Document LorzZGEveV4qOGVYRRZmyJzZq

1 1 Cerro Copper Products, Co. 2 vs. 3 Monsanto Company 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 VOLUME 1 14 15 Deposition of Michael A. Pierle 16 Taken June 28, 1994 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 1 WATER PCB-SD0000052915 2 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 3 4 CERRO COPPER PRODUCTS, CO., 5 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 vs. NO. 92-CV-204-WDS 9 10 MONSANTO COMPANY, 11 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 VOLUME 1 16 17 Deposition of MICHAEL A. PIERLE, taken on 18 behalf of the Plaintiff, at the offices of 19 Cobum & Croft, One Mercantile Center, 20 Suite 2900, in the City of St. Louis, State of 21 Missouri, on the 28th day of June, 1994, 22 before Tracey Balsitis, Registered 23 Professional Reporter and Notary Public. 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 2 WATER PCB-SD0000052916 3 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Mr. Richard F. Ricci Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1791 9 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 10 Mr. Kenneth R. Heineman 11 Cobum & Croft 12 One Mercantile Center - Suite 2900 13 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 14 15 ............... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 3 WATER PCB-SD0000052917 4 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 Examination by Mr. Ricci 5 4 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 8 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 1 49 9 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 2 151 10 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 3 155 11 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 4 167 12 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 5 176 13 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 6 188 14 Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 7 194 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 4 WATER PCB-SD0000052918 5 1 MICHAEL A. PIERLE 2 of lawful age, having been first duly sworn to 3 testify the truth, the whole truth, and 4 nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, 5 deposes and says in reply to oral 6 interrogatories propounded as follows, to-wit: 7 EXAMINATION 8 QUESTIONS BY MR. RICCI: 9 Q Good morning, Mr. Pierle. Is that the 10 correct pronunciation? 11 A Correct. 12 Q My name is Rich Ricci, and I represent 13 Cerro Copper Products Company in a lawsuit by 14 the name of Cerro Copper Products versus 15 Monsanto, which is currently pending in the 16 United States District Court for the Southern 17 District of Illinois, and we are here for your 18 deposition today. 19 Before we get started, I would like to 20 give you some instructions as to how the day 21 will proceed. Basically, I'm going to be 22 asking you a series of questions, and you will 23 be providing me with answers to the best of 24 your ability. You are under oath, and 25 although this is an informal setting, my Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 5 WATER PCB-SD0000052919 6 1 questions and your answers will be taken down 2 by the court reporter and transcribed into a 3 booklet. And that booklet can be used at the 4 trial of this matter, so that your testimony 5 here today is as if given in open court in 6 that it can be used in open court. 7 If I ask you a question that you don't 8 understand, I would ask that you tell me that 9 you don't understand it, and I will do my best 10 to try and rephrase the question or explain it 11 to you in a way that you can understand it. 12 If I ask you a question and you answer it, 13 then I will assume that you understood the 14 question and answered accordingly. 15 For ease of our court reporter, it 16 will be helpful if you let me finish my 17 questions before you give me your answers, and 18 then I will in turn let you finish your answer 19 before I ask the next question. She can only 20 take down one of us at a time, so if we avoid 21 stepping on each other's lines, that will be 22 helpful. 23 If you need a break at any time, just 24 let me know. I'm happy to accommodate you. 25 This isn't an endurance test, and we can break Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 6 WATER PCB-SD0000052920 7 1 as often as you like. 2 lam not an engineer, and so to the 3 extent that we are going to be delving into 4 technical issues, I may use terms improperly 5 or I may incorrectly state scientific or 6 technical concepts. And if I do so, I would 7 appreciate it if you let me know and we can 8 try to work through whatever discrepancies we 9 have. Do you have any questions before we 10 proceed? 11 A No. 12 Q Have you ever had your deposition 13 taken before? 14 A Yes. 15 Q How many times? 16 A I believe it is three. 17 Q When was the most recent occasion to 18 have your deposition taken? 19 A Within the last year, I believe, year 20 to year and a half in a case that we have in 21 Delaware with our insurance companies. 22 Q How long did that deposition go? 23 A It was a discontinuous deposition. I 24 believe it was three or four days. 25 Q Mr. Pierle, are you familiar with the Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 7 WATER PCB-SD0000052921 8 1 issues that are presented in the case that we 2 are currently here taking your deposition on? 3 A Vaguely. 4 Q Can you give me your understanding of 5 what the issues ofthis case are? 6 A I understand that Cerro has fded 7 against Monsanto seeking cost recovery for 8 some actions that they have taken at their 9 facility with respect to improvements that 10 they made at their site. 11 Q What types of improvements? 12 A It has to do with Dead Creek and the 13 positioning of Dead Creek as part of their 14 site and facility plans. 15 Q What do you mean by "as part of their 16 facility plans"? 17 A In the time I was involved in the 18 discussions, it was my understanding that they 19 were in the process of upgrading the facility 20 at the site, had committed to some additional 21 investment and were -- as part of that 22 activity, they were contemplating some use or 23 expanded use of the areas on both sides of 24 Dead Creek. 25 Q And in your last answer you referred Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 8 WATER PCB-SD0000052922 9 1 to some discussions that you were involved 2 with? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Can you describe those discussions for 5 me? 6 A They were a series of discussions of 7 which I was a party to between people from the 8 Marmon Group and Cerro concerning cleanup 9 activities in Sauget Village. 10 Q Do you recall when those discussions 11 were? 12 A Not specifically. They were sometime 13 -- it would have been after early '86, but I 14 cannot -- I can't pinpoint with precision when 15 they took place. 16 Q Sometime after early '86? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Was there anyone from Monsanto other 19 than yourself involved in those discussions? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Who? 22 A The people at the plant site were also 23 engaged in those conversations, and I believe 24 it was the plant manager at that time and also 25 the environmental superintendent. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 9 WATER PCB-SD0000052923 10 1 Q Who was the plant manager? 2 A The plant manager in early '86 was 3 Jack Molloy, and I don't know how long -- I 4 don't recall how long Jack stayed in that 5 position. 6 Q Is it Mr. Molloy who was involved in 7 these discussions? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Who was the environmental person from 10 the plant? 11 A I believe that was Warren Smull. 12 Q What was Mr. Smull's title at that 13 time, do you recall? 14 A Not specifically. 15 Q Apart from his specific title, he was 16 in charge of environmental at the Krummrich 17 facility? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Anyone else from the plant involved in 20 those discussions? 21 A There was an initial meeting that I 22 believe our environmental counsel also 23 attended. 24 Q Outside counsel or inside counsel? 25 A Inside. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 10 WATER PCB-SD0000052924 11 1 Q Who was that? 2 A Brent Gillhausen. 3 Q This was a meeting with personnel from 4 Cerro? 5 A My memory is that it was more 6 specifically a meeting of people representing 7 the Marmon Group from Chicago. 8 Q Who from either Marmon or Cerro do you 9 recall being involved in those discussions? 10 A From Marmon a fellow by the name of 11 Webb, and there were conversations with one of 12 their consultants by the name of Patterson, 13 and I'm unclear as to whether they had outside 14 counsel there. 15 In subsequent discussions, it did 16 involve the Cerro people including 17 Mr. Schweich and Mr. Tandler. 18 Q Now, you testified earlier that it is 19 your understanding that this lawsuit relates 20 to improvements that Cerro made to its 21 facility. Is that a fair statement of your 22 testimony? 23 A Uh-huh. 24 Q Is that an understanding that you 25 gained from these discussions with Cerro or Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 11 WATER PCB-SD0000052925 12 1 Marmon personnel? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Can you tell me what was said in those 4 discussions that leads you to that 5 understanding? 6 A The initial discussions were general 7 discussions about is there a need for a master 8 plan in the Sauget area for both economic 9 improvement and cleanup of the area and 10 thought processes that there needed to be an 11 involvement on the political and economic side 12 of pressures within the state that could have 13 a positive effect on cleaning up what areas 14 needed to be cleaned up in a more economic 15 fashion. That was the sense of the sort of 16 initial, general discussions. 17 Q Can I just stop you there for a 18 second. In these initial, general 19 discussions, was there any participation by 20 anyone from the village? 21 A No. 22 Q Was there any participation by any 23 other industries in the village? 24 A No. 25 Q This is strictly Cerro or Marmon and Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 12 WATER PCB-SD0000052926 13 1 Monsanto discussions? 2 A Yes. Separate from this, there were 3 other discussions in the village and with the 4 village people that I was not a party to but I 5 knew were going on as related to other 6 activities, waste treatment plant and site 7 listing discussions on potential state or 8 Super Fund lists, but this set of 9 conversations was really initially, in my 10 view, separate from that. 11 Those discussions continued, and I 12 recall one or two other meetings that I was 13 personally involved with. I do not recall the 14 timing, but subsequently they evolved 15 themselves down to more, not what Cerro 16 proposed to do for generic plans in the 17 village, but very specific plans about their 18 economic redevelopment of their business and 19 their facility and their internal decisions to 20 reinvest at that site and their subsequent 21 plans to improve the facility as a part of 22 that reinvestment program. 23 Q Was the cleanup of the area of Dead 24 Creek located on Cerro's property ever 25 mentioned as part of this plan to reinvest in Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 13 WATER PCB-SD0000052927 14 1 or improve its facility? 2 A That became the focus of the 3 conversation with Monsanto. 4 Q Were you aware at this time of any 5 pressure being asserted by the Illinois EPA 6 regarding the cleanup of Dead Creek? 7 A In the early discussions, that was not 8 part ofthe conversation. As the discussions 9 continued, it became a part of the discussion, 10 and my recollection was that the time in which 11 that was sort of disclosed to Monsanto, it was 12 substantially a fait accompli, that Cerro had 13 been in conversations with the state for some 14 length oftime and eventually presented to 15 Monsanto what was pretty much a plan they had 16 agreed to with the state. And I know 17 pricipally from reading in the paper then 18 their commitment to complete that plan and 19 understand that they did complete the cleanup. 20 Q So you were aware of discussions or 21 you participated in discussions prior to the 22 time that IEPA expressed an interest in Dead 23 Creek in which discussions Cerro raised the 24 possibility of cleaning up Dead Creek; is that 25 correct? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 14 WATER PCB-SD0000052928 15 1 A No. I don't believe that's what I'm 2 saying. What I indicated was that at the time 3 Cerro began a conversation with Monsanto first 4 about some master plan in the village, which, 5 by the way, we were interested in them showing 6 some interest in because we had already had a 7 lot of work going on that we had tried to 8 interest other members of the village in and 9 couldn't get much interest, so their initial 10 call to us was greeted with some enthusiasm 11 because there was some interest. Those were 12 generic discussions. 13 I don't know when they started a 14 conversation with the state, at what time 15 frame. What I indicated was that the generic 16 conversations that they started with us 17 reduced themselves to a conversation only 18 about their piece of property in the context 19 of what they were getting ready to do at the 20 site. And my recollection is towards the end 21 of those conversations, they introduced with 22 specificity the work, the agreements that they 23 had had through conversations with the state 24 relative to the sector of Dead Creek on their 25 property. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 15 WATER PCB-SD0000052929 16 1 Q Now, these generic discussions 2 regarding the master plan, these discussions 3 it is your recollection occurred sometime 4 after early '86? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q And they continued over a period of 7 time until a point where they, I think you 8 said, reduced themselves to a discussion of 9 Cerro cleaning up the portion of Dead Creek on 10 its own property? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you know the course of time over 13 which those discussions occurred? 14 A I do not recall specifically. I know 15 the conversations were relatively infrequent. 16 And following some of the initial discussions 17 which involved the Marmon Group and myself at 18 headquarters at St. Louis, the conversations 19 then moved towards both personnel at plants 20 between Cerro and Monsanto in more detailed 21 conversations, but I do not recall the time 22 line over which all of those discussions 23 transpired. 24 Q Were you aware that the Illinois EPA 25 had expressed an interest in a number of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 16 WATER PCB-SD0000052930 17 1 hazardous waste sites located in the Village 2 ofSauget? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And were you aware of a study by a 5 company by the name of Ecology & Environment 6 that in some way assessed those sites? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know whether the Ecology & 9 Environment report came out before or after 10 these discussions that you have been 11 testifying to with folks from Marmon or Cerro? 12 A I don't recall. 13 Q Are you familiar with a report by Ron 14 St. John regarding hazardous waste sites in 15 the Village of Sauget? 16 A That name is not familiar. 17 Q You are not familiar with a Ron 18 St. John report? 19 A No. It doesn't -- I don't recall 20 that. 21 Q When Cerro first raised with you, or 22 Cerro or Marmon for the time being, when they 23 first raised with you the prospect of cleaning 24 up Dead Creek, was it raised as an economic 25 undertaking or an environmental undertaking? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 17 WATER PCB-SD0000052931 18 1 A My recollection was that given this 2 backdrop of work that was going on in the 3 village, both work that Monsanto had underway 4 and work that state contractors had underway, 5 we viewed -- at least I viewed the initial 6 call from Cerro as an initiative on the Marmon 7 Group to say let's become actively involved in 8 influencing the outcome of any anticipated 9 subsequent actions. 10 The interest that they expressed was 11 bringing political and economic issues to bear 12 on what could be viewed as solely an 13 environmental cleanup by IEPA. 14 Q In your previous answer, you indicated 15 that you viewed the initial call from Cerro 16 against the backdrop of work that was underway 17 by, I believe, the IEPA. Is that a fair 18 statement? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What work are you referring to? 21 A I think it is the work that I believe 22 you asked in a previous question around the 23 work that IEPA had in assessing sites within 24 the village as to whether they were or were 25 not hazardous with the anticipation I think in Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 18 WATER PCB-SD0000052932 19 1 people's minds that this was part of some of 2 the preliminary sort of side assessment work 3 that gets done under Super Fund to evaluate 4 sites for determinations as to whether action 5 should be taken and further listings. So I 6 think we knew that the state contractors -- 7 the state had a contractor that was in that 8 assessment phase. 9 Q And that was Ecology & Environment? 10 A I believe it was. 11 Q So you are aware that the IEPA is 12 assessing various sites in the Sauget area. 13 And then you get a call from Cerro to discuss 14 those activities by IEPA. Is that a correct 15 statement? 16 A I'm not sure the inference there -- 17 generally we knew that there was work going on 18 by Illinois EPA, and I believe the timing was 19 we knew that work was going on before we had a 20 call from the Marmon Group, that's correct. 21 Q I'm not trying to make any inference. 22 I'm really just trying to understand the 23 sequence of events. 24 A Right. 25 Q That was the gist of my question. So Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 19 WATER PCB-SD0000052933 20 1 that the call that -- the initial contact from 2 Marmon was to attempt to bring economic or 3 political issues to bear on the activities 4 that IEPA had already begun. Is that a fair 5 statement? 6 A Yes, I believe so. 7 Q Did the initial discussions between 8 Monsanto and Cerro or Marmon relate to sites 9 other than that segment of Dead Creek that was 10 located on Cerro's property? 11 A They were, as I recall, general 12 discussions about the concept of cleanup and 13 what could be done within the village and how 14 we might work. Is there a way in which 15 industry might work on a cooperative basis. 16 And, again, we were pleased to have 17 that conversation begin, because we had tried 18 at the plant level to basically have that same 19 kind of conversation without much interest. 20 The outcome, as I recall, of the first 21 session or first set of calls and then a 22 meeting was that we basically asked Cerro to 23 tell us more specifically what they had in 24 mind. We, as I recall, already had fairly 25 detailed work going on at our facility and Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 20 WATER PCB-SD0000052934 21 1 work we were supporting around the Sauget 2 Village, the waste treatment plant, and were 3 spending, I believe, on the order of a million 4 dollars a year. And we simply asked them. I 5 also recall we had been sharing this 6 information with our industrial neighbors, and 7 our position was conceptually we understand 8 what you are saying. Why don't you come back 9 and tell us with some specificity how do you 10 want to participate. 11 Q And did they do that? 12 A My recollection of that was as we 13 continued to have verbal conversations and it 14 was not -- we did receive a concept paper 15 somewhere in this process around how to get 16 political and economic agencies involved. 17 Q That was a concept paper from Cerro? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Or Marmon? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Do you recall which one? 22 A I'm not certain. My recollection, we 23 did not get from them a firm proposal about 24 any global -- and by global I mean sort of a 25 village-wide study. What eventually came back Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 21 WATER PCB-SD0000052935 22 1 to us, and I'm not certain of the time, was a 2 very specific proposal with information 3 relative only to Sector A of Dead Creek, that 4 piece that was Cerro-owned property. 5 Q And the specific proposal that you got 6 regarding Dead Creek Sector A, which was the 7 sector located on Cerro's property, is this 8 the proposal that you had previously testified 9 was a fait accompli with respect to the IEPA 10 by the time it was presented to you? 11 A Yes. 12 Q So it is your understanding that Cerro 13 committed to address contamination -- 14 committed to the IEPA to address contamination 15 on Dead Creek Sector A and then came to 16 Monsanto and basically made a proposal? 17 A Yes. That was the conclusion that I 18 know I drew from the sequence of 19 conversations. 20 Q Was Monsanto having discussions with 21 the IEPA at this time? 22 A Relative to what? 23 Q Hazardous waste sites in the Village 24 ofSauget? 25 A We were. I mean those were to some Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 22 WATER PCB-SD0000052936 23 1 extent ongoing conversations. They were 2 pricipally, as I recall, related to our 3 landfill property near the river and relative 4 to sharing of information with respect to 5 studies conducted on Monsanto's property. 6 There were conversations somewhere 7 during this time period about a Lot G that was 8 adjacent to actually the Cerro plant property. 9 So there were different conversations that 10 took place relative to specific sites in the 11 village as opposed to, as I recall, targeted 12 discussions about all sites within the 13 village. 14 Q Including Dead Creek Sector A? 15 A I don't recall any specific 16 conversations specifically focused on Sector 17 A. 18 Q What about Dead Creek Sector B? 19 A My recollection of the conversations 20 then were more specific, that there was 21 knowledge of the contractor, the government 22 contractor, and there were conversations in 23 general about the work that the contractor was 24 doing but not specifically about individual 25 sites or work plans. I was not a party to any Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 23 WATER PCB-SD0000052937 24 1 conversations ofthat type. 2 Q Do you know who the principal contact 3 -- let me rephrase that. Do you know who 4 Monsanto's principal contact with the IEPA was 5 during this time period that we are talking 6 about? 7 A That would have been pricipally Warren 8 Smull. 9 Q Now, you indicated that prior to the 10 time that Monsanto got the call from Marmon 11 that initiated these early discussions, 12 Monsanto had tried to generate some interest 13 within the industries in the village about 14 developing a master plan. Is that a fair 15 statement? 16 A I think it was around trying to 17 generate interest in what were perceived to be 18 areas that would come under study that had 19 common waste, such as the treatment plant 20 sludges, some ofthe landfill along the river 21 where it was I think pretty well known that 22 waste from various industry sources had ended 23 up comingled or mixed, so it wasn't about a 24 master plan I guess is the point I'm making, 25 but it was more about some ofthe specific Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 24 WATER PCB-SD0000052938 25 1 sites where there was common waste disposed. 2 Q Did you view Dead Creek, either Sector 3 A or Sector B, as being one of those common 4 areas? 5 A I don't think they were a particular 6 focus ofthose discussions. 7 Q When we first started discussing the 8 issues of this lawsuit, I believe you 9 testified that it was your understanding that 10 the lawsuit related to economic improvements 11 by Cerro to its property. Is that a fair 12 statement? 13 A I believe so. 14 Q Is it fair to say that based upon your 15 discussions with people from Cerro or Marmon, 16 these economic improvements were triggered by 17 efforts on the part of the IEPA to get some 18 action with respect to contaminated sites in 19 the Sauget area, including Dead Creek Sector 20 A? 21 A My --no. My impression was that 22 Cerro had made a conscious business decision 23 to reinvest in the Sauget site and to upgrade 24 the facilities and the businesses and that 25 that is what was driving their interest Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 25 WATER PCB-SD0000052939 26 1 relative to the properties and then Sector A 2 of Dead Creek. And I believe that impression 3 was formed both from conversations we had and 4 newspaper publications I recall during the 5 time when Hank Schweich was quoted in talking 6 about Cerro and the copper business and their 7 desire to get more environmentally green 8 around their operations. 9 Q Is it your understanding that these 10 efforts to get, as you stated, more 11 environmentally green were unrelated to the 12 interests that the IEPA had shown in sites 13 within the Sauget area, including Dead Creek 14 Sector A? 15 A Well, I don't have an opinion on that 16 because I wasn't -- I didn't know what if any 17 conversations they were having with the 18 agency, as I recall, during that time frame. 19 So my impression was from the information that 20 I had that this was really driven by part of a 21 business reinvestment plan to do more at that 22 particular site. 23 Q Okay. And you said that impression 24 was based in part on comments by Mr. Schweich 25 to the press? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 26 WATER PCB-SD0000052940 27 1 A Based on, I believe, articles that I 2 read in the local newspaper in which he was 3 quoted. 4 Q Have you retained any of those 5 articles? 6 A I don't believe so. 7 Q You indicated that this impression was 8 also based upon conversations that you were 9 involved with with personnel from Marmon or 10 Cerro; is that correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you recall any specific statements 13 by any specific individuals that led you to 14 this impression that Cerro's effort to clean 15 up Dead Creek was economically driven? 