryan, had he been briefed on what Monsanto know 9 about peb environmental contamination up to the 10 time 'of the meeting? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And who briefed him? 13 A. There were several of us. He tallied, of 14 course, to Mr. Bergen. He talked with me and 15 talked v/ith Dr. Kelly and Elmer Wheeler. 16 Q. Okay. 17 And did the same or similar group debrief 18 him after he came back from Washington? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 ; Did you talk to him about the meeting 22 before he wrote this memorandum? 23 A. Yes. 24 0. Okay. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029949 3 23 X1 If you know, is it customary for "on sir.ro 9 management employees to prepare none r and a sued 3 this whenever they have a contact ;i th a 4 congressman or senator? 5 A. I don't know of it as a "onsantc 6 practice. This is the ootion of the individual 7 whether he wishes to write it up and communicate 8 with others or not. 9 Q. In the case.of an employee who is 10 commissioned, I guess you could say, or assigned 11 to respond to a congressional inquiry, does than 12 person have a responsibility to let others in 13 management know what happened in the course of 14 that contact or that response? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. 17 . That can beeither by an oral report or a 18 memorandum such as this? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Okay. 21 . Is itaccurate to say that this 22 memorandum that has been marked as Exhibit 139 is 23 a record that is kept in the ordinary course of 24 business at Monsanto? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029950 "* n i 1 A Yes 2 0. And it would be the ordinary course c 3 Monsanto's business to keep track of sue:: 4 memoranda regarding contacts w i e h Congress or 5 congressional staff people? . - 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. 3 Paragraph 3 on the second page of one o memorandum refers to.a request from Congressman 10 Ryan, a repeated request, that Monsanto disclose 11 its total volume of peb manufacturing both in the 12 United States and in the United Kingdom. 13 And apparently up to the time cf this 14 memorandum, Monsanto had not acne that. 15 Is there some particular reason why chan 16 information wouldn't bo disclosed, at least no 17 Congressman Ryan? 13 A. Well, it wasn't specifically intendec, no 19 ignore Congressman Ryan's request. It is 20 iaonsanto' s policy, that exists even today, that 21 customer lists and quantities of products 22 purchased are considered business trade secret an 23 we were willing to release them, if the recipient 24 would; assure us* that he would treat it as such. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029951 1 0 In other words, not give o c t 2 competition? A. That is one misuse, yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Or I suppose there is also a concern that 6 one customer might fine out another customer's 7 volume? 8 A. That is true. a Q. Okay. _ 10 Since I take it that at least with 11 respect to peb's Monsanto sold those materials to 1 2 customers who were in competition with each othc-r 13 in the electrical industry. 14 A. Very true. 15 Q. Okay. 16 So your position as the supplier to two 17 competitors, you have to be careful not to give 1 8 proprietary information about one competitor tc 19 the other competitor? t 20 A. Right. ' 21 Q. Is there anything that you discussed wish 22 Mr. Mason in the oral debriefing after his meeting 2 3 with Congressman Ryan that is not covered in 2 4 Exhibit 139? . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 STLCOPCB4029952 1 A. Hot to nv recollection, no. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Would you nar!; this as 140. 4 5 (The document above- refer-roe re 6 was marked Blcomincron Deposition 7 Inhibit Mo. 140 for ibentificati c. r.. ) 3 Mr. Papageorge, wou 1 c't you rake a look or o the letter that r'ne court reporter has marked as 10 Exhibit 140, which is dated August 17, 1970 ;o you 11 from Mr. Viland of Testinghouse. 12 I v?i 11 ask you if you recall receivin'13 that letter ? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did you make a response to ir? 16 A. I recall I did. Yes. 17 Q. Was it a written response? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q . in the letter he is essentially sc ck i ny 20 to enlist your assistance in convincing regularcrs 21 in Pennsylvania that it is okay to dispose of pek 2 2 wastes in a sanitary landfill. Is that an 23 accurate summary? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & G o1d s tin e 236 103 0 Chicago STLCOPCB4029953 1 0. I'Jhat was your response? 2 A. As I remember, I talked to the Pennsylvania representatives. They would nos A approve any disposal unless someone conducted 5 tests with soils from Pennsylvania. As.I remember 6 my response was along those lines back sc dr. 7 Viland . n o Q. I'Jhat type of soil tests wore th c.y Iking 9 about? ` . 10 A. They were not specific. They wore going 11 to allow whoever was interested to design the 12 tests. They were quite adamant that they would 13 not accept general geological data. It had to be 14 specific. 15 Q. They wanted to know that the Pennsylvania 16 landfills wouldn't leak? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. Okay. 1 5 And they wanted somebody to design sot a- 20 test to convince them of that before they would 21 permit disposal of peb wastes in their sanitary 22 landfill? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Uas sU'Ch testing ever done? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029954 1 A Mot to my knowledge. 2 Q. And this document, Exhibit 140, is 3 referring to disposal of solid wastes contami r.a ta c. 4 * v/ i t h p c b ' s as opposed to liquid p c b wastes ; is 5 that cor rect? - 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. Okay. J So at the time of this letter, the 9 Monsanto incineration program was not design o d a; 10 deal with solid wastes? 11 A, That's correct. 12 Q. In fact, I think I recall your testimony 13 yesterday being that because of economic 14 considerations, there never was a solid waste _ 15 incineration program at Monsanto? 1 6 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Okay. 1 0 Do you recall what the ultimate 13 resolution of Mr. Viland's problem was? 20 A. No. 21 MR. KC CONNELL; Let's mark it. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 141 for identification.) t Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029955 i ~ r. 1 Q. Mr. Papa go or go, would you the a loo/. :. r 2 the memorandum chat the court reporter lias mark/:, -> as Exhibit 141, which is dated Novamber 4 , 1P" , f. to Dr. Richard concerning biodegradation to stir. / 5 of 1242 and 1015. - 6 I will ask you if you recognise that? 7 A. Ido. o Q. One of the concerns, or. e of the 9 environmental concerns with regard to pcb's w a s 10 their persistence in the environment. Is that 11 correct? 12 A. That is cor rect. 13 0. And in looking for substitute products 14 that the electrical industry could use, ore cf 15 Monsanto's considerations was to fine, a product IS that was more biodegradable, is that a fair 17 statement? 18 A. That is true. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Did Monsanto as a result of testing, suck, ! 21 as the testing that is discussed in Exhibit 141, 22 ever conclude that it had sufficient data as a 23 basis for a public statement to the effect char 2 4 its 1016 produc-t was biodegradable? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic a re j STLCOPCB4029966 1 A. I don't thin!; it was described in those 2 words. It is move biodegradable-, not: 3 biodegradable implying totally so. 4 Q. Okay. 5 , More biodegradable or less persistent? 6 A. Exactly. 7 Q. In fact, there 'was a time when 0 Westinghouse asked Monsanto to state, or 'whether 9 Westinghouse could state to its customers shat 10 1016 was biodegradable and Monsanto said they 11 shouldn't say that,- do you recall that? 12 A. Ygs. 13 Q. Okay. 14 Can you put a quantitative- number or. t h j 15 difference in either in persistence or 16 biodegradability between 1242 and 1015? 17 A. It can be described in those terms. I 1 8 don't personally recall the numbers. 19 But if one equates persistence with 20 Aroclor 1254, which was constantly being reporter, 21 as present, and the lack of any reports that refer 22 to 1242 as being out there, one can go bad; and 23 determine how many of the peb's were removed from 24 1242 that would* have looked like 12 54 . Longoria & Golastinc 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029957 And assuming the remainder would not persist, one could make that calculation. I jure don't remember how much was removed. Q. What kind of measurement do you use for persistence, does the term half life make sense in the context of environmental persistence of a substance like peb? A. There are some investigators that use the half life concept. Monsanto just reported the absence or presence of the different polo's after a given period of time during the test. Q. But from that information you could calculate a half life, could you not? A. One could, yes. There is many a discussion involving the interpretation of half life, the significance, its usefulness. So the industry and the regulatory people never did come up with a measure that './as acceptable to everybody. Q. Okay. Half life is a concept that is really more applicable to radioactive materials; is that cor rect? A. Well, .that is where the most common usage Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029958 1 is made. And it does imply that chore is always 2 half of something remaining forever. 3 Q. That is the assumption? 4 A . Ye s . 5 Q. Okay. . 