Document Lgr60kgj0gxkb2n1aLa2Mq04w

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOHN W. BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs, vs . MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. IP 91-62 6-C ) ) ) ) INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS QUESTIONS BY: PAGE Direct Examination by Mr. McCrea ............................................................... 4 Cross-Examination by Mr. Rosie 1lo ......................................................... 42 Redirect Examination by Mr. McCrea ...................................................... 43 INDEX OF DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. Papageorge 1 ........................................................................ PAGE MARKED 42 TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. On beha 1f of Plaintiffs ' October 2, 1996 GATEWAY REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC. 515 Olive Street, Suite 1506 St. Louis, MO 63101 ( 314 ) 621-2571 HARTOLDMONO017603 2 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 JOHN W. BAKER, et al., ) 4) Plaintiffs, ) 5 vs. ) ) Civi1 No. IP 91-62 6-C 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7) Defendant. ) 8 TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM B. 9 PAPAGEORGE, P.E., produced, sworn and examined on behalf of the Pla intif f s, October 2, 1996, between the hours of 10 eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon of that day, at the offices of Husch & 11 Eppenberger, 100 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri, before FAITH A. OLLIGES, a Registered Professional 12 Reporter and a Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri. 13 APPEARANCES 14 Plaintiffs were represented telephonically by 15 Mr. David McCrea of the law firm of McCrea & McCrea, 119 South Walnut, Bloomington, Indiana 46402. 16 Defendant was represented by Mr. Michae1 Rosiello 17 of the 1aw firm of Barnes & Thornburg, 1313 Merchants Bank Building, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, 18 Indiana 46204. 19 Also present was Mr. Timothy Peck of the law firm of Smith, Helms, Mullis & Moore, L.L.P., 300 North 20 Greene Street, Suite 1400, Greesboro, N.C. 27420. 21 22 23 24 25 HARTOLDMONO017604 3 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 2 between Counse1 for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the 3 Defendant that this deposition may be taken in shorthand 4 by FAITH A. OLLIGES, a Registered Professiona1 Reporter 5 and Notary Public, and afterwards transcribed into 6 typewriting. 7 o-o-o 8 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E., 9 Of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined on 10 the part of the Plaintiffs, deposes and says: 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 QUESTIONS BY MR. McCREA: 13 Q. Mr. Papageorge, would you please state your 14 full name for the record? 15 A. William B. Papageorge. 16 Q. Do you still reside at 321 Pebble Valley 17 Drive, St. Louis, Missouri? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Mr. Papageorge, what documents have you 20 reviewed in preparation for this deposition? 2 1 A. Oh, I don ' t know that I can describe them 22 all by title or name, but they were documents that I 23 understand you had planned to use in t-his deposition. I 24 reca11 a copy of my affidavit, a copy of my curriculum 25 vitae, and it seemed to me there was an EPA report dated HARTOLDMONO017605 4 1 in the middle ' 8 0's. Nothing specifically other than 2 that comes to mind. 3 Q. Did you review a letter that you wrote to 4 Dan Albert dated March 18, 1975 in which you answer 5 * certain questions he -- 6 A. That was sort of waved in front of me. I 7 did not get to review it. 8 MR. ROSIELLO: Mr. McCrea, that is not 9 with in the universe of documents that you told me would 10 be addressed at this deposit ion, and Mr. Papageorge did 11 not look at it, and I do not have a copy of it with me. 12 MR. McCREA: Okay. I thought he said it 13 was waved in front of him or words to that effect. 14 MR. ROSIELLO: Yes. 15 MR. McCREA: Okay. 16 Q. Did you review any other documents, 17 Mr. Papageorge? 18 A. I just don't remember them at the moment by 19 name or title or description of any kind. There 20 couldn't have been more than a half a dozen altogether. 2 1 Q. All right, sir. Did you review the 22 attachments to your affidavit, A, B, C, D, E, F, G and 23 H? , 24 A. They were present. I did not take the time 25 to reread them. HARTOLDMONO017606 5 1 Q. Mr. Papageorge, with respect to the 2 affidavit, which has 16 paragraphs, who prepared the 3 affidavit? 4 A. I don't know the individual or individuals 5 that were involved. 6 Q. Did the affidavit come to you for signature 7 in final form, or did you participate in the preparation 8 of the affidavit? 9 A. I received a draft version that I was 10 permitted and privileged to read, and I made some 11 changes to it and reviewed them with an attorney. These 12 changes were incorporated in a final draft that was sent 13 to me for another reading and signing off if I agreed 14 with it. 15 Q. And did you sign off on the final version? 16 A . Yes. 17 Q. Do you have a copy of the draft version? 18 A . No . 19 Q. Was that draft version mailed to you? 20 A. It was Federal Expressed to me. 2 1 Q. What did you do with it? 22 A. When, sir? 23 Q. After you reviewed it. S 24 A. Well, I returned it to a representative of 25 Monsanto's lega1 department. HARTOLDMONO017607 6 1 Q. All right. Who sent the draft version to 2 you? 3 A. Mr. Tim Peck. 4 Q. And he is with you today? 5 A . Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall any substantive changes that 7 you made in the final .version compared to the draft 8 version? 9 A. I don't know that I understand your use of 10 the word "substantive". I do remember some changes that 11 I recommended and that were incorporated, primarily some 12 of the dates, to make them more accurate. 13 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I'd like to keep this 14 deposition brief. I want to talk to you about these 15 areas: leaks of the Therminol heat transfer fluid at 16 the Muncie plant, contamination of transformers, 17 contamination of the Muncie plant and the B1oomington 18 plant, your knowledge of Westinghouse as a sophisticated 19 purchaser, and warnings that were incorporated or 20 attached to your affidavit that were on the barrel of - 21 barrels of Thermino1 sent to the Muncie plant. First of 22 all, I'd like to talk about leaks of Therminol at the 23 Muncie plant. Can you describe for us Therminol as a 24 product, when it was first used, its chemical 25 formulation and changes in the chemical formulation? HARTOLDMONO017608 7 1 MR. ROSIELLO: I object to the form of the 2 question. The witness may answer. 3 A. The Therminol products manufactured and 4 sold by Monsanto were introduced as best I recall in the 5 early 1950's. You asked me to describe their chemical 6 formulation. There were several Therminols. They were 7 described by trademarks such as Therminol FR-1, 8 Therminol FR-2, and so on. 9 Speaking of FR-1 and FR-2, as best I 10 reca11, the FR-1 formulation consisted of a mixture of 11 industria1 polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, that were 12 described under the trade name Aroc1or 1242. FR-2, as 13 another example, was a mixture of commercial PCBs 14 marketed under the trade name Aroclor 1248. They were 15 colorless, oily materials that could withstand a 1ot of 16 stress in the way of temperatures and pressures and time 17 and had the property in addition of being fire 18 resistant, which is the principa1 characteristic that 19 enabled them to be used in heat transfer systems. 