16 A I think I formed that conclusion based 17 upon the initial conversations about the need 18 to involve the economic arms and the political 19 arms of state government, the piece of paper 20 that -- this concept paper that I mentioned 21 that was sent to us about how to better manage 22 what Illinois EPA was intending to do. And I 23 do not recall then in the meetings the 24 specific words or who they were from about 25 Cerro's plans at that facility. It was Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 27 WATER PCB-SD0000052941 28 1 really, I think, a conclusion drawn out of 2 several pieces of information. 3 Q You testified earlier that Monsanto 4 was involved during this same time period with 5 efforts to upgrade the village waste water 6 treatment plant; is that correct? 7 A I think what I said was there was a -- 8 at the village waste water treatment plant, 9 there was a prior sludge disposal that 10 Monsanto was involved in trying to resolve how 11 that should be managed, is cleanup required. 12 Q Now, I was trying to get you back. We 13 were talking about the fact that Monsanto had 14 been trying to generate some interest within 15 the other village industries to develop some 16 sort of a master plan. And I believe you had 17 testified that and you mentioned the figure of 18 a million dollars that Monsanto was committing 19 to these efforts? 20 A Uh-huh. 21 Q And I believe that one of the efforts 22 that you mentioned had to do with improvements 23 to the waste water treatment plant. Did I 24 misunderstand that? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 28 WATER PCB-SD0000052942 29 1 Q Okay. Were you aware of involvement 2 on behalf of individuals from the Krummrich 3 facility with the operation of the village 4 waste water treatment plant? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Do you know if Cerro was also involved 7 in the operations of the waste water treatment 8 plant? 9 A I know that Cerro and the other 10 industries, there is a board that exists that 11 basically operates as a nonprofit manager of 12 the waste treatment plant and were involved 13 for years in studies and improvements to the 14 waste water treatment facilities. 15 Q You testified that your most recent 16 deposition experience prior to today involved 17 testimony in a lawsuit by Monsanto against its 18 insurance carriers; is that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q In the course of that deposition, did 21 you testify at all regarding PCB discharges by 22 the Krummrich facility to the village sewer 23 system? 24 A No. 25 Q Did any -- did you testify at all Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 29 WATER PCB-SD0000052943 30 1 regarding any issues related to Dead Creek? 2 A I don't believe so. 3 Q Did your testimony relate in any way 4 to the PCB reduction program that Monsanto 5 instituted at the Krummrich facility in the 6 early 1970s? 7 A No. 8 Q You indicated that you had been 9 deposed I think you said three -- on three 10 separate occasions prior to today. One was in 11 the insurance case. What were the others? 12 A One was our dioxin litigation in the 13 mid '70s. And a third case was a case in New 14 Jersey regarding a New Jersey Public Interest 15 Research Group suit against the facility. 16 Q That was a citizen suit under the 17 Clean Water Act? 18 A Yes. 19 Q I assume that case did not involve PCB 20 from the Krummrich facility? 21 A It did not. 22 Q Did you do anything to prepare for 23 your deposition today? 24 A I met with Mr. Heineman and briefly 25 went over the deposition process, and we Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 30 WATER PCB-SD0000052944 31 1 reviewed some documents that had been 2 produced. I did not read the documents. It 3 was more just a cataloguing and looking 4 through of what documents had been produced or 5 some ofthe documents that had been produced. 6 Q Did you have discussions with any 7 other present or former Monsanto employees? 8 A No. 9 Q Did you review transcripts from any 10 other depositions in this case? 11 A No. 12 Q The documents that you reviewed in 13 preparation for the deposition, can you tell 14 me what time period they related to? 15 A They were basically in the late '60s. 16 Q Did you review any documents from the 17 time period that we were just discussing, 18 after '86 when you were having discussions 19 with Marmon and Cerro regarding Dead Creek? 20 A There was, I think, only one or two 21 documents relative to that time period towards 22 the end of all ofthe documents. I believe 23 they were documents actually that Ken 24 indicated were pulled from or that actually 25 had been received from Cerro and related to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 31 WATER PCB-SD0000052945 32 1 some of I think they were Schweich 2 communication. 3 Q Let me just jump in here, Mr. Pierle, 4 and advise you as I question you on these 5 issues, I'm not intending to elicit from you 6 answers relating to conversations that you had 7 with counsel. And so I just want you to 8 understand that so that there is no 9 misunderstanding in the future. 10 In the course of the discussions that 11 you were having with people from Marmon or 12 Cerro in this time period after early 1986, 13 did it ever come to your attention that there 14 was PCB contamination in Segment A of Dead 15 Creek? 16 A That information, as I recall, was 17 presented in the report that Cerro ultimately 18 produced to Monsanto specific to Sector A. 19 Q Is that this concept paper that you 20 had referred to earlier? 21 A No. That was the document that, and 22 again I don't know the name of it, but it was 23 more an engineering kind of report that 24 described, you know, what was in Sector A and 25 got to the point of what they were going to do Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 32 WATER PCB-SD0000052946 33 1 about the cleanup of Sector A. This was more 2 what I termed the fait accompli document that 3 was produced to us which contained the details 4 of what at least appeared to us to be a 5 document that had been discussed with the 6 Illinois EPA. 7 Q Was that the site investigation 8 feasibility study? 9 A I don't recall the specific title to 10 it. 11 Q Do you recall who prepared the 12 document? 13 A I don't. 14 Q Do you recall if it was the Avendt 15 Group? 16 A I don't recall. 17 Q Was that document in effect the first 18 time that you became aware of PCB 19 contamination in Dead Creek Sector A? 20 A I don't recall. That was the first 21 time that I recall in the context of the 22 discussions with Cerro that PCB and other -- 23 that there was really hard data and 24 information about what was there and in what 25 concentrations. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 33 WATER PCB-SD0000052947 34 1 Q This fait accompli document, whatever 2 it was officially titled, was provided to you 3 after the Ecology & Environment study 4 commissioned by IEPA; is that correct? 5 A I don't recall the time frame and the 6 sequence on those two documents. 7 Q During the course of discussions prior 8 to the time that you received this fait 9 accompli document, do you recall discussions 10 with people from Cerro or Marmon regarding PCB 11 contamination in Dead Creek? 12 A No. 13 Q Do you recall anyone from Cerro or 14 Marmon taking the position in these 15 discussions that Monsanto was in any way 16 responsible for any of the contamination in 17 Dead Creek? 18 A The only time I remember that 19 proposition coming forward was upon the 20 delivery of the document in the discussions. 21 Q The fait accompli document? 22 A Yes. 23 Q What was Monsanto's reaction to the 24 fait accompli document? 25 A As I recall, there were two as I Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 34 WATER PCB-SD0000052948 35 1 recall. One is this thing is already a done 2 deal. And there is -- it is presented to us 3 as this is what we are going to do. 4 There was also a reaction that some of 5 our people upon looking at it were concerned 6 that the action that was contemplated could be 7 done in compliance with requirements on 8 certain regulations on PCB management, but we 9 concluded that Cerro was in conversations with 10 the regulatory agency, and if they had an 11 agreement on a plan to, you know, to do a 12 cleanup there, that the state must have viewed 13 that it was, you know, legal, appropriate and 14 proper. And therefore, you know, our judgment 15 was not, I guess, of any importance to those 16 discussions. 17 MR. RICCI: Could you read back that 18 last answer. 19 (The requested portion of the 20 record read by the reporter) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, can you 22 expand upon your previous answer where you 23 indicated that there were discussions with 24 some of your people regarding whether the 25 action could -- the actions contemplated by Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 35 WATER PCB-SD0000052949 36 1 Cerro could be done in compliance with 2 regulations dealing with PCB management? 3 MR. HEINEMAN: I would only -- let me 4 state an objection to the form ofthe question 5 only to the extent that if you are going to 6 have to reveal communications with in-house 7 attorneys in order to answer that question, 8 I'm going to instruct you not to do that 9 because those are privileged communications. 10 1 mean, if you can answer that question 11 without discussing what an in-house lawyer 12 told you, then that's fine. 13 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Let me withdraw that 14 question for the time being and ask another 15 question. 16 Who was -- your answer referred to 17 discussions with various people. Can you tell 18 me who those people were? 19 A The individuals that I recall who were 20 involved in this process were again Warren 21 Smull. The second person was the 22 environmental attorney who I believe at that 23 time was Steve Krchma, K-R-C-H-M-A. 24 Q Anyone else? 25 A Not that I recall. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 36 WATER PCB-SD0000052950 37 1 Q The discussions relating to whether 2 the actions contemplated by Cerro could be 3 done in come compliance with PCB management 4 regulations, was Mr. Krchma involved in those 5 discussions? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Were there any such discussions that 8 Mr. Krchma was not involved with? 9 A I don't believe so. 10 Q You have indicated that this fait 11 accompli document was the first indication 12 that you were aware of from Cerro that 13 Monsanto might be responsible for some of the 14 contamination in Dead Creek. Is that a fair 15 statement? 16 A I don't want to quibble with your 17 characterization. 18 Q Feel free if you don't think it is 19 correct. 20 A I think what I recalled there is that 21 it was the first time that they came to us 22 with specific information and basically said 23 here is what's there, and we think that you 24 are going to be part of having to pay for 25 this. So the allegation then was that you Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 37 WATER PCB-SD0000052951 38 1 have got culpability or responsibility here. 2 Q And you have indicated that that was 3 the first specific reference with hard data to 4 that contention by Cerro. Were there general 5 discussions prior to this that Monsanto might 6 have some culpability for contamination in 7 Dead Creek Sector A? 8 A Again, I'm not clear on that because 9 the conversations were, as I indicated, 10 general, about sites at the village where we 11 may have combined waste and therefore some 12 combined responsibilities that moved over time 13 very specifically only to Sector A. 14 Q Were you involved in any investigation 15 by Monsanto of whether it might have some 16 culpability with respect to contamination in 17 Dead Creek Section A? 18 A No. 19 Q Were you aware of whether or not any 20 such investigation ever occurred? 21 A I don't recall. 22 Q Did Monsanto take a position in 23 response to the fait accompli document 24 presented by Cerro? 25 A As I recall, the conclusion that we Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 38 WATER PCB-SD0000052952 39 1 reached was that Cerro had an agreement, had 2 reached an agreement with the state. They 3 were going to proceed with the project, and 4 there was nothing that Monsanto should do then 5 relative to that project because it was an 6 agreement between Cerro and the state. 7 Q Did Monsanto reach any conclusions in 8 response to the fait accompli document 9 presented by Cerro with respect to its own 10 culpability or responsibility for any 11 contamination in Dead Creek? 12 A No. I don't believe that I recall any 13 conversations or any conclusions to that 14 effect. 15 Q So you don't recall any discussions, 16 conversations, conclusions or investigations 17 by Monsanto in response to this fait accompli 18 document relating to if Monsanto was in any 19 way responsible for contamination in Dead 20 Creek Segment A? 21 A I don't recall reaching any conclusion 22 with respect to that. I do know that there 23 were subsequent conversations between Monsanto 24 and Cerro that then began about Cerro's desire 25 to seek cost recovery from Monsanto, so there Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 39 WATER PCB-SD0000052953 40 1 was a continuation of conversations and 2 discussions that I knew was going on but were 3 not party to. 4 I was trying to specifically respond 5 to the question about did we reach a 6 conclusion about our responsibilities. 7 Q So I guess what you are saying then is 8 that to the extent that any conclusion was 9 reached subsequently to the time that the fait 10 accompli document was presented, you were not 11 involved in that process; is that correct? 12 A Well, I don't know whether there was 13 one reached. 14 Q Ultimately? 15 A Yes. 16 Q When the fait accompli document was 17 presented, was it presented with the request 18 that Monsanto participate financially in what 19 Cerro was planning to do with Dead Creek 20 Segment A? 21 A I was not at the meeting where that 22 was presented; therefore, I don't know the 23 precise way in which that was presented to us 24 or what was said or by whom. 25 MR. RICCI: Could you read back my Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 40 WATER PCB-SD0000052954 41 1 last question. 2 (The requested portion of the 3 record read by the reporter) 4 Q (By Mr. Ricci) You are aware though 5 that Monsanto ultimately did not participate 6 financially in the efforts by Cerro with 7 respect to Dead Creek Segment A? 8 A I assume that's why we are here. 9 Q Correct. Mr. Pierle, can you give me 10 your educational background after high school? 11 A I have a Bachelor's degree in civil 12 engineering from Purdue University and a 13 Master's in engineering that was granted at 14 Washington University in St. Uouis. 15 Q Any specific discipline? 16 A I believe that degree is just a 17 Master's in engineering. The course work 18 there was environmental. 19 Q What year did you get your degree from 20 Purdue? 21 A It was granted in January of '66. 22 Q Did you go straight from high school 23 to college? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And what year did you get your Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 41 WATER PCB-SD0000052955 42 1 Master's from Washington University in 2 St. Louis? 3 A I'm never sure on this one. 4 Q Can you ballpark it? 5 A It was 71 or 72. 6 Q Have you taken any other college-level 7 courses apart from achieving your Bachelor's 8 or your Master's degree? 9 A Not specific course work. I attended 10 the Stanford executive program in 1990. 11 Q How long was that program? 12 A That's a summer duration. It was 13 eight weeks. 14 Q That was not towards any specific 15 degree though? 16 A No. 17 Q Was the focus ofthat program 18 management as opposed to engineering? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Or environmental issues? 21 A Yes. I took a similar course at the 22 University of Texas in '84. It was a 23 four-week course. 24 Q Mr. Pierle, have you served in the 25 military? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 42 WATER PCB-SD0000052956 43 1 A No. 2 Q What was your first job after 3 graduating from Purdue? 4 A I started at the Monsanto Krummrich 5 plant, and I started in their pollution 6 control department. 7 Q You graduated from Purdue in January 8 of'66? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And when did you begin with Monsanto? 11 A February 7. 12 Q You hired into Monsanto February 7, 13 1966? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And were assigned to the Krummrich 16 facility in the area of pollution control? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Had you taken any course work at 19 Purdue in the area of pollution control? 20 A I had taken some course work my junior 21 and senior year within the civil engineering 22 curriculum that focused on water supply and 23 water pollution work. 24 Q Was it your intention to get into the 25 area of pollution control, or was it just your Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 43 WATER PCB-SD0000052957 44 1 intention to get a job? 2 A I actually hired into the plant 3 engineering department was my initial 4 acceptance with an interest if something 5 opened up, and it did. 6 Q So you had an interest going in -- 7 A Yes. 8 Q -- to get into the area of pollution 9 control? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What was your title when you hired 12 into Monsanto? 13 A They used a nomenclature that I think 14 was engineer one. 15 Q Was that a salaried position? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Were you affiliatedwith any 18 particular department at the Krummrich 19 facility? 20 A I believe I was within the technical 21 services department. 22 Q Who hired you? 23 A I began working for Paul Hodges. The 24 hiring practice was somewhat different, and I 25 don't recall who actually sent the letter. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 44 WATER PCB-SD0000052958 45 1 Q Did you interview with people from 2 Krummrich, or did you interview with just 3 personnel? 4 A As I recall, there was sort of a panel 5 of people at the Krummrich facility that I 6 interviewed with. 7 Q In any event, once you hired in, 8 Mr. Hodges was your immediate supervisor? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you recall what his title was? 11 A I believe he was a senior engineering 12 specialist. 13 Q Were there other individuals at the 14 Krummrich facility working in the area of 15 pollution control at this time besides 16 yourself and Mr. Hodges? 17 A We had, as I recall, two technicians. 18 Q Who were they? 19 A One was Julio Munoz, and Joe 20 Burroughs. 21 Q Do you know if that's the Joe 22 Burroughs that now works for Cerro? 23 A I don't know where Joe works. 24 Q What were your initial duties when you 25 hired into the Krummrich facility? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 45 WATER PCB-SD0000052959 46 1 A I pricipally conducted monitoring 2 programs. And they were focused mainly on 3 atmospheric sampling of ambient sulfur dioxide 4 and particulate matters from our power plant 5 and water pollution that was mainly focused on 6 waste water discharges of phenols and CODs. 7 MR. RICCI: Let's take a quick break. 8 (Recess) 9 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, before the 10 break, you had indicated that one of your 11 initial assignments or tasks when you hired 12 into Monsanto was related to the water 13 pollution control and specifically the 14 discharge of phenols and CODs. Do you recall 15 that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Was the -- was there a single program 18 related to phenol and CODs, or was that two 19 separate efforts? 20 A Both of those materials were included 21 in some sort of site agreement or setting 22 limits on discharges. I don't recall the 23 particulars of that. And we monitered for 24 those sort of in one program, but they 25 involved different samples, different Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 46 WATER PCB-SD0000052960 47 1 locations and different analytical techniques. 2 Hopefully that's responsive. 3 Q Can you tell me what COD is? 4 A It stands for chemical oxygen demand. 5 Q Is there a particular class or 6 category of chemicals that contributes to COD 7 in waste water discharge? 8 A No. 9 Q This program that you were involved 10 with when you first hired in I assume was 11 directed towards reducing COD in your 12 effluent; is that correct? 13 A As I recall, it was towards meeting 14 certain limits on a stable basis. So we were 15 not really focusing on further reductions but 16 staying within an agreed upon limit. 17 Q In order to stay within that limit, 18 were there particular materials the discharge 19 of which you had to limit or that you had to 20 control? 21 A I guess I didn't look at it at that 22 time from that perspective. 23 Q Was this effort to control phenol and 24 COD discharges already under way when you 25 hired into the plant? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 47 WATER PCB-SD0000052961 48 1 A Yes. 2 Q What was the status of it when you 3 hired in? 4 A As I recall, we were just in a 5 monitoring surveillance phase, to collect data 6 to show that we were meeting limits. 7 Q So whatever control apparatus might 8 have been put in place were already in place 9 by the time you hired in? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Did this program relate to your 12 discharge to the Sauget sewer system? 13 A It did. I don't recall the specifics 14 of the regulatory structure. 15 Q Now, I wasn't focusing as much on the 16 regulatory structure as the physical recipient 17 of the discharge that you were monitoring. 18 A Yes. It was on discharges to the 19 sewer system. 20 Q Do you know how long this program had 21 been under way prior to the time you hired in? 22 A I don't recall. 23 Q Were there particular operations at 24 this Krummrich facility that contributed to 25 the discharge of phenol to the sewer system? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 48 WATER PCB-SD0000052962 49 1 A Yes. 2 Q What were those? 3 A I won't remember all of them. We had 4 a phenol manufacturing department. We had a 5 chlorophenol manufacturing department that was 6 included within that, and I believe we also 7 included some nitrophenol manufacturing. 8 There may have been others, but that's all I 9 can recall. 10 Q Do you recall methylphenol? 11 A No. 12 Q Do you recall the location of the 13 phenol manufacturing operation? 14 A Yes. 15 Q If I showed you a map, do you think 16 you could point it out on the map? 17 A Generally the area. 18 MR. RICCI: Can we mark this as Pierle 19 Exhibit 1. 20 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 1 21 marked for identification.) 22 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 23 show you a map that's been marked as Exhibit 1 24 to your deposition. This is a map with Bates 25 No. CER 111154. And I would just ask you to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 49 WATER PCB-SD0000052963 50 1 take a look at this. 2 Have you ever seen this map before? 3 A I don't know whether I have seen this 4 map before or not. I have seen maps of this 5 that are an overlay of the W. G. Krummrich 6 plant. 7 Q What do you understand this particular 8 map to be? 9 A It just looks like a plan map of the 10 facility including American Zinc. Basically 11 it looks like the plant property that existed 12 within the Monsanto plant fence. 13 Q Can you point out on this map where 14 the phenol manufacturing operation was? 15 A In general, it was in this area of the 16 plant. I'm not specific as to which of these 17 blocks, but it was -- I just recall it as down 18 towards this end of the facility. 19 Q And when you say "this end of the 20 facility," you are talking about the southwest 21 comer of the plant roughly? 22 A Yes. More in that quadrant. 23 Q In the vicinity of the area where we 24 have got a Building 223 or department, number 25 of buildings with the identification 223 on Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 50 WATER PCB-SD0000052964 51 1 it. Do you know if Department 223 was phenol 2 manufacturing? 3 A I don't know that. 4 Q Do you know where the chlorophenol 5 operation was located? 6 A The one I'm thinking about was right 7 in this area. 8 Q And again you are referring to an area 9 west of Falling Springs Road, north of Third 10 Street? 11 A Yes. 12 Q What about nitrophenol? 13 A I'm less clear on that. I don't 14 recall that specifically. 15 Q Do you recall if it was east or west 16 of Falling Springs Road? 17 A I would only be guessing right now. 18 Q Okay. Well, we don't want you to 19 guess. Let me get this out of your way for 20 the time being. 21 Now, you indicated that your 22 involvement with respect to the phenol/COD 23 program, for lack of a better word, related to 24 sampling and monitoring; is that correct? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 51 WATER PCB-SD0000052965 52 1 Q Do you recall where you were sampling? 2 A They were at different points within 3 the sewer system. 4 Q Were you sampling Monsanto's sewers or 5 village sewers or both? 6 A Some of those were indistinguishable 7 because of the makeup ofthe sewer system. 8 Q Why do you say that? 9 A Well, parts ofthe sewer that ran 10 through Monsanto's property could carry 11 Monsanto waste, could carry waste from other 12 operations that were non-Monsanto operations. 13 Q Were you sampling those sewers or were 14 you sampling sewers that carried strictly 15 Monsanto discharge or both? 16 A It could have been either or both. 17 Q Now, the map that we marked as Exhibit 18 1 to your deposition states in its legend that 19 it is a map of the 1964 sewers. Can you look 20 at this map and identify for me any of the 21 locations where you were sampling for phenols 22 and COD? 23 A I can look at it. It seems to me we 24 were monitoring within the production unit, 25 battery operations in the chlorophenol area. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 52 WATER PCB-SD0000052966 53 1 And I recall some monitoring stations on the 2 main trunk sewer lines of which there were two 3 exiting the southwest portion of the facility. 