6 Nov/, as I understand it, in the series of 7 numerical designations for these various peb 8 mixtures, at least in the 1200 series, v/h ora you n have 1221 and 1242 and 1254 and 1 260 , and per h a ps 10 others that I don't know about, that the last two 11 digits essentially represent the percentage of 12 chlorine by weight in the mixture? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. 15 That is not true, hov/ever, in che case cr 16 1016? 17 A. That is true. 18 Q. Where did the number 1016 come from? 19 A. When this particular mixture was 20 undergoing laboratory testing, it was treated like 21 all other Monsanto test materials. It was entered 22 into a logbook, the next number on that lcgoc-ck 23 was 1016. It started off then you will sec some 24 literature referring to MCS 1016. That is Longoria & Golastine 235 1030 c. rl C STLCOPCB4029959 1 Monsanto Company Sample 1016. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. It became so common amongst oar cusc c.rc r a 4 and ourselves to refer to it as 1016, callinc- la. 5 an Aroclor with a percent chlorine would have 1 rec 6 to confusion, because it was deliberately designee: 7 to have about 42 percent chlorine. 8 17e didn't want to confuse the new 9 material with the old. So, we just stuck w i t h one 10 1016 and added the word Aroclor. 11 Q. So MCS 1016 became Aroclor 1015 because 12 everybody knew it as 1016? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. 15 . And I take it that in the course of 16 developing the 1016 product, one of the things 17 that was done was that sample lots were suppl ich 18 to Monsanto customers so they could test it in 1 9 their applications? 20 A. Yes. 21 , Q. To see if it was suitable? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. O'k a y . 24 And so-me other things that were cone were Longpria. & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029960 animal tests and these biodegradability tests th are referred to in Exhibit 141? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. I guess you have already tola me that a 5 percent by weight of chlorine in 1016 is act call 5 42 percent? 7 A. Very close . 0 0. Give or take some small - 9 A. It is over 41. 10 Q. But it is a different mi :: t u r c from 1242 11 A. Yes . 12 Q. Okay. 13 And is there a document some wh ere that 14 describes the differences? 15 A. Yes. There should have boon s g v c r u 1 16 documents . One is the narrative descri rzz on or 17 the various properties of the two. One can 10 compare them. 19 The other document which more occuraccl; 20 describes the difference chemically is a 21 comparison of the two gas chromatograph charts, 22 the two fingerprints. There is a difference ir. 23 those two. 24 Q. Is the*re a table, I know I have seen it Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic; STLCOPCB4029961 235 but I don't recall if it wa s a Monsanto dc c umc r. z, 2 that describes, thac cor?, pares, she s i d a - b " - s i ^ : comparison of 1016 and 1 3 4 2 w i t h respect ;o ::.cn: . 4 chloro, dichloro, urichloro isomers? 5 A. I have seen such a table. Yes-. I den' 6 know if it still exists. 7 Q. All right. 3 As I understand it, whs t was done in 9 creating the _1016 product was to remove some 10 portion of the higher chlorinated isomers from cm; 11 mixture? 12 A. More accurately it is ac both ends, tc 13 keep the chlorine percentage, you had to remove 1 4 the higher to get rid of the persists no. Pus you 15 had to remove the lower to keep the chlorine 16 percent at 42 percent. 17 Q. So you kind of saueesed it towards the 1 3 middle from both ends? 19 A. We cut, yes. 20 Q. Was there any difference detected thac 21 you can recall in the animal studies between 124? 22 and 1016 with respect to their effects? 23 A. No. 24 Q. So the- basic achievement was less Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029962 1 persistence in the environment? 2 A. Correct. ".5i tin. nc CONNELL: Do you want to mark chic as 4 142. 5 (The document abovs-cef er-rcc 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 142 for identification.} 8 Q. Do you recall seeing that document? 9 A. Yes. _ 10 Q. Off the record. 11 : (Discussion had off the record.) 12 Do you recall receiving that memo that 13 has been marked as 142? 14 A. Ido. 15 Q. That is another somewhat more derailod 16 discussion of the relative persistence or 17 biodegradability of 1242 and 1014; is eh at 13 correct? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. And on the second page of the exhibit, 21 which is the first page of the typewritten memo, 22 there is a confidential stamp. 23 Was that stamped on there when it came to 24 you ? , Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029963 337 1_ A. Yes. 2 Q. Why would that have been cons idor eh 3 confidential at the time it was written? 4 A. As a policy, formal reports cut of our 5 research function are all considered conficentir. 6 Q. It is just a regular part of the new 7 product development process? 8 A. Yes. a Q. Okay. . 10 The second page of the exhibit indicate 11 that 1016 is at least ten times better than 1242 12 in terms of, it says, from an environmental 13 viewpoint. 1 4 I take it that means in terms o:: 15 persistence? 1G A. That is correct. 17 Q. Okay. 1 3 And 75 times better than 1254? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. What do those numbers mean, ten times 21 better ? 22 A. It is Dr. Tucker's evaluation of the 23 persistence in the environment and when he says 24 ten times bette*r, he is saying that it is ape to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 STLCOPCB4029964 1 disappear in the environment ten times fatter. 2 Q. It could only last ten porce::t as lung, 3 is another way of saying the same thing? 4 A. All right. 5 Or only ten percent of it will" remain as 5 compared to the other. 7 Q . That is probe bly the best v; a y t o On understand it, isn't it, that at any given time if 9 you had in the same physical and environment:! 10 situation 1242 and 1016, v/ith the passage of tin: 11 there would be only, ton percent as much 1C.1? as 12 1242 at any given time? 13 A. A ten-to-one ratio, ten percent, yes. 14 Q. Okay. 15 As of today, to your understanding, me 16 those ratios of ten times and 75 times still hold 17 up? 1 0 A. I have no information that says they 19 don't. 20 Q. And again, that is a measure of relative 21 persistence and not comparative torcicity; is that 22 correct? 23 A. That is correct. . 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029965 1 (The document above-refsrrou :c sn, was marked r. loom ing t c n Mjtcsiricn ^7i Exhibit Mo. 143 for i d e n t i f i c t i : r. . 5 A .0, Mould you look at the document t h a r. ha c 5 been marked as Exhibit 143. I will ask you if you 5 recognize that document? 7 A. I recognize it. 3 Q. Is that more or less of a status remora 9 to Congressman Ryan as to the steps that. Monsanto 10 has taken since the last discussion between Mr. 11 Mason and Congressman Ryan? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 And to your knowledge, is the 15 information -- was the information in that letter 16 accurate as of March 24, 1971? 17 A. Yes. 1 3 0. In the second, page 2 of the letter, t.-.o 19 paragraph at the top of the page numbered 3, Mr. 20 Mason makes the statement: 21 "Excellent 22 cooperation from our customers 23 has enabled us to establish 24 collection, reclaiming and Long.or ia & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029966 3 40 1 "disposal of spent fluids, 2 which would make a significant 3 contribution towards avoiding 4 escape to the environment." 5 That is a reference both to th-e 6 reclamation programs and later the incineration 7 program for scrap liquid; is that correct'' 8 A. Yes, 9 Q. The .next paragraph, which isn't numb:r c o , 10 refers to good progress in developing more 11 environmentally acceptable polychlor ina tec.: 1 2 biphenyl fluids and I take it that is a reference 13 to what ultimately came to be Aroclor 1016? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. The third paragraph on that pace in 16 last sentence it says: 17 "In this area --" 10 referring to transformer applications 1 9 " - - v; e have concontratco cur 20 efforts on closing the loop as 21 . referred to above." 22 And I take it that is a reference back to 23 the reclamation and disposal program for spent 24 liquids? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029967 17 1 A. Yes. o Q. 17as there any program or attempt to -> "close the loop" with respect to solid wa c t a A contaminated with pcb's? 5 A. The only attempt, the only pro.gr am that 6 would be called an attempt, was the testing in a 7 pilot unit, the destruction of some solid wastes. 'nj Q. Okay. 9 In other words, the efforts continue i to 10 demonstrate that that was feasible and then it was 11 demonstrated to be technically feasible and 12 determined to be economically unfeasible? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. 0 k a y . 15 The last paragraph of the letter :hich 16 begins on the third page and carries over to the 17 fo.urth page, there is a statement in the second 18 sentences 19 "I can assure you 20 that we are continuing to do 21 everything possible to police 22 our own and our- customers' 23 operations to prevent future 24 possibilities of the escaoe of Longoria Goldstine 2 36 1030 Chics c; STLCOPCB4029968 < AO 1 "polychlorinated biphenyls to 2 the environment." 3 Is there anything beyond what we 1 discussed yesterday that Monsanto was doino to 5 police its customers' operations? ~ 5 A. 17 o . 7 Q. Okay. 3 And v/hat Mr. Mason is referring to in 9 Exhibit 143 as policing was a program of technical 10 assistance and advice, plant visitations and 11 discussions to assist Monsanto's customers in 12 whatever engineering changes were necessary lc 13 control and contain peb's within their own plants? 14 A. Yes. 15 But there were -- 16 Q. Ana the collection and incineration of 17 scrap liquids and recycling v/hat liquids conic. ?e 1 8 recycled? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Anything else? 21 . A. I can't think of any. 22 Q. Would the contract clause that we loo Iced 23 at yesterday regarding termination of a customer's 24 supply in the event that customer failed to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029969 T J. control discharges from its plant be parr of a ~ 2 policing program? 3 A. Well, it was nor from my oo rspsctivc. /. At no time did my actions cr those I \ 5 worked with reflect that kind of an approach. 6 Q. As I recall, you weren't even aware of 7 that until it was shown to you yesterday? 0 A. 17 ell, recently. 9 0 . 0kay . _ 10 In preparation for your testimony here? 11 A. Correct. 12 0. All right. 13 And correct me if I am wrong, bur I chink 14 you testified yesterday that to your knowledge nc 15 customer was ever cut off for that reason;? 16 A. True. 17 . Q. Okay. 1 8 In your view, would the indemnification 19 clause in the sale contract which we looked an 20 yesterday be part of a policing of customers, an 21 effort to police customers? 22 MR. FRUEHWALDs Just for a time reference, 23 this reference is as of '71 and this indemnity 24 agreement is in. the next year. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029970 1 So are you talking about what :!r oi. was referring to as policing? 3 MR. MC CONNELL: No. I an j use calking abca: 4 policing generally. 5 Obviously, the earlier letter can'a have 6 referred to something that was only put into 7 effect later . 8 MR. FRUEKWALD: Then I am going t'o object, 9 Jim, in the sense policing is a term that Nr. 10 Mason used, that Mr. Papageorge has said was not; 11 his term. And you are having him define somebody 12 else's term in connection with later events. 13 I don't think that is either fruitful or 14 relevant. So, I object to that kind of a 15 question. 16 MR. IIC CONNELL: Mr. Mason's letter, whieh *;c 17 have marked as Exhibit 143 says that the company 1 8 is continuing its policing efforts. That to me is 19 a reference to something in the future, and Nr. 20 Papageorge is here as a 30 (b) 5 witness, and I am 21 trying to find out if, in his view in that 22 capacity, one of the continuing policing efforts 23 that was promised by Mr. Nason in this letter to 24 Congressman Rya*n was the indemnification clause. - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029971 1 MR. FRUE[!!?ALD: I am not sure that the 2 continuation of efforts in Merc;- of '71 i u c 1 u d.. :: 3 promises as to future activities in '72. M y A. objection stands, but the witness can a 11 or>1 t c ' 5 answer, if he feels he can. _ 6 A. The indemnification clause was dovelope. 7 and implemented before I was made aware of izv 3 existence. o From my perspective and those th a a I 10 worked closely with, it never came up to affect: 11 our approach regarding helping our custcraor:. and 12 sort of monitoring their activities and choir 13 intent. 14 Even when it was implemented, it c i :.n ' c 15 change anything as far as we were concerned. "o 16 still did what we thought was appropriate. So I 17 doa't know that I can respond to your guesrior. 13 directly. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Let me ask it in a different -- ask 21 essentially the same thing in a different way. 22 It seems to me that one thing that micht 23 happen as a result of both the addition of the 24 indemnification, clause and the addition cf me Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029972 1 termination clause to the purchase contracts m.i~ht oz* be an enhancement of the customer's efforts sc 3 comply with your suggestions and recommendations. A Did you perceive that it had that effect:? 5 A. I didn't personally see any cha-nge. 6 The representatives of the industry we 7 worked with on the various national commit tc c a an d `OJ individual plants, nothing appeared to cue. nrc , in 9 terms of their involvement and commitment: and 10 interest . 11 0. Those things were something than 1 wy or s 12 threw in there to make the lawyers more 13 comfortable, is that what happened? 14 A. I don't know. I can only speculate. 15 Q. Did your speculation agree with mine? 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am going to object to that 17 kind of speculating as to what lawyers want as 10 certain time as being beyond the scope of this 19 witnes s ' - 20 MR. f-IC CONNELL: I will withdraw the question. 21 Q. Yesterday you described the use of saw 22 dust at the Westinghouse plant in Bloomington as 23 unique. 24 And vo.u also testified that veu saw Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029973 "3 1 *7 1 boxcars of saw dust ready at the plant there. 2 Do you know how long before your visit 3 17 e s t i n g h o u s e at Bloomington had been using b o x c r 4 leads of saw dust to soak up the drips c f oc b ' c 5 from their capacitor manufacturing process? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you ever discuss that with chcm? O<J A. Not in terms of when did you stars. q I was left with the understand i ng that 10 this was a practice that had been ongoing for ii quite some time. And it was their way of keep ire 12 the material from getting down the sewer. 13 Q. It was their equivalent of tine gravel 14 pits that you described -- well it wasn't 15 equivalent? it served the same function? 16 A. Well, our gravel pits at the plant were 17 intended to collect peb's that was involved with 18 water. 19 . In this case, I don't know that there 20 a lot of water involved, on the factory floor. 21 Q. Did you see any water on the floor when 22 you were there? 23 A. Over in the washing area, whore they 24 degrees had the* units. But, not everywhere. No. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029974 1 Q. Did you ever make inquiry as to her :.uc:: 2 saw dust waste contamina tea w i t h neb's the'/ a a m an annual or monthly basis? 4 A. That was discussed wit h the c r c a . 7 *> didn't personally raise it. And an estimate was 6 offered, and I have forgotten. 7 Q. Was that ever committed to writint 8 anywhere? 9 A. Mot _to my knowledge. Me. 10 Q. What were they doing with the saw dust? 11 A. It was with the understanding they wcr a 12 taking it to a landfill somewhere. 13 Q. In drums or just loose? 14 A . I don't k n o w. 1 5 Q. Would you mark that. I guess we are :t 16 144 . 17 (The document a b o v e-r a f e r r a d :o 13 was marked Dloomington Deposition 1 9 Exhibit No. 144 for identific.s ti an . ) 20 Have you seen that document before, 21 Exhibit 144? 22 A. Yes. 23 o. That reflects that Monsanto did an 24 analysis for pc-b's of some water samples submitter; i Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029975 V4^-v' 1 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 by Westinghouse; is that correct? A. Yes. Q . Was that a regular practice at :: o r. s a r. t to' dO t hat kind of water sample analysis fer yo u a customers? - A. It was not regular. It was -- Q. Would you do it if the customer recues tc it? A. Within limits. As long as they die. no - abuse that service. . Q. Okay, And v;as one of the reasons for that eh 1 C not all customers were equipped to perform that kind of analysis themselves? A. That is one reason, yes. Q. Okay. What were the other reasons? A. The laboratory they used may not have been -- Q. Up to your standards? A. May not have had the experience that v: Cl 3 necessary to get good results, and they wanted t 0 have Monsanto serve as a check. And ev-en the customers' laboratories t h 3 3 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029976 1 were good on occasion would ask us to sacipl e, so' oc. they could con pa re our results w i t h th sirs. 0. They v/oulc; give you a split scrapie? Ai A. Yes. 5 0. And compare your results with their own 5 analyst's results, just to see if everything was 7 v/or king as it was supposed to? 0 A. That is correct. .9 Q 0 k a y. . ` 10 Was there a charge by Monsanto for thac 11 service? 12 A. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. 13 Q. Kow was that determined? 14 A. Case-by-case basis. 15 If a customer seldom asked for chic 16 service and the laboratory had the time and c c u 1 ... 17 do the work, we would not charge. 18 On the other hand, if the request began 19 to appear unreasonable and routine to us, we would 20 quote them a price and then they would make the 21 decision on whether they were interested any 22 further or not. 23 Q. Okay. 24 To you-r knowledge, was Bloomington Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029977 =; i ]. Nestinghouce ever charged for rate: sar.cle n an aly sis? 3 A. ;'o. 4 Q. Did Monsanto's analytical labor a ter i a a 5 ever perform any peb analysis of samples from S Bloomington N e s t i n g h o u s e other than water sonnies, 7 to- your knowledge? 8 A. No. 9 0. In connection -- did you ever - 10 A. May I correct myself on that? 11 Q. Sure. 12 A. When I said no, I am talking about 13 environmental type samples. Water effluent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. Not product samples. 15 Q. That was what my question intended. 17 Obviously, in the course of purchase an a 18 sale of the quantities you were dealing with, born 19 you and they would regularly perform analysis of 20 the product as you sent it to them. 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Okay. 23 I am talking about environmental-cyme 24 samples. So the record will be clear on that. Longoria & 0oldstine 23 5 10 3-0 Chic c j stem STLCOPCB4029978 1 A. 0 k a y. '~ 2 0. Would you mark that as v/hatavcr :h-; nc ::: 3 one is. 4 (The document above-referred :c 5 was marked Bloomington Deposition S Exhibit Mo. 145 for identification.) 7 Do you recognize that document the cos re 8 reporter has marked as 145 which for the record is 9 a memo dated June !3,yl971? 10 A . I do . 11 Q. Is that a further updaro on the 12 biodegradation testing program that Monsanto had 13 under way? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. Okay. 16 And was Mr. Keller or Dr. Keller -- is iz 17 Dr. Keller? 1 0 A. Dr. Keller . 19 Q. Was he in charge of that work? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And that particular memorandum refers to 22 elimination of peb's by activated sludge? 23 A. Yes. 24 ' Q. Is tha.t a bacterial process, e s o e n t i a 11 * ? ___ Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029979 A. Yes. It mimics in the laboratory the typical municipal sewage treatment nl an.t. 0. I'Jas there some problem, go you :: e cn 11 problem in the course of that activated elude;- testing at one point with regard to errors chuc arose because the pcb was adhering to the sine of the flasks? A. Oh, yes . Q. Has _take resolved before :ha rime of zr.ii memo ? A. Yes. Q. And how was that problem corrected, if you recall? A. I think agitation was the -- he iced u L t o a bit. Q. Agitation of the water, pcb and sludge mixture in the flask ? A. Right. In addition to the air bubo lino through the introduced mechanical agitation. Q. By means of a magnetic stirrer or something of that nature, if you know? A. Yes, that's right, magnetic stirrer. 0. So the results that are reflected in exhibit 145 carrre after that agitation was Longoria & Goldstine 236 10?3 Chico no STLCOPCB4029980 1 introduced into the testing process? 2 A. Right, .`l 0. Do you recall how m u c h of a o u a n ti::.:: v A difference that node in the results? . 5 A. Mo. I don't. But it was s i o n`i f i c r. a. 6 Q. Presumably we could find to at out just by 7 putting the two reports next to each other? 3 A. Yes. Yes. Me had an early r e pc r t. o Q. Mould you mar!: this. 10 (The document above-referred 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit Mo. 146 for identification.) 13 Looking at the letter the court: reporter 14 has marked as Exhibit 146, which is from you to 15 doctor Robert Jasper dated July 12, 1971, do you 16 recognize that? 17 A. I recall it now that I read is. Y ; s . 13 Q. And that is your response to Dr. Jasper's 19 request for some technical information on the- u.so 20 of Aroclors in pesticide applications? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Does Monsanto maintain an archive of -..-hat 23 I guess it would be fair to describe as outdated 24 or discontinued technical literature? S Longoria & Goldstine 23S 1030 Chicoou STLCOPCB4029981 ~) ~ " 1 A. That I don't know. co' Q . Who would know that? On A. I don't k nov; the specific individual. 4 But I 'would start with the Ho ns an to' s research 5 1 ibrary. _ 6 And I would also check w i t h the need e 7 responsible for our printing, printing department. 8 Q. You do your own printing cf than tyoe of 9 information? ,, 10 A. Some of it we do our own. 'lost of it is 11 contracted-, but there are people in Monsanto who 12 are the custodians of these documents, manage tart 13 operation. 14 Q. Whether the actual printing is done 15 inside or outside, someone is responsible for 15 that? 17 . A. That is true. 18 Q. Okay. 19 Is it the practice of Monsanto ',/hen r. 20 product is discontinued, to recall from its 21 customers their copies of the technical literature 22 on the discontinued product? 23 A. I have never heard that done, no. 24 Q. Is it .the practice of Monsanto when a -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 103 0 Chicr.ro _ STLCOPCB4029982 D 1 product is modified or subsfcituceo, sue h os t h c. _ 2 change, let's say, from 1 2 42 to 1016 to os!; ohe 3 customers to return the old literature '..'hen oh o y 4 receive the new materials? c. A. Ho. 6 Q. Such a request would strike you as being 7 unusual? B A. Extremely so, yes. 9 Q. Okay. 10 Nov?, in response to Dr. Jasper's request:, 11 did you provide him -12 Uell, let me ask you this. 13 I guess we have established that there 1 4 was no lionsanto literature that recommended per'a 15 for use in pesticides, is that correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. So there was nothing you could have sent 18 him, in any event? 19 A. Correct. 20 ' Q. Other than the general material which you 21 did provide, in other words, you didn't send him. 22 anything on pesticides, but you did send him 23 something on Aroclors, generally? 24 A. Yes. * Longoria & Goldstine . 236 1030 Chicane -iUL STLCOPCB4029983 1 Q. Okay. o This has already been rr.arkec, dr. 3 Papageorge, as Exhibit 76 and recognising t.ue 4 that is difficult to read, I v?ill ask you first 'is 5 you recall ever having seen that before-? 6 A. I sav/ this recently in preparation for 7 this deposition. 8 Q. Okay. o But _that was the first tine you v?era 10 shown that document? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. This is for the record a letter dared 13 September 22, 1977 to Dick Jones of Testinghouse 14 from J. A. Alley of Monsanto. 15 Who was Mr. Alley or is Mr. Alley? 16 A. He is a Monsanto employee that at cris 17 point in time was/involved with the peb dielectric 1 8 customers. Pcb dielectric products. 19 Q. As a -- 20 A. Similar to the function Mr. Bryant served 21 in the early seventies. 22 0. Technical advice and assistance? 23 A. Technical advice, yes, as part of the 24 marketing function. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029984 1 Q. 77 h a t is his backqroun r i f V 0 u 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. Is he still with the company? ,1 A. I don't know . 5 Q. In this Exhibit 76 in the f ir sc p r nor r. oh 6 of the letter the last sentence in parenth sis 7 says : 8 "Hay I suggest that 9 you destroy all copies in your 10 own files and offices so v;e 11 don't inadvertently supply 12 obsolete information to the 13 industry." 14 And the reference is to a publicatin n 15 entitled, "Transformer, askarel inspection a:w.. 16 maintenance, guide bulletin TIC/EE-3 071-2 . 17 Do you see that statement? 10 A. Ido. 19 n. Had you ever been aware up until the tit . 20 you first saw this document, Exhibit 76, of any 21 request from Monsanto to its customers that 22 technical literature on Monsanto, products be 23 destroyed? 2 4 A. This is my first awareness. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029985 3 1 Q. Are you aware of a similar request in _Ij 2 connection with any other Monsanto product si tear 3 before or since September of 1977? A A. tTo. 5 Q. In September of 1977, was Hr. Alloy in a 6 position where he could make that kind of a i 7 request of Monsanto's customers on his own o authority and volition? n A. From my understanding of his assignment , 10 I would say no. 11 Q. So he wrote this letter at the 12 instructions of some superior? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. To whom did he report in September 1777? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. At the time of this letter as I 17 understand your earlier testimony, you were in a 1 3 different assignment from the peb problem; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And who had taken over that from you? 22 A. Initially? 23 Q. Right. . ; 24 '.V A. J. C. {? e b b e r . : ; Longoria & Goldstine 236 103 G Cnicr-.ro x- STLCOPCB4029986 1 Q. Was h g still in charge of that functicr: n in September of 1977? 3 A. Mo . 4 Q, 17ho was? 5 A . I believe it w a s David T7 o o c.. ' 6 Q. Okay. 7 And he has still got th at rcsocn ai )i 1 i t 3 today; is that correct? o A. Mo. , . 10 0. Mo. 11 Who has it now? 12 A. Dr. John Craddock. 13 Q . Dr. C r a d d o c k, that's right, you gave a a 14 his name before. 15 Mark that as 147 . 16 (The document above-referred- w 17 was marked Bloomington Deposit ice 13 Exhibit Mo. 147 for id c n t i fic a t i c a . ) 1 9 Looking at what the court reporter has 20 marked as Exhibit 147 for identification, uc you 21 recognize that document? 22 A. Yes. I do. 23 Q. And that is a memorandum dazed August 17, 24 1971 to Mr. Hei'Sler from Mr. Bucklev. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029987 . r> ]_ Who are Hr Heisler and I; r . pack 1 o v? 2 A. Yes. Mr. Buckley, both of these 3 individuals w ere employees at Hon santo 1 n " . C . 4 Kummrich plant in Sauget, Illinois. 5 Q. Were they involved in some capacity wit: 6 the pcb incinerator? 7 A. Y e s . . 8 Q . 01; a y . o A. Mr. Heisler. was the superintends;!:: in 10 manufacturing, who had responsibilities for the 11 manufacture of pcb's, as well as the ir.cinc-racor 12 associated with pcb's. 13 Mr. Buckley was an environmental engines 14 at the plant concerned with environmental issues 15 throughout the plant, including those associated 1G with pcb's. ' 17 . 0. And with the incinerator? IS A. Yes. 19 If there were any environmental issues 20 with the incinerator, he would get involved. "!u 21 not with the operation of it on a day-eo-aay 22 basis. 23 Q. Right. 24 ' The incinerator as I understand it, the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029988 1 process gives off among other things hydrochloric 2 acid? 3 A. Yes . Q. Okay. 5 And that is scrub iced cut of t h 6 you want to call it? 7 A. The stack gasses. Oj "q. Out of the stack gas? O. A. Yes._ . 10 0. Is that recovered in some way ? 11 A. It is blended with the rest of 12 Sauget' s plant's waste, which are on th sic 13 side. So it helps neutralize the total 1 S C 7' " 14 leaving the plant. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Is there some kind of pretrcatment 17 Saugot plant? 1 0 A. Mo. 1 9 Q. So that goes directly into one sower? 20 A. It goes to the sewer. 21 Q. After the neutralization process? 22 A. Yes. This is sort of a fortuitous 23 n e u t r a 1 i z a t i <3 n. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicane . STLCOPCB4029989 1 That else is there that might be cr.i T. tl C 2 into the air as a result from char ir.c Lr. or a r. i - r. n J process? A A. The nitrogen that accompanies t.:c si r' - 5 the unit will combine with oxygen an these 6 temperatures and get oxides of nitrogen. 