20 Q . Mr. Papageorge, were the formu1 at ions f or 21 FR-1 and FR-2 pure PCBs, or were there other chemicals 22 in the mixture? 23 A. They were pure commercial PCBs. 24 Q. When did Monsanto last manuf acture FR-1 and 2 5 FR-2? HARTOLDMONO017609 8 1 A. I don't recall the exact date, but it 2 occurred about 1971 or so. Early 1970's. 3 Q. Who made the decision at Westinghouse to 4 terminate the manufacture of these products which 5 contained pure commercial PCBs? 6 MR. ROSIELLO: You said Westinghouse there, 7 Mr. McCrea. 8 MR. McCREA: Monsanto. Thank you. . 9 A. Well, the decision was arrived at by a 10 group of Monsanto employees involved with the research, 11 manufacturing and sale of Thermino1 fluids. It was 12 then, of course, in the normal procedures followed by 13 Monsanto proposed to the hierarchy of supervision. It 14 was finally approved by the business director of the 15 group within Monsanto that was responsible for the 16 marketing of heat resistant transfer -- heat transfer 17 fluids. 18 Q. What was the primary reason for the 19 termination of the sale of these PCB heat transfer 20 fluids? 21 A. There was a principal reason, but there was 22 also an additional reason, commercia 1 reason. The 23 principal reason was that the heat transfer fluids had 24 been used in food-related processes, such as the frying 25 of potato chips, as an example. There were instances HARTOLDMONO017610 9 1 reported early in 1970 of contamination of animal feed 2 with PCBs, primarily in that instance with poultry feed. 3 So as a result of those experiences, a dec is ion was made 4 to get out of that particular application to avoid food 5 and animal feed contamination. From that experience, 6 Monsanto was able to determine that the conversion to 7 f1ammable fluids could be achieved technically, and, 8 having accomplished that, the.decision was made to 9 extend that thinking into all heat transfer 10 applications. 11 Q. Even though at the Muncie Westinghouse 12 transformer plant there was no operation that involved 13 food or feed? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. Were you aware of manufacturing guidelines 16 and specifications for FR-1 and FR-2 with respect to its 17 propensity to result in leaks? 18 MR. ROSIELLO: Miss Reporter, would you 19 repeat that question, please? 20 (Reporter read back as requested.) 2 1 MR. ROSIELLO: I object to the form of that 22 question. I just don't understand it. 23 A . I don't reca11 any document or brochure 24 that covered that subj ect, if I understand your question 25 properly. HARTOLDMON0017611 10 1 Q. You don't ever recall reading manufacturing 2 specifications published by Monsanto which stated that 3 because of the extreme solvency of these fluids there 4 was a propensity for them to leak at areas where there 5 were joints and connections? 6 A. No. I don't understand your -- the use of 7 your word "solvency" and "propensity for leakage". I 8 just -- No, sir, I just don't remember any such 9 document. 10 Q. Were FR-1 a nd FR-2 solvents? 11 A. I don't know that I understand the 12 question. Do you mean are they capable of dissolving 13 something in solution? 14 Q . Yes. 15 A. Wei1, they're certainly capable. I don't 16 propose to know the list of chemicals that could 17 dissolve in them, but they were not to my knowledge used 18 assolvents the way, say, trichlorethylene was used to 19 dissolve materia Is. 20 Q. Did you visit the Muncie plant which 21 manufactured and repaired transformers? 22 A . I did not. 23 Q. Have you reviewed any tz;,ip reports or 2 4 documents of Monsanto personnel who visited the Muncie 25 transformer plant? HARTOLDMON0017612 11 1 A . I have not. 2 Q. Do you have any knowledge as you testify 3 here today about leaks of FR-1 and FR-2 at the Muncie 4 Westinghouse transformer manufacturing and repair 5 facility? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Did you review the U.S. EPA report which 8 involved testing fluids at the Muncie plant and 9 resulting data that was co 1 lected? 10 A. I saw a copy. I f1ipped through it. I 11 don't know that I would correctly use the word review 12 it. I saw some references there to analytical results, 13 and that's about the extent of my exposure to that 14 particular document. I had never seen it before it was 15 shown to me yesterday. 16 Q. Mr. Papageorge, can you describe any 17 information in your possession with respect to the 18 Muncie Westinghouse plant and the use of FR-1 and FR-2 19 in the heat transfer system or Vaportherm? 20 MR. ROSIELLO: I object to the form of the 21 question. 22 A. I'd like -- I forgot the first part of your 23 question, sir. Maybe the reporter can repeat it for me. 24 MR. ROSIELLO: Why don't you rephrase it, 25 David? HARTOLDMON0017613 12 1 Q. What knowledge do you have, Mr. Papageorge, 2 about the use of FR-1 and FR-2 at the Muncie plant? 3 A. I was made aware of the use of those heat 4 transfer fluids at the plant back in 1970 when the 5 conversion program was underway. 6 Q. Who provided the information to you, and 7 what did they tel1 you? 8 .A At the time an employee of Monsanto was in 9 charge of this program for conversion. He wouId publish 10 periodica1ly a summary report of the various customers 11 of Monsanto and the status of their conversion programs. 12 I recall seeing the Westinghouse Muncie plant in some of 13 those reports. 14 Q. What quantity of FR-1 and FR-2 was sold to 15 the Muncie plant? 16 A I'm sorry. What property? 17 Q. What quantity. 18 A Quantity. Oh, I'd have to see -- I don't 19 remember numbers, sir. I'd have to see the shipment 20 numbers that go back several years 2 1 Q Mr. Papageorge, who was the employee who 22 provided the information to you in 1970? 23 A Mr. Paul Gann, G-A-N-N. 1 24 Q Do you know where he is located today? 25 A. I do not. HARTOLDMON0017614 13 1 Q. If leaks occurred at the Muncie plant of 2 Monsanto's heat transfer fluids, FR-1 and FR-2, as you 3 testify here today, you have no knowledge of those 4 leaks? 5 A. That is correct. 6 Q. In your affidavit, Mr. Papageorge, that was 7 attached to Monsanto's Motion for Summary Judgment, you 8 state in paragraph 11, line five, guote, "These fluids 9 were used as heat transfer fluids in a closed system," 10 end quote. By that statement, do you mean to imply that 11 those fluids never leaked? 12 A. No, sir. That statement describes the 13 system as designed by the engineers involved and 14 insta1led by the individuals, and it's a closed system 15 by all the definitions used in engineering technology. 16 Q. But it's a closed system, sir, by design? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. You do not mean to communicate by your 19 affidavit to this court that the PCBs in that system 20 never leaked? 21 A. I didn't say that. 22 Q. Right. You have no knowledge from any 23 discussions with the U.S. EPA, Westipghouse personnel or 24 anyone else that the FR-1 and FR-2 heat transfer fluids 25 in the closed system at the Muncie transformer plant HARTOLDMON0017615 14 1 never leaked? No one ever told you that? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q What is the source for your statement in 4 the affidavit that, quote, "In 1973 Westinghouse drained 5 and flushed the PCB-containing Therminol fluid from its 6 heat transfer system" end quote? 