4 I don't recall locations of other samplers. 5 Q The samplers within the chlorophenol 6 production unit sampled only Monsanto 7 discharge; is that correct? 8 A I believe that's correct, in that 9 area, because we were attempting to, as I 10 recall, sample the sewer lines directly from 11 these departments. 12 Q Were you sampling for -- let me 13 withdraw that. Were your sampling efforts 14 directed to phenol only, or did they also 15 include chlorophenols? Do you understand the 16 question? 17 A The analytical procedure that we used 18 was, as I recall, a four-aminoantipyrine 19 analytical procedure that was for -- it 20 measured phenols. 21 Q Which is to say more than just pure 22 phenol. Is that true or not? 23 A I would have to go back and look at 24 the test. 25 Q What I'm trying to find out is whether Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 53 WATER PCB-SD0000052967 54 1 the sampling technique or I guess more 2 appropriately the analysis technique that you 3 employed during this time period would pick up 4 chlorophenols or simply a phenol? 5 A Yes. I believe the answer to that is 6 that it was intended to pick up phenols. To 7 the extent that a chlorophenol would register 8 itself as a phenol, it would pick that up. 9 But as I recall that procedure, it was not 10 precise for chlorophenols. 11 Q Did you sample for COD in this area 12 within the chlorophenol production department? 13 A I believe we did. 14 Q Irrespective of their specific 15 locations, were there other areas within plant 16 production operations that you sampled for 17 phenols and COD? 18 A The program for phenols was more 19 specific in trying to identify phenol levels 20 and associate them with departments. The COD 21 program was a plant-wide effort trying to get 22 at total CODs, not assign those back 23 necessarily to a specific unit. 24 Q So the COD sampling was more 25 widespread than the phenol sampling? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 54 WATER PCB-SD0000052968 55 1 A The COD sampling tended to be more 2 concentrated after the collection points in 3 the main sewers that would have picked up 4 larger areas leaving the plants. 5 Q Now, you indicated that when you hired 6 in, I believe it was your testimony that you 7 were really focused on monitoring and 8 surveillance to see whether you were staying 9 within certain limitations for phenols and 10 COD. Is that a fair statement? 11 A Yes. That was the main focus of my 12 initial assignments. 13 Q Do you know what the limitations -- do 14 you recall as you sit here today what the 15 limitations were that you were trying to stay 16 within? 17 A The phenol number, it seems to me, was 18 a thousand pounds a day. I don't recall the 19 COD. 20 Q Do you know how the phenol limitation 21 was developed, the thousand pounds per day 22 figure? 23 A I do not. 24 Q Do you know if it was developed in 25 conjunction with any particular government Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 55 WATER PCB-SD0000052969 56 1 agency? 2 A It seems to me that that was part of 3 whatever the Illinois agency was at that time, 4 state agency. 5 Q Were you generally staying within that 6 100,000 -- were you generally staying within 7 that 1,000 pound per day limitation at the 8 time you hired in? 9 A That was generally my recollection. 10 Q You indicated that in addition to 11 sampling for phenols at the chlorophenol 12 plant, you also sampled in the sewer lines 13 exiting the southwest portion of the plant; is 14 that correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Now, those plants are -- those lines 17 are indicated on this map, are they not? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And it appears that there were two 20 lines running roughly parallel from or roughly 21 parallel along the southwest border of the 22 plant or in that vicinity? 23 A If you are referring to these two 24 lines here marked 24 and I believe 36, the 25 answer is yes. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 56 WATER PCB-SD0000052970 57 1 Q Yes. Those are exactly the lines I'm 2 referring to. Can you tell me where -- let me 3 withdraw that. Did you sample both the 24 4 and 36-inch line? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Both of those lines received process 7 discharges from Monsanto? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you know what portion of the plant 10 drained through those two lines? 11 A Well, I believe those two lines took 12 in the area ofthe plant -- most of the area 13 of the plant that was I guess it is, what, 14 south of Monsanto Avenue, but not all of it. 15 And it also picked up the Cerro discharge, as 16 1 believe part ofthe village discharge came 17 through there. 18 The balance of the plant flowed into a 19 sewer line that was out here that picked up 20 what we called our north area. I don't recall 21 specifically if any of this part of the plant 22 got into there, but it picked up American Zinc 23 and Mobile Oil and that part of the village. 24 Q Just to clarify your testimony for the 25 record, you are not sure whether any ofthe Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 57 WATER PCB-SD0000052971 58 1 discharge from the plant south of Monsanto 2 Avenue got into the sewer line that ran along 3 Monsanto Avenue. Is that a fair 4 characterization of your testimony? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q But the sewer line that ran along 7 Monsanto Avenue did pick up the discharge from 8 the portion ofthe plant north of Monsanto 9 Avenue as well as from other industries that 10 were north of Monsanto Avenue? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Getting back to the 24-and 36-inch 13 lines on the southwest side of the plant, you 14 testified that those lines picked up 15 discharges from other than Monsanto as well as 16 Monsanto? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Was it your understanding that those 19 were village sewer lines? 20 A Which lines? 21 Q The 24- and the 36-inch line. 22 A Yes, but the large trunk sewer lines 23 throughout the village were village sewer 24 lines. 25 Q Well, these 24- and 36-inch lines were Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 58 WATER PCB-SD0000052972 59 1 located on or under Monsanto property. Is 2 that a fair statement? 3 A This portion of it. 4 Q Right. They were within the fence 5 line of the plant? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Do you know who was responsible for 8 operation and maintenance of those sewers? 9 A I do not. 10 Q Your sampling efforts were designed to 11 identify Monsanto's discharge of phenol and 12 COD into the sewer system; is that correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Do you know if Monsanto had taken any 15 steps to determine whether any other village 16 dischargers who discharged into the 24- or the 17 36-inch sewer line were contributing phenols 18 or COD? 19 A I don't recall. 20 Q Do you recall where along the 24- and 21 36-inch lines your sampling occurred? 22 A It seems to me that we were more 23 towards the east end of the line, and it had 24 to be in manways that were accessible because 25 these sewers were several feet below grade, Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 59 WATER PCB-SD0000052973 60 1 and they -- my sense of remembering is we had 2 stations that were down in this particular 3 area. I don't recall where else. This line 4 was accessible at several manholes and manways 5 along the line, and I don't recall where all 6 we had lines or sampler points. 7 Q When you say "this line," you are 8 talking about the 24 or the 36? 9 A Well, both of them. They tended to be 10 in roadways with manholes and manways on them 11 and therefore were accessible. 12 Q Do you recall any instances where your 13 sampling revealed that you were exceeding the 14 thousand pound a day limitation on phenols? 15 A I don't recall, you know, specific 16 samples and days. 17 Q Did your efforts with respect to this 18 program relate at all to controlling 19 discharges of phenols as opposed to measuring 20 the discharges of phenols? 21 A Well, I think, as I stated earlier, 22 what was in place within the departments to 23 control levels was pretty much there before I 24 arrived. I remember periodic walk-throughs on 25 my part that would look for perhaps abnormal Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 60 WATER PCB-SD0000052974 61 1 things like a spill or something that might 2 contribute to a high number that we may have 3 found. 4 As I recall, a lot of what was in 5 place was sort of keeping more concentrated 6 types of stream out of the sewer to where they 7 may go off and be put in a container of some 8 sort. And the surveillance that was done 9 there was more visual just to see that, you 10 know, the pipings were still connected and 11 things were sort of running the way they were 12 supposed to run. 13 And then if we would show a high 14 number, then it would be why did it go high, 15 and could we go back and find the spill or had 16 something within dumped or some causation, so 17 that if it was high, you then would look at, 18 you know, what do you do to keep that from 19 happening again. 20 Q Do you know how this program came to 21 be focused on phenols as opposed to any other 22 chemical that Monsanto might have been 23 discharging into the sewers? 24 A My recollection is back in the mid to 25 late '60s those were two more common types of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 61 WATER PCB-SD0000052975 62 1 contaminants that were generally looked at for 2 water pollution control. And there was 3 nothing, you know, unusual about there being 4 limits on those. 5 Phenol, as I recall, was a question of 6 taste and odor in waters, and COD just 7 represented an organic loading. These were 8 both -- in the case of the phenol, a compound, 9 and of the COD a general indicator of 10 materials that dissolved into the liquid. And 11 the sampling was focused on measuring the 12 liquid and then measuring the dissolved 13 concentration of those two parameters. 14 Q You indicated that COD was in some way 15 related to your organic loading? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What do you mean by that? 18 A Well, again, it is a chemical oxygen 19 demand, and the test would basically measure 20 the amount of oxygen that would be consumed by 21 fully oxidizing the chemicals that were in the 22 liquid, and that basically meant what carbon 23 was there that would go to C02 or nitrogen 24 compounds to nitrates, so it was a measure of 25 the oxygen demand that was imposed in that Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 62 WATER PCB-SD0000052976 63 1 process. 2 And generally speaking, that was 3 viewed as an organic -- an indicator of 4 organic contamination or carbon materials. 5 Q Do you know whether PCB discharges 6 would contribute to COD? 7 A Theoretically they could, but my 8 recollection is they would be at very low 9 levels because of the low solubility. 10 Q How about biphenyl? 11 A Well, again theoretically a biphenyl 12 would contribute. I don't recall its 13 solubility. 14 Q The extent to which it contributed to 15 COD would depend upon its solubility? 16 A It would depend upon its solubility 17 and basically how much was there that was 18 dissolved in water. 19 Q How long did you remain an engineer 20 one in the technical services department of 21 the Krummrich facility? 22 A It seems to me it was two or three 23 years. It could have been shorter. I don't 24 remember that progress. It was engineer one 25 to engineer two or vice versa, but it was sort Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 63 WATER PCB-SD0000052977 64 1 of like junior engineer to engineer. 2 Q Do you recall how long -- so you went 3 from engineer one to engineer two? 4 A There was a step change somewhere in 5 the first five years I was there, and I don't 6 recall the exact sequencing or the time. 7 Q Do you recall what position you held 8 after engineer two? 9 A I believe that was the level I had 10 until I left the plant in August of 1970. 11 Q August of '70 you left the plant? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Without distinguishing between time as 14 engineer--let me ask you this. Did your 15 duties or responsibilities change from the 16 time you were an engineer one until the time 17 you were an engineer two? 18 A As my duties changed, to me, was not 19 necessarily a reflection of what the job title 20 was. 21 Q Different projects arose? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Can you take me chronologically 24 through the projects that you were involved 25 with during this stint at the Krummrich Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 64 WATER PCB-SD0000052978 65 1 facility from '66 to 70? 2 A Probably not. My, I think, 3 responsibilities expanded from being 4 predominantly the initial jobs of monitoring 5 air and water to one of understanding the 6 operation of our landfill as well as the 7 operation and oversight of the village waste 8 water treatment facility and also included 9 more specific sampling projects within 10 departments as the need arose. 11 Q I'm sorry. What was the last thing? 12 Oversight of? 13 A I think I said oversight of the 14 village waste water treatment facility. 15 Q And then you said something after 16 that. 17 A And then I said as well as involvement 18 in specific departments, sampling as we had 19 needs. 20 Q Your initial responsibilities with 21 respect to air monitoring I believe you said 22 related to sulfur dioxide emission and 23 particulate emissions from the boiler? 24 A Yes. The sulfur dioxide also included 25 emissions from the sulfuric acid operation Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 65 WATER PCB-SD0000052979 66 1 plants. 2 Q Were you involved in any other air 3 monitoring programs besides those? 4 A The S02 was both an ambient program as 5 well as a stack program. The other air 6 program that we had was sort of a particulate 7 program that primarily Joe Burroughs conducted 8 around the facility that looked for emissions 9 of acid and alkalis particles. This was an 10 ambient program. 11 Q What do you mean by ambient program? 12 A We weren't measuring stacks in the 13 units. We were measuring, for example, the 14 air that was just -- the open air that you 15 would breathe. 16 Q Were you involved in any programs to 17 monitor organic air emissions? 18 A I don't recall organic air sampling. 19 Q Can you tell me about your involvement 20 with the landfill operations at the Krummrich 21 facility? 22 A Again, they involved sort of a 23 quantification ofthe types and amounts of 24 materials going to the landfill, sort of an 25 inventory. It also involved some ground water Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 66 WATER PCB-SD0000052980 67 1 monitoring on wells that were around the 2 facility. And most of the rest of it was just 3 observations of the practices at the facility. 4 Q How many landfills was Monsanto 5 operating at the time you hired in? 6 A My recollection is we contracted the 7 operation to basically the Paul Sauget 8 Company. We had one landfill that was 9 Monsanto property. 10 Q Where was that located? 11 A It would be west of Route 3, west of 12 the levee and east ofthe river and south of 13 the Monsanto Avenue. 14 Q West of Route 3 between the levee and 15 the river? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And south of the Monsanto Avenue? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And that landfill was located on 20 Monsanto property? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Was that landfillin operation when 23 you hired in? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Was it being used exclusively by Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 67 WATER PCB-SD0000052981 68 1 Monsanto? 2 A I don't know that. It was 3 predominantly for Monsanto, but I recall 4 periodically requests that would come from 5 others to place their materials there, but I 6 have no idea as to the frequency or what Paul 7 Sauget conducted, you know, what actually got 8 on the site. 9 Q This landfill was on Monsanto 10 property, but it was run by Paul Sauget? 11 A Yes. He was the operator that managed 12 the placement and the cover and the day-to-day 13 operation of the facility. 14 Q Do you know whether there were any 15 engineering controls in place for this 16 landfill, lining or leachate collection or 17 anything like that? 18 A I have to ask my attorney a question 19 here. This is an area that I was deposed on 20 in the litigation case, and I don't know 21 whether there is any problems with that being 22 confidential or privileged communication or 23 whether there are any concerns. 24 MR. HEINEMAN: There may be protective 25 orders in that case. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 68 WATER PCB-SD0000052982 69 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 2 MR. RICCI: Why don't we go off the 3 record for a second. 4 (Discussion off the record) 5 MR. RICCI: Off the record we had 6 discussed the fact that counsel for Monsanto 7 had forwarded to me a form that we were to 8 sign indicating that to the extent that 9 information was produced in discovery in this 10 lawsuit that was subject to a protective order 11 entered in the lawsuit by Monsanto against the 12 insurance carriers, that we would agree to 13 abide by the terms of that protective order in 14 order to get access to those materials in this 15 lawsuit. 16 I have not signed that form, not 17 because of any dispute with it, but just 18 because I haven't gotten around to it. But 19 for the record, I will stipulate that we will 20 abide by the terms of the protective order in 21 the insurance litigation. We would also be 22 happy to designate or to agree, if you are 23 inclined, to designate this testimony as 24 protected by the protective order we have 25 entered into in this lawsuit. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 69 WATER PCB-SD0000052983 70 1 MR. HEINEMAN: Off the record. 2 (Discussion off the record) 3 MR. HEINEMAN: Why don't we designate 4 it as such under the present protective order, 5 and that way we will protect it doubly. We 6 can go ahead. 7 MR. RICCI: Can you read back the last 8 question and answer. 9 (The requested portion of the 10 record read by the reporter) 11 A It is my understanding when the 12 landfill was initiated that the information 13 with regard to the subsurface of it indicated 14 that it was relatively impermeable. There 15 were clay layers that would contain the 16 materials. 17 During my time at the plant, I recall 18 sort of an expansion of an area that was 19 constructed with a laid-in clay bottom and 20 tamped in over a fairly large area. And then 21 the site was fenced and had the other sort of 22 proper precautions on safety of access and 23 digress. That's what I recall. 24 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Do you know whether 25 Cerro ever requested permission to dump in Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 70 WATER PCB-SD0000052984 71 1 that landfill? 2 A I don't know. 3 Q Do you know of any other specific 4 industries that requested permission to dump 5 in that landfill? 6 A The only thing I remember was a 7 government inquiry about disposing of some 8 cyanide waste in the landfill, and I do not 9 recall whether that was ever granted or not 10 granted. 11 Q Were there other landfills in the 12 village that Monsanto was using during the 13 period '66 to '70? 14 A There was a property that abutted the 15 Monsanto landfill to the east and to the south 16 that was, as I recall, operated again by Paul 17 Sauget as a general landfill into which he 18 took materials from lots of areas. 19 Q It was owned and operated by Sauget? 20 A I don't know whether the property was 21 owned by Sauget, but it was operated and it 22 was contiguous with the Monsanto landfill. 23 Q It was not owned by Monsanto though? 24 A It was not. And we did dispose of 25 materials that at least from our plant we Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 71 WATER PCB-SD0000052985 72 1 would have considered to be nonchemical, paper 2 packaging materials, tanks, piping, plant 3 rubble. 4 Q Do you know if either of these two 5 landfills that you just discussed were 6 assigned a letter in the Ecology & Environment 7 report of sites in the Sauget area? 8 A Again, I don't know the origin of the 9 lettering. I do know that the sites -- or 10 there are some sites that are lettered, and 11 the Monsanto landfill and these adjacent 12 landfills do have letters. I just don't know 13 whether it was from the original reports. 14 Q Do you know what the letters are? Do 15 you know if one site is R, Q and R or P, Q, 16 and R or something like that? That's okay. I 17 don't want you to speculate. If you don't 18 know, that's fine. 19 You indicated that the landfill to the 20 east and south of the landfill on the Monsanto 21 property was used, at least from Monsanto's 22 purposes, for nonchemical waste. Can I assume 23 from that that the landfill that was located 24 on the Monsanto property was used for chemical 25 waste? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 72 WATER PCB-SD0000052986 73 1 A Yes. 2 Q During the period '66 to '70, do you 3 know if any waste from the PCB manufacturing 4 operations were disposed of in the Monsanto 5 landfill? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What types of waste? 8 A As I recall, the solids that were 9 called montars, the tarry wastes, were 10 disposed at the landfill. 11 Q Anything else from the PCB operation? 12 A I don't recall. 13 Q Do you know if the -- if during the 14 period '66 to '70 the Monsanto landfill was 15 used for the disposal of any heat transfer 16 fluids used at the plant? 17 A I don't recall specifically whether 18 they were or weren't. 19 Q Do you know if this landfill was used 20 for the disposal of any transformer fluids? 21 A I don't recall the specific listing. 22 I recall making lists. I just don't recall 23 what specifically was on the lists. 24 Q You recall making lists of materials 25 that were disposed of in the landfill? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 73 WATER PCB-SD0000052987 74 1 A Yes. 2 Q Do you know ifthose lists are still 3 available? 4 A I do not. 5 Q Were there other landfills in the 6 Village of Sauget area that Monsanto used 7 during this period '66 to '70, besides the two 8 that you have already mentioned? 9 A I don't believe so. 10 Q Do you recall if there were any 11 landfills south ofthe plant that Monsanto 12 used during this time period? 13 A What do you mean by south of the 14 plant? 15 Q South of the plant, south of the Alton 16 & Southern Railroad? 17 A I don't recall using for landfill 18 waste disposal anything other than the two I 19 mentioned. 20 Q Do you have any knowledge of landfills 21 that the company used prior to the time that 22 you signed on? 23 A I do know that there was a response to 24 an Eckhardt survey about 1980 that delineated 25 sites. I do not recall the content of that Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 74 WATER PCB-SD0000052988 75 1 report. 2 Q Did you prepare that response? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know who did? 5 A It was prepared, as I recall, at the 6 plant. 7 Q You don't know by whom though? 8 A No, I don't. I don't recall. I 9 remember seeing it, reviewing it, but I don't 10 recall the author. 11 Q Are you familiar with sites that have 12 been designated as sites G, H, and I by the 13 Illinois EPA? 14 A My only recollection of those is they 15 were up more in the village proper, I recall, 16 but I don't remember the specific location. 17 Q Do you have any knowledge as to 18 whether Monsanto ever used any of the 19 landfills that have been designated as sites 20 G, H, or I? 21 A No. 22 Q In this period 1966 to 1970, you 23 indicated that another project that you were 24 involved with related to oversight of the 25 village waste water treatment facility? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 75 WATER PCB-SD0000052989 76 1 A Yes. 2 Q What were your responsibilities in 3 that regard? 4 A I was virtually a staff assistant to 5 the not-for-profit organization that was 6 composed of the various industries in the 7 village, and as a result of that I was 8 involved in the operation but not in a 9 day-to-day supervisory capacity. 10 Q What did the village waste water 11 treatment plant consist of during this time 12 period? 13 A When I arrived at the plant, they were 14 in the final stages of construction of what 15 was termed a primary treatment plant, and that 16 was put into operation sometime early in my 17 tenure. And it consisted of a -- of two 18 basins that were used to settle out heavy 19 solids and light solids, and those solids were 20 separated from the water. The water was then 21 sent on to the river, and the solids were put 22 in designed sort of drying beds and retained 23 on waste treatment property. 24 Q You say this system was put into 25 effect shortly after you hired in? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 76 WATER PCB-SD0000052990 77 1 A Yes. That's my recollection. 2 Q What was the village doing with the 3 sewerage that it was receiving from the 4 various users prior to the time this facility 5 was put in operation? 6 A I believe those waste waters flowed 7 through the sewer system and on to the 8 Mississippi River. 9 Q Untreated in any way? 10 A That's -- that was the allowable 11 system. 12 Q You indicated that you were not 13 involved with the village waste water 14 treatment plant in a day-to-day supervisory 15 capacity. What was the nature of your 16 involvement? 17 A Well, maybe I can describe that in 18 part by what it wasn't. There was a full-time 19 supervisor. There were employees of the 20 village. There were employees of the waste 21 water treatment plant association who were 22 responsible for the day-to-day operations of 23 the facility. 24 Q Can I stop you right there and just 25 ask you who was the full-time supervisor? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 77 WATER PCB-SD0000052991 78 1 A His first name was Fred, and I don't 2 recall his last name. I don't recall. 3 Q Do you recall any of the staff 4 members? 5 A There were two others. One was 6 Dallas, and I believe his name was Richter. 7 And the other young man's name was, I believe, 8 Rich, and I do not recall his last name. 9 Q And those three were basically charged 10 with running this waste water treatment plant? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Is it fair to say that your 13 involvement with the waste water treatment 14 plant was in an advisory capacity? 15 A It was more acting for the 16 association. I was involved in paying bills, 17 salary administration, provided some technical 18 engineering oversight to the operation. It 19 was really, I guess, sort of a connection 20 between the operation and what else they might 21 need from sort of this not-for-profit 22 operator. And it was my job to understand and 23 then coordinate what those interfaces or needs 24 were. 25 Q You were kind ofthe liaison between Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 78 WATER PCB-SD0000052992 79 1 the operation of the plant and of the 2 dischargers to the system. Is that a fair 3 statement? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Were there any employees from any of 6 the other village industries that served in a 7 similar capacity while you were performing 8 those duties? 9 A I don't believe so. The other 10 industries pricipally had their 11 representatives on this not-for-profit board, 12 so they were directly involved through the 13 board and at the board level. 14 Q And then you reported to the board? 15 A And I kind of assisted the board in 16 this coordination role. 17 Q Did Cerro have anybody on the board? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you recall who? 20 A It was the facility manager who was 21 typically the representative there. And I 22 know that Paul Tandler was for a while, but it 23 seems to me there was someone before Paul who 24 was the facility manager. 25 Q Sandy Silverstein? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 79 WATER PCB-SD0000052993 80 1 A I remember Sandy's name again, and 2 again I'm fuzzy as to the exact roles and 3 responsibilities. 4 Q You indicated that again during this 5 '66 to 70 stint at Krummrich, you were also 6 involved in sampling for specific departments 7 as the need arose. Do you recall any specific 8 projects that you were involved with that 9 would fall into that category? 10 A The two issues that arose towards the 11 late '60s were both PCB and mercury. And my 12 recollection is we undertook more intensive 13 sampling and measuring and control programs 14 for those two materials towards the end of my 15 tenure at the facility. 16 Q Can you tell me about the efforts in 17 this regard related to mercury? What 18 triggered those efforts? 19 A As I recall, there were governmental 20 interests. And I don't know what originated 21 it, but it was around mercury as an 22 environmental contaminant, and the interest as 23 it focused at Monsanto was on the fact that we 24 used mercury in one of our production 25 operations in the chlorine department. And Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 80 WATER PCB-SD0000052994 81 1 our efforts were concentrated on both trying 2 to measure mercury coming from the operation 3 as well as to be sure that we were controlling 4 the levels of mercury at the facility. 5 Q Which operation involved use of 6 mercury? 7 A It was the chlorine manufacturing and 8 production operation. 9 Q Where was that operation located? Can 10 you show me on the map? 11 A It is basically in the -- I guess the 12 eastern end of the plant facility. 13 Q East of Falling Springs Road? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Can you be any more specific as to 16 where that operation was located? I should 17 tell you, too, that this is a 1964 map. I 18 also have a 1971 map, and I know that you 19 weren't here in 1964, so if it would be easier 20 for you to look at the '71 map, I could show 21 that to you. 22 A I don't know if it would make any 23 difference. It was somewhere in this area, 24 which is sort of the -- as I recall sort of 25 the eastern, towards the eastern end. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 81 WATER PCB-SD0000052995 82 1 Q If we can reference it by streets, it 2 looks like you are talking about east of 3 Falling Springs Road, east of C Street. Is 4 that familiar to you? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Andsouth of Second Street? 7 A Yes. 8 Q There is also a B Street that runs 9 north and south. Can you locate it in 10 relation to B Street? 11 A No. 12 Q Or is that too specific? How about in 13 relation to Third Street, which runs east and 14 west? 15 A No. I think that's getting more 16 specific than what I can depict off this 17 drawing. 18 Q But in any event, you are fairly 19 certain that it was east of C Street and south 20 of Second Street, in that sort of -- 21 A Yes. 22 Q -- quadrangle? The answer was yes? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did your involvement with -- let me 25 withdraw that. Were there numerical standards Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 82 WATER PCB-SD0000052996 83 1 that were imposed upon you with respect to 2 mercury discharges? 3 A I don't recall that there were. 4 Q Do you know if there were any internal 5 goals that were set by the company with 6 respect to mercury discharge? 7 A I don't recall. 8 Q Were your efforts in this regard 9 related to sampling or also to control of 10 mercury discharges? 11 A They were predominantly sampling and 12 surveillance. And the surveillance is similar 13 to what I described. Those were visual 14 observations about operations that where one 15 could see if mercury could be lost, and was it 16 being controlled so that it was not being 17 lost. 18 Q That was the surveillance aspect of 19 it? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What about the sampling aspect of it? 22 What were your efforts in that regard? 23 A I'm less clear on this. It seems to 24 me it was again some sampling of the sewers 25 and the streams around the department area to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 83 WATER PCB-SD0000052997 84 1 see if there were mercury losses. 2 This was a tough problem, because 3 mercury again is very insoluble and it is very 4 heavy, and it would be -- it would make it 5 difficult then to detect or to determine 6 whether there were losses of mercury coming 7 out of the department. 8 Q Did you do any sampling -- let me 9 withdraw that. Was it your -- you were 10 concerned about discharges of mercury into the 11 sewer system; is that correct? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Was it your understanding that the 14 discharges from the chlorine plant ultimately 15 exited the plant and traveled through the 24 16 and 36-inch lines that we identified on the 17 southwest side ofthe plant? 18 A I believe so, yes. 19 Q I'm sorry? 20 A It was -- mercury was difficult to get 21a handle on in terms of sources, because it 22 could come from a variety of places that were 23 either on or off the plant site, so it was 24 more difficult to try to get a clear picture 25 of mercury losses. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 84 WATER PCB-SD0000052998 85 1 Q Did you do any sampling in the 24- or 2 the 36-inch trunk lines on the southwest side 3 of the plant? 4 A I don't recall the specific sampling 5 regime for mercury. 6 Q Do you recall if you were sampling for 7 elemental mercury or mercury compounds? 8 A My recollection on this is the focus 9 was all on mercury, not mercury -- forms of 10 mercury. 11 Q Was it your understanding that the 12 chlorine department was discharging elemental 13 mercury to the sewers? 14 A I think we concluded that there was -- 15 that was our primary focus, that there was 16 mercury being lost out of that operation. 17 Q Do you recall if the governmental 18 concerns in this area were triggered by 19 mercury discharges into the Mississippi River 20 by the Village of Sauget? 21 A As I recall, the triggering concern 22 was the methylmercury issues that had arisen 23 on poisoning in Japan, and that the focus as 24 it came into the village was a village-wide 25 question of where is mercury coming from Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 85 WATER PCB-SD0000052999 86 1 Sauget Village. And our efforts tended to 2 focus on what is coming from Monsanto, but the 3 feds were involved on a fairly broad interest 4 was my recollection. 5 Q Were any controls on mercury 6 discharges implemented as a result of your 7 sampling efforts? 8 A I do not recall the precise sequence, 9 but I know relative to that operation there 10 was a series of improvements that were made 11 over time and over several years in that 12 operation. 13 Q Do you recall the degree of reduction 14 that was achieved? 15 A No, I don't. 16 Q Do you know what the level of 17 discharges of mercury into the sewers were at 18 the time that you were involved in the 19 sampling? 20 A I don't recall. 21 Q Were there others who were involved in 22 this program besides yourself? 23 A At Monsanto most of this work was done 24 by Julio Munoz and myself is my recollection. 25 Q Was there anybody from the production Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 86 WATER PCB-SD0000053000 87 1 department who was involved? 2 A Well, there would have been, but I 3 don't recall names. 4 Q Was this project still under way when 5 you left the Krummrich facility in 1970? 6 A I believe it was. 7 Q Did you have any other involvement 8 with this program subsequent to leaving the 9 Krummrich facility? 10 A When I returned to St. Louis in 1975 11 as an environmental manager, I picked up 12 working in St. Louis. Then I had several 13 plants that I was sort of informally 14 responsible for, and Krummrich was one of 15 those facilities. And we had continuing 16 improvement programs under way at the 17 facility, and regulatory discussions. 18 Q You testified that another area of 19 sampling and control that you were involved 20 with during this '66 to '70 time period was 21 PCBs; is that correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q We are going to get to that in a 24 little more detail this afternoon. Are there 25 any other projects or tasks that you recall Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 87 WATER PCB-SD0000053001 88 1 being involved with during this time period 2 1966 to 1970? 3 A The project that I left was really the 4 beginning ofthe next phase of waste water 5 treatment improvement for the village, but we 6 had just got to a contractor selection phase 7 on that. 8 Q Who was the contractor that was 9 selected? 10 A For that project, they eventually 11 chose Monsanto Biodized subsidiary. 12 Q Had Monsanto Biodized begun work at 13 the time you left the Krummrich facility? 14 A No. 15 Q Can you trace for me the chain of 16 command that you operated under during your 17 initial stint at Krummrich, from yourself up 18 to plant manager, if possible? 19 A Well, I indicated that for a period of 20 time I worked for Paul Hodges, and he reported 21 to -- I believe he reported to Ben Williams. 22 Q Who was Mr. Williams? 23 A He was a superintendent of services. 24 Something to that effect. 25 Q He was the superintendent? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 88 WATER PCB-SD0000053002 89 1 A Yes. And he reported to a general 2 superintendent that I don't recall for the 3 whole technical services department who 4 reported to the plant manager. 5 Q So you have a superintendent of 6 services. That may not have been the exact 7 title, or something like that, and then you 8 had the general superintendent and then the 9 plant manager? 10 A Right. That's about as low as you can 11 get in that hierarchy. 12 Q You don't recall who the general 13 superintendent was? 14 A I don't. 15 Q Do you recall who the plant manager 16 was when you hired in? 17 A When I hired in, it was John McLain. 18 Q Was there another one during that time 19 period? 20 A He was around for a while, and then I 21 think the plant manager was Jerry Bratsch. 22 Q Any others? 23 A No. 24 Q Was Mr. Hodges there the entire time 25 that you were at Krummrich? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 89 WATER PCB-SD0000053003 90 1 A No. 2 Q When did he leave? 3 A I believe it was in the -- sometime in 4 1968 roughly. 5 Q Where did Mr. Hodges go? 6 A He took a job in the St. Louis office. 7 Q Corporate headquarters? 8 A It was in the whole corporate 9 headquarters. 10 Q Who replaced Mr. Hodges? 11 A Clarence Buckley. 12 Q Did Mr. Buckley then become your 13 supervisor? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Had he worked for Mr. Hodges previous 16 to taking his role, taking his position? 17 A I don't believe so. Not -- I mean I 18 don't know what the two of their track history 19 was for years, but he was not in the 20 department at the time -- I don't recall him 21 being in the department at the time I worked 22 for Mr. Hodges. 23 Q You mean in the technical service 24 department? 25 A No. The pollution control department. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 90 WATER PCB-SD0000053004 91 1 Q Do you recall what Mr. Buckley's 2 position was immediately prior to his assuming 3 Mr. Hodges' position? 4 A No. 5 Q Do you know if he had any background 6 or experience in pollution control? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q And I take it there was nobody under 9 you in this chain of command? 10 A The two technicians were sort of 11 working for me then. 12 Q Were they salaried employees, too? 13 A Yes. Yes. They were in a different 14 classification, but they were still salaried 15 employees. 16 Q Did Mr. Buckley remain your supervisor 17 until the time that you left the Krummrich 18 facility? 19 A Yes. 20 Q I believe you testified that you left 21 Krummrich in August of 1970? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Where did you go? 24 A Delaware River plant in Bridgeport, 25 New Jersey. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 91 WATER PCB-SD0000053005 92 1 Q What was your title there? 2 A I believe I reported as a senior 3 engineer. 4 Q You say you reported as a senior 5 engineer? 6 A Yes. I think they promoted me on 7 transfer to senior engineer. 8 Q What did they make at the Delaware 9 River plant? 10 A It was primarily a plasticizer 11 production facility. 12 Q Did they make anything at Bridgeport 13 that they also made at Krummrich? 14 A I don't believe so. 15 Q What were your duties and 16 responsibilities at the Bridgeport facility? 17 A I was the only environmental person at 18 the site, so I had responsibilities for 19 long-range planning, monitoring and 20 surveillance again of environmental 21 discharges, relationships with the state on 22 permitting, and was supervising a project to 23 evaluate waste water treatment system 24 improvements at the facility. 25 Q That facility had its own waste water Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 92 WATER PCB-SD0000053006 93 1 treatment plant? 2 A It had some sort of in-department 3 facilities, but it was at a stage where it had 4 to make a decision -- we had to make a 5 decision about what next steps we would make 6 on water pollution control, and that was the 7 project that I basically took over was the 8 evaluation and recommendation as to future 9 waste water treatment plans. 10 Q Was that plant in the organic 11 chemicals division of the company? 12 A I quite frankly can't recall the 13 divisional structures and where organic sat 14 versus, you know, other divisions. It seems 15 to me that in general it was on the organic, 16 and then but it may have been in the 17 plasticizer division. I just don't recall 18 the, you know, operational structure of the 19 company then. 20 Q Did you report in this position as 21 senior engineer to someone at the plant? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Did you have any reporting obligations 24 to corporate? 25 A No. The relationship that I had on Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 93 WATER PCB-SD0000053007 94 1 more of an informal basis would have been to 2 Mr. Hodges at that time. 3 Q Mr. Hodges had some company-wide 4 responsibilities for environmental? 5 A No. He had some responsibilities that 6 were broader than a plant, but they were not 7 company wide. 8 Q How long were you at the Delaware 9 River plant? 10 A July of 1974. 11 Q Were you a senior engineer during that 12 entire time period? 13 A Somewhere in that period I was 14 promoted to engineering specialist. 15 Q Your deposition testimony in the New 16 Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Clean 17 Water Act suit, related to your involvement at 18 the Delaware River plant? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What was the next position that you 21 held with the company after Delaware River? 22 A Well, I left the company's employment 23 for a year and worked for the federal 24 government and rejoined Monsanto in August of 25 '75 and then actually replaced Mr. Hodges as a Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 94 WATER PCB-SD0000053008 95 1 manager of environmental protection in 2 St. Louis. 3 Q What did you do for the federal 4 government? 5 A I worked at the Department of Commerce 6 in the office of environmental affairs, 7 basically reviewing EPA regulations and 8 environmental impact statements that were 9 prepared by various government agencies. 10 Q That was during the Ford 11 administration? 12 A Predominantly. Mr. Nixon left at 13 about the time I arrived. 14 Q Why did you leave Monsanto? 15 A It was a position at the government 16 that they were routinely cycling an industry 17 person through on a year-to-year basis, and 18 they had asked Monsanto if they had an 19 employee who could serve a year. And I was 20 given that opportunity and accepted it. 21 Q Did the company ask you to take this 22 position? 23 A Yes. 24 Q It was with an understanding that it 25 was short term? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 95 WATER PCB-SD0000053009 96 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did the position with the Department 3 of Commerce involve reviewing proposed EPA 4 regulations? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Did you have occasion to review any 7 regulations relating to PCBs? 8 A No. 9 Q What was your role in reviewing those 10 -- in reviewing any regulations that were 11 brought to your attention? 12 A It was pricipally twofold. One was 13 the technical review of EPA's work from a 14 competency standpoint, and it was also to 15 represent business inputs into the process, 16 which could include both technical input as 17 well as economic input. 18 Q During your year with the Department 19 of Commerce, did you review any regulations 20 from the EPA that in any way impacted the 21 operation at the Krummrich facility? 22 A No. There was a specific condition 23 that I would not work on any regulations that 24 impacted the chemical industry, to avoid any 25 concerns or allegations about conflict. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 96 WATER PCB-SD0000053010 97 1 Q Did you maintain contacts with the 2 company while you were with the Department of 3 Commerce? 4 A Virtually none. I was invited back 5 for an annual meeting as a guest, and that was 6 pretty much the extent of the interaction. I 7 was on -- I retained my Monsanto benefits, so 8 there was interaction on benefits and some 9 supplemental moneys on living that were 10 provided, but, no. Those were all sort of 11 personal contacts as opposed to business 12 contacts. 13 Q You were with the Department of 14 Commerce for approximately a year? 15 A Yes. 16 Q When did you go back to Monsanto? 17 A I believe I restarted work officially 18 on August 1, 1975. 19 Q At that time you replaced Mr. Hodges? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What was the title of that position? 22 A Manager of environmental protection. 23 Q Was this a promotion from the position 24 that you held when you left the Delaware River 25 plant? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 97 WATER PCB-SD0000053011 98 1 A Yes. 2 Q What were your duties and 3 responsibilities as manager of environmental 4 protection? 5 A It was primarily a job of coordinating 6 the environmental issues at the plants that I 7 had the responsibilities for. A large part of 8 it was helping them to understand the 9 regulatory framework in which they were 10 operating, especially federal as it was 11 growing, and to interface with the federal 12 agents, primarily EPA, on regulations that 13 were being proposed that would impact upon our 14 operations. 15 Q Which plants were you responsible for? 16 A Upon my return, I believe it was the 17 Krummrich plant and the Queeny plant, the 18 Delaware River plant, the nitro plant, the 19 Everett plant, and a plant in Avon, 20 California. 21 Q What about Anniston? 22 A No. No. I don't believe so. I think 23 Anniston was in the ag operation then. 24 Q And what operation were you in? 25 A Well, again it was industrial Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 98 WATER PCB-SD0000053012 99 1 chemicals or organics or something that I just 2 don't recall again the structure. That 3 changed so often it is hard to remember. 4 Q How long did you hold this position as 5 manager of environmental protection? 6 A I held basically that same position 7 until sometime in 1979. 8 Q What position did you take at that 9 point? 10 A I moved to corporate staff and a new 11 position that was created as a regulatory 12 manager for water. 13 Q Can you describe your duties and 14 responsibilities during the time that you were 15 manager of environmental protection? 16 A I thought I just did. 17 Q Okay. You are right. Educating the 18 plant as to the regulatory framework, 19 interfacing with federal government regarding 20 regulations impacting Monsanto's operations? 21 A Uh-huh. 22 Q You did. Excuse me. Were there 23 particular -- were there environmental issues 24 particular to the Krummrich facility that you 25 were involved with during your stint as Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 99 WATER PCB-SD0000053013 100 1 manager of environmental protection? 2 A Yes. 3 Q What were they? 4 A Well, they included ongoing issues 5 with respect to permit -- waste water permit 6 limits on both the village and more 7 specifically those on Monsanto which included 8 mercury and PCB. And there were also a number 9 of items relative to air permitting that had 10 arisen under changes in the Illinois state law 11 that we were working on. And we were also 12 initiating closeout of the landfill at the 13 Monsanto-owned landfill. 14 MR. RICCI: I'm sorry. Could you read 15 back that answer. 16 (The requested portion of the 17 record read by the reporter) 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) You indicated 19 involvement in permit issues for both the 20 village and the plant; is that correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q What was your involvement with respect 23 to permitting for the village? 24 A The permit was basically to the 25 village. But to the extent that it included Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 100 WATER PCB-SD0000053014 101 1 direct limits that would impact Monsanto 2 facilities, we were involved in both sets of 3 issues. 4 Q So the village had a permit that 5 allowed it to discharge into the Mississippi 6 River? 7 A That's correct. Well, the village was 8 responsible for having a permit. There is a 9 long history of when they did and when they 10 didn't and who they had one from. 11 Q Understood. The village needed a 12 permit to discharge into the Mississippi 13 River? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And the parameters that would 16 ultimately be included in that permit could 17 impact Krummrich's operations? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What was your involvement in the 20 village's permitting needs? 21 A The involvement was primarily at the 22 plant level. That was characteristic of how 23 we managed issues. And my role was to help 24 them as I could and to coordinate resources 25 within Monsanto that they may need. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 101 WATER PCB-SD0000053015 102 1 Q Who was the -- who was your principal 2 contact at the plant on these permitting 3 issues? 4 A It seemed to me that it changed, and I 5 don't remember specifically during this time 6 frame who was the point person at the plant 7 facility. 8 Q Did you have a staff? 9 A No. 10 Q Where was your office during the time 11 that you worked as manager of environmental 12 protection? 13 A At the company headquarters at Olive 14 and Lindbergh. 15 Q In addition to the village's 16 permitting needs, did Monsanto also require 17 any kind of permit to discharge to the village 18 sewer system during this time period? And, 19 again, this time period I'm talking about is 20 75 to 79. 21 A No. I don't believe we needed a 22 separate permit. 23 Q So your permitting needs or your 24 discharge requirements were tied to what the 25 village could discharge into the river? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 102 WATER PCB-SD0000053016 103 1 A Yes. 2 Q And the contaminants of concern at 3 that time were mercury and PCBs? 4 A Well, they were broader than that in 5 terms of specific parameters identified in the 6 permit. For example, I think phenols and CODs 7 were still included, but PCBs and mercury were 8 also issues. 9 Q You said COD was still an issue? 10 A I believe so. 11 Q What was the status of theefforts to 12 control mercury discharges at the time that 13 you became manager of environmental 14 protection? 15 A They had put in by that time, I 16 believe, what was called a sulfide 17 precipitation system. 18 Q Sulfite? 19 A Sulfide. And during this time frame 20 we began to look for even more technology and 21 eventually acquired some from Japan to put in 22 a resin technology. 