7 If there is an excess of oxygen, as tror:- 8 is normally, you can release free chlorine, i * 9 addition to the chlorine that is tied up v; i t h t a c 10 hydrogen chloride acid, there is free- chlorin c , sc 11 that is possible. 12 And, of course, you have water ano c eric n 13 dioxide. 14 Q. And those are the combustion produce 15 from the organic material? 15 A. Yes. As well as the hydrogen cilori a-. . 17 That is a combustion product. 18 q. Right. Okay. 19 This I take it, this memorandum reel e o t a 20 answers to some environmental concerns that w o r a 21 raised by the EPA respecting the operation of than 22 incinerator? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And I *take it that that incinerator had Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029990 1 all of the appropriate 3 PA per"its for its 2 operation? 3 A. Oh, yon. 4 Q. U as it in use at the tine of th x e r a , 5 August 18, 1971? " A. It had been in service about a month or 7 tv/o. It was still in what I woulei call its start-up phases. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 And it is not uncommon for the PPA to 11 make this kind of an inquiry in the start-up phono 12 of an operation? 13 A. In fact, the regulations call for "'PA to 14 come back and determine whether the permit 15 conditions are being met. 1G (The document above-referred to 17 was marked F. looming ton reposition 1 8 Exhibit No. 148 for identification..) 19 Q. Showing you a document that has been 20 marked as Exhibit 143, which is a memo dated 21 September 7, 1971 to John Mason from !T. 22 Richard. 23 Do you recognize that? 24 A. I reca*ll it nov; that I see it. Longoria & Goldstine 2 3 3 1030 Chi.tare STLCOPCB4029991 1 Q . I?as there a tr.ee ting wi fch tho ?ooc. nc. 2 Drug Administration some time around 3 eoe era b e _ cl 3 1971? 4 A. dJe had several meetings with 5 representatives of FDA. I can't place this 6 specific date. 7 Q. Did you participate in any of those 8 meeting with the FDA? n A. Yes.. . 10 Q. To your knowledge, did you participate ir. 11 all of them? 12 A. Ho. 13 Q. Did Mr. Mason participate in some cf 14 those FDA meeting? 1 5 A. I don't recall John participating it any 16 of them. I just don't recall the relationship c: 17 this document- to -- 18 Q. It is not clear to me that Exhibit 143 19 necessarily means that he was at the discussion 20 with the FDA. 21 . . Might it be that in his capacity as the 22 emissary to Congressman Ryan, he was being leant 23 apprised of discussions with the FDA? 24 A. That i*s a possibility, yes. Longoria & c, o 1 d s t i n e 236 103 0 Chicane STLCOPCB4029992 1 Q. Presumably Monsanto would expect, chat 2 Congressman Ryan or his staff would also bo in 3 contact with the FDA? 4 A. Certainly, ; . 5 Q. Concerning peb's? - 5 A. Ye s. i 7 Q. The studies that are ceferreci to in. un paragraph 4 of the memorandum, arc those studies O that were performed for Monsanto by Industrial . 10 Biotest Laboratories in Forth brock, Illinois? li A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. They were underway at that time. 14 Q. As I understand it, the analysis of tee 15 amount of peb's in tissue samples that was den; in 16 connection with those studies was done Scott 17 Tucker at Monsanto? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q, Okay. 20 And he was supplied by Industrial Die test 21 with the tissues for analysis? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Other than the fact that neb's vers 24 showing up in f*ish and other items that people " Longoria &Goldst.ine 235 10 30 Chicane - STLCOPCB4029993 1 might oat, did the FDA have ar.y other i n c o r o s - i r. 2 pcb's ? -> .J A. Yes. A 0. What other interest did tney have? 5 A. Dairy products. - '/O* Q. Okay. 7 My question was meant to include all 8 kinds of food. o A. Well, their.interest was -- 10 Q. Their interest was the presence of pcb's 11 in food? 12 A. Presence in food anc the source of that 13 pcb. 14 Q. Okay. 15 And as of this September 1971 time 16 period,- v; h a t different food products had been 17 identified as possibly containing neb? 13 A. I believe at that point in time, let : 1 9 think. . At that point in time they had o s t a b 1 i a I: a a 20 a guideline in -- presence in fish, poultry, milk, 21 and milk products. I believe that was it. 22 Q. Were' there any others later added tc the 23 list? 24 A. Yes. `Later they added animal food that Longoria & Ooldstine 236 103 Ci STLCOPCB4029994 1 went into domestic animals. Food for pool or'' end 2 cattle and pigs. 3 Q. Chicken feed and things like char? 4 A. Chicken feed and that sort of chine was 5 added. Baby food was added. And they revised 6 some of the previous guidelines. This -was a bo us 7 1973, as I recall. 0 Q. And the FDA's concern about levels of c cb n in food for human consumption arises out of too 10 FDA's concern for human health, is chat a fair 11 statement? ' 12 A. Yes. That is their mandate. 13 Q. What are the possible - 14 In 1971, as I understand it, onsnneo 15 discontinued sales of peb's for use as heat 15 transfer liquids; is that correct? 17 A. At about that time. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. 19 So the materials should nc longer be 20 getting into food in the food processing presets? 21 A. That is true. 22 Q. In earlier incidents, that was one kir.o 23 of thing that happened, not necessarily in chit 24 country, but el-sewhere; is that correct? ,/ Longoria & Golds tine 23 6 .10 3 3 Chicane STLCOPCB4029995 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. Okay. 3 So the source in food would be oho ;c.:' 4 that was actually in the fish or in the mil k :\s n 5 result of something tho could you eat c-c in on: 6 chicken as a result of something the chicken ace, 7 that would be one other source? on A. That would be a source cr sources. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 What other source might there be? 11 A. Well, it was found in recycle paper thac 12 .would end up as the cardboard containers of food 13 products. It was found in some of the still in 14 use adhesives and inks on food packaging. It was 15 still being phased out. 16 Q. It might get into the food from the 17 packaging? 13 A. That was one suspected source. 19 0. Okay. 20 A. And I believe it was about '73 ./hen the 21 FDA also referred to the proximity of electrical 22 equipment to the food processing operations; 23 transformers. 24 Q. In oth-er words, electrical equipment Longoria & CTOldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029996 1 containing pet's? n A. Yen. 3 Q. Could bo a source? .1 A . Y o s . 5 Q. Anything else? - 6 A. I can't think of anything else. 7 Q. In the animal world, let's bac!c up. On As I understand it, in fish the 9 persistent isomers of peb tended to bo the- .more 10 highly chlorinated isomers; is that correct? 11 A. That's right. 12 Q. Whereas in birds, the opposite -./as true; 13 is that correct? The lower chlorinated isomers 14 were the ones that we re found more prevalently in. 15 the bird tissues? 16 A. I'don't have that uncerstandirp. Tk o 17 lower chlorinated seemed to affect the bird::. IS Q. Okay. 19 . They were more toxic tc the birds? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. The higher chlorinated? 22 A. The presence in tissues was still the 23 higher chlorinated. 24 Q. Was tlvat difference confirmed in the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chica STLCOPCB4029997 1 stadias that w ere done for Monsanto to your 2 k n o w 1 g e ? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was there a shared concern in 1971 5 between -- well, strike that, ' 6 Was Monsanto concerned in 1971 that car 7 government might ultimately ban neb's in me 8 United States? 9 A. There was a.concern, but I don't knew 10 that it was a deep concern. 11 The concern that I was aware of and 12 shared with others in Monsanto was a precipitous 13 decision that would affect the electrical 14 distribution in this country. 1 5 Q. Meaning that it was important to Me near, 16 to maintain the ability to sell peb's at least 17 un.til a substitute could be developed? 18 A. Yes. 19 . I don't know that it was important to 20 Monsanto, 21 . ! It was Monsanto's understanding that 22 unless an alternate material was available, the 23 power distribution in this country would be 24 adversely affec*ted. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicsc6 STLCOPCB4029998 21 2 1 And since wo were the only sour CG C f 2 acceptable material, v/e felt wc had to k e e o t". 3 it until something else came along. 4 Q. And while you were continuing t h e 5 production of peb's, you were also, you. b e i n g 6 Monsanto, were also working on the devclopmen 7 alternatives for the electrical industry f 1 r -W 8 cor rect? 9 A. Yes._ . 10 q. And not only on your own, but w ith 11 customers 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In the electrical industry? 14 A. Yes. 15 0. As I understand it, however, oh - 16 presently used alternative was ultimate 1 V 17 developed by someone other than .Monsanto - 18 : A. That's right. `j 19 Okay. f 20 1 ! And that is isopropyl biphenyl or at . ! .hi ' ! ' ' 21 j lea; s'; t;i* th' . at is one alternative? 22 A. ' I had heard it was one of the \ 23 alternatives. 24 Q. Do you- know who developed that p r c d u Longoria & G o 1 d s t i n e 2 3 6 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029999 37 3 1 A. No. 2 Q. During the entire tine that Monsnnrc 3 continued to produce and sell pcb's, the canpar.y 4 was making a profit on those sales, u as i r. r.oe? 5 A. Yes. _ 6 Q. Would you mark that 149. 7 (The document above-- referred tc 0 was marked Bloomington Deyosicicn o Exhibit No. 149 for i d c n t i f i c a t i e r. . ) 10 Showing you what has been marked as 11 Exhibit 149, Mr. Papageorge, which is a letter 12 dated April 11, 1972, do you recognize that 13 document?. 14 MR. FRUEHWALD: First of all, it is daces. 15 April of ' 72 . 