Document MGD2LBy2vQNXdEKVObE1L9rMx

-------- -------- --- " ------------------------ ' IW 1 If the levels are high enough, yes, I do. 2 What level, in your view, passes that threshold? 3 I don't know. j 4 W h a t 's your basis for believing that there is a 5 threshold at which that exposure can become harmful": 6 Well, basically the evidence. Most of it probably 7 stems from the work that I came across with animal 8 exposures over the years. Humans are not terribly 5 unlike other mammals in their response to certain 10 chemicals. Some species are simply more sensitive to 11 certain chemicals than others. 12 You're not aware of any studies on human beings which 13 demonstrate that correlation, are you? 14 1 can't cite you one, no. 15 Well, you say you can't cite me one. Have you read one 16 and you just c a n 't remember the citation for it? 17 1 have seen claims of abnormal cell structures, whether 18 they call them cancer or precancer, based upon PCB 19 exposure, I 'm fairly sure. I can't cite that. 1 have 20 sat and heard this issue argued. 21 At environmental levels? 4^a*-V Depends upon what you call an environmental level. 23 Well, I thought we understood what that was because 904762 ------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------- frr1 you've answered a number of questions using that term. 2 I'm referring to exposures to levels that are generally 3 found in the environment as distinguished from an 4 exposure such as the Yusho incident or occupational 5 exposures? 6 MR. McCREA: Jan, I don't think that 7 question is capable of being answered because obviously 8 you have different levels within the environment. 9 MR. FELDMAN: Hell, we've tried to discuss 10 the issue of the threshold. I mean i t 's part of the 11 same question. 12 MR. McCREA: I don't mind the question. 13 But to me it's irrelevant to the case because general 14 environmental levels simply are not something that can lb relate to a specific situation. 16 MR. FELDMAN: Can I have my question back? 17 (The Reporter complied with Counsel's request and 18 read as directed.) 19 I thought the question we were haggling over had to do 20 environmental levels was in the statement somewhere. 21 That's all right. It's impossible to dredge it out. 22 Are you aware of any studies that correlate exposure to 23 environmental levels of PCBs with cancer? 904763 1A TTET By environmental levels I'm assuming you mean part per 2 billion or part per trillion levels. I'm not aware of 3 one, bearing in mind that I have not reviewed the 4 literature in more than 10 years. 5 2 Okay. Are you aware of the current levels of PCBs in 6 the water flowing through Conard's Branch? 7 L e t 's do it in terms of a range. Are you aware of 8 the range of levels of PCBs in the water in.Conard's 9 Branch? 10 That number may have been flown by me sometime in the 11 last three or four months. I don't remember what it 12 is . 13 2 Whatever that number is, are you aware of any studies 14 that have correlated exposure to such levels of PCBs in 15 water with any kind of illness or disease other than 16 psychological? 17 I'm not aware of a study that's done that, no, whatever 18 the level. 19 And have you looked for such a study? 20 N o , I h a ve n't . 21 Has Mr. McCrea provided you with anything like that? 22 Mr. McCrea has provided me with what's here. And I 23 don't believe there is such a study in there. 904764 ------ -- ,----,----- :------------------ ---------------- ;--- ------ tfr* 1 Q So, the answer is no? Am Yes. 3 {A recess was taken during which tine Defendant's 4 Deposition Exhibit 22 was marked for identification.) 5 Q Doctor, we have just had a discussion off the record 6 about your -- What do you call them? Daily record 7 books? S A Yes, that's what I call them. Westinghouse calls them 9 engineering notebooks. 10 g All right. And some of which or maybe all of which 11 were requested in a production request that we received 12 in this case. And I provided to Mr. McCrea at your 13 last deposition the portions of those materials that we 14 had that we identified as being relevant to or 15 potentially being relevant to the Bloomington 16 situation. 17 And now the court reporter has just marked and I 'm 18 showing you your Deposition Exhibit No. 22 which is a 19 copy of the materials that we provided to you at the 20 last deposition. 1 assume all that is your writing; is 21 that right? 