23 Q Let me stop you there. The sulfide 24 precipitation system was in place by the time 25 you came back in'75? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 103 WATER PCB-SD0000053017 104 1 A I believe it was. 2 Q And that was a system that was 3 installed by Monsanto? 4 A What do you mean by that? 5 Q It was a Monsanto system, not a 6 village system? 7 A Yes, that's correct. 8 Q Was that system installed in the 9 chlorine department? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And it was designed to remove mercury 12 from the discharge to the sewers? 13 A Yes. 14 (Lunch Recess) 15 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, who at the 16 Krummrich facility was responsible for 17 implementing the sulfide precipitation system? 18 A I don't recall. 19 Q Do you know if it was done through the 20 technical services department? 21 A I don't. 22 Q What was the volume of mercury that 23 the system was able to remove from the 24 effluent from the chlorine department? 25 A I don't remember. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 104 WATER PCB-SD0000053018 105 1 Q Were there specific numerical 2 standards for discharge of mercury by 1975? 3 A There was an Illinois standard that 4 had a number. I don't remember what it was. 5 And that standard was the subject of both 6 variance proceedings and rule change 7 proceedings under Illinois law. 8 Q Did the number relate to Monsanto's 9 discharge as to the sewer or the village's 10 discharge as to the river? 11 A Well, I believe we were concerning 12 ourselves with Monsanto discharges. 13 Q Did Monsanto avail itself of any of 14 the procedures under Illinois law to get a 15 variance from the numerical standard? 16 A I believe I just indicated that we 17 were in those processes, yes. 18 Q Do you know how those efforts were 19 ultimately resolved? 20 A My recollection, it ended up with a 21 variance that set a specific limit on 22 Monsanto. 23 Q Did you have a law firm handling that 24 for you? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 105 WATER PCB-SD0000053019 106 1 Q What law firm was that? 2 A I don't recall. I believe Dick Kissel 3 was the lawyer, though, that was doing that 4 work. 5 Q And that was on behalf of Monsanto? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Did Monsanto have to monitor its 8 discharge to the sewer system in order to 9 determine whether it was in compliance with 10 the standard that the state was imposing for 11 mercury? 12 A I don't recall what the procedures 13 were. 14 Q Do you have any knowledge of the 15 extent to which Monsanto was monitoring its 16 sewer effluent for mercury in 1975? 17 A I don't remember. 18 Q Mr. Pierle, I believe we had entered 19 this line of questioning from a question that 20 I asked relating to environmental issues at 21 the Krummrich facility that you gave attention 22 to while you were manager of environmental 23 protection. And you mentioned waste water 24 permit issues relating to mercury and PCBs. 25 And you mentioned closeout of the Monsanto Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 106 WATER PCB-SD0000053020 107 1 landfill, and you mentioned air permitting? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Do you recall specifically any air 4 permitting issues that you were involved with 5 for the Krummrich facility when you were 6 manager of environmental protection? 7 A My recollection is that there were 8 proceedings before the pollution control board 9 that dealt pricipally with regulations on 10 organic -- emissions of organic -- volatile 11 organic materials, VOC regulations. 12 Q Were these proceedings specific to 13 Monsanto's emissions? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you recall any of the contaminants 16 that were at issue in those proceedings? 17 A The general regulations were written 18 on volatile organic chemicals, not specific 19 compounds. 20 Q What compounds was the Krummrich 21 facility emitting that fell within the 22 categories of VOCs? 23 A I don't recall. VOCs were described 24 as something that fit certain various vapor 25 pressures. There was a definition, and it was Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 107 WATER PCB-SD0000053021 108 1 whatever fit within that, but I don't recall 2 specifically what they were. 3 Q Do you recall if PCBs fell into that 4 category? 5 A I don't believe so. I don't believe 6 that the facility was there at that time. 7 Q What time period are we talking about? 8 A Well, it would have been, as I said, 9 sometime after 1975. I don't recall the 10 precise time. 11 Q The PCB facility was still in place in 12 1975, wasn't it? 13 A I'm not -- I don't recall those dates. 14 Q Do you recall whether PCBs were still 15 operating when you came in as manager of 16 environmental protection? 17 A I don't. 18 Q You testified earlier that you 19 believed that PCB in effluent was an issue 20 that you gave attention to while you were 21 manager of environmental protection. Is that 22 a fair statement? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Does that lead you to believe that 25 PCBs were still being manufactured at Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 108 WATER PCB-SD0000053022 109 1 Krummrich when you came back in 1975? 2 A It wouldn't necessarily -- I wouldn't 3 conclude that from that. The issue, as I 4 recall it, was involved with the village 5 permit, and it was around very low levels of 6 PCB. And the more I think of a lot of that, 7 conversation was around, you know, where can 8 they be coming from, because it wasn't obvious 9 that there were sources that could still be 10 generating this material. 11 Q Do you recall an issue arising while 12 you were manager of environmental protection 13 relating to the level of PCBs that the village 14 was discharging to the river? 15 A I believe the issue arose in the 16 context of the permit that the village was 17 seeking from the federal EPA for the sewer, 18 the combined village outfall. 19 Q Do you know whether the village had a 20 problem in securing that permit because of 21 PCBs? 22 A As I recall, there were a long list of 23 contested conditions and issues in the 24 issuance of that permit, and PCBs was one of 25 them. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 109 WATER PCB-SD0000053023 110 1 Q Do you recall any others? 2 A There were issues, as I recall, around 3 construction dates and schedules for facility 4 upgrades that were still contemplated. I 5 don't recall the others. 6 Q Is this an -- let me withdraw that. 7 Is this an NPDES permit that we are talking 8 about? 9 A It would have been from the federal 10 government. 11 Q Do you know what year this was that 12 the village was trying to get its permit? 13 A It seems to me it was sort of 14 continuous. 15 Q From when to when? 16 A Well, throughout that time period of 17 '75 through '79, and I believe the issues went 18 on even after that. 19 Q Was any kind of enforcement action 20 ever instituted against the village, to the 21 best of your knowledge? 22 A It seems to me there was, but I don't 23 recall the timing on it. 24 Q Was the village having problems with 25 PCBs in its effluent even after Monsanto Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 110 WATER PCB-SD0000053024 Ill 1 stopped manufacturing PCBs at Krummrich? 2 A It seems to me that there was a 3 continuing dispute about the PCB limit. 4 Q Continuing after production of PCB 5 ended? 6 A I believe so. 7 Q Was anyone from Monsanto assisting the 8 village in its negotiations with the federal 9 government regarding its NPDES permit? 10 A There was what I would say was sort of 11 continual communication between the village 12 and all of the members within the village 13 about the, you know, the permit and the 14 implications and the negotiations. So my 15 recollection is that everybody was sort of 16 involved in assisting and helping out on that 17 set of negotiations. 18 Q Do you know who was involved on behalf 19 of Monsanto? 20 A What time period? 21 Q I assume we are talking about the '75 22 to '79 time period. 23 A Again, I'm not sure who the person was 24 that was directly involved during that time 25 period. It seems to me that, as I said, Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 111 WATER PCB-SD0000053025 112 1 Warren Smull was I think involved at the 2 plant, but I'm real hazy on time periods. 3 Q Do you know when Mr. Smull first hired 4 into the Krummrich facility? 5 A No, I don't. 6 Q Was he there when you were there? 7 A I don't believe so. 8 Q Was he there when you were manager of 9 environmental protection? 10 A I believe he was. 11 Q Was Mr. Buckley still in the same 12 position at Krummrich in '75 that he held when 13 you left the Krummrich facility in '70? 14 A I don't recall. 15 Q Do you recall any other issues or 16 projects that you became involved with at the 17 Krummrich facility while you were manager of 18 environmental protection? 19 A Not -- no. 20 Q In 1979 you took anew position? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you know when in 1979? 23 A I believe it was in the August time 24 period. 25 Q And that position was again what? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 112 WATER PCB-SD0000053026 113 1 A Director of regulatory management for 2 water. 3 Q Was that a promotion? 4 A Yes. 5 Q I think you indicated earlier that 6 that was a corporate position? 7 A Yes. 8 Q What does that mean? 9 A I was on corporate staff as opposed to 10 any of the operating units. 11 Q Your responsibilities were company 12 wide? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Can you tell me what your duties and 15 responsibilities were as director of 16 regulatory management for water? 17 A They were basically to monitor federal 18 government activities for regulations that 19 could impact the corporation in the area of 20 water pollution, to direct internal 21 activities, to respond in an attempt to 22 influence the regulations, and act as a 23 consultant to internal company compliance on 24 water regulations, and to assist in the 25 development of internal policies related to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 113 WATER PCB-SD0000053027 114 1 water pollution controls. 2 Q How long did you hold that position? 3 A Until -- well, I held that and a 4 similar position in solid waste, oh, it was I 5 think March of'84. 6 Q Was solid waste added to your 7 responsibilities, or was that in place of? 8 A In place of. 9 Q So you were division of -- you were 10 director of regulatory management for water, 11 and then you became director of regulatory 12 management for solid waste? 13 A Right. 14 Q And when did you become director of 15 regulatory management for solid waste? 16 A It was sometime in mid '83. 17 Q When you took the position in August 18 of 1979, did you replace somebody? 19 A No. It was a new position. 20 Q Did you have a staff? 21 A No. 22 Q Who was your supervisor? 23 A Monty Throdahl. 24 Q How do you spell that? 25 A T-H-R-O-D-A-H-L. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 114 WATER PCB-SD0000053028 115 1 Q What was his position? 2 A He was a member of Monsanto's board 3 and a senior vice president. 4 Q Did he have a title other than senior 5 vice president? Was he senior vice president 6 of something? 7 A I don't recall precisely. 8 Q Mr. Throdahl reported to who? 9 A I think at that time he reported to 10 either the chairman or the vice chairman of 11 the board. 12 Q Were there other directors who 13 reported to Mr. Throdahl during -- 14 A Yes. 15 Q --the'79 to'84 time period? 16 A Yes. 17 Q How many? A lot? 18 A Yes. 19 Q More than ten? 20 A No. 21 Q More than five? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Were any of those other directors in 24 environmental areas? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 115 WATER PCB-SD0000053029 116 1 Q Who were they? Not necessarily the 2 individuals, but the titles? 3 A Well, there was one for water, air, 4 waste, TSCA. 5 Q Is that it? 6 A And one for OSHA. 7 Q Any others? 8 A I think that would constitute the 9 group in the regulatory area. 10 Q So when you moved from director for 11 water to director for solid waste, that was 12 more of a lateral move? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Was Mr. Throdahl still your supervisor 15 when you were director for solid waste? 16 A No. 17 Q Who was your supervisor at that point? 18 A Will Carpenter. 19 Q Did he become your supervisor when you 20 made the move to solid waste, or did he become 21 your supervisor prior to that? 22 A Prior to that. 23 Q When was that? 24 A Sometime between'79 and'83. 25 Q What was Mr. Carpenter's title? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 116 WATER PCB-SD0000053030 117 1 A Director of regulatory management. We 2 can be here for four or five days if we are 3 going to go through the Monsanto hierarchy and 4 organization heart and how many times they 5 have changed. I don't know how productive 6 that is. 7 Q Thank you. I appreciate that. Were 8 your duties as director of regulatory 9 management for water -- I'm sorry. Were your 10 duties as director of regulatory management 11 for solid waste similar to your duties when 12 you were director for water? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Except you were dealing with solid 15 waste matters? 16 A Yes. 17 Q At any time between August of '79 and 18 -- let me withdraw that. At any time when you 19 were either director for water or director for 20 solid waste, were you involved with issues 21 regarding the Krummrich facility? 22 A I tended not to get involved in 23 facility specific issues, just general 24 regulatory issues. 25 Q You tended not to get involved. Were Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 117 WATER PCB-SD0000053031 118 1 there any instances when you did get involved? 2 A I don't recall. 3 Q Did Mr. Throdahl retire? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And that's when Mr. Carpenter became 6 your supervisor? 7 A No. 8 Q How did Mr. Carpenter come to be your 9 supervisor? 10 A He was given the job. 11 Q And then he reported to Throdahl? 12 A Yes. 13 Q What was the position that you held 14 immediately after you were director of 15 regulatory management for solid waste? 16 A I took Mr. Carpenter's job when he 17 left. 18 Q When was that? 19 A I think I indicated March of '84. 20 Q So in March of '84 you became director 21 of regulatory management? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Mr. Throdahl was your supervisor at 24 that point? 25 A No. I believe he had retired right Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 118 WATER PCB-SD0000053032 119 1 then. 2 Q Who did you report to? 3 A Mr. Singer. 4 Q First name? 5 A James. 6 Q And what was his position? 7 A Vice president. 8 Q Again, any specific area? 9 A I don't know. I forget what his title 10 was. 11 Q Who did Mr. Singer report to? 12 A I believe he reported to a 13 Mr. Corbitt. 14 Q Who was? 15 A Again, he was a senior vice president. 16 Q And Corbitt reported to the chairman 17 or the vice chairman? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What were your duties and 20 responsibilities as director of regulatory 21 management? 22 A I basically managed each of the 23 regulatory directors in the regulatory 24 function and spent a lot of my time on 25 reauthorization of the Super Fund Statute and Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 119 WATER PCB-SD0000053033 120 1 internal policy formulation. 2 Q How long did you hold the position of 3 director of regulatory management? 4 A Until January of'86. 5 Q During the time that you were director 6 of regulatory management, did you get involved 7 in any issues relative to the Krummrich 8 facility? 9 A I don't believe so. 10 Q When you say you were involved in 11 development of internal procedures, or I'm 12 sorry. You said internal policy formulation? 13 A Uh-huh. 14 Q Were those policies relative to Super 15 Fund or more general than that? 16 A More general. 17 Q Can you describe in general terms the 18 kinds of policies that you were involved in 19 formulating during that time period? 20 A We had a set of what we called 21 worldwide guidelines and Monsanto 22 environmental policies, and we were sort of in 23 a continual stage of assessing process towards 24 those guidelines and policies and renewing 25 policies. And they dealt with employee health Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 120 WATER PCB-SD0000053034 121 1 protection and safety of operations, waste 2 management practices and disposals, ground 3 water policies, risk management policies, 4 disclosure policies to the federal government. 5 Q These guidelines were more or less 6 evolving principles? 7 A Yes. 8 Q What position did you take in January 9 of'86? 10 A Director of environmental operations 11 for the chemical company. 12 Q Director of environmental operations? 13 A Uh-huh. 14 Q Was that a promotion? 15 A It was a lateral. 16 Q Was the Krummrich facility part of the 17 chemical company? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What were your duties and 20 responsibilities in that position? 21 A I had a staff of roughly 30 people 22 that had responsibilities for product 23 stewardship for the chemical company's product 24 line. I had a group of managers that were 25 managers of environmental protection providing Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 121 WATER PCB-SD0000053035 122 1 assistance to all of the plants in the 2 chemical company, and I had a group that was 3 focused on the remediation and cleanup of 4 Super Fund sites that we had responsibilities 5 for. 6 Q What do you mean when you say "product 7 stewardship"? 8 A Basically the safe production and 9 distribution of our products. 10 Q The managers for environmental 11 protection that were under you, were those 12 plant specific individuals or were those 13 headquarter individuals? Do you understand my 14 question? 15 A No. 16 Q You indicated that you had a group of 17 managers for environmental protection that 18 were under you while you were director of 19 environmental operations? 20 A Right. 21 Q Did each plant have a manager of 22 environmental protection? 23 A No. 24 Q Was there -- was it a situation where 25 a manager for environmental protection would Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 122 WATER PCB-SD0000053036 123 1 be responsible for more than one plant? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Who was the manager for environmental 4 protection responsible for the Krummrich 5 facility? 6 A I believe that was Mike Foresman. 7 Q Where was he located? 8 A St. Louis. 9 Q At company headquarters? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And hereported directly to you? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did he -- how long did you hold this 14 position as director of environmental 15 operations for the chemical company? 16 A Until April of '91. 17 Q Was Mr. Foresman the manager of 18 environmental protection responsible for the 19 Krummrich facility during that entire time 20 period? 21 A Not all of it. 22 Q But he was the manager when you came 23 into the position in January of '86? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And then at some point he no longer Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 123 WATER PCB-SD0000053037 124 1 held that position? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Who replaced him? 4 A Max McCombs. 5 Q Did you continue to report to 6 Mr. Singer when you held the position of 7 director of environmental operations -- 8 A No. 9 Q -- for chemical? Who did you report 10 to? 11 A Tom Lafferre. 12 Q Tom Lafferre? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What was his position? 15 A He was vice president of operations 16 for the chemical company. 17 Q Can you trace the chain of command up 18 from Mr. Lafferre? 19 A It would have gone basically to 20 Mr. Potter. 21 Q First name? 22 A Robert, who became the president of 23 the chemical company. 24 Q And Mr. Potter reported to? 25 A The chief operating officer. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 124 WATER PCB-SD0000053038 125 1 Q Who was that? 2 A Earl Harbison. 3 Q And then Mr. Harbison reported to the 4 chairman? 5 A Uh-huh. 6 Q Who was? 7 A Mr. Mahoney. 8 Q Was it during the time that you were 9 director of environmental operations for the 10 chemical company that you became involved in 11 the negotiations or the discussions that we 12 talked about this morning between Cerro or 13 Marmon regarding sites in the Sauget area? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Was it common for you to get involved 16 in negotiations of that type during the time 17 that you were director of environmental 18 operations? 19 A It would depend upon the level and the 20 importance of the issue. 21 Q The reason I ask is it seems like you 22 were fairly high up in the chain of command to 23 be involved in a plant specific negotiation. 24 Was there any particular reason why you became 25 involved in those discussions? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 125 WATER PCB-SD0000053039 126 1 A Well, my recollection was the Marmon 2 Group contacted us at headquarters, and they 3 moved this issue outside of the plant. 4 Q Sort of came from the top down instead 5 of the bottom up? 6 A Right. 7 Q Do you know who initially approached 8 you about becoming involved in those 9 negotiations? 10 A I don't recall. I recall getting a 11 note from somebody to call a Mr. Webb at 12 Marmon. And from there on we just sort of 13 took the conversation, and I had a couple of 14 verbal conversations that I recall with the 15 professor I mentioned earlier. 16 Q Patterson? 17 A Patterson. That was their consultant. 18 And then we ultimately had what I recollect as 19 a meeting in St. Louis. 20 Q Did you assign anyone on your staff to 21 bone up on these issues and brief you? 22 A I believe at the outset we were more 23 interested in understanding what was on 24 Marmon's mind. I was generally familiar with 25 what our plant programs were. I don't recall Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 126 WATER PCB-SD0000053040 127 1 any special preparation for the meeting. 2 Q Do you know how long approximately you 3 had held the position of director of 4 environmental operations when these overtures 5 from Marmon came? 6 A No, I don't. 7 Q Were you aware prior to these 8 overtures from Marmon that the IEPA was 9 looking at the environmental conditions in 10 Sauget? 11 A Again, I'm not -- I don't recall the 12 exact timing, but it seems to me that there 13 was some understanding that EPA was involved 14 in the area. Certainly we were in discussion 15 with them about our landfdl prior to this 16 time. 17 Q And efforts by the IEPA with regard to 18 hazardous waste sites in the Sauget area would 19 be a part of your responsibilities as director 20 of environmental operations; is that true? 21 A Yes. And again the level of detail 22 would have been primarily handled by others. 23 Q Right. I don't mean necessarily that 24 you had frontline responsibility. 25 A Right. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 127 WATER PCB-SD0000053041 128 1 Q But that was under your jurisdiction 2 so to speak? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Were there others from your staff who 5 were involved in any of these discussions with 6 Marmon? I'm not talking about -- you know, 7 you mentioned Mr. Smull at the plant level. 8 I'm talking about the corporate level. 9 A I don't recall precisely who was in 10 the meeting that we had. I know I handled 11 some of the early calls. I don't recall 12 clearly other than, as I indicated, 13 Mr. Gillhausen was involved I think in the 14 meeting that we had with Mr. Webb. 15 Q Do you know how high up in the chain 16 of command at Monsanto the initial contact 17 from Marmon was? 18 A I never clearly understood the 19 originator or how that happened. 20 Q And you don't recall who sent you the 21 note that said call Mr. Webb? 22 A No, I don't. 23 Q Do you know if you still have that 24 note? 25 A I don't think so. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 128 WATER PCB-SD0000053042 129 1 Q Do you know if it was produced in the 2 course of this litigation? 3 A I don't recollect seeing it in the 4 papers that I thumbed through. 5 Q Did you at any point in time conduct a 6 review of your fdes to determine whether 7 there was anything that needed to be produced 8 in response to document requests from Cerro in 9 the course of this lawsuit? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And you don't recall seeing that note 12 in the course of that review? 13 A No. 14 Q But you specifically recall that there 15 was a piece of paper? 16 A There was a piece of paper that was 17 sort of like call Webb, and it may have been 18 no more than a secretary's note, something to 19 that effect. 20 Q As you became involved with the 21 discussions with Marmon or Cerro during this 22 time period, did you have to report back to 23 the company as to -- report back to anyone at 24 the company as to what was happening? 25 A I recall writing some status notes, Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 129 WATER PCB-SD0000053043 130 1 like memos or notes of meeting minutes, but I 2 don't recall who I wrote those to, and I have 3 not seen those produced again in the context 4 of this discussion. 5 Again, my sense was we had an initial 6 sort of flurry of conversation and a meeting 7 that was really sort of without plant people, 8 but then it went back in to the plant people, 9 and that's where most of the conversations 10 took place. And I think the subsequent 11 meetings that I recall being involved in were 12 both in Sauget village. 13 Q These notes or memos that you referred 14 to, are these documents that you yourself 15 prepared or you prepared? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know if they are still 18 available? 19 A I have not found any. 20 Q Did you look for them? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you know if any other individuals 23 at your level or higher were asked to look for 24 documents in the course of the production of 25 documents in this lawsuit? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 130 WATER PCB-SD0000053044 131 1 A I don't know who all was asked to 2 produce records. 3 Q Was there an individual within the 4 company who was responsible for collecting 5 whatever documents might be floating around 6 the halls of Monsanto? 7 A I recall getting a letter for a 8 document request to send in. 9 Q Was that from counsel? 10 A That's my recollection. 11 Q Did you keep Mr. Lafferre apprised of 12 the negotiations that were going on or 13 discussions that were going on between Marmon 14 and Monsanto? 15 A I don't recall specifically. Again, 16 this happened sort of initially with some 17 flurry but then very sporadic. I don't recall 18 whether I did or not. 19 Q When you were looking for documents 20 that might be responsive to document requests 21 in this litigation, did you have these 22 particular notes or memos that we have been 23 talking about in mind? I mean, were these one 24 of the things you were specifically thinking, 25 oh, gee, this is something I should probably Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 131 WATER PCB-SD0000053045 132 1 look for? 2 A I recall having a file marked Marmon, 3 and that's what I was specifically looking 4 for. 5 Q And you were not able to find it? 6 A No. 7 MR. RICCI: Ken, I would like to put 8 on the record right now a request that 9 Monsanto go back to the drawing board with 10 respect to these particular notes or memos 11 that Mr. Pierle has testified to relating to 12 discussions that he had with or that Monsanto 13 had with Marmon and/or Cerro during the time 14 that Mr. Pierle was director of environmental 15 operations. 16 I understand if you look for them and 17 you can't find them, then you can't find them. 18 But generally I'm aware that companies are 19 loath to throw things out. So if they were 20 available, I would just reiterate or 21 reemphasize that we would like to see them. 22 MR. HEINEMAN: I'm sure you would. So 23 would I. We can't find them. 24 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Did you ever become 25 aware that Mr. Potter was at all interested in Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 132 WATER PCB-SD0000053046 133 1 the negotiations that were going on between 2 Monsanto and Cerro? 3 A No. 4 Q How about Mr. Harbison? 5 A No. 6 Q How about Mr. Mahoney? 7 A No. 8 Q Was it common for you to have direct 9 contact with those individuals, or were your 10 contacts mostly with Mr. Lafferre? 11 A They would have been mostly with 12 Mr. Lafferre. 13 Q Was Mr. Lafferre your direct 14 supervisor during the entire time that you 15 were director of environmental operations? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And was the chain of command as you 18 described it to me during that entire time 19 period? 20 A The answer is no. There was a period 21 of time when Mr. Fitzgerald was president of 22 the company instead of Mr. Potter for a few 23 months, but he passed away. 24 Q Were you personally involved in any 25 negotiations with the IEPA relating to any of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 133 WATER PCB-SD0000053047 134 1 the Sauget sites during the time that you were 2 director of environmental operations? 3 A No. 4 Q Was anyone on your staff involved in 5 those kinds of negotiations? 6 A I don't believe so. 7 Q Did you consider Mr. Smull as part of 8 your staffjust in terms of management, or was 9 he more a plant person? 10 A He was a plant person. There was a 11 point in time where he transferred into my 12 department, but I don't recall the timing when 13 that happened. 14 Q You indicated that while you were 15 director of environmental operations you had a 16 group that was focused on the remediation and 17 cleanup of Super Fund sites? 18 A Right. 19 Q Did that group have responsibility 20 with respect to any of the sites that had been 21 identified by the IEPA in the Village of 22 Sauget? 23 A It really did not until the time when 24 Mr. Smull transferred over into the 25 department. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 134 WATER PCB-SD0000053048 135 1 Q When was that? 2 A I don't recall. 3 Q Did he transfer into the department 4 specifically to deal with those sites? 5 A Not just those. He had developed a 6 level of expertise and capability around those 7 sites, and we needed that additional 8 capability. And he transferred into the 9 group, and I believe we made the decision at 10 that time to also bring with him virtually all 11 the activity in Sauget Village. 12 Q But he also then got responsibility 13 for sites outside of the village? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Was that the beginning of this group 16 that focused on remediation and Super Fund 17 sites? 18 A No. That group had existed since the 19 beginning of'86 in my organization, and part 20 of it had existed before that in other parts 21 of the company. 22 Q Can you place Mr. Smull's moving into 23 the job on your staff in relation to the 24 discussions that you were involved with with 25 Marmon? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 135 WATER PCB-SD0000053049 136 1 A It seems to me it was well after those 2 conversations began. 3 Q Do you know if it was before or after 4 you were presented with what we have called 5 the fait accompli document? 6 A I don't recall that. 7 Q As director of environmental 8 operations for the chemical company, did you 9 have responsibility for decisions as to which 10 sites Monsanto might voluntarily participate 11 in the cleanup of? 12 A I had certain levels of authority 13 relative to decisions on cleanup. I think 14 there is very little that one does of a pure 15 voluntary nature or voluntary nature in any of 16 these cleanups. 17 Q Well, when I say voluntary, I'm 18 talking about short of a judicial decision 19 that you do something or that you pay 20 something. 21 A Well, that could have been. I mean, I 22 was in a position to make judgments about 23 decisions on when we would participate in a 24 cleanup up to certain levels of expenditure or 25 authorizations. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 136 WATER PCB-SD0000053050 137 1 Q What was the level of your authority? 2 A I think it was a half million dollars. 3 Q Beyond a half million dollars, what 4 did you have to do to obtain authority? 5 A There was an increased authorization 6 level for expenditures that paralleled 7 Monsanto's capital authorization procedure. 8 There was a financial control bulletin 9 basically put in place to set in place a level 10 of authorization. 11 Q Did the next level of authorization 12 lie with your superior, Mr. Lafferre? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Do you know what his level was? 15 A I think his was a million. 16 Q And then it continued to roll up the 17 chain? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you know what level of authority 20 the president of the chemical company had? 21 A I believe it was three million. 22 Q And what happened beyond three 23 million? 24 A Five million. At the CEO it was ten 25 million, and beyond that the board. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 137 WATER PCB-SD0000053051 138 1 Q So ten million to the CEO? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And then beyond that it had to go to 4 the board? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Did you ever seek any authorization to 7 participate in the remediation of Segment A of 8 Dead Creek? 9 A No. 10 Q Did you ever make any recommendations 11 against authorizing company funds to remediate 12 Segment A of Dead Creek? 13 A There was never a recommendation 14 presented to me to do that that I would have 15 had to recommend against. 16 Q So you don't recall any formal 17 decision one way or the other with respect to 18 remediation of Dead Creek Segment A? 19 A Well, again, not to mix words, but we 20 would have only had to effected a positive 21 decision to participate or to reject a 22 recommendation, and I didn't reject one and I 23 didn't recommend one. 24 Q That's what I meant to ask you. As 25 far as you were concerned, you never got to a Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 138 WATER PCB-SD0000053052 139 1 decision point one way or the other? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q Is that because, as far as you know, 4 Marmon or Cerro never asked? 5 A Somewhere along the line after the 6 presentation of these documents, there were 7 discussions about our participation, but there 8 was no agreement reached that would have -- as 9 to amounts, roles, responsibilities that would 10 have then triggered a request for 11 authorization. 12 Q So in terms of the way it would 13 proceed, there would be an agreement in 14 principle reached between the parties that you 15 would then take up the chain of command if you 16 felt it was reasonable? You have to answer 17 out loud. 18 A The answer is yes, but in that process 19 that you have described, any agreement would 20 have been conditioned upon approvals. 21 Q Understood. It has to start someplace 22 though? 23 A Right. 24 Q In the Monsanto worldwide guidelines 25 and environmental policies, was there anything Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 139 WATER PCB-SD0000053053 140 1 relating to when Monsanto would voluntarily 2 commit funds to the remediation of a hazardous 3 waste site? 4 A I believe our program basically said 5 that we would act in a responsible manner 6 relative to Super Fund site allegations. And 7 by that it meant that we would be a 8 constructive participate in the determination 9 of facts and responsibilities, and if we felt 10 that or we would conclude we would have 11 responsibilities, that we would act in an 12 appropriate manner. 13 Q Is that a policy or a guideline that 14 you followed as director of environmental 15 operations for the chemical company? 16 A Yes. 17 Q How did you go about determining 18 whether you had responsibility? 19 A I think that would depend on the 20 situation. Most typically it involved, 21 through the Super Fund process, receipt of 22 request for information which we would respond 23 to. We would typically get involved in the 24 subsequent discussions with the regulatory 25 agencies and other PRPs around the facts of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 140 WATER PCB-SD0000053054 141 1 the situation. 2 And typically if we felt that the 3 facts of the situation indicated that we had 4 waste for which we were likely to be liable, 5 we would then become part of the process to 6 determine the extent of the problem and 7 subsequent to that what the remedy proposal 8 should be. 9 Q Did that policy or guideline apply if 10 the entity seeking your participation was a 11 private entity as opposed to a governmental 12 entity? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Did you go through any such exercise 15 with respect to the possibility that Monsanto 16 might be responsible for conditions in Dead 17 Creek? 18 A I would say that the process that we 19 involved ourselves in subsequent to being 20 presented the report by Cerro was that type of 21 a process, to understand the report, 22 understand what the implications were, and I 23 think the difficulty there was is there were 24 discussions that ended up in questions of what 25 is it that you want and how much. And those Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 141 WATER PCB-SD0000053055 142 1 discussions, you know, basically were not very 2 productive. They were not, you know, based on 3 a judgment of guilt, but let's continue to try 4 and understand them. 5 And I mean if they come to you and 6 say, you know, for a small amount of money you 7 can settle out of these things completely, 8 that may be less burdensome than going through 9 more fact finding, and in some cases we 10 settled out of suits whether we felt we were 11 responsible or not just to get beyond the 12 nuisance aspect of it. 13 Again, the Cerro discussions went 14 into, you know, discussions of facts and 15 negotiations and did not reach, to my 16 recollection, a distinction around 17 responsibility nor agreement on amount. 18 Q Focusing specifically for the moment 19 on the issue of responsibility, did Monsanto 20 make an evaluation as to whether it bore any 21 responsibility for conditions in Dead Creek 22 Segment A? 23 MR. HEINEMAN: Again, obviously you 24 have got to not disclose communications with 25 counsel. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 142 WATER PCB-SD0000053056 143 1 MR. RICCI: I concur that he should 2 not disclose communications with counsel; 3 however, to the extent that there was fact 4 finding that went on, those facts don't become 5 privileged simply because counsel was 6 involved. 7 And so to the extent that there was 8 any kind of fact finding with respect to 9 Monsanto's responsibility or nonresponsibility 10 for contamination in Dead Creek, I press the 11 question. 12 MR. HEINEMAN: And I will again say 13 that again I'm happy to have your views on the 14 subject. 15 MR. RICCI: I'm trying to understand 16 the scope of your objection. 17 MR. HEINEMAN: I'm telling him that I 18 don't know the extent to which counsel was 19 present in these discussions, the extent to 20 which counsel advised so as to give rise to 21 the decision. I don't know the extent to 22 which counsel was involved in the fact finding 23 and communicated facts to him so that there 24 was an exchange of information back and forth 25 that was in aid of a legal decision or legal Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 143 WATER PCB-SD0000053057 144 1 advice. I just don't know the answer to that 2 so that's why I'm cautioning him not to invade 3 a privileged communication. 4 If you can answer the question without 5 doing that, that's fine. 6 MR. RICCI: Can you read back the 7 question. 8 (The requested portion of the 9 record read by the reporter) 10 Q (By Mr. Ricci) I would be happy to 11 take a yes or no answer to that question and 12 then proceed from there. If we can take this 13 in baby steps, maybe we can avoid ending up 14 with loggerheads. Can you answer that 15 question yes or no, Mr. Pierle? 16 A I don't believe that we ever made that 17 -- made a determination such as you have 18 asked. 19 Q Given that it was your corporate, 20 company wide, worldwide environmental policy 21 to be a constructive participant where you 22 determined that you had some responsibility, 23 is there any reason why you didn't make such a 24 determination with respect to Dead Creek 25 Segment A? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 144 WATER PCB-SD0000053058 145 1 MR. HEINEMAN: Again, I have to make 2 the same admonition. 3 A I think I indicated earlier on that it 4 was my recollection that there was a lot of 5 dialogue upon presentation of the report. We 6 talked about the question that the lawyer and 7 Warren were involved in around the remedy. My 8 recollection to those conversations is Cerro 9 did what they were going to do. 10 The conversation kind of died and went 11 away after a period of time, and I'm not 12 certain what the lawyer and Warren did with 13 respect to that. But with a lot of things I 14 had to deal with, that just sort of moved off 15 the radar scope, that there was no longer a, 16 you know, a hard press on that. There wasn't 17 a decision that was postured, and the issue 18 just sort of wasn't at the same level of 19 profde that it had been. And it subsequently 20 surfaced in the context of the lawsuit. 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) If there had been a 22 decision one way or the other as to Monsanto's 23 responsibility for conditions in Dead Creek, 24 would that have come to your attention? 25 A It may have. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 145 WATER PCB-SD0000053059 146 1 Q But not necessarily? 2 A It would not have necessarily had to 3 come to my attention. 4 Q Would it have come to the attention of 5 somebody on your staff? 6 A I don't know how to answer that 7 because, you know, all I know is the fact that 8 I don't recall that it ever did. Never got to 9 me. 10 Q Fair enough. Is it more likely that 11 it would have come to your attention if there 12 was a determination that Monsanto bore 13 responsibility than if there was a 14 determination that Monsanto did not bear 15 responsibility? 16 A I wouldn't make that statement. 17 Q You didn't have any lawyers on your 18 staff, did you? 19 A No. 20 Q In complying with your worldwide 21 environmental policy with respect to Super 22 Fund, did the determination of responsibility 23 or nonresponsibility generally come through 24 your department or through legal? 25 A I think the determinations about legal Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 146 WATER PCB-SD0000053060 147 1 responsibility would have come from the legal 2 department. 3 Q When you talk about responsibility as 4 that term is used or as you used the term in 5 describing the worldwide corporate guidelines, 6 are you talking about legal responsibility or 7 are you talking about something perhaps 8 broader than that? 9 A No. I think the guidelines dealt with 10 responding to legal responsibilities. 11 Q I guess we will leave for the moment 12 whether there is anything broader than legal 13 responsibility under Super Fund. 14 You were director of environmental 15 operations until April of '91 ? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And what position did you take after 18 that? 19 A My current position. 20 Q Which is? 21 A Vice president, environment, safety 22 and health. 23 Q Environmental safety and health? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Is that for the chemical company? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 147 WATER PCB-SD0000053061 148 1 A For the corporation. 2 Q Who do you report to now? 3 A Nick Redding. 4 Q And his position is? 5 A Vice chairman. 6 Q And he reports to the chairman? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And that's Mr. Mahoney? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What are your current duties and 11 responsibilities? 12 A I direct the regulatory management 13 staff that interfaces on federal environmental 14 laws and regulations. I direct the department 15 of medicine that manages Monsanto's medicine 16 and worker health programs, including 17 department oftoxicology, department of 18 epidemiology. I direct quality assurance 19 function which includes audit functions for 20 compliance. And I have a department of health 21 and safety that is responsible for the safety 22 and industrial hygiene practices, and a group 23 that works in environmental affairs which is 24 another regulatory function within the 25 regulatory function. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 148 WATER PCB-SD0000053062 149 1 Q Are you currently involved in decision 2 making with respect to participation in Super 3 Fund cleanups? 4 A No. 5 Q You do not have any level of 6 authorization with respect to participation in 7 cleanups? 8 A Only for one or two sites that are 9 assigned to the corporation because they are 10 part of past sold businesses. The bulk of the 11 work is handled on all cleanups within the 12 operating units. 13 Q Your authority does not descend down 14 -- I don't know if descend is the correct 15 word. Your authority does not extend into the 16 operating units? 17 A No, it does not. 18 Q And I assume that none of the Sauget 19 sites fall in this category of I will call 20 them orphan sites that are put on the 21 corporation? 22 A They do not. 23 MR. RICCI: This would be a good time 24 for a break. 25 (Recess) Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 149 WATER PCB-SD0000053063 150 1 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, when did 2 you first become aware of the existence of 3 Dead Creek? 4 A Oh, sometime early on in my employment 5 at the Krummrich plant. 6 MR. HEINEMAN: Are you referring to 7 the portion that's on the Cerro property I 8 assume? 9 MR. RICCI: I'm referring to the whole 10 stretch of the creek. 11 Q (By Mr. Ricci) How did you become 12 aware of it? 13 A I don't recall the specifics. 14 Q Was it in conjunction with any one or 15 more of the tasks that you were involved with 16 during your stint at Krummrich from '66 to 17 70? 18 A I mean the answer to that would have 19 had to have been but as a part of my general 20 duties. I mean it involves sewers and storm 21 water flows, and it was an interconnected kind 22 of system, so I don't differentiate what 23 caused me to think about it. 24 Q Did you have some involvement with 25 storm water flows during your time at Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 150 WATER PCB-SD0000053064 151 1 Krummrich from '66 to 70? 2 A Well, the waste treatment plant 3 received all of the flows including storm 4 water flows from the plant site and the 5 village and every place else. That's sort of 6 in that construct that I knew it was there. 7 Q Were you aware of the connection 8 between Dead Creek and the village sewer 9 system? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What was your understanding of that 12 connection? 13 A That there was basically part of the 14 Cerro effluent flow out of what I would call 15 the back side of the plant and into the creek 16 area and then into the sewer. It was sort of 17 a conveyance in part for part of the waste 18 water out ofthe Cerro plant as well as what 19 rainfall would drain into those portions of 20 Dead Creek would then drain into the sewer 21 system and then on down to the waste treatment 22 plant. 23 MR. RICCI: Why don't we mark this as 24 Exhibit 2. 25 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 2 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 151 WATER PCB-SD0000053065 152 1 marked for identification.) 2 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 3 show you a document that's been marked as 4 Exhibit 2 to your deposition. And this is a 5 document with Bates No. CER 110759. I ask you 6 to take a look at that. Can you identify this 7 document? 8 A Not specifically. I mean other than 9 reading the notations on the document itself. 10 Q The notation indicates that it is a 11 Monsanto Krummrich plant sewer map; is that 12 correct? 13 A Well, it says a plant sewer map. 14 Q Right. Is that what it appears to be 15 to you? 16 A Yes. I don't understand these hard 17 black lines is what I was delaying on. I 18 don't know what those mean. Those are not 19 sewer lines, to my recollection. 20 Q Right. And you don't have any current 21 knowledge of the numbering system that this 22 map appears to employ? 23 A No. 24 Q Can you identify Dead Creek on this 25 map? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 152 WATER PCB-SD0000053066 153 1 A Only by what is written here on the 2 right-hand side of this. 3 Q Okay. And is that consistent with 4 your recollection as to where Dead Creek was 5 located in relation to the Krummrich facility? 6 A That piece of it. 7 Q That would be the northern end of Dead 8 Creek? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q You testified that it was your 11 understanding that Cerro discharged into Dead 12 Creek, and that discharge was then taken into 13 the village sewer system? 14 A Yes. I think what I said was that my 15 understanding was that part oftheir flow from 16 the plant came out this end of the plant, what 17 1 referred to as the back end of the plant. 18 Q Which would be the eastern edge of the 19 plant? Here is north. 20 A Yes. And into this area of Dead Creek 21 and then through the conveyance into the sewer 22 system. 23 Q And this map appears to depict a sewer 24 line running from the northern end of Dead 25 Creek into the 24-inch trunk line that sits on Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 153 WATER PCB-SD0000053067 154 1 Monsanto's property; is that correct? 2 A That's what it looks like. 3 Q And, again, is that consistent with 4 your recollection of the way that was 5 configured? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Is it your understanding that this 8 line that led from Dead Creek to the 24-inch 9 trunk line passed underneath the Alton & 10 Southern Railroad? 11 A I believe it did. 12 Q This 24-inch trunk line also accepted 13 or carried discharges from Monsanto production 14 processes; is that correct? 15 A Yes, it did. 16 Q Are you aware of which production -- 17 are you aware of which production processes 18 had effluent that was carried through that 19 24-inch line? 20 A I don't recall the specific 21 relationship of the plant and the drainage, in 22 which sewers, and what went where. 23 Q Do you recall if effluent from the PCB 24 production operations was carried through that 25 24-inch line? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 154 WATER PCB-SD0000053068 155 1 A Not specifically. I would have to 2 retrace the flow or try to figure it out. 3 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 3 4 marked for identification.) 5 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 6 show you a document that's been marked as 7 Exhibit 3 to your deposition, which is a copy 8 of a July 1, 1977, letter from Phocion Park to 9 Kaye Jacobs of the USEPA. That document has 10 Bates No. CER 014432 through 435, and I'll ask 11 you to take a look at that. 12 A Do you want me to read it in its 13 entirety? 14 Q You can read it in its entirety if you 15 are so inclined. My questions at this time 16 will focus primarily on the discussion on page 17 3. 18 A I generally reviewed the letter. 19 Q Who is Mr. Park? 20 A He was environmental counsel for 21 Monsanto Company. 22 Q You are shown as having received a 23 blind carbon copy of this letter; is that 24 correct? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 155 WATER PCB-SD0000053069 156 1 Q Do you recall having seen this letter 2 before? 3 A I truly don't remember it. 4 Q Is it fair to say that you probably 5 did receive a copy of this letter at or around 6 July of 1977? 7 A I would assume so. 8 Q Do you recall the name Kaye Jacobs at 9 all? 10 A Only vaguely, that as described in 11 this letter, she was an attorney at the USEPA. 