16 MR. MC CONNELL: Oh, April of 1972, I am 17 sorry. 18 A. I recognize it. 19 Q. Is that a letter from Monsanto to its pc: 20 customers? 21 A. Yes. 2 2 Q. Do you know if there has been preserved 23 somewhere a mailing list of customer to whom that 2 4 was sent? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1930 Chicano STLCOPCB4030000 374 1 A No, I don't 2 Q. Would it have been sent to the- 3 Westinghouse Bloomington facility, if you knew? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Is it fair to characterizethis lector as 6 a warning to customers that Monsanto may 7 ultimately be compelled by the government so 8 disclose its customer list and volumes of soles? 9 A. That was ona of the objectives. 10 Q. And the other objective is a reminder 11 that they must continue -o be careful about hcv: 12 peb's are handled and used? 13 A. That is another objective. 14 Q. Okay. 15 Was there a third? 15 A. Yes. FDA's proposed rules were 17 published. 18 Q. You wanted them to be aware of that? 19 A. To be aware of this new development. 20 Yes. 21 Q. Did Monsanto ever request to your 22 knowledge any of its customers -- well, let me 23 back :up a minute. 24 Monsaato ultimately commented to the FDA *' i. f t' Long-joria. & -.Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^ STLCOPCB4030001 37 5 1 on those proposed rules, did it not? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. A Let's mark that as 150. 5 (The document abovc-re.fcrrod tc 6 was marksd Blooni.no-on Doposirior. 7 Exhibit No. 150 for identification.) 3 Looking at the document the court 9 reporter has narked as Exhibit 150, which is a 10 letter dated July 14, 1972. Is that Exhibit 150 11 the comments that Monsanto submitted in response 12 to the proposed Food and Drug Administration 13 regulations on pcb's? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. And who was it that signed that? 16 A. I did. 17 Q. That was part of your job as the 13 coordinator at that time? 19 A. Y e s . 20 Q. Okay. 21 . Besides yourself, who participated in the 22 drafting of those comments? 23 A. In '72. It would include Elmer rTheeler. 24 Dr. Kelly, Dr. -Keller, a public relations Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030002 1 representative and I don't know wh o had t h o 2 assignment in '72. 3 0. Anybody from the legal department? 4 A. Dr. Richard. An attorney always loci:-: .i 5 at these documents. It was routine. I can't 6 think of anyone else. 7 Q. Were there earlier drafts of that letter 8 circulated among the group that you have just 9 named? ,, 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you know whether they wore ore servo a 12 for any period of time after the letter was sen. t? 13 A. If they v;er e , it depends on the 14 recipient's style of keeping documents. 15 Normally they are discarded w a e n cho 15 final version is issued. 17 Q. That was your practice, in a n y event ? 18 A. Yes. And others. 19 , Q. To your knowledge, did anyone at 'her. sane a 20 ever request customers to also submit comments on 21 those proposed FDA regulations? 22 A. I don't know of any situation where a 23 customer was requested. It was encouraged arid 24 suggested, but .not in the form of a request. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1939 Chicane STLCOPCB4030003 277 1 Q. Okay. 2 Nould it be accurate co state that 3 Monsanto made its peb customers aware that 4 Monsanto was going to comment on the FDA 5 regulations? ' 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you share with the customer a at any 8 time before your comments were submittec g information concerning the nature of what your 10 comments would be? 11 A. Not that I recall. 12 Q, But you did encourage chose customers 13 also to submit this own comments on this 14 regulation? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And I take it that was because the 17 customers as well as Monsanto would be affeccce 18 the proposed regulations if they were out in:c ID effect? 20 A. Yos. 21 . MR. KC CONNELL: I want to mark this as 151, 22 this as 152. ' 23 24 Longoria & Golastine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030004 37 8 1 (The documents above-referred to 2 were marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit Nos. 151 and 152, 4 respectively, for identification.) 5 All right. _ 6 Showing you what has been marked as 7 Exhibit 151, which is a letter dated August 30, 8 1972 to Dr. Myronb Hehlman from yourself, I ask if 9 you recognize that document? 10 A. I recall it. Yes. 11 Q. Do you recall for what purpose Dr. 12 Mehlman requested the samples of the three 13 Aroclors that are mentioned in Exhibit 151? 14 A. These samples were to be used as 15 standards in their analytical laboratory that was 16 analyzing food at the Pood and Drug 17 Administration. 18 Q. Okay. 19 And that is in connection with the 20 double-checking process that you described in the 21 analytical process? 22 A. No. No. 23 Every laboratory that conducts pcb 24 analyses needs -standards to compare the unknown to - Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030005 37 9 1 the known. 2 Q. Okay. 3 So that was going to be their known? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. . 6 And I will show you what has been marked ,7 as Exhibit 152 which is a letter dated August 30, 8 1972 from you to a Major Ralph Vosdingh. 9 V-o-s-d-i-n-g-h, of the Fifth Army Medical 9 10 Laboratory in San Antonio. 11 Do you recall for what purpose Major 12 Vosdingh requested this sample of pcb's? 13 A. He wanted a standard that he could use in 14 his laboratories as he analyzed for pcb's. 15 I don't recall what specifically he was 16 looking for. But this was again a laboratory 17 standard. 18 Q. I understand that. 19 I am just trying to find out what 20 knowledge you may have about what the Army was 21 doing with respect to pcb analysis? 22 A. I just don't remember. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Would you mark that. ~ Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030006 3 80 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 153 for identification.) 4 Would you look at the memorandum dated 5 September 8, 1972 that has been marked as Exhibit 6 153 . 7 Do you recognize that document? 8 A. Now that I read it, I recall it. Yes. 9 Q. And that is.a summary of a meeting 10 between Monsanto representatives and Westinghouse 11 representatives at Westinghouse in Bloomington, 12 Indiana? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. On August 7, 1972; is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Benignus about that 17 meeting before he went? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And what did you discuss with him about 20 the meeting? 21 A. The fact that he had arranged for a 22 meeting and he reviewed with me the topics that he 23 was going to share with them and wanted to make 24 certain that he- had his facts accurate. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago j STLCOPCB4030007 3 81 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. And If of coursef encouraged him to 3 report back to me his observations, his findings. 4 Q. And he did that in this memo I take it? 5 A. Well, he did it with this memo'and prior 6 to the memo he personally talked to me about it. 7 Q. Okay. 8 In the discussion you had with him before 9 he wrote the memo, did he tell you anything in 10 ^addition to what is reflected in the memo? 11 A. ' NO. . 12 Q. The memo refers to a slide presentation 13 and I have seen what I take to be overhead 14 transparencies rather than 35 millimeter slides, 15 is that what that refers to? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. ; 18 The second subject of the memo is leaky 19 tankcars that are use or had been used to deliver 20 pcb's to Westinghouse in Bloomington. 21 Do you recall there being a continuing 22 concern about the problem of leaks not only at the 23 point where the tankcars were received by 24 Westinghouse, but also enroute? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030008 3 82 1 A. There was a period of time when that was 2 a problem, yes. 3 Q. And was there a change made in the 4 frequency of inspection of the care by Monsanto as 5 a result? - 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Prom once every ten years to annually? 8 A. I forgot the frequency. But there was a 9 dramatic change in frequency. 10 Q. Okay. 11 Under the terms of the sales agreement, 12 Westinghouse was responsible for those cars from 13 the time they left your plant, is that correct? 14 A. Yes. Technically. 15 Q. So their concern was that you should ship 16 the cars out in a condition that they were willing 17 to undertake responsibility for? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 The next subject is discussion of what I 21 understand to be then ongoing negotiations over 22 the terms of the contract between Westinghouse and 23 Monsanto for the supply of pcb's. Is that a fair 24 characterizatio-n? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030009 3 83 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was there ever put into effect a 3 long-term contract with an indexed sales price, if 4 you know? 5 A. Not to my knowledge. 6 (A short recess was taken.) 7 Q. Back on the record. 8 Based on our previous discussion with 9 your lawyers at other depositions, do you know 10 whether the date of the meeting that is reflected 11 there', August 7, 1972 , was actually on September 12 7, 1972, as you sit here today? 13 A. No. I don't. 14 Q. Okay. 15 Would it have been common for Mr. 16 Benignus to take a whole month to write a memo 17 like this? 18 A. This can happen. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Would you mark that as the next exhibit. 21 (The document above-referred to 22 was marked Bloomington Deposition 23 Exhibit No. 154 for identification.) 