7 A. Mr. Gann's periodic reports. 8 Q. Did you or did anyone at Monsanto fo1low up 9 with respect to contamination of the plant after 1973 10 caused by FR-1 and FR-2 PCB fluids? 11 MR. ROSIELLO: I object to the form of the 12 question. The witness may answer. 13 A. Not to my knowledge. 14 Q. Is your first knowledge, sir, that the 15 plant had PCBs in areas other than the heat transfer 16 fluid the information from the U.S. EPA report that you 17 scanned through in preparation for this deposition? 18 MR. ROSIELLO: I object to the form of that 19 question. It assumes foundation that has not been laid. 2 0 A. Sir, all I saw was a page on which some 2 1 analysis results were shown. I have no way of knowing 22 anything other than that from what 1ittle I've been able 23 to put together from glancing through^ the report. I'm 24 not really qua 1ified to comment. All I can say is that 25 that's a number on a piece of paper reported by someone. HARTOLDMON0017616 15 1 Q. That someone, sir, is the U.S. EPA, and 2 you're familiar with their function and 3 responsibilities; are you not? 4 MR. ROSIELLO: Object to the form of the 5 question. 6 A. Well, I'm certainly familiar with EPA. I 7 also know that they use many, many laboratories to do 8 their work for them. I also know that through the years 9 the abi1ity of these 1aboratories to analyze more and 10 more accurately as time went on did occur. I have no 11 way of knowing how the samples were taken. I have no 12 way of knowing whether the laboratory did analyses to 13 confirm their initial results. There's an awful lot yet 14 that I need to know before I can comment on this report. 15 Q. In preparation f or the deposit ion, 16 Mr. Papageorge, did you obtain any information from 17 Westinghouse or the purchaser of the Westinghouse plant, 18 ABB, about remediation efforts which were undertaken to 19 decontaminate the plant of PCBs? 20 A. No, sir. 21 Q. So if I told you that there was extensive 22 remediation undertaken by Westinghouse and ABB to 2 3 decontaminate the plant, you have no;independent 24 know ledge of that? 25 A. That is correct. HARTOLDMON0017617 16 1 Q. Have you read any materials relating to 2 Johnnie Taylor, the Afro-American who has filed the 3 persona 1 injury complaint in this case? 4 A . No, sir. 5 Q. Mr. Papageorge, tell me what you know about 6 minera1 oil transformers becoming contaminated with 7 PCBs. ' 8 MR. ROSIELLO: Obj ect to the form of the 9 question. I mean, it's just too general, Mr. McCrea. 10 MR. McCREA: Well, just in general. 11 MR. ROSIELLO: Contaminated in what way? 12 Q. Contaminated with PCBs. How the 13 contamination occurred, what Monsanto did in response to 14 the information, and just generally what you know about 15 minera1 oil transformers becoming contaminated with 16 PCBs . 17 MR. ROSIELLO: Well, I object to the form 18 of that question. You can give a general answer as well 19 as you can, Mr. Papageorge. 20 A. My first exposure to the potential for this 2 1 contamination to occur was in, oh, about 1971 when I was 22 chairman of a committee addressing PCBs in electrical 23 equipment. In the discussions by representatives of the 24 transformer manufacturing and using communities, the 25 question was raised in my presence about the potential HARTOLDMON0017618 17 1 for contamination to occur. At that time, none of the 2 participants had positive evidence that this was 3 happening, but they started speculating about the 4 possibi1ity that a service contractor coming on site 5 with his equipment may not have decontaminated his 6 equipment to the point that where he's working on the 7 mineral oil transformer he may not have introduced some 8 PCBs from a previous job. That was my first exposure to 9 this potential-. Other than that, I have no personal 10 feel for the extent of this contamination, both 11 geographically and in amounts of material. It's a 12 possibility is the impression I'm left with. 13 Q. Mr. Papageorge, did the U.S. EPA issue 14 rules and regulations which stated that all mineral oil 15 transformers are presumed to be contaminated with PCBs 16 until tested? 17 A. I don 11 remember that specifica1ly, sir. 18 The EPA started issuing these in the middle to late 19 19 7 0 ' s. I personally was not involved, so I'm not tuned 20 into that type of action by EPA. 21 Q. Mr. Papageorge, when was Monsanto to your 22 knowledge, based upon your work at Monsanto, put on 23 notice that PCBs could be contaminated with furans? 24 A. In 1975 I was made aware of some analytical 25 studies made by, as best I reca11, the Food and Drug HARTOLDMON0017619 18 1 Administration Laboratories, in which they saw results 2 that they suspected were furans, chlorinated 3 dibenzofurans. That was '75. This report was made 4 public at a meeting in Chicago in November of 1975. 5 Monsanto's laboratory was able to, with changes in 6 analytical technology, to detect furans in about April 7 of 1976. 8 Q. Mr. Papageorge, my question was not quite 9 the question that I believe you answered. 10 A . Oh ! 11 Q. My question was not when were furans 12 confirmed to be in PCBs, but, rather, the question was 13 when was Monsanto put on notice that furans could be a 14 contaminant of PCBs? 15 A. Monsanto was informed of the presence of 16 chlorinated dibenzofurans in European-made PCBs, and the 17 process used by those companies was different than 18 Monsanto's process, so that information turned out not 19 to be applicable at the time to Monsanto's product. 20 Q. In what year was that? 2 1 A . 1970. 22 Q. Have you read the affidavit that we filed 2 3 in this case prepared by IanWebber? > 24 A . No, sir. 25 Q . Mr. Papageorge, in your affidavit, you HARTOLDMONO017620 19 1 state in paragraph 13, the first sentence, quote, 2 "Through my dea1ings with Westinghouse, I was aware that 3 Westinghouse was knowledgeable and sophisticated 4 concerning Inerteen environmental handling and potential 5 health concerns," end quote. Earlier I made reference 6 to a document that was, I be 1ieve you said, waved in 7 front of you, which was a letter dated March 18, 1975, 8 from you to Dan Albert, Staff Supervisor, Personnel 9 Relations, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Highway 58 10 West, South Boston, Virginia, dated March 18, 1975, in 11 which you answer specific questions from Mr. Albert. I 12 know that you haven't reviewed that in detai1, but do 13 you recall that communication and answering of questions 14 by you? 15 MR. ROSIELLO: Mr. McCrea, I object to that 16 question because it violates the agreement we had, which 17 was that you were going to provide me with the documents 18 that were going to be used at this deposition, and you 19 told me that you would do that and you told me you would 20 do it no earlier than Monday of this week. Now, I sent 21 you a letter confirming that, and we agreed as to what 2 2 those documents would be. That document was not on the 23 list. I obj ect to your questioning he witness with 24 respect to that document because that is contrary to the 25 agreement we had that permitted the telephone HARTOLDMONO017621 20 1 deposit ion. Now, if you want to reschedule this so that 2 you can come out to St. Louis and take a norma 1 3 deposition, then why don't you do that? But now we 4 agreed for your convenience to have a telephone 5 deposition on the understanding that you would let us 6 know in advance what documents you were going to use, 7 and you're now using a document that is not one of those 8 documents. 