12 Q Do you recall Mr. Park having any 13 involvement in the PCB discharges to the 14 effluent from the Krummrich facility? 15 A I think during this time period, in 16 his capacity he was involved in -- would have 17 been representing or involved in Monsanto 18 internal discussions. 19 Q And also I assume from the letter at 20 least communicating to the USEPA? 21 A Yes. 22 Q You were manager of environmental 23 protection in July of 77; is that correct? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q And am I correct in assuming that you Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 156 WATER PCB-SD0000053070 157 1 received this letter in conjunction with your 2 responsibilities in that position? 3 A I would assume so. 4 Q Do you believe the representations 5 that Mr. Park makes to the EPA in this letter 6 to be true and accurate? 7 A Are you asking for an independent 8 verification or would I think Mr. Park would 9 send something that wasn't true and accurate 10 or? 11 Q The latter. 12 A I don't have any reason to believe 13 that he would send anything that was untrue or 14 inaccurate. 15 Q If you look at page 3 of the letter, 16 the first full paragraph at the top ofthe 17 page, it looks to be blocked and indented, the 18 paragraph that begins, "This project does not 19 directly affect the sewer system." 20 A Okay. 21 Q He is discussing in that paragraph the 22 effluent from the PCB production facility. Do 23 you see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q He indicates that the effluent flows Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 157 WATER PCB-SD0000053071 158 1 south on the map across area four, and west in 2 a 24-inch trunk line leaving the plant and 3 flowing into the Village of Sauget sewer 4 system. 5 Do you know if the area four discussed 6 in this letter is the No. 4 area within bold 7 lines as shown on Exhibit 2? 8 A I don't know that for a fact. 9 Q Can you tell if the flow from the PCB 10 production department as described in 11 Mr. Park's letter that you were copied on is 12 consistent with the sewer system that's 13 depicted on Exhibit 2? 14 A My recollection is that that is 15 probably what this is referring to, flow into 16 this area. The only thing I'm not certain 17 about is what is this back here which appears 18 to be connected to this 24-inch which goes on 19 out? 20 Q This back here? You are referring to 21 the line north ofthe bold-faced line that 22 depicts area four? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Does it appear to you that at least 25 some of the effluent from Department 246 is Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 158 WATER PCB-SD0000053072 159 1 proceeding out of Department 246 in a manner 2 as described in Mr. Park's letter? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Would it be fair to say then that that 5 effluent ultimately enters the 24-inch trunk 6 line that into which the line from Dead Creek 7 also flows? 8 A It appears that that's the 9 configuration. 10 Q And that's as Mr. Park's described it 11 in his letter of July 1, 1977? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, you indicated that it was your 14 understanding that effluent flowed north from 15 Dead Creek through the line that's depicted as 16 leaving from Dead Creek to the 24-inch trunk 17 line and then into the trunk line and on to 18 the village treatment plant; is that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q On this map you will see that there 21 are arrows that are placed on the line that 22 runs from Dead Creek to the 24-inch trunk 23 line, and there are arrows pointing both north 24 and south. Do you see that? 25 A Yes. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 159 WATER PCB-SD0000053073 160 1 Q Do you know what those arrows depict? 2 A I do not. 3 Q Do you have any knowledge that there 4 was ever any flow south from the 24-inch trunk 5 line under the Alton & Southern railroad 6 tracks and into Dead Creek? 7 A I don't recall that the -- you know, 8 the configuration as I recall was these sewers 9 were the ones we talked about earlier. The 24 10 and the 36 that we sampled were free flowing 11 sewers, always flowing in that direction in 12 dry weather conditions. 13 Q When you say "all flowing in that 14 direction," you are talking about west? 15 A West. 16 Q East to west? 17 A That's correct, west towards the 18 treatment facility, pump station and treatment 19 facility. And I don't know what that arrow is 20 intended to depict. I really don't know what 21 would have happened during storm flow, rain 22 flow conditions and that. I don't know. 23 Q That was my next question. You 24 indicated that the flow was generally to the 25 west in dry weather conditions. Are you aware Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 160 WATER PCB-SD0000053074 161 1 of any situations where the direction of the 2 flow changed during storm events? 3 A No. 4 Q Are you aware of the fact that -- let 5 me withdraw that. Are you aware of whether 6 Dead Creek ever served as a surge pond in 7 situations where the village sewer system 8 became surcharged or backed up as a result of 9 rain events? 10 A I know that Dead Creek had elevation 11 changes at times associated with it. 12 Q You mean changes in the water level? 13 A Of the water level, and I would have 14 assumed that those would have been relative to 15 runoff and collection. I thought there was a 16 village pipe that came in here someplace as 17 well. Maybe that's what that one is and it 18 doesn't show it, but it came into that sewer 19 system as well. 20 There was also at some point in time a 21 pressure connection somehow here, from back on 22 from this arrow at a point in time, and I know 23 that down here at the end of or at whatever 24 this road was, that there was virtually sort 25 of a discontinuous flow that had sort of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 161 WATER PCB-SD0000053075 162 1 isolated that section of Dead Creek. 2 Q How did you become aware of this 3 pressure connection relating to Cerro's flows? 4 A I just recall standing back in this 5 area somewhere talking about or discussing 6 that. I don't recall the specifics of it. I 7 know that Cerro's waste was in part out here. 8 Q When you say "out here," you are 9 talking about near Route 3? 10 A To the Route 3 end, but also 11 discussion of where their waste might go. 12 There was just a remembrance of discussions 13 that they had flows that were pumped up 14 towards this end, and I just assume that would 15 have eventually gone across and into the sewer 16 line. 17 Q When you say "pumped up towards this 18 end," you are referring to the north end of 19 Dead Creek? 20 A I believe that's what I recollect 21 remember seeing. 22 Q Were these discussions back in the '66 23 to '70 period or sometime after that? 24 A They would have been prior to my 25 leaving in '70. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 162 WATER PCB-SD0000053076 163 1 Q Do you recall the context of these 2 discussions? 3 A I don't. 4 Q Do you recall actually being out there 5 at the northern end of Dead Creek and looking 6 at the connection? 7 A Yes, with some sort of a box or 8 something there that flowed in. I'm not 9 completely clear on it. From time to time as 10 a part of the village and the treatment plant, 11 we had to do flow measurements and solids 12 measurements on who was discharging what as 13 part of the rate structure. And, again, my 14 sense was then I had to have a general 15 understanding of what was going on. That's a 16 hazy remembrance of what the situation was 17 there. 18 Q Do you recall actually being in the 19 vicinity of the north end of Dead Creek with 20 anyone from Cerro? 21 A I don't specifically remember who it 22 was or whether it was a Monsanto person or 23 somebody from the village, or I just don't 24 recall. 25 Q Were you aware of any studies by Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 163 WATER PCB-SD0000053077 164 1 engineers from Monsanto in the 1960s that 2 indicated that during certain rainfall events, 3 there was actually flow from the 24-inch line 4 south through the line underneath the Alton & 5 Southern Railroad and into Dead Creek? 6 A No. 7 Q Are you familiar with an individual by 8 the name of J. W. Kaske? 9 A I remember the name. 10 Q Do you recall that he was a Monsanto 11 employee? 12 A In our -- I believe he was in the 13 central engineering department. 14 Q That would be company headquarters? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Do you recall any works or documents 17 prepared by Mr. Kaske relating to the issue 18 that I just described to you of flow south 19 from the 24-inch trunk line into Dead Creek? 20 A No. 21 Q Are you familiar with an individual by 22 the name of C. N. Stutz? 23 A Yes. 24 Q What can you tell me about Mr. Stutz? 25 A I think he was Mr. Kaske's boss or his Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 164 WATER PCB-SD0000053078 165 1 boss's boss. 2 Q Are you aware of any efforts by 3 Monsanto in the early or mid '60s to maintain 4 the ability of the village sewer system to in 5 effect back flow south under the Alton & 6 Southern Railroad and into Dead Creek during 7 periods of rainfall? 8 A No. 9 Q The sewer system that serviced the 10 Monsanto plant was a combined sewer system, 11 was it not, combined to accept both storm 12 water and processed discharge? 13 A Yes. 14 Q If there was back flow from this 15 24-inch trunk line under the Alton & Southern 16 Railroad and into Dead Creek, is it fair to 17 say that that back flow would include both 18 storm water and process water from the 19 Monsanto Krummrich facility? 20 A I don't know. I mean that would be 21 pure speculation, and it would be based on the 22 hydraulics and the flows and where the water 23 was. I mean water is generally going to 24 always tend to run downhill, and that's 25 downhill to the west. I couldn't make an Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 165 WATER PCB-SD0000053079 166 1 assumption about where the water flows or went 2 from where. I couldn't do that. 3 Q But in any event, there was no -- 4 irrespective of whether there was flow south 5 into Dead Creek or north from Dead Creek into 6 the trunk line, there was no way for Monsanto 7 to separate its process waste water from storm 8 water runoff insofar as both of those streams 9 were traversing through this 24-inch trunk 10 line that connected up to the line connecting 11 to Dead Creek? 12 A No. 13 Q Clear it out of the way for a moment. 14 MR. HEINEMAN: Are you sure of your 15 answer? 16 MR. RICCI: Why don't you read back 17 the last question. 18 MR. HEINEMAN: There was a double 19 negative in there. 20 (The requested portion of the 21 record read by the reporter) 22 A My answer was I wasn't sure. 23 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Let me rephrase that 24 question. Could Monsanto separate its process 25 work water from its storm water that was Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 166 WATER PCB-SD0000053080 167 1 running through the 24-inch trunk line? 2 A No. 3 Q That line got them both? 4 A Well, for the areas that it drained. 5 Q Right. And so it would have received 6 both processed water, for instance, from the 7 PCB production department and storm water from 8 that area as well? 9 A Well, and all the other flows and the 10 flows from the village and the flows from 11 Cerro and all of the rest ofthat. 12 Q Right. I was just taking that as an 13 example. 14 A What do you want me to say? Yes 15 again? 16 Q I just want you to tell the truth, 17 Mr. Pierle, that's all. I think it is clear. 18 (Discussion off the record) 19 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 4 20 marked for identification) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 22 show you a document that we have marked as 23 Exhibit 4 to your deposition. This is a 24 document with Bates No. CER 011109. And I 25 will just ask you to take a look at it. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 167 WATER PCB-SD0000053081 168 1 A I have read the memo. 2 Q Now, this is a March 4, 1969, memo 3 prepared by Mr. Buckley. And as I recall your 4 testimony from this morning, in March of '69 5 Mr. Buckley was your superior and you were an 6 engineer one or an engineer two? 7 A Yes. 8 Q One of those two. Do you recall -- 9 Exhibit 4 shows you as being copied on it. Do 10 you recall receiving a copy of this memo? 11 A Not particularly. 12 Q Do you recall the issues discussed in 13 the memo? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you recall whether you had any 16 involvement with Mr. Buckley in the 17 preparation ofthis memo? 18 A I don't recall that. 19 Q In the first paragraph of the memo, 20 there is a discussion of an outburst of press 21 regarding the toxic effects of aroclors? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And aroclors are PCBs, correct? 24 A I don't recall the specific 25 nomenclature used, but certainly there were Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 168 WATER PCB-SD0000053082 169 1 PCBs that were aroclors. 2 Q Were there PCBs that were not 3 aroclors? 4 A I don't know. I just don't know if 5 the two are absolutely synonymous and equal. 6 Q Okay. The memo doesn't use the term 7 bioaccumulation, but it discusses a concept 8 that I believe is consistent with the term 9 bioaccumulation. Is that a fair statement? 10 A Based upon my knowledge at this time? 11 Q Well, based upon your knowledge either 12 -- well, yes. That's a good characterization 13 of it. 14 A I don't think at that time that issue 15 or that characterization would have meant much 16 to me. 17 Q That really is what I was going to ask 18 you is if you had any awareness of the concept 19 of bioaccumulation or the concept of chemicals 20 that are persistent in the environment 21 building up in the tissues of higher 22 organisms? 23 A All that I was generally aware of was 24 that there were, as this describes, 25 information appearing or allegations about Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 169 WATER PCB-SD0000053083 170 1 impact of PCBs as detected in, as I recall, 2 bird eggshells, thinning of eggshells, 3 something to that effect. And it was an issue 4 that was taken very seriously within the 5 company. 6 And this seems to describe, you know, 7 an effort to understand its impact and 8 tightened up plant operations were necessary 9 to reduce losses if they were occurring. 10 Q Had you been aware of the similar 11 environmental concerns that had been raised 12 regarding the pesticide DDT? 13 A It wasn't something that I, you know, 14 concentrated on. 15 Q Just maybe what you read in the papers 16 or whatever? 17 A Yes. 18 Q There is a list of proposals that 19 Mr. Buckley makes in this memo. And one of 20 the proposals is to engage in some sampling, 21 and that's in paragraph one. He talks first 22 about sampling sewers. Do you know if that 23 reference is to plant sewers or village sewers 24 or both? 25 A My recollection is that we did both. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 170 WATER PCB-SD0000053084 171 1 Q And he talks about sampling the 2 outfall. Do you know what that references? 3 A Not specifically. 4 Q He talks about sampling upstream and 5 downstream river water and sludge. Well, I 6 don't know if that's fair or not. It is 7 upsteam and downstream river water and sludge 8 from river and treatment plant. 9 First, let me ask you do you know when 10 he talks about upstream and downstream, do you 11 know if he was talking about upstream and 12 downstream from what? 13 A Well, I would assume that this is the 14 point of entry of the village sewer into the 15 Mississippi River. And therefore that could 16 be what the outfall designation is. 17 Q So that may be the outfall of again 18 the village into the Mississippi River. By 19 March of 1969, the village was operating the 20 primary treatment plant? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you know if they just had one 23 outfall into the river? 24 A Yes. 25 Q They did have one outfall into the Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 171 WATER PCB-SD0000053085 172 1 river? 2 A Yes. 3 Q He talks about sludge from the river. 4 Do you know if he is talking about sediments 5 there? 6 A Again, I would probably interpret it 7 that way. 8 Q Did you have any role in implementing 9 Mr. Buckley's proposal with respect to these 10 sampling activities? 11 A I remember spending a fair amount of 12 time on it both within the department and at 13 the waste treatment plant to try to tie this 14 down. 15 Q Do you recall taking samples from the 16 river? 17 A I don't remember going out there and 18 doing it. 19 Q Do you remember it being done? 20 A I'm pretty sure it was. 21 Q Water and sediments? 22 A That I'm not sure of. It seems to me 23 that we just described, talked about the 24 sediments. I don't know whether we were doing 25 water or not. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 172 WATER PCB-SD0000053086 173 1 Q You are pretty sure you were doing 2 sediment but not sure if you were doing water? 3 A Yes. 4 Q How were these different categories of 5 locations determined? 6 A Which are you referring to? 7 Q The sewers, the outfall, upstream and 8 downstream from the river, sediment from the 9 river and the treatment plant, and how was it 10 determined that those were the areas that you 11 wanted to sample? 12 A Well, this doesn't give the specific 13 locations, but my sense is you want to find 14 out, you know, where it is coming from, what 15 is going on in the treatment plant, what's 16 going out the outfall, and if you sample in 17 the sediments upstream and downstream, is 18 there any differentiation or is there any 19 difference between PCB levels in those two 20 areas. 21 Q So basically you are looking at where 22 the PCBs might be coming from and where they 23 are going? 24 A Yes. 25 Q In relation to the sewer system? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 173 WATER PCB-SD0000053087 174 1 A Yes, for Monsanto. 2 Q Right. Did you have any knowledge at 3 this point in time as to whether the primary 4 treatment plant had any ability to remove PCBs 5 from Monsanto's effluent? 6 A As I recall the work that went on 7 here, there was a general understanding that 8 PCBs were heavier than water, that they would 9 settle out, and that it would likely be that 10 if they were in the sewer system, then it 11 would be logical to assume that they were 12 being removed in the waste treatment plant. 13 Q Before discharge? 14 A Before discharged to the river. 15 Q Did sampling ultimately reveal that 16 that was not the case? 17 A I don't recall the specific test 18 results and what we found or what we didn't 19 find. 20 Q If you had been aware of back flow 21 from the 24-inch trunk line into Dead Creek, 22 would you have recommended sampling Dead Creek 23 sediments for PCBs? 24 A I think the probable -- I don't recall 25 that scenario, that question coming up. I Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 174 WATER PCB-SD0000053088 175 1 mean thinking about it now, it would have 2 seemed consistent with our thought that these 3 were heavier than water. They are going to 4 flow generally in the area of the sewer, that 5 they are going to be in the bottom of the 6 sewer moving their way along. Independent of 7 what the water is doing, they are going to be 8 moving on down to the treatment plant, and 9 that's where they ought to be if they are 10 found. Their solubility in water was so low 11 that I wouldn't think that anyone would have 12 expected these things to be up in the water. 13 1 think that's again part of the reason to 14 focus here on sludges, because that's where 15 you would find it. You find it in the heavier 16 materials. 17 Q So based upon that understanding, it 18 would be likely that the primary treatment 19 plant would be fairly effective at removing 20 PCBs from the discharge? 21 A One would think that it would be. 22 Q In paragraph two of Mr. Buckley's 23 memo, he talks about discontinue sewering 24 spent aroclors within the plant. Do you know 25 what he is talking about there? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 175 WATER PCB-SD0000053089 176 1 A In a couple of the departments, and I 2 don't remember the numbers and that, there 3 were some heat transfer systems that were 4 periodically what they called spent or used 5 up, and they would have to be removed and 6 replenished with fresh material. 7 And I don't know specifically whether 8 this was -- this memo looks here to be some 9 general guidance on some things that could 10 happen and you ought to consider, if it is 11 happening don't do it. I don't know that it 12 is predicated on, you know, knowledge in fact 13 that these things were going on, but it was 14 more about here are some things -- that's the 15 way it reads to me. Here are some things that 16 could go on, and this is what you ought to do 17 about it. 18 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 5 19 marked for identification.) 20 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 21 show you a document that's been marked as 22 Exhibit 5 to your deposition and ask you to 23 take a look at it. It is a document with 24 Bates No. CER 010897. 25 A I have perused the note. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 176 WATER PCB-SD0000053090 Ill 1 Q Okay. This is a September 9, 1969, 2 memo from Mr. Bigge to Mr. McCutchan. Who was 3 Mr. Bigge? 4 A I remember him as an engineer in the 5 plant engineering department. 6 Q Plant engineering was different than 7 technical services? 8 A I believe it was. 9 Q And who was Mr. McCutchan? 10 A Not sure. 11 Q You are shown as being copied on this 12 memo, as is Mr. Buckley. Do you recall having 13 received a copy of this memo? 14 A Yes, I do. 15 Q Do you recall anything specific about 16 this memo or the issues discussed herein? 17 A I remember specifically working with 18 Mr. Bigge around the aroclor department and 19 some work that we were jointly doing to try to 20 understand where PCBs were, especially in the 21 sewer systems and around the area, and what we 22 might do from a collection and removal point 23 of view at the point of loss. 24 And what this memo, I believe, 25 describes was the set of recommendations to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 177 WATER PCB-SD0000053091 178 1 put in improvements within the department to 2 try to capture or at least provide protection 3 to prevent the loss of free aroclors to the 4 sewer. 5 Q Were you involved in developing these 6 recommendations? 7 A Yes. 8 Q If you will look at the last page of 9 the exhibit, there is a map with various items 10 appearing to be written in on the map, sort of 11 overdrawn on the map. Is that your 12 handwriting? 13 A No. Wait a minute. Let me --are you 14 referring to these? 15 Q I'm referring to, for instance, where 16 it says in the upper, left-hand comer, "Flows 17 to existing sewer, proposed settling basin." 18 A No. That is not. 19 Q Does your handwriting appear anywhere 20 on this memo? 21 A It appears to me that the notations on 22 page 1 are mine. 23 Q All of them? 24 A The handwritten -- 25 Q Right. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 178 WATER PCB-SD0000053092 179 1 A -- notations. 2 Q Right. 3 A I'm not sure about the brackets up at 4 the top, but the balance of that does appear 5 to be mine. 6 Q And that little arrow next to your 7 name would indicate that this was actually -- 8 this is actually a copy of your copy of the 9 memo? 10 A Yes. Well, it is a copy or a copy of 11 a copy. 12 Q Okay. The first paragraph talks about 13 the main process area, old and new. And I 14 would just ask you to review that. If you 15 haven't already done so, review that paragraph 16 in a fair amount of detail because I would 17 like to ask you a couple questions about it. 18 A This paragraphone? 19 Q Yes. 20 A Okay. 21 Q Can you identify on the map that's 22 attached to this memo the old and the new 23 process areas referred to in that first 24 paragraph? 25 A That's not nomenclature that means Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 179 WATER PCB-SD0000053093 180 1 much to me. I'm having trouble getting 2 oriented on this thing. 3 Q There is a directional indicator in 4 the upper, right-hand comer. I don't know if 5 you saw that. Would it help you to refer to 6 one of these larger maps? 7 A No, I don't think so. What was your 8 question again? 9 Q My question was whether you could 10 identify the old and the new process areas as 11 discussed here. 12 A No. It doesn't strike anything that's 13 meaningful to me. 14 Q Okay. They talk about a plan to 15 intercept the main sewer running south from 16 the department with the settling basin. Can 17 you identify that settling basin on the map? 18 A I believe it is the area in the lower, 19 left-hand comer or what would be the 20 southwest comer of the map. 21 Q So it is where it says, "Proposed 22 settling basin"? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Were you -- according to this drawing, 25 it appears that there is an existing trench Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 180 WATER PCB-SD0000053094 181 1 and that the flow goes from that trench south 2 into a box and then west into another box and 3 then south; is that correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And this settling basin was going to 6 be installed at the southern terminus of the 7 line as it appears on this map? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Not to say that that's the terminus of 10 the sewer. 11 A Yes. 12 Q Is it fair to say that -- let me 13 withdraw that. Was that settling basin ever 14 installed? 