22 A No. 23 Q Who contributed to the materials that you have before 904765 -- ------ -------------- --------- ---------- -----------'--- ----- I W 1 2k you? I don't recall exactly whose writing this is. The bulk 3 of the pages here that have numbers under a column 4 called sample number, these are entries in a record 5 book that was used primarily for recording the 6 existence of a sample. The fact that a sample had been 7 taken and this might be what you would call a sample 8 logbook where the sample that was taken was logged into * S the laboratory system for subsequent analysis. 10 This handwriting would be the handwriting of 11 whichever one of the technicians was given the job of 12 logging in that particular group of samples. If you 13 can imagine them arriving in the laboratory like in a 14 big cardboard box or whatever container they came in 15 from the field. 16 Are there other cloth-bound books other than these 17 which contain the activities of T. 0. Munson? 18 Absolutely. 19 Other than the books from which Exhibit 22 was taken 20 are there other activity books? 21 Very definitely. 22 In other words, there is a completely different kind of 23 log other than the ones that are excerpted as Exhibit 904766 ------------- ---- --------- :-------- -- ------------------------ --91 22; is that right? 2 A Yes. Same physical type of book, the Westinghouse 3 engineering notebook. But 1 and each of the persons 4 who worked for me kept a personal daily journal. So, 5 each day that you were in the laboratory you did some 6 work there would be an entry date, there would be a 7 narrative. Hy instructions to them was to make the 8 narrative clear enough that someone else could 9 interpret your work if you weren't around to interpret 10 it. So, it looks like a journal. 11 And my guess is I had -- I don't know -- at least 12 five, maybe as many as ten, of those that I generated 13 during the time I worked for Westinghouse. In 14 addition, the people who worked in the laboratory with 15 me -- 1 think we called out their names before -- Jerry 16 Tassler, T-a-s-s-l-e-r, Mary Salb, S-a-l-b, Bethany 17 Johnson, Donna DiSpirioto, D-i-S-p-i-r-i-t-o, they IS would have generated some notebooks as well. If they 19 were analyzing a Bloomington sample, then that would be 20 in their notebook. 21 To complete this comment about the evidence, I 22 believe the final page is from a different notebook. 23 There is something about a swan. It has nothing to do 904767 TTZ 1 with Bloomington. Signed by Jerry Tassler. The entry up above is in somebody else's handwriting but not 3 mine. I think there's a page number that makes it 4 clear that it's not from the same book as the preceding 5 pages. 6 2 I did not mean to represent to you that this was ell 7 taken from the same book. 8 Yes, I understand that. I was making that clear. 9 2 Very briefly, is there anything here in your 10 handwriting? 11 All I want is a yes or no, and we'll come back to 12 itl at er . 13 A Yes. 14 Can you identify it in any way with the sample numbers? 15 On page 21 the entry for starting sample No. 141, that 16- is my handwriting. It continues through 142, 143, 17 across the next page to 155. Part of that entry is my 13 handwriting. Part of it is someone e l s e 's 19 We'll come back to it later. I just wanted to see if 20 there was anything in there that was yours. And y o u 've 21 answered that question. 22 At or about the time you started doing the 23 sampling project in 1970 or '71 did you make a search 904768 -- ----------------,-- ------------------ --------- ----------- :--1 of the literature to determine the Kinds of 2 applications that PCBs had been used in up to that 3 time? 4 A I had several articles talking about that subject. I 5 don't recall if I exhaustively searched the literature. Q You read something about it, though? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did you do any independent investigation to determine 9 the kind of applications that PCBs had been used foi 10 prior to the time you started the project? 11 A I don't remember doing more than collecting the 12 available articles on PCBs. Probably most of them were 13 written from the point of view of environmental levels 14 that were being seen. 15 0 You d o n 't disagree with the position that PCBs were 16 used in plasticizers, hydraulic fluids, lubricants, 17 surface coatings, inks, adhesives, pesticide extenders, 18 and carbonless copy paper, do you? 19 ft It is my understanding they were used in those 20 applications. 21 Q Is it also your understanding in their use in those 22 applications human contact with PCBs would have been 2.3 relatively commonplace? 904769 1 Yes . TFT * Is it also your understanding that as a result of those 3 uses that PCBs would be distributed ubiquitously into 4 the environment? 5 Yes . 