9 MR. McCREA: Okay. Mike, you've made your 10 point. 11 MR. ROSIELLO: We 11, I'm trying to decide 12 whether I'm going to let him answer these questions 13 because I am trying to decide whether I'm going to 14 insist that you put those questions off unti1 you can 15 come to St. Louis, Mr. McCrea. 16 MR. McCREA: All right. 17 MR. ROSIELLO: How many questions are you 18 going to ask him about this? 19 Q. Mr. Papageorge, did you review that 20 document before today's deposition? 21 22 answered. MR. ROSIELLO: Objection. Asked and 23 A. No, sir. , 24 Q. All right. I've heard your counsel's 25 objection, and I'll try to focus in on your affidavit HARTOLDMONO017622 21 1 without reference to your answering the questions of 2 Mr. Albert. When you say Westinghouse was knowledgeable 3 and sophisticated concerning Inerteen environmental 4 hand 1ing and potentia1 health concerns, can you recall 5 any instances up through and including 1975 which would 6 have indicated to you contrary information, that 7 Westinghouse was not knowledgeable and sophisticated? 8 A. No. I have no recollection of anything 9 that wouId lead me to believe they were not 10 knowledgeable. In fact -11 Q. Mr. Papageorge, in the attachments to your 12 affidavit - 13 MR. ROSIELLO: Just a minute. 14 Mr. Papageorge, are you finished with your answer? 15 MR. McCREA: I'm sorry. I thought he was 16 finished. 17 A. I was just going to add that my frequent 18 contacts with Westinghouse personnel 1ed me to believe 19 without any doubts that the Westinghouse team, some of 2 0 whom had been involved with PCBs for decades, knew more 2 1 about PCBs, their proper handling and health effects, 22 than I did. I was learning from them. 23 Q. Okay. Mr. Papageorge, name those 24 individua Is and what information they communicated to 25 you that left that impression. HARTOLDMONO017623 22 1 A. That's decades ago, sir, but let me try to 2 reca11 some. There's Dr. T. K. Sloat, and Don McClain, 3 and a Dr. Dakin. I know there were many, many others. 4 Those three individuals stand out because they were in 5 my opinion professionals in this field. 6 Q. What information did Sloat, McClain or 7 Dakin communicate to you about adverse health effects 8 caused by PCBs that led you to believe Westinghouse was 9 knowledgeable and sophisticated concerning potentia1 10 health concerns? 11 A. Well, I don't propose to say that I 12 remember the specifics, but, in general, their 13 understanding of materiaIs like PCBs, and, of course, in 14 this case specifically PCBs, can result in harm to human 15 beings at high levels and frequent exposures. They were 16 well aware of the symptoms that they should be watching 17 for; for example, reddening of skin, chloracne, chest 18 aggravation from breathing fumes. They taIked about 19 these things very comfortably, as though it was a way of 20 life with them, and it confirmed the kinds of things 21 that I personally had learned from Monsanto's medical 22 staff. 2 3 Q. What did they consider h'igh levels? 24 A. Well, they were all -- All of us were 2 5 fo1lowing the guidelines on breathing that were ' HARTOLDMONO017624 23 1 established by the ACGIH, the American Congress of 2 Industrial Hygienists. I'm not too sure of that full 3 title, but they were established by this group and 4 publicized for Aroclor 12 4 2 and Aroclor 12 5 4, as I 5 recall. 6 Q. 7 level? But what was the number? What was a high 8 A. Oh, I just have forgotten the numbers. 9 Q. Other than reddening of the skin, chioracne 10 and chest aggravation, what other harms or symptoms did 11 Sloat, McClain or Dakin communicate to you that led you 12 to be1ieve Westinghouse was knowledgeable and 13 sophisticated about potential health concerns? 14 MR. ROSIELLO: Well, I object to the form 15 of the question because the witness has already 16 test ified in general that they exhibited -- He didn't 17 testify that it was just those three things. That, in 18 general, they exhibited familiarity, knowledge, 19 understanding about these things, so I object to the 20 form of the question. 21 A. The conversations I had with these 22 individuals really centered on the potential for these 23 symptoms and effects to be noted. Tljey did not in any 24 way claim that they had personally seen the reddening of 25 skin or the chest aggravation from breathing, the HARTOLDMONO017625 24 1 chloracne. I don't recall anyone saying that they 2 personally saw this. But they were aware of the 3 potential, and anyone that is involved with materials 4 like this knows that chloracne at times would indicate 5 the liver being involved, and there's always an 6 awareness that continued excessive exposures can damage 7 the liver permanently. So it can become a very serious 8 effect unless control1ed. 9 Q. Other than a reddening of the skin, 10 chloracne with possible liver damage, chest aggravation, 11 did Sloat, McClain or Dakin reference any other health 12 ef fects that they were concerned about as a result of 13 their workers being exposed to PCBs? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did any of them tell you thatthey were 16 concerned about PCB exposure resulting in death? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you recall, sir, ever communicating to 19 Westinghouse that there was a potential real effect to 20 humans, including death, from exposure to PCBs? 21 MR. ROSIELLO: object to the form of the 22 question. It's too vague. Real effect to humans is too 23 vague. < 24 A. Well, we diddiscuss the effect from 25 overexposure. You asked me to reca11. I don't reca11 a HARTOLDMONO017626 25 1 specific meeting or setting at which we -2 Q. Can you recall, Mr. Papageorge, stating, 3 quote, "There is a potential real effeet to humans, 4 including death"? 5 MR. ROSIELLO: Could you please identify 6 what you're quoting from? 7 MR. McCREA: I'm quoting from his March 18, 8 1975 letter to Dan Albert. 9 MR. ROSIELLO: So you're using the document 10 in this deposition without telling us that that's what 11 you're going to do? 12 MR. McCREA: I'm not using the document. 13 I'm asking if he ever reca11s making that statement. 14 You're the one that asked me to identify the document. 15 MR. ROSIELLO: I'll let him answer that 16 question, but I'm not going to allow any more 17 questioning on that document, Mr. McCrea. 18 THE WITNESS: Can I refer to the documents? 19 MR. ROSIELLO: I don't have a copy of it, 20 and I object to asking him about a document without 21 showing him the whole document. 22 MR. McCREA: I'm not asking him about a 23 document. I'm asking him if he ever/recalled making the 24 statement, quote, "There is a potentia1 real ef feet to 25 humans, including death." HARTOLDMONO017627 26 1 A. Your question implies that I made the 2 statement orally, directly to someone? 3 Q. Yes, sir. And I'm just simply asking if 4 you recall making such a statement. 5 A. I personally did not make such a statement. 6 Q. All right, sir. 7 MR. ROSIELLO: Are you representing to this 8 witness that he said that in the document that you 9 identify? 10 MR. McCREA: I'm stating that that was a 11 direct quote from an answer to a question that was 12 attached to his letter to Mr. Albert dated March 18, 13 1975. 14 MR. ROSIELLO: Well, I obj ect to asking him 15 about what he did or didn't say in a document that is 16 not in front of the witness. 17 MR. McCREA: He's answered the question. 