15 A I believe it was. 16 Q Is it fair to say that prior to the 17 installation of that settling basin, the flows 18 from what are labeled the existing trench went 19 straight into the sewer system without any 20 efforts to remove the PCBs? 21 A When we began this exercise, I recall 22 us -- these were very shallow trenches that 23 were designed pricipally to pick up pump 24 condensation and waters that would be 25 relatively low flows for the most part, but Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 181 WATER PCB-SD0000053095 182 1 they were shallow. You could see in them. 2 They were maybe a couple of feet deep. 3 And I recall that when we began this 4 exercise, one of the first things we did was 5 to put sort of a wood barrier into these to 6 let the water actually build up and fall over, 7 and we were collecting amounts of aroclors in 8 the trenches. And then this became a more 9 permanent facility that caught, you know, 10 water from -- trying to now pick up water from 11 the sewers and the trenches throughout the 12 department. 13 Q This wood baffle or weir that you were 14 talking about was installed sometime in or 15 around 1969? 16 A Yes. 17 Q In response to the concerns that had 18 been raised about PCBs into the environment? 19 A Yes. 20 Q But before the installation of the 21 settling basin? 22 A Well, I think the actions that were 23 under way before then is what we talked about, 24 the heavy tars and the heavy concentrated -- 25 where there were known and expected losses to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 182 WATER PCB-SD0000053096 183 1 have been occurring, they were already taken 2 off and taken to the landfill. 3 Q Okay. I'm just trying to understand. 4 A I think the general assumption would 5 have been around here, that most of the rest 6 of these water streams couldn't carry much 7 unless you had a spill or a leak because the 8 stuff should have been in the process. 9 So what we were doing beforehand was 10 running the department, taking off what were 11 known to be concentrated materials to the 12 landfill. The rest were thought to be waters 13 from the process that were going out the 14 sewers, and I think once we began to take a 15 further look, we began to see some free 16 materials, and then put this basin in as the 17 next measure to collect any of the free 18 separable materials. 19 Q First putting aside the off-site or 20 nonsewer disposal of the heavier materials, 21 the heat transfer fluids, for instance, let's 22 just put that to the side for a second. 23 Just with respect to the sewer 24 discharge from Department 246, the first 25 control mechanism that you installed was this Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 183 WATER PCB-SD0000053097 184 1 wood weir or baffle in what's labeled the 2 existing trench. Is that true? 3 A That's the first thing that I'm aware 4 that we did after the -- 5 Q The concerns were raised? 6 A The prior letter raising the issues. 7 Q And you put one in at the southern end 8 of the existing trench that runs north and 9 south in the area west of the building labeled 10 Department 246? 11 A Yes. I thought we had one in sort of 12 this trench here, the one that runs east and 13 west. 14 Q I was going to ask you about that 15 next. 16 A At the bottom. I guess my memory is 17 less clear on this trench. 18 Q You recall putting one in at the 19 western end of the trench at the bottom of 20 this map, but you have a less clear 21 recollection of putting one in at the southern 22 end of the trench that runs north/south? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q And the weir or the baffle was 25 installed prior to the installation of these Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 184 WATER PCB-SD0000053098 185 1 settling basins that are discussed here? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And prior to the March 1969 memo from 4 Mr. Buckley that raised the concerns about 5 PCBs, neither the weir nor the settling basins 6 had been installed; is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q You indicated that when you put in the 9 weir, it appeared that it was successful in 10 restricting the flow of PCBs into the sewers; 11 is that correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And was the settling basin also 14 successful in limiting the flow of PCBs into 15 the plant sewer system? 16 A I'm less clear on that. I was 17 personally involved with this bit of work on 18 sort ofthe project engineering studies and 19 work. I was not involved in the operational 20 start up or performance of the settling basin. 21 Q You had transferred out by the time it 22 got installed? 23 A Well, it would have been the 24 department's responsibility. I don't know 25 whether I was still at the plant or not. I Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 185 WATER PCB-SD0000053099 186 1 don't recall the precise date of completion of 2 that project. 3 Q Prior to the installation of the weir 4 in the trench, is it fair to say that any PCBs 5 that existed in that trench would flow 6 unencumbered into the sewer system? 7 A Again, I don't know whether there was 8 anything else being done in the department or 9 not. I mean I was not aware of anything else. 10 Q These trenches, did they -- were they 11 open or were they grated, grated with a T? 12 A They were grated, and you could walk 13 on top of them. 14 Q So they would accept storm water as 15 well as process water? 16 A As I recall this area, it may have 17 been within the perimeter, and there was just 18 mainly water. I don't recall much water in 19 this ditch, high volumes. 20 Q The memo refers -- the memo states the 21 plan is to intercept the main sewer running 22 south from the department with the settling 23 basin. Do you know why the line leading into 24 the settling basin that you pointed out to us 25 previously was referred to as the main sewer? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 186 WATER PCB-SD0000053100 187 1 A As I recall, these trenches picked up 2 basically materials that might, you know, leak 3 out of pumps or whatever in these particular 4 areas that had lower flows. The sewer line, I 5 believe, contained a drowning jet that 6 contained higher volumes of water, and that 7 did not go into these sort of surface drainage 8 trenches. 9 Q But it did exit into the sewer system 10 at the same point as the trenches did? In 11 other words, the drowning jets did pass 12 through what's labeled as the proposed 13 settling basin in the lower, left-hand comer 14 of the map? 15 A I believe that was the intent of this 16 project and the design. 17 Q It wasn't necessarily designed 18 strictly for the trenches. It was also 19 designed for the drowning jets? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q Can you tell me where the chlorinators 22 were on this map? 23 A No. I really can't. 24 Q Have you ever heard of an apparatus 25 known as the blow tank? Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 187 WATER PCB-SD0000053101 188 1 A No. 2 Q So I guess you can't tell me where it 3 is, can you? 4 A No, I can't. 5 Q Are you aware of whether any of these 6 circles on the map indicate storage tanks? 7 A No. I really don't recall the 8 physical layout of the department. 9 Q Directing your attention back to 10 Exhibit 2 to your deposition, can you tell me 11 or can you identify on Exhibit 2 -- can you 12 pick up on Exhibit 2 the flows from the 13 proposed settling basin that appears in the 14 lower, left-hand comer of the map that's 15 affixed to Exhibit 5? 16 A I really can't specifically. 17 Q Let me try another one. 18 MR. RICCI: Let's mark this. 19 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 6 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 22 show you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 6 to your deposition. It is a map 24 that was produced by Monsanto in this 25 litigation with Bates No. CER 111933. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 188 WATER PCB-SD0000053102 189 1 And according to the legend, at least, 2 it is a map of section four sewer map, and I 3 would ask you to just take a look at that and 4 see if you can orient yourself and then tell 5 me to the best of your ability where the 6 proposed settling basin that appears in the 7 bottom, left-hand comer of the third page of 8 Exhibit 5 would appear, if at all, on 9 Exhibit 6. 10 And just for your information, the 11 date of Exhibit 6 appears to be May of 1972 12 with then some subsequent provisions. 13 A Well, I would believe it is in this 14 area, because the two points are the two 15 trenches. And I believe laying the maps near 16 one another would indicate that it would have 17 been in that area. I have no idea ifthat is 18 intended to be it or not. 19 Q Okay. But at least based upon your 20 review of the two maps, it looks like it is in 21 the area ofthe manhole that appears to be 22 labeled 4AA2; is that right? 23 A Well, whatever that square is. 24 Q Okay. That square is labeled 4AA2. 25 If you could review -- referring back to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 189 WATER PCB-SD0000053103 190 1 Exhibit 5, the memo, if you could please 2 review the paragraph labeled No. 2 on the 3 first page. 4 A I have read it. 5 Q Can you identify on the map that's 6 attached to Exhibit 5 the area that's 7 discussed in paragraph 2? 8 A Could you repeat the question? 9 Q Can you identify on the map that's 10 attached to this Exhibit 5 the area that's 11 discussed in paragraph 2 of the memo? 12 A I believe it is the area at the top of 13 the exhibit. 14 Q Okay. The proposed settling basin in 15 the upper, left-hand comer? 16 A I believe as I read it, it talks about 17 catch drainage, catch pans and settling 18 basins, so I think it describes the area at 19 the north or at the top of this exhibit. 20 Q So moving from northwest to southeast, 21 there is a proposed settling basin, and then 22 there is proposed catch pans, and then there 23 is a proposed trench. Do you see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And those are the devices that are Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 190 WATER PCB-SD0000053104 191 1 referred to in this paragraph 2? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Can you explain the situation in this 4 area -- well, let me withdraw that. Do you 5 know whether the recommendations discussed in 6 this memo were actually implemented? 7 A I believe I remember observing the 8 placement of the catch pans and the basin out 9 on this north side. This was a loading area. 10 And the pans were beneath the loading areas, 11 and then they collected the flow into the 12 settling basin and then on to the sewer. 13 Q Can you describe what the situation 14 was in this area prior to the installation of 15 those apparatuses? 16 A I believe this was open ground. This 17 was put in as a protection device in the event 18 of spillage or over flowing during fdling 19 operations. 20 Q What happened to that spillage or over 21 flowing, if anything, prior to the 22 installation of these catch pans and drainage 23 basins? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q Can you direct your attention next to Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 191 WATER PCB-SD0000053105 192 1 paragraph 3 of the memo, on page 2. 2 A I have read this. 3 Q Can you identify where on the map the 4 proposed changes discussed in paragraph 3 are 5 depicted? 6 A In reading it and looking at it, it 7 would seem to indicate to me that it is the 8 area sort of on the east side of this drawing. 9 Q Where there is written in "proposed 10 roadway" and then "new sewer"? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Kind of cut off on this copy. 13 A Yes. And it may also pick up -- it is 14 difficult to tell from the memo which proposed 15 trench goes with which system. 16 Q Is it fair to say that you did not 17 have -- go ahead. 18 A I'm trying to interpret the memo and 19 the drawing, and I'm not reflecting firsthand 20 memory of this. 21 Q Okay. Is it fair to say you do not 22 have a very clear recollection of the 23 configuration of the PCB production 24 department? 25 A Yes. All I remember is sort of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 192 WATER PCB-SD0000053106 193 1 describing this was the principal production 2 department. This was the product loading area 3 that was out to the north side of that because 4 that's where the rail tracks were and the 5 loading docks, and that's about the extent of 6 what I remember from a factual basis. 7 Q So that the record is clear, the 8 "this" that we are referring to is the 9 production department and is the area in sort 10 of the southwest quadrant of this map. Is 11 that a fair statement? 12 A Did you describe it as the southern 13 half of this? 14 Q I said the southwest quadrant. Maybe 15 a better description would be the southern 16 half. 17 A It looks like it encompasses most of 18 that. 19 Q Maybe over to the area that's labeled 20 the east tank farm? 21 A Yes. That was basically the areas 22 covered by the existing trenches or the items 23 identified as existing trenches. 24 Q In paragraph 5 of this memo there is a 25 discussion of tank car loading spots west of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 193 WATER PCB-SD0000053107 194 1 Department 254 not shown on sketch. Do you 2 recall where Department 254 was? Is that the 3 rip track? 4 A I don't believe so. I believe it was 5 on one of the drawings, wasn't it? 6 Q I don't know. I don't have a 7 recollection of it. I will let you take a 8 look though. Do you know if it was this one 9 or the earlier one? 10 A I don't recall. 11 Q Okay. So it is depicted on the map 12 that we have marked as Exhibit 1 to your 13 deposition, basically due west of the building 14 on that map that's labeled 246? 15 A Yes. 16 (Plaintiff Deposition Exhibit Number 7 17 marked for identification.) 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Pierle, let me 19 show you a document that's been marked as 20 Exhibit 7 to your deposition with Bates 21 No. CER 013924. 22 A Do you want me to read this or? 23 Q Why don't you focus first on the first 24 page, and then we can move on from there. 25 A I have read this. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 194 WATER PCB-SD0000053108 195 1 Q Is this a document that you prepared? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Do you recall preparing this document 4 or do you recall the issues raised in this 5 document? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Yes to both? 8 A Yes. 9 Q In the summary paragraph on the first 10 page, there is a statement, "Department 245 is 11 now hauling 3,600 to 4,800 gallons a year of 12 spent aroclor to the Monsanto landfill." Do 13 you see that? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Prior to 1969, was Department 245 16 discharging this spent aroclor into the 17 sewers? 18 A I don't recollect if that's what the 19 conclusion was or not. 20 Q Well, you say, "Department 245 is now 21 hauling 3,600 to 4,800 gallons a year of spent 22 arocloar to the Monsanto landfill. The 23 remaining major source of aroclor in the sewer 24 is Department 246." 25 If the remaining major source of Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 195 WATER PCB-SD0000053109 196 1 aroclor in the sewer is Department 246, does 2 that suggest to you that there was an 3 additional source of aroclors in the sewer 4 that was eliminated? 5 A It could be read that way. I just 6 don't recall whether or not that, you know, if 7 it occurred every year or I don't recall the 8 details around what was coming out of 245. 9 Q Do you recall the type of aroclor that 10 was being used in Department 245? 11 A No, I do not. 12 Q Do you recall if it was being used as 13 heat transfer fluid? 14 A I believe it was or at least as a heat 15 transfer fluid. I don't know in what kind of 16 system. 17 Q Do you recall if it was Therminol? 18 A I do not. 19 Q Are you familiar with a product by the 20 name of Therminol? 21 A Yes, but only in the context that, as 22 I said before, I wasn't spending a lot of time 23 differentiating between PCB, aroclors, 24 Therminols or what those names meant or 25 whether they were the same. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 196 WATER PCB-SD0000053110 197 1 Q You were more concerned basically with 2 the gross PCBs into the sewer? 3 A Trying to understand where we had PCB 4 losses, that's correct. 5 Q Do you understand this memo to be 6 discussing PCB losses to the sewer from 7 Department 245? 8 A As I said, I don't remember the 9 specifics around this. I think as you read 10 the letter as written, you could read it that 11 way. 12 Q But you just don't have any 13 recollection? 14 A I don't recall the specifics about it. 15 Q No recollection of Department 245 16 dumping 3,600 to 4,800 gallons a year of spent 17 aroclor to the sewer? 18 A I don't --1 don't recall any. I 19 don't recall that. 20 Q Do you know how heat transfer fluid 21 becomes spent? 22 A My recollection of that is it meant 23 that heat transfer properties were no longer 24 within specs that were required at the using 25 department. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 197 WATER PCB-SD0000053111 198 1 Q On page 2 ofthis memo under quantity, 2 you indicate that only two departments, 245 3 and 238, have to completely change out their 4 system on a routine basis. What do you 5 understand that to mean? 6 A Well, I think the system again refers 7 to the heat transfer of fluids systems, and 8 that periodically they would have had to sort 9 of drain or empty and fill their system. 10 Q That would be these two departments 11 that you mentioned in -- 12 A Yes. 13 Q -- paragraph B1? Do you know if other 14 -- let me withdraw that. As part of the PCB 15 control program that you were implementing, 16 there was a decision that the department 17 should no longer sewer spent heat transfer 18 fluids; is that correct? 19 A I think the general decision was to 20 try and find out where we may have losses that 21 could be going to the sewer and find a way to 22 stop them. 23 Q Was one of the losses that you recall 24 sewering of heat transfer fluids? Not this 25 specific incident which you already said you Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 198 WATER PCB-SD0000053112 199 1 don't have a recollection of, but just 2 generally? 3 A I don't recall the details around the 4 systems in terms of a personal involvement and 5 observation on those. I think that the 6 document refers to -- referred earlier to 7 information based on use, based on how much 8 they knew they were putting in as opposed to, 9 you know, going out and sampling like we were 10 trying to do in the aroclor department, what 11 was being lost out of the production unit. 12 Q On page 2 of the memo up at the top, 13 the second paragraph, you state, "The object 14 of this report is to summarize preliminary 15 information on the sources and quantities of 16 aroclor material in the WGK plant effluent." 17 Do you see that? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Under sources, you identify as one of 20 the departments using aroclors Department 245; 21 is that correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And then under quantity, you discuss 24 the fact that Department 245 uses 600 gallons 25 every one and a half to two months. Do you Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 199 WATER PCB-SD0000053113 200 1 see that? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Does that suggest to you that 4 Department 245 was a source of aroclors into 5 the sewers and that the quantity was 600 6 gallons every one and a half to two months? 7 A Well, again, the point of 8 differentiation here is that what we are 9 trying to find out is where was it being used 10 and what sources might it be used in. 11 We knew it was being used in these 12 departments in their systems. They had a 13 makeup or a use rate in these departments of 14 about this much. That means it was going 15 somewhere. There was not, to my knowledge -- 16 this is what I'm trying to say -- confirmation 17 that it was going into the sewer. 18 I don't know where it was going, but 19 to the extent that it says these were being 20 changed out, then wherever it could be 21 drained, these materials then should be 22 collected in some fashion and taken I believe 23 it said to the landfill. 24 So the point of difference I think 25 that we are debating on is whether or not I Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 200 WATER PCB-SD0000053114 201 1 knew that this was going into the sewer. I 2 didn't know that for a fact there, but it was 3 being lost from the system. And the sewer is 4 one place it could have been lost to. 5 But this was preliminary information, 6 and I don't recall going out and verifying 7 that this stuff was actually, yes, we have 8 seen it leaving that unit and somebody is 9 opening it, and, yes, it is going into the 10 sewer. 11 Q Can you flip over to page 3 of this 12 memo. I'd like to direct your attention to 13 paragraph Cl down towards the bottom there. 14 And you state for Department 245 the aroclor 15 which previously had been sewered is now being 16 hauled to the Monsanto landfill? 17 A Uh-huh. 18 Q This amount amounts to a plant 19 reduction of 36 to 4,800 gallons a year. Does 20 that refresh your recollection that the heat 21 transfer fluid from Department 245 was going 22 into the sewers on a regular basis prior to 23 the institution of this PCB reduction program? 24 A Again, the difference I'm making here 25 is information that I was reporting that may Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 201 WATER PCB-SD0000053115 202 1 have been given to me as opposed to 2 information that I would have, can tell you 3 that I personally observed. 4 Q Okay. So you didn't observe 3,600 to 5 4,800 gallons of aroclors going into the sewer 6 from Department 245, but it was reported to 7 you that that's what was happening? 8 A That's what I'm reporting here. 9 Q Do you know where Department 245 is 10 located? 11 A I don't see any department markings on 12 here. 13 Q It is not on Exhibit 2. Let's see if 14 it is on -- it won't be on that one. 15 A I'm looking for a proverbial needle in 16 a haystack. 17 Q Let me see if I can help you. If you 18 can check on the area directly north of the 19 line from Dead Creek to the sewer system. 20 A It looks like that could be Department 21 245 there. 22 Q Is that consistent with your 23 recollection of where Department 245 was 24 located? 25 A I believe so. Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 202 WATER PCB-SD0000053116 203 1 Q Do you know where the sewers from 2 Department 245 entered the village sewer 3 system? 4 A No. 245 was, as I recall, and I think 5 is a department that makes phosphorous 6 pentasulfide. It was a solids operation, and 7 I don't remember spending much time in that 8 department as part of monitoring and 9 surveillance activities, because it was 10 inorganic material and didn't come up in what 11 we described earlier as monitoring programs. 12 I don't recall a lot of water and sewers and 13 all that down in that area. 14 Q After this discharge ofthe change 15 outs of the heat transfer fluids were 16 terminated, there was no further reason for 17 you to give any attention to 245? 18 A Well, I'm not sure I gave any before 19 that either. And I don't know where the 20 furnace was that serviced 245. I don't know 21 if it was right in the department or outside 22 or where the drain was or where it was. I 23 just -- as I said, I don't recall paying too 24 much attention to that particular area. 25 Q So I guess the answer to my initial Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 203 WATER PCB-SD0000053117 204 1 question, which is do you know where the 2 sewers from Department 245 entered the village 3 sewer system, would be no? 4 A That's correct. 5 MR. RICCI: Let's go off the record 6 for a second. 7 (Discussion off the record) 8 (Deposition continued) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 204 WATER PCB-SD0000053118 205 1 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, MICHAEL A. PIERLE, 2 and having read the foregoing transcript of 3 the deposition taken on the 28th day of June, 4 1994, acknowledges by signature hereto that it 5 is a true and accurate transcript of the 6 testimony given on the date hereinabove 7 mentioned. 8 ____________________ 9 Michael A. Pierle 10 11 Subscribed and sworn to me before this______ 12 day of, 1994. 13 My Commission expires: 14 15 16 17 Notary Public 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 205 WATER PCB-SD0000053119 206 1 State of Illinois 2 SS. 3 County of Madison 4 I, Tracey Balsitis, a Notary Public in and 5 for the State of Illinois, duly commissioned, 6 qualified and authorized to administer oaths 7 and to certify to depositions, do hereby 8 certify that pursuant to Notice in the civil 9 cause now pending and undetermined in the 10 United States District Court, Southern 11 District of Illinois, to be used in the trial 12 of said cause in said court, I was attended at 13 the offices of Cobum & Croft, in the City of 14 St. Louis, State of Missouri, by the aforesaid 15 witness; and by the aforesaid attorneys; on 16 the 28th day of June, 1994. 17 The said witness, being of sound mind and 18 being by me first carefully examined and duly 19 cautioned and sworn to testify the truth, the 20 whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the 21 case aforesaid, thereupon testified as is 22 shown in the foregoing transcript, said 23 testimony being by me reported in shorthand 24 and caused to be transcribed into typewriting, 25 and that the foregoing pages correctly set Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 206 WATER PCB-SD0000053120 207 1 forth the testimony of the aforementioned 2 witness, together with the questions 3 propounded by counsel and remarks and 4 objections of counsel thereto, and is in all 5 respects a full, true, correct and complete 6 transcript of the questions propounded to and 7 the answers given by said witness; that 8 signature ofthe deponent was not waived by 9 agreement of counsel. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel 11 or attorney for either of the parties to said 12 suit, not related to nor interested in any of 13 the parties or their attorneys. 14 Witness my hand and notarial seal at St. 15 Louis, Missouri, this 4th day of July, 1994. 16 My Commission expires January 24, 1995. 17 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 State of Illinois 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mike Pierle Vol 1; 6/28/94 Page 207 WATER PCB-SD0000053121