24 Before, we look at the next exhibit, who Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030010 3 84 1 is Hr. Shemley? 2 A. He was the field salesman who at that 3 time was selling pcb dielectrics. 4 Q. There any particular reason why you were 5 not included in the meeting in August of September 6 of 1972? 7 A. Normally they would invite me and it 8 depended on whether I was committed to some other 9 meeting. . . 10 Q. Taking a look at Exhibit 154, do you 11 recall that document, a letter dated September 14, 12 1972? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you ultimately receive a copy of the 15 study on pcb's in laying hens? 16 A. I remember it, yes. 17 Q. What did it reflect by way of results, if 18 you recall? 19 A. Very much like the results that we got 20 from Monsanto's studies. 21 Q. Thin shelled, low hatchability? 22 A. With the lower chlorinated pcb's, yes. 23 Q. Would you mark that, please. 24 \ * Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030011 / 'ifes'''" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 85 (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 155 for identification.) Looking at what has been marked as Exhibit 155, which is dated April 23, 1973, do you recognize that? A. Yes. I recognize it. Q. That refers to some changes in the labling of pc.b drums -and tankcars by Monsanto; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Is there preserved anywhere the versions of the labels which were replaced by the labels that are included in Exhibit 155? A. There is a repository of labels in Monsanto's labling section or department that manages the label programs. Q. So they could give us a history from beginning when? A. I think it goes all the way back to the thirties on pcb's. Q. Essentially to the beginning of commercial production? *A * Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030012 3 86 1 Q. Do you know as you look at the three 2 different copies of labels that are part of 3 Exhibit 155, what part of the information was new? 4 A. At this point in time the change here was 5 a color change, not a message change. 6 Q. Okay. 7 From what color to what color? 8 A. It is in the write-up here. It talks 9 about a white, and the yellow. Where did I see it? 10 The new product is a yellow background with black 11 printing. This replaces former, which were white 12 background and black or red writing. 13 Q. And what color were the drums before they 14 changed to yellow drums? 15 A. They were black drums. 16 Q. You go from a black and white or red and 17 white label on a black drum to a black on yellow 18 label on a yellow drum? 19 . A. Correct. 20 Q. Was that for some communication reason or 21 was that for esthetics? 22 A. I really don't know. The yellow did 23 highlight the drum. 24 Q. But it* would seem to me that a yellow Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030013 3 87 1 label on a yellow drum would be less visible then 2 a white one? 3 A. These drums were preprinted with the 4 label the black printing was on the yellow drum. 5 Q. Okay. - 6 A. In addition to that, they had yellow 7 paper labels which could have been used and were 8 used in the tankcars. They would fold this label, 9 put it in a plastic envelope and tie it on the 10 dome of the car, where the seal is. 11 Q. So, anyone opening it -12 A. It is the first thing they do is they see 13 the label . Take the label and then break the 14 seal. 15 Q. Were you involved in a discussion that 16 led up to that change? 17 A. Briefly. Yes. 18 Q. Was -- 19 A. I was asked if I had any objections. And 20 I didn't have any. 21 Q. Did anybody advance any reason other than 22 esthetics for the change in color? 23 A. They probably did. But I just don't 24 remember. -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030014 3 88 1 Q. The big change was from black to yellow 2 drum? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Do you want to mark that. ` 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 156 for identification.) 9 Do you recognize Exhibit 156, Mr. 10 Papageorge? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. For the record that is a letter dated 13 February 21, 1974 to Dr. Sidney Galler of the 14 Department of Commerce. 15 Did you write that letter in response to 16 some proposed regulations on pcb discharges? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. 19 Was that in the nature of comment on 20 published proposed regulations or was that in 21 response to a specific set of questions that were 22 asked by Dr. Galler? 23 A. This was in response to questions asked 24 by Dr. Galler, which in turn were based on EPA's Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030015 3 89 1 activities at that time in considering some 2 standards. 3 Q. Had they been -- had formal standards 4 been published in the Federal Register or were you 5 provided with an internal draft? - 6 A. I believe at this point in time they had 7 been published. 8 Q. Okay. 9 Did Monsanto encourage its pcb customers 10 to respond to the publication of those proposed 11 effluent regulations? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 Why don't you mark this as Group Exhibit 15 157 . 16 (The document above-referred to 17 was marked Bloomington Deposition 18 Group Exhibit No. 157 for 19 identification.) 20 What I have marked as Exhibit 157 21 consists of two letters dated March 7, 1974 and an 22 attached, I guess it could fairly be described as 23 a presentation. 24 Do you- recognize those materials? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030016 3 90 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you or other people at Monsanto 3 invite some of your pcb customers to a meeting to 4 discuss proposed pcb effluent regulations? 5 A. Yes. - 6 Q. When did the meeting take place? 7 A. In February of 1974. 8 Q. Did you share with your customers at that 9 meeting the contents.of the information that you 10 had already submitted to the Department of 11 Commerce which we have marked as Exhibit 156? 12 A. I don't recall that specifically. No. 13 Q. In the course of that meeting, were the 14 pcb customers encouraged to submit their own 15 comments on those proposed regulations? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q, Do you know whether any of them did? 18 A. As I recall, several of them participated 19 as a group. They formed a pcb committee under the 20 electronic industries association and commented 21 through that group. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Was there subsequently some sort of 24 hearings on tho*se regulations? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030017 3 91 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you know whether anyone at Monsanto 3 submitted either written or oral testimony at 4 those hearings? 5 A. I believe I was involved in, I'know I was 6 involved in hearings, and I believe this was one 7 of them. Yes. 8 Q. Did you go to Washington and testify or 9 did you submit some sort of an affidavit? 10 A. I believe I testified and left a copy of 11 that document. 12 Q. Okay. 13 Do you know what form that document took? 14 A. It is a multi-page. It was not in letter 15 form. It was more of a report form. 16 Q. Do you know what the date of it was? 17 A. It had to be 1974. 18 Q. You think you also went and gave oral 19 testimony; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. I remember a meeting room and a 21 committee, a panel. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 158 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030018 3 92 1 Q. Would you take a look at Exhibit 158, 2 which is the affidavit of James H. Wright, and the 3 heading on it is, "In re proposed toxic pollutant 4 effluent standards for 5 I have no idea what this is do-ing in my 6 book. 7 (Discussion had off the record.) 8 Q. The heading is, "In re proposed toxic 9 pollutant effluent standards for Aldrin/dieldrin, 10 et al," 11 And one of the et als was pcb's; is that 12 correct? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. All right. 15 Now, was that affidavit by the 16 Westinghouse employee discussed at the meeting 17 that is reflected in Exhibit 157? 18 A. I don't remember it. And I don't see 19 anything to refresh my memory on it. 20 Q. Do you know James Wright? 21 A. I recall the name. But I just don't 22 remember the person. 23 Q. Do you know whether anyone else other 24 than Westinghou*se and Monsanto submitted Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030019 3 93 1 individually materials in response to those 2 proposed regulations other than the group 3 submission that you testified about earlier? 4 A. I do not know of any other. 5 Q. Let me ask you, looking at the- cartoon 6 that is attached as part of Exhibit 158, and maybe 7 there is a better - 8 Let me get the other one, because that 9 one is even less legible than what we had before. 10 Let me show you what has previously been 11 marked as Exhibit 75, which is also one of the 12 attachments to the affidavit that is Exhibit 158. 13 Have you seen that before you started 14 getting ready for this deposition? 15 A. I don't recall seeing it before then. 16 Q. I note that the cartoon character at the 17 bottom of that exhibit bears the Monsanto logo on 18 his shirt. 19 Do you recall Westinghouse ever 20 requesting Monsanto's permission to use its logo 21 in connection with that cartoon? 22 A. I do not. 23 Q. Could such a request have been done 24 without your be.ing aware of it? ~ Longoria & Gold3tine 236 1030 Chicago , STLCOPCB4030020 3 94 1 A. Oh, yes. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Did you ever discuss with Westinghouse 4 their intent to publish such a cartoon to their 5 sales people? ' A. No. 7 Q. In your estimation, is that a fair 8 depiction of your program for either recycling or 9 disposal of scrap, what you called Aroclor and 10 what they called Inerteen? 