18 MR. ROSIELLO: And this is contrary to our 19 understanding with respect to this deposition. You're 20 asking him about some document that was created decades 21 ago. 22 MR. McCREA: Mike, I'm asking him if he 23 ever recalls making that statement. ` He has said he did 24 not make the statement. 25 MR. ROSIELLO: Well, and you're saying HARTOLDMONO017628 27 1 you've got a document from him in your hand in which 2 that statement is set forth. But the witness, who 3 obviously has done a lot of things since then, doesn't 4 have the document in front of him. 5 MR. McCREA: That's right. And I'm not 6 referencing the document; I'm referencing the statement. 7 And I don't think we need to prolong this, Mike. I've 8 asked the question. He's answered it. 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge, on the warnings that were 10 placed on Thermino1 FR-1 and Therminol FR-2, which are 11 exhibits - 12 MR. ROSIELLO: Mr. McCrea, before we leave 13 that subject, are you willing to fax to Mr. Papageorge a 14 copy of this document you say you have? 15 MR. McCREA: Certainly. 16 MR. ROSIELLO: If we get you a phone 17 number, will you do that? 18 MR. McCREA: Sure. 19 MR. ROSIELLO: Let's take a short break. 20 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 21 MR. ROSIELLO: Mr. McCrea, here's the fax 22 number which you should send me that document. It's 23 314-42 1-0239 . , 24 MR. McCREA: Okay. You want it right now? 25 MR. ROSIELLO: Yes, please. . HARTOLDMONO017629 28 1 MR. McCREA: It should be there in a couple 2 minutes, Mike. 3 MR. ROSIELLO: All right. 4 MR. McCREA: By the way, it was 5 authenticated in the Pikeville, Kentucky PCB case, this 6 document. 7 MR. ROSIELLO: Mr. McCrea, you can go 8 ahead. We've got you on the phone that happens to have 9 a timer. We're at 49 minutes and counting. 10 MR. McCREA: All right. I understand. 11 Q. Mr. Papageorge, with respect to your 12 af fidavit and the attachments, two attachments under D, 13 with respect to the Thermino1 FR-1 cautions that you 14 attached to your affidavit, when those were issued, did 15 Monsanto know that PCBs were a systemic poison? 16 MR. ROSIELLO: Object to the form of the 17 question. The witness may answer. The ground of the 18 objection is it assumes a fact that has not been proved. 19 A. Well, I don't claim to know exactly what 20 systemic poisons are. I would have to ask somebody in 21 Monsanto's medical department to be able to answer your 22 question. 23 Q. when those cautions were issued, did 24 Monsanto know that PCBs could be absorbed through the 25 skin into the body? HARTOLDMONO017630 29 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q. When those cautions were issued, did 3 Monsanto know that PCBs could cause liver damage? 4 A VA ^ Q f <s^ Xt vA--* 5 Q. When those cautions were issued, did 6 Monsanto know that the recommended level for exposure to 7 ambient PCBs was 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter? 8 A Yes , sir. 9 Q. When those cautions were issued, did 10 Monsanto know that PCBs could synergistically potentiate 11 the adverse health effects of alcohol? 12 MR. ROSIELLO: Object to the form of the 13 question 14 A I don't know. 15 Q When those cautions were issued, did 16 Monsanto know that pregnant women should not be exposed 17 to PCBs? 18 MR. ROSIELLO: Obj ect to the form of the 19 question 20 A I don't know. 21 Q When those warnings were issued, did 22 Monsanto know that it had not conducted any 23 toxicological testing to determine long-term effects of 24 PCBs? 25 MR. ROSIELLO: I object to the form of the HARTOLDMONO017631 30 1 question. You're assuming facts that are not shown by 2 the evidence. You haven't laid a foundation. 3 A . Yes. 4 Q. When Monsanto issued those cautions, did it 5 know that Afro-American workers at the Swann Chemical 6 Plant had suffered chloracne and complained of loss of 7 libido and lassitude?. 8 MR. ROSIELLO: Object to the form of the 9 question. Lack of foundation. 10 A. I don't know anything a bout that, sir. 11 Q. Have you ever read the report by Drs. Jones 12 and Alden on the Afro-American workers that were exposed 13 to PCBs at the Anniston plant? 14 A. No, sir. That's news to me. 15 Q. When Monsanto issued these cautions, was it 16 on notice that PCBs could be contaminated with 17 chlorinated dibenzofurans and that the chlorinated 18 dibenzofurans could explain the symptoms of chloracne? 19 MR. ROSIELLO: Object to the form of the 20 question. Lack of foundation and compound. 21 A. I do not know, sir. 22 Q. When Monsanto issued the cautions, did it i 23 know that Therminol FR-1 contained pplychlorinated 24 biphenyls? 25 A. Yes. HARTOLDMONO017632 31 1 Q When Monsanto issued the cautions, did 2 Monsanto know that workers exposed to Therminol FR-l and 3 FR-2 should be medically monitored and should undergo 4 periodic medical monitoring if exposed to PCBs? 5 MR. ROSIELLO: Object to the form of the 6 question. Lack of foundation. 7 A. I find that hard to answer because I really 8 don't know what the medical department knew at that time 9 regarding monitoring of the workers' physical 10 well-being. 11 Q. When Monsanto issued the cautions for FR-l 12 and FR-2, which are attached as Exhibit D, did it have 13 any reason to believe that PCBs could be contaminated 14 with furans? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Mr. Papageorge, earlier in the 17 deposition -- And I'm just about to wind up. I know 18 I've doubled the time. You stated that you were 19 chairman of a committee when a report was presented 20 about contamination of transformers. What committee 21 were you chairman of? 22 A. The American National Standards Institute 23 Committee C-107. > 24 Q. Mr. Papageorge, did you ever read any 25 reports of any doctors who reviewed medical records of HARTOLDMONO017633 32 1 workers exposed to PCBs and determined that none of the 2 workers had suffered any adverse hea1th effects? 3 MR. ROSIELLO: I obj ect to the form of that 4 question as being awfully broad and vague. 5 Mr. Papageorge can answer it as well as he can. 6 A. Sir, I don't recall reading any reports by 7 medical doctors regarding PCBs and exposed workers. 8 Q. As of 1974, did you have any knowledge from 9 any source whatsoever that medical records of workers 10 exposed to PCBs had been reviewed and that the review 11 indicated there were no adverse health effects in those 12 workers? 13 MR. ROSIELLO: Miss Reporter, would you 14 read that question back, please? 15 (Reporter read back as requested.) 16 A. Sir, I don't remember any specific report. 17 I'm aware of the general impression I had at the time 18 that there were no strong evidences that workers using 19 PCBs in their activities showed unusua1 health effects. 20 Q. Mr. Papageorge, if a worker came to you in 2 1 1976 and asked you for a list of hea1th problems and 22 symptoms that could be caused by exposure to PCBs, what 23 list would you give him? , 24 MR. ROSIELLO: Mr. McCrea, the date in your 25 question was cut off by the phone. What was the date? HARTOLDMONO017634 33 1 MR. McCREA: 1976 . 2 MR. ROSIELLO: All right. 3 A. I'm not personally aware of any existing 4 list that I could hand to anybody, so when you ask me 5 what list I would give them -6 Q. I'm not asking you, sir, for a list 7 provided to you. 8 A. Uh-huh. 9 Q. I ' m asking you based upon your knowledge 10 and experience to provide a list to the person asking. 