6 Have you ever reviewed any literature on the tendency 7 of PCBs to adhere to soil? 8 I have read articles to that extent, yes. 9 Do you agree with the position that PCBs are less 10 likely to move in soil than other fluids because of 11 their tendency to adhere to soil? 12 Yes. 13 ls.it your understanding that that propensity for PCBs 14 to adhere to soil was one of the reasons industry 15 disposed of PCBs into landfills prior to the early ie '70s? 17 I believe that's true. 18 And is it your understanding that the reason that 19 industry used landfills to dispose of PCBs was because 20 their tendency to adhere to soil would sake them less 21 likely to migrate out of the landfills? 22 I believe t h a t 's the reason, yes. 23 (Defendant's Deposition Exhibit 23 was marked for 904770 ...... .. .... .... .... ...................................... i-5-51 identification.) 2 Q Dr. Munson, I' going to show you a document w e 've just 3 marked as your Exhibit No. 23 and ask you if you can 4 identify what that is for us. 5 A This looks like a proposal to the Environmental 6 Protection Agency. 7 Q Let me ask you a background question. Have you seen 8 this document before today? 9 A Seen when? 10 Q At any time. 11 A 1 presume I must have written it since my name is in 12 the top right-hand corner. It says 18 May, 1971. 13 q Do you recall drafting Exhibit 23? 14 A 1 sure d o n 't . 15 Q So, is it fair to say that you d o n 't have any current 16 recollection of how this document came to be? 17 A All I can say to that is that as part of our seeking 18 for outside funds at the Ocean Research Laboratory -IS We were only partially supported by Westinghouse -20 many such preliminary proposals were generated by 21 myself and others. I think we called this a KISS, keep it4-*v it simple, stupid. 23 And this, then, was taken by one of our marketing 904771 TTZ 1 people who would then pound on doors in various 2 government agencies seeing if he could generate some 3 interest. That's why this was called preliminary 4 proposal. 5 All right. It is not the case, then, is it, that the 6 project that ultimately led to the sampling you did in 7 Bloomington and other plants in '71 began as a 8 preliminary proposal to the EPA? 9 I really don't know how this relates. 10 2 You do, though, still believe that this is something 11 that you drafted? 12 Oh, yes, I think without doubt I drafted thi9. 13 Looking on the second page of the document 14 M R . McCREA: Do you have a third copy? 15 MR. FELDMAN: I d o n 't. Sorry, David. I 1* apologize for that. 17 Looking on the second page under the heading 18 introduction you indicated that as of the day of this 19 article in May of '71 there was a paucity of chronic 20 toxicity. 21 What did you mean by that, if you recall? 22 See that at the end of the first paragraph? 23 Yes. Basically that statement says that at that 904772 -- ------------ ------------------------ ---- --- -------------- --- i"9-r 1 tiroe -- I ' citing essentially a statement made by 4b' Gustafson in 1970; that's the reference -- that at that 3 time there was not enough chronic toxicity data to 4 assess the environmental impact. That was my opinion 5 at that time. 6 <2 What did you mean by chronic toxicity data? 7 Does that refer to the effects on humans of low 8 level exposure to PCBs over a period of time? 9 A I don't think 1 was particularly aiming this at humans. 10 Q 11 A Would that be included in that statement? Sure. I'm essentially when I say environmental impact 12 I 'm talking about all living beings or all living 13 animals, I should say. In fact, I shouldn't limit it 14 to animals. All living organisms. Because impact on 15 plant life, particularly phytoplankton in the ocean, 16 can be critical. 17 Q Is it fair to say, then, viewed in that comprehensive 18 way your statement at that time in 1971 indicated that 19 there was a lack of data as to the adverse effects on 20 all those kinds of organisms from chronic environmental 21 *->An A exposures to PCBs? Yes. The statement is there was not enough chronic 23 toxicity to make assessment of the impact really 904773 T9? 1 reliable, 1 guess. The word I use here is it was 2 difficult to wake an assessment at that time. 3 Looking at the next page, at the end of the first full 4 paragraph on that page the statement reads: The 5 primary objective'of the study will be to evaluate the 6 amount of release to the environment from the 7 manufacture, use and disposal of PCB containing 8 transformers and capacitors. 9 Is it fair to say as of the date that that you 10 drafted this proposal in May of *71 that there was 11 insufficient data to evaluate the amount of release to 12 the environment from those activities? 