11 A. That is a good graphic way of 12 communicating that message, yes. 13 Q. Hark that the next one, will you please. 14 Before you mark the exhibit. Let me ask one more 15 question about 75. 16 Was it Westinghouse rather than Monsanto 17 that coined the term 'dirty undesirable disposer"? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. Okay. 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 159 for identification.) 23 Do you recognize that document that has 24 been marked as -Exhibit 159? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030021 3 95 1 A. There are two documents in this 2 particular one. 3 Q. Okay. Let's separate them right now. 4 A. 0 k a y. 5 I recognize Exhibit 159. - 6 Q. That is a further update on the status of 7 the biodegradability studies or maybe that is not 8 what it is; that is on a different material? 9 A. Yes. This is a report on the 10 biodegradability of another Aroclor. 11 Q. 1221? 12 A. 1221. 13 Q. How did that compare with the ten times 14 figure and 75 times figure that we discussed 15 earlier? 16 A. I don't know that I come up with that 17 kind of number. But this is. much more degradable. 18 You will note that on the first page, over 80 19 percent of the material disappeared in 28 hours. 20 Q. That was with the activated sludge? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. 1221 was not a new product at the date of 23 that? 24 A. That i-s true. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030022 3 96 1 Q. Is there any particular reason for the 2 fact that it was studied later than the 1016 and 3 1242? 4 A. Yes. 5 Initially there was little interest in 6 using 1221 by the electrical equipment people and 7 then an interest started to develop in its 8 possible use in capacitors. 9 And it has all the dielectric properties 10 required. We found out from this study that it . 11 degrades rapidly. 12 What it didn't have was the equivalent 13 fire resistance. But in spite of that, some of 14 our customers were interested. This is why we did 15 this work. 16 Q. Okay. 17 That was 1221 may have been an additional 18 alternative, in addition to 1016? 19 A. That's right. 20 Q. All right. 21 A. And it was. Not may have been, it was. 22 Q. Would you mark this. 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago 'til STLCOPCB4030023 3 97 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 160 for identification.) 4 Do you recognize Exhibit 160? 5 A. I recall it now that I have read it. 6 Q. That was a letter from you forwarding 7 some questions to Westinghouse? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. 10 What was the purpose for getting answers 11 to those questions? 12 A. Well, Hr. Kopp from EPA was attempting to 13 get information regarding pcb's from transformer 14 operations and he asked me if I could help get 15 those answers from General Electric and 16 Westinghouse, and this is my attempt to help him. 17 Q. Okay. 18 Do you know what he was going to do with 19 that information? 20 A. This was part of their effort to get a 21 better understanding of pcb's, the electrical 22 industry, the economic impact. The ability to 23 control, the feasibility of control. So that they 24 could come up w.ith a standard that they could Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago , STLCOPCB4030024 3 98 1 support. 2 Q. And that was the ongoing regulatory 3 effort that we have been discussing, the initial 4 regulations that they published and you commented 5 on and Westinghouse commented on and this is a 6 continuation of the same process; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. 9 . (The document above-referred to 10 was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 161 for identification.) 12 Would you take a look at Exhibit 161. Do 13 you recognize that? 14 A. Yes. I do. 15 Q. That is a request from Westinghouse to 16 you for answers to some questions about pcb's; is 17 that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did you respond to that? 20 A. I recall I did. Yes. 21 Q. Would you mark that. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 E-xhibit No. 162 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030025 3 99 1 Is Exhibit 162 a copy of your response to 2 Exhibit 161? 3 A. It appears to be, yes. 4 Q. Did anybody assist you in preparing the 5 responses which are attached to the letter that is 6 the first page of 161? 7 A. Yes. It would have to be Elmer Wheeler 8 over in the medical department. 9 Q. Anyone else.that you recall? 10 A. Not that I recall, no. 11 Q. Is there anything in the questions on 12 Exhibit 161 that suggested to you at the time that 13 the Westinghouse plants were less than what we 14 described yesterday as bone dry? 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: You say plants plural? 16 MR. MC CONNELL: Plants plural. 17 This does not refer to the Bloomington 18 plant. I understand that. 19 A. The reference to shoes and their shoe 20 soles being contaminated would indicate that there 21 was a source of pcb's on the walking surfaces. 22 Q. Okay. 23 You had previously visited the South 24 Boston plant, h*ad you not? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030026 400 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. How long before this letter, if you 3 recall? 4 A. Four or five years. 5 Q. Okay. _ 6 Did it trouble you at all that in four or 7 five years they hadn't been able to get the pcb's 8 off the floor of the South Boston plant? 9 A. No. _ . 10 Because I didn't have enough information 11 to tell me that this was a large area that was 12 covered or that the number of employees that were 13 wearing these shoes were many. 14 Or whether or not these employees had 15 gotten it from the plant per se or did they get it 16 outside in the unloading process, on the 17 platforms. 18 I just didn't have enough to make a good 19 judgment regarding its significance. 20 Q. Did you make any inquiry of the person 21 who sent you the letter or of anyone else? 22 A. No. I don't recall doing so. 23 Q. Okay. 24 During, the time that you were visiting Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030027 401 1 the South Boston plant and the Bloomington plant, 2 did you arrive at any comparative evaluation of 3 the effectiveness of the controls between those 4 two facilities of Westinghouse, was one doing 5 better than the other? - 6 A. Yes. South Boston was much cleaner. 7 Dryer looking than Bloomington. 8 Q. Okay. 9 Did .that knowledge on your part enter 10 into the fact that the request didn't raise any 11 particular concern on your part? 12 A. It probably did. 13 If that plant, at least as I saw it, had 14 been one with obvious evidence of material, seeing 15 shoes contaminated I would have associated the 16 two. But this didn't fit what I saw the first 17 time around. 18 Q. In other words, if the same letter had 19 come to you from somebody at the Bloomington 20 plant, your response might have been different? 21 A. Very likely. Yes. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 E-xhibit No. 163 for identification.) -- Longoria 6 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030028 402 1 Q. Looking at Exhibit 163, which is dated 2 April 3, 1975, I will ask you if you recognize 3 that document? 4 A. I remember it. Yes. 5 Q. Was there ever any effort made'to get the 6 analyses from other laboratories to compare with 7 your own? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do y.ou recall what the results of the 10 comparison were? 11 A. In general, the results were compared 12 favorably with Monsanto's results. 13 Q. When you say compared favorably, do you 14 mean that they were getting the same answers you 15 were? 16 A. Well, in analyzing pcb's, you don't get 17 the same answer, but you can numbers that can 18 relate to each other in a reasonable kind of way. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Order of magnitude kind of numbers. 21 Q. Okay. 22 When you said more favorable or compared 23 favorably, the other interpretation of that would 24 be that their numbers were always lower than Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030029 403 1 yours? 2 A. No. I am talking now about the quality 3 of the data. 4 Q. It appeared to you that your laboratory 5 and the other laboratories were doing an equally 6 good job of the analysis? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. Okay. 9 (The document above-referred to 10 was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 164 for identification.) 12 Q. Showing you Exhibit 164, which is dated 13 August 22, 1975, I will ask you if you recognize 14 that document? 15 A. Yes. I remember it. 16 Q. Do you recall whether Monsanto provided 17 to any of its pcb customers the assistance that is 18 referred to on the first page of the exhibit in 19 completing the questionnaire? 20 A. I do not recall. 21 Q. Who besides yourself would have been 22 involved in the providing of that assistance? 23 A. Dave Wood, the author of this request, 24 would have had 'access to Monsanto records of pcb's Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030030 40 4 1 that were sold to the customers' sites. 2 Q. That was part of what was under his 3 responsibility? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Was he by that memo, which is the first 6 page of that exhibit, asking your permission to 7 provide that help or just letting you know that he 8 had been asked for it? 9 A. He is informing me that this activity was 10 underway and ongoing. 11 Q. And providing you with a copy of the 12 questionnaire so you would know what was out 13 there? 14 A. Yes. 15 MR. MC CONNELL: Okay. It is about five of 16 one. I am done with most everything for the 17 moment. 18 (Whereupon the taking of the 19 deposition was continued sine 20 dine.) 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4030031