11 What would you tell him? 12 A. Oh, I would tell him that depending upon 13 how much exposure he might experience he could expect 14 reddening of skin. If that continues, then he can 15 expect an outbreak of chloracne. If he continues 16 misusing the materia 1, he could hurt his liver, and he 17 would get the effects of a malfunctioning liver. And, 18 of course, continued exposure, the liver would stop 19 functioning, and he would be dead. I would also tell 20 him that if he breathes the fumes the early warning 2 1 symptom would be this effect that seems like a bad chest 22 cold with painful breathing and coughing. Continued - 23 Of course, he will experience the watering eyes and the 24 running nose and other symptoms of aggravation by 25 chemicaIs of the breathing system. If he continues HARTOLDMONO017635 34 1 being exposed, he can expect the same effects that he 2 would have gotten from skin exposure with damage to the 3 liver eventually. That's the kind of discussion I would 4 have held with that individual. 5 Q. Mr. Papageorge, in your affidavit you 6 state, "In 1970 I visited Bloomington's plant and met 7 with plant personnel. I observed the plant as very 8 clean and well-maintained. My observations of the 9 Bloomington plant and discussions with its personnel 10 demonstrated to me that the plant was aware of the 11 environmental and working handling concerns relating to 12 PCB dielectric fluids and was implementing use and 13 handling procedures to address those concerns." Who 14 provided that information to you? Who were the plant 15 personnel that you're referring to? 16 A. Oh, I'm having a difficult time remembering 17 names. I do know that the plant manager was present. 18 Q. Would that have been Don Sauder? 19 A. That's it. Sauder and McClain. I think we 20 called him Don McClain. He may go by some other first 2 1 name. I've forgotten the names of the plant engineer, 22 the maintenance manager. There were around a conference 23 table about, oh, ten individua1s representing the upper 24 management of the plant. 25 Q. If Westinghouse to your knowledge had HARTOLDMONO017636 35 1 allowed its workers to become exposed to PCBs in a way 2 that you, Mr. Papageorge, did not think was a good 3 safety practice, would you have terminated or would you 4 have recommended the termination of sale of PCBs to 5 Westinghouse at that plant? 6 MR. ROSIELLO: I object to the form of the 7 question. 8 A. If I had strong evidence that the kinds of 9 symptoms we described earlier were prevalent, I would 10 share my what I'd call displeasure with the management 11 of that plant, and then depending on their reaction and 12 response to my comments, I wouId have felt an obligation 13 on my part to report this to higher management within 14 Monsanto, and I am in no posit ion to tell you how they 15 would have communicated back to Westinghouse. 16 Q. All right, sir. I think you partially 17 answered the question, but the quest ion really didn't 18 focus on health effects. It focused on exposure. If 19 you felt that the exposure to PCBs at the plant was 20 unacceptable and not a good safety practice, would you 21 have recommended to Monsanto personnel that they end the 22 sale of PCBs to that plant? 23 MR. ROSIELLO: Object t'o the form of the 24 question. 25 A. Well, sir, the only way I couId determine HARTOLDMONO017637 36 1 that the exposure was unacceptable was to have evidence 2 that people were having chloracna symptoms or red skin 3 or their toes were reddened because their shoes were 4 constantly soaked, these kind of things. Not having 5 that, no one is in a position to say that the exposure 6 is unacceptable. 7 Q. If you saw workers whose shoes were eaten 8 off their feet by PCBs at the Bloomington Westinghouse 9 plant and you talked to those workers and they described 10 shoes being eaten off their feet from exposure to 11 Inerteen, would you have recommended to Monsanto's 12 management that they terminate the sale of PCBs to that 13 plant? 14 MR. ROSIELLO: Obj ect to the f orm of that 15 question. 16 A. No, I wouldn't, because in my opinion that 17 would be an irresponsible, shoot-from-the-hip type 18 reaction on my part. I'd have to -- I'd have to have 19 more information to give what I would call a more 20 professiona1 recommendation. Destroyed shoes don't 2 1 necessarily te11 me that the exposure to the person's 22 feet was excessive. I don't know that. I'd have to be 23 a medical doctor examining feet. ` 24 Q. Did you ever talk to the medica1 doctor at 25 the Bloomington Westinghouse plant? HARTOLDMONO017638 37 1 A . No . 2 Q. Did you ever talk to a worker in F-3 0 about 3 his exposure to Inerteen? 4 A. No . 5 Q. Can you -- Did you ever visit F-30 or the 6 area where they impregnated the PCBs? Excuse me, sir. 7 Where they impregnated the capacitors with PCBs? 8 A . Yes. I walked through that area, yes. 9 Q. Did you see PCBs on the floor? Did you see 10 PCBs dripping off the capacitors? Did you see sawdust 11 to collect the PCBs? Did you detect the odor of PCBs? 12 A . Yes. There was a faint, typica1 odor of 13 PCBs, yes. You'd expect that. 14 Q. Describe the odor, please. 15 A . Oh, that's a subj ective kind of react ion. 16 To me, it reminds me of a disinfectant-type odor. Now, 17 other people have used different descriptions. 18 Q. What else, sir, did you see in F-3 0 with 19 respect to PCBs on the floor or on the eguipment, on the 20 workers, in the air? 21 A . I didn't see -22 Q. All your observations and sensations. it 23 A . The only PCBs I saw, sir, were entrapped m 24 the sawdust that was deliberately placed there to do 25 just that. HARTOLDMONO017639 38 1 Q. How high was the sawdust? 2 A. Oh, I didn't measure it. I wouId guess 3 four inches, six inches in spots. It was not evenly 4 raked across the floor. 5 Q. And how did the PCBs get from the 6 impregnating ovens to the sawdust on the floor? 7 A. Well, when the capacitors are removed from 8 the impregnating chamber, there are PCBs c1inging to the 9 surface of the capacitors, and there's also an 10 accumulation of the fluid on the top -- within the rim 11 on the top of the capacitor, and these capacitors, as 12 they are handled and placed on the conveyor, will lose 13 some of that liquid, and eventually it would drip off 14 the conveyor onto this sawdust, which was placed there 15 to control the PCBs. 16 Q. And, sir, that was -- That system was not 17 designed as a closed system; was it? 18 A. You mean the impregnating device itself? 19 Q. The operation of filling a capacitor, 20 soldering the capacitor, testing the capacitor and 21 moving it out for sale. It was not a closed system; was 22 it? 23 A. There are steps in the process at which the 24 PCBs are exposed; therefore, those steps cannot be 25 considered closed. HARTOLDMONO017640 39 1 Q. Mr. Papageorge, in the F-30 area, did you 2 observe a testing procedure in which the capacitors were 3 electrica1ly charged, and what can you tell us about 4 that? 5 A. I don't know what there is to say, sir. 6 They are tested to see if they perforin the way they are 7 supposed to 8 Q. And -9 A . I didn't see anything that -- There's some 10 that passed the test and some that didn't. 11 Q. Do you know that there were some that did 12 not pass the test? 13 A. I did not observe a test to demonstrate 14 that, but I was told that that was the purpose of the 15 test was to weed out those that didn't perform properly. 16 Q. Were you informed that certain capacitors 17 which did not pass the test ruptured and exploded and 18 spewed PCBs from that area? 19 A . I was not informed at the time. I heard of 20 that later, sir. 21 Q. Did you observe any pregnant women working 22 with capacitors that had failed in the field that had 23 come back for testing? ` 24 A. I don't remember observing any pregnant 25 women, sir. HARTOLDMONO017641 40 1 Q. If you saw a pregnant woman exposed to PCBs 2 in 1970, what would you do with respect to 3 recommendations? 