13 It was my opinion that the data in the open literature 14 needed to be added to. The one thing you do have to 15 remember when we .read a document like this is this is 16 like a sales brochure for a car. One tends to make 17 o n e 's case fairly strongly. Now, I d o n 't recall 18 reading this at the time. Pardon me. I mean I d o n 't 19 remember writing this. And it's hard to project myself 20 back into 1971 when I wrote this. But I think one 21 needs to bear that in mind when pulling the sentence 22 out of here. 23 So, as I take it, what y o u 're saying is one of the 904774 ---------------- --------------------------------------- ----- - 199 1 motivations in this report and in reports like this is 2 to obtain funding for additional studies? 3 A Certainly. 4 Q And that that motivation leads to, what shall we call 5 it, salesmanship or puffing of some of the problems 6 that might exist? 7 A Yes. I would like to think that I would not ever put 8 anything that was not true down here. But on the other 9 hand, you tend to pitch it strongly hoping to elicit a 10 response. 11 Q Is it true that you tend to emphasize concerns that 12 might exist in the data? 13 A Certainly. 14 Q Now, looking at the next page, page 3, at the bottom 15 and then proceeding on to the next page there is a 16 reference to the approval or the assurance from the 17 highest corporate levels that it's in the best long 18 term interests of Westinghouse Electric Corporation to 19 conduct such a study with complete objectivity and "let 20 the chips fall where they may." 21 Is the quote "let the chips fall where they may" a *d^U direct quote from some individual? 23 It may be that you just don't remember it, and I 904775 --- ----------- -------------------------------------------- TUV 1 don't want you to speculate about it. n Well, basically in essence I recall that as being the 3 sentiment of Don Burnham, the chairman of the board, 4 when I spoke with him. Whether he actually said those 5 exact words, I'm not sure. But basically that was his 6 sentiment. 7 When you say you recall that as being the sentiment, I 6 understand that to mean that Mr. Burnham on behalf of 9 Westinghouse was interested in obtaining all cf the 10 facts, even if they were adverse to Westinghouse; is 11 that correct? 12 Yes. And 1 should say I believe that was his publicly13 stated position. Maybe that's a little stronger than 14 sentiment. I believe he was on record somewhere as to 15 saying that about environmental effects from company 16 operations. 17 Okay. At the bottom of 3 again when you refer to the 18 highest corporate levels are you specifically 19 referring, if you remember, to Mr. Burnham or to other 20 individuals as well? 21 I can't remember. I 'm saying in this paragraph that 22 the director -- That would be John Kelly -- obtained 23 these assurances. I wish I could remember exactly 904776 -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; ---------------- --- -------------------------- 2 01~ 1 because one of the things that's puzzled me is exactly 2 what date I had that conversation with Don Burnham. 3 And I don't remember. 4 Q On page 5 under information gathering, item 1.4 refers 5 to an evaluation of the consequences of a partial or 6 complete ban on PCB use. Do you have any recollection 7 as to what kind of consequences this proposal was 8 proposing to analyze? $ A We were thinking from the point of view of the 10 electrical industry. There is a lot of concern in the 11 electrical industry about okay, if we stop using PCBs 12 today, what's going to fill that niche to provide the 13 right fluid characteristics, right insulating 14 characteristics and nonflammability. lb Q Was one of the concerns that without the use of PCBs in 16 capacitors and transformers there would be a 17 significantly greater incidence of fire and explosion 13 from that kind of equipment? 19 A I know those kind of statements were made. 20 Q Is it your understanding that PCBs reduced the number 21 and severity of fires that resulted from capacitors? A That was my understanding, yes. 2-3 Q Do you have any reason to still believe that? 904777 s1 *-. 1 Ho, 1 d o n 't. 4-b> Is it your understanding that fire codes and in seme 3 indications electrical codes and insurance codes 4 frequently required the use of PCBs in certain kinds of 5 electrical equipment? 6 I was told that schools, shopping centers frequently 7 required the nonflammable type transformers and 8 capacitors, yes. 9 Meaning PCB 10 At that time that was PCB-containing transformers and 11 capacitors. 12 And the reason for those requirements was because 13 capacitors and transformers that use straight mineral 14 oil as opposed to PCB fluid had a higher tendency to 15 cause fires and explosions; is that correct? 