4 MR. ROSIELLO: Obj ect to the form of the 5 question. 6 A. I persona 1ly had no medical guidance 7 regarding the effects of PCBs on pregnant women; 8 therefore, I would not have personally done anything. 9 MR. McCREA: Mr. Papageorge, I thank you 10 for your time. If your counsel wants to ask questions 11 or go over the letter that we faxed to you, that would 12 be fine. Otherwise, I have no further questions. 13 MR. ROSIELLO: Well, let's take a short 14 break. We'11 see if we can track that fax down, and 15 then we'11 see where we go. So can you just hold on the 16 line for a second Mr. McCrea? 17 MR. McCREA: Yes. 18 MR. ROSIELLO: Thank you. 19 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 20 MR. ROSIELLO: You still there, Dave? 21 MR. McCREA: Yes, I am. 22 MR. ROSIELLO: This will only take a 23 second. Miss Reporter, will you please mark that as 24 Papageorge Exhibit No. 1? And probably to make 25 everybody's life less confusing, if you put it over that HARTOLDMONO017642 41 1 other exhibit. 2 (Reporter marked Defendant's Exhibit 3 Papageorge No. 1.) 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 QUESTIONS BY MR. ROSIELLO: 6 ' Q. Mr. Papageorge, I'm placing in front of you 7 what the reporter has marked as Papageorge Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 1, which is the document that was just faxed 9 to us by Mr. McCrea. Now, the first page of that 10 document is a letter you wrote to Mr. Albert on March 11 18, 1975? 12 A. It is. 13 Q. Could you please tell me what the rest of 14 the pages of that exhibit are? 15 A. There are three additional pages on which 16 are 1isted the questions raised by Mr. Albert and the 17 answers to those questions. 18 Q. Who prepared the answers to the questions? 19 A. Mr. Elmer Wheeler of Monsanto's corporate 20 medica1 department. 21 Q. so were those his statements rather than 22 your statements? 23 A. Yes. i 24 q. And your statements are contained in the 25 letter which is the first page of Deposition Exhibit No. HARTOLDMONO017643 42 1 1? 2 A. Yes . 3 MR. ROSIELLO: I have no further questions. 4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 5 QUESTIONS BY MR. McCREA: 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, you don 11 indicate that 7 Mr. Wheeler prepared the answers in your letter to 8 Mr. Albert, but it's your specific recollection that he 9 did, in fact, prepare those responses; is that correct? 10 A . Yes. 11 Q. And did you in any way participate in the 12 preparation of those responses? 13 A. N o . 14 Q. Did you review those responses with 15 Mr. Wheeler be fore you sent the letter to Dan Albert? 16 A . Yes . 17 Q. Did he explain to you the source of 18 information for his responses? 19 A. Not that I recall. 20 Q. How did you happen to select Mr. Wheeler to 21 respond to those questions of Westinghouse? 22 A. He was the individua1 in the corporate 23 medical department assigned to work with me on PCB 24 matters. 25 Q. Was he a medica1 doctor, a Ph.D., or what HARTOLDMONO017644 1 were his degrees, if you recall? 2 A. He had, as I remember, a degree in public 3 health, and that's the extent of my information. 4 Q. Was Mr. Wheeler an individual that you 5 relied upon and trusted with respect to the information 6 he supplied? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you ever read his 19 5 6 affidavit to 9 Dr. Kelly with respect to information on the 10 contamination of PCBs with polychlorinated 11 dibenzofurans? 12 MR. ROSIELLO: I obj ect again to use of a 13 document that I'm not sure has been disclosed to us for 14 the purpose of this deposition. 15 MR. McCREA: It's attached to the Ian 16 Webber affidavit that we filed with the court. 17 MR. ROSIELLO: The witness can answer. 18 A . I think I heard 1956. 19 Q. Yes, sir. 20 A . ' 56? 2 1 Q. ' 56 . 22 A . I just don't remember any such document 23 Q. Mr. Papageorge, isn't it a fact that in 24 1970, when you visited the Bloomington Westinghouse 25 capacitor manufacturing plant, your visit in no way HARTOLDMONO017645 44 1 related to protecting the health of the Westinghouse 2 workers exposed to PCBs? 3 A. Well, when you put your question in no way, 4 we did spend time discussing industria1 hygiene 5 practices, the experience that Monsanto had, the 6 experience that Monsanto was aware of in its customers' 7 plants. Westinghouse individuals reviewed with us their 8 experiences regarding medica1 effects on their 9 employees. So we did spend considerable time. I didn't 10 clock it personally, but it seemed like we covered the 11 subject thoroughly. 12 Q. So your visit and tour of the plant did, in 13 fact, focus in part on protecting the health of the 14 Westinghouse workers? 15 A. Yeah. We did discuss subject matter that 16 related to protecting health, yes, sir. 17 Q. But, sir, I'm not talking about the 18 discuss ions. I'm talking about the tour of the plant. 19 Did that specifica1ly relate in part to protecting the 20 health of the Westinghouse workers? 2 1 MR. ROSIELLO: Well, Miss Reporter, would 22 you repeat the question, please? I missed a section of 23 it. ) 24 (Reporter read back as requested.) 25 MR. ROSIELLO: You mean the actual physical HARTOLDMONO017646 45 1 walking through the facility? 2 MR. McCREA: Yes, sir. 3 A. Well, the tour of the plant really was one 4 consisting primarily of observations on my part -- 5 Q. And -- . 6 A. -- relating to the circumstances, the 7 conditions that were observable at that plant. We 8 taIked ear 1ier about the visible oil in the sawdust. I 9 recall also there was a -- In one corner of that area 10 there was a table on which there was a reference 11 notebook for use by employees in which I was shown 12 sections on what I'm going to call hea1th effects of 13 exposures, that that information was available to the 14 employees right there in the work area. It's that kind 15 of thing that related to what I'm going to cal1 the 16 people part of the observations as distinguished from 17 the environmental part. 18 Q. So to understand the reason for touring the 19 plant, if you saw a practice that you felt was unsafe, 20 you were there to lend your advice and assistance to 2 1 Westinghouse? 22 A. Well, yes. If that happened, yes, I would 23 have spoken out. Uh-huh. ` 24 MR. McCREA: No further questions, 25 Mr. Papageorge. Thank you for assisting us in this HARTOLDMONO017647 46 1 telephonic deposition. 2 MR. ROSIELLO: Thanks. 3 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 4 MR. ROSIELLO: We have no further 5 questions, and we will have the deposition prepared for 6 Mr. Papageorge's review and signature. 7 MR. McCREA: Off the record. 8 9 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE. P.E. 10 Subscribed and sworn before me this ______ day of 11 , 1996. 12 13 My commission expires: 14 15 16 17 Notary Public 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FAO/JOHN W. BAKER, et al. VS. MONSANTO COMPANY HARTOLDMONO017648 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF MISSOURI CITY OF ST. LOUIS ) ) I, FAITH A. OLLIGES, a Registered Professional Reporter and a duly commissioned Nota ry Public within and for the State of Missouri, do he reby certify that there came before me at the offices o f Husch & Eppenberger, 100 North Broadway, St. Louis t Missouri, WILLIAM B PAPAGEORGE, P . E . who was by me first duly sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of all knowledge touching and concerning the matters in controversy in this cause; that the witness was thereupon examined under oath and said examination was reduced to writing; and this transcript is a true and correct record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am neither attorney nor counsel for nor related nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in this action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal on October 7, 1996 My commission expires March 21, 1997 . Notary Public t HARTOLDMONO017649 'V Monsanto MAH ^4 monsamto iNOurrmAt gxcuicaus co. BOO N, Undfttrih Boulirtrd St. Leult. Uliteurl 83168 Phn! 014) BI41OO0 . '' March 18, 1975 Mr. Dan A. Albert ' I Staff Supervisor . Personnel Relations Weatinghouse Electric Corporation ' , Highway 58 West South Boston, Virginia 24592 Dear Mr, Alberti - Attached are responses to the questions listed In your ' letter dated February 3* 1975 In addition to the industrial hygiene practices described In our responses to your questions, I cannot overemphasize the need to properly control the use and handling of Inerteens to prevent their escape into the environment. Also, in discussing this information with your employees, I strongly recommend that the perspective gained from over 40 years of experience in which no human ham has resulted, ' be emphasized. In summary, the proper handling of Inerteens should pose no environmental or human health problems, permitting society18 continued use of f very valuable material. ' ' % I hope the above information it useful to you. If I can ' be of further service please let me know. . . Sincerely, l : ' VBP:pd W. B. Papageorge . Manager, Product Acceptability Specialty & Process Chemicals HARTOLDMONO017650 (. . l X- ' V. 1. Question* Does Inerteen have permanent effects on the f human body? If so, what type of permanent damage and how long a period of.time does it take for this to develop? If not, explain why, if possible. The polychlorinated biphenyls in Inerteen can have permanent effect* on the human body. The length of time or period of exposure necessary to develop symptoms depends on the degree or amount, of exposure. In general a. single exposure for a few minutes to atmospheric concentrations that cause irritation to the eyes and/or respiratory tract would not be expected to cause either the skin eruptions or demonstrabl liver injury. The problem arises from repeated and prolonged exposure to atmospheric concentrations in excess of the accepted Threshold Limit Levels ox repeated and prolonged skin contact. The polychlorinated biphenyls have not been recognized as skin irritants" in the same sense that caustic materials or many organic chemicals are irritants. Because of their "solvent" action in removing the natural fats and oils from the skin leadin to drying and chapping, repeated and prolonged skin contact should be avoided. Wien the polychlorinated biphenyls axe mixed with other chlori nated hydrocarbons/ the mixture may be classified as & skin irritant. The potential toxic effects in humans from excessive exposure . to polychlorinated biphenyls include injury to the liver and chloracne. In animals, the liver effect is demonstrated by increased liver weights and injury to cellular tissue. Although chloracne is difficult to evaluate in animals, in humans, this takes the form of comedones (large blackheads with typical, acne pustules) and may be an external sympton of over exposure pre ceding serious liver injury. _ ' Animal data and human experience indicate that the' toxic effects are similar whether exposure results from ingestion, inhalation of vapors, or absorption of the liquid material through the un ' * broken skin. ' ; (See AIHA Hygienic Guide Series - "Chlorodiphenyls* attached.) 2. Question? Several hourly employees have mentioned recently that many chemicals such as Inerteen cause sterilization . after prolonged use. Is this true? There is no evidence that polychlorinated biphenyls cause sterilization" in humans. 100728 HARTOLDMONO017651 Questions Since Jnerteea Effects birds and other animals, if there is no real effect to human beings, hw do ' you explain it to employees in such a way that they will understand why it can kill a bird and not m hmmn? _ There is a potential real effect to hun & ns - including death - as discussed in the answer to Question 1, ' .* Due to differences in metabolism of food (and food content- Hants) in birds and humans (and particularly the difference " In the reproduction, process in birds and mananals - including humans), birds are particularly sensitive to many chlorinated hydrocarbons including polychlorinated biphenyls. . ' , Questions If an employee spills Xnerteen on hi* clotting and later takes -the clothing home to be washed with' other clothes, will this here any effect on him or his family and. should he carry his clothes home to be washed? ' ' ' There should not be. any effect on an employee or his family . from home laundering of work clothing. If washed with other clothing, there may be residual dor of the chlorinated hydrocarbons in the clothing. . Question: Employees carry Xnerteen home on the soles of their shoes and complain quite a bit about the effect Inexteen has on wearing out of their shoes. Is this a serious problem? Will Inerteen in the soles and leather of shoes, over a long period of time, have an effect on the feet and - skin since the shoe is the, only protective equipment we wear on' our feet and the Inerteen penetrates through the " leather. .. There should not be polychlorinated biphenyl on the floor for workmen to contaminate their shoes to carry home. The plasti cizer or solvent action will destroy or. shorten the life of .the shoes.' More importantly, the wearing of contaminated shoes could lead to absorption of the liquid through the soles of the feet as through any other unbroken skin surface. * Question: There is one employee in our plant who had no pro- . blea whatsoever with Xnerteen years ago. After six years of using, now when be voiks in Xnerteen (which is a part ' of his job) be develops a swelling on the inner bicep of bis left nly in one location. Could this be from Inerteen _ or not? It goes away as soon as he gets out of the Inerteen. ` _ It is similar to the swelling after taking an injection. HARTOLDMONO017652 We do not believe there can be any association between "a swelling on the inner bleep" of the arm and exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. 7* Question: Are there hand cleaning solvent materials that we should be using when working in Inerteen to coat our skin before working in it and to wash it off after we finish working in it? Please- give your ' recommendation. Our employees working in Inerteen . are not able to use glove* ince it is an assembly area. Even if they could, the Inerteen would destroy the protective glove. ' We assume the Question refers to the use of "Barrier Creams" rather than a "hand cleaning solvent" There'are a number of barrier creams available to protect workers against water insoluble solvents Probably the most effective include silicone^to provide an impenetrable shield". A problem with such creams is that they may offer a false sense., of security. ' < Proper use includes a discipline which requires liberal appli cation at the beginning of a work, shift and after each washing of the hands during the work day. a 10072 HARTOLDMON0017653