16 T h a t 's my understanding. Once again, we're in an area 17 that I d o n 't claim a lot of expertise. 18 I take it you've never reviewed any of the literature 19 on the advantages of PCB fluids in capacitors and 20 transformers? 21 I 've read several of the documents that were produced 22 by the electrical industry, yes, I have. 23 Produced in the mid '70s? 904778 1 A I think they were. yes. *6-9 2 Q Have you done a search for that recently? 3 A No. 4 Q Was Exhibit 23 ever actually sent to the Environmental 5 Protection Agency? A I don't know the answer to that question. I had 7 totally forgotten about this document until you put it 8 on the table a few minutes ago. But y o u 've stirred the 9 pot a little bit in my brain. And I think if 1 am 10 remembering right, this may have been something that 11 John Kelly and I put together to use as a goad to 12 generate internal funding for that program, to put 13 something in writing which could then be put up through 14 channels for approval. 15 Don Burnham's open-handed honesty notwithstanding, 16 a lot of the more practical people were not very' happy 17 about such data being generated. They felt that as 18 soon as data was generated showing problems, that was 19 potential exposure for plants, manufacturing plants, 20 that could create inflammatory situations. 21 Q >*> dm mm Why did Exhibit 23 address concerns such as the ones y o u 've just stated? 23 I beg your pardon. Why did it address what? 904779 77T 1 How did Exhibit 23 serve to either alleviate or I guess 2 sake irrelevant the kind of concerns that you just 3 discussed? 4 Well, Exhibit 23 is essentially my proposal in which I 5 have through the introduction have made an assessment 6 of the PCB situation at that time and made a case for 7 the fact that we need to do the type of study th at's 8 proposed in here. As soon as this document was 9 generated by me as a preliminary proposal for 10 estimation to the EPA the next step then would be for 11 it to go up through channels to get approval for being 12 passed out. 13 , If I had to guess, and I'm still not -- I d o n 't 14 have a memory of it. If I had to guess, I would guess 15 this document was never sent to EPA. 16 But that's just speculation; is that correct? 17 That's my speculation, yes. That's my speculation that 18 subsequent to this a formal program was generated. 19 Although, that may not be right. I'm looking at the 20 date of 18 May, 1971. 1 may. already have gone to 21 Sharon, Pennsylvania, by that date. So, I d o n 't know. 22 As I said, I had totally forgotten about that document. 23 Okay. And y o u 're having trouble recalling the details 904780 -------;--- -- -'--------------- -- -------- -- ' -------- ---------- ttrt1 urrounding that document? 2 A Yes. 3 Q You have indicated in one of the documents that you 4 prepared for Mr. McCrea that were introduced as 5 exhibits last time that you first learned about PCBs in 6 1970 sometime; is that correct? 7 You can refer to the document. I t 's Exhibit 9. 8 A It was either late '69 -- I started doing pesticide 9 work in either late '69 or early '70 in San Diego. And 10 it was subsequent to that that 1 learned about PCBs. 11 Q And the context'of your learning about PCBs in doing 12 . pesticide work, as 1 understand it, was the realization 13 that in some of the analytical data looking for 14 pesticides it was learned that PCB9 might be 15 interfering with the laboratory results? 16 A T h a t 's correct. 17 Q Is it fair to say that the publication of literature on 18 that phenomenon occurred sometime in the late '60s? 19 Yes . 20 And prior to that time it was not known as to whether 21 PCBs might be appearing in the environment in the kinds 22 of samples that they were testing? 23 I believe tha t's true. I think the late '60s were the 904781 1 first published, accounts. 206 2 And you said you looked at some data generated by 3 scientists in Sweden; isn't that correct? 4 I think s o , yes. 5 I take it that if the discovery that there were levels 6 of PCBs in the environment as disclosed by the 7 scientists in Sweden wasn't discovered until the late ' 8 '60s there also wasn't any published literature on 9 possible health effects either to animal or human from 10 environmental exposures during that period; is that 11 right? 12 Well.. I don't know. I hadn't seen any. But PCBs were 13 being used in very large quantity. Someone may hav14 done some -- I would guess there surely had been people 15 who had suffered from chloracne through use. 16 Again, I 'm referring to environmental exposures. 1~ I would guess you're probably right. 18 I don't want you to guess. You just don't knew of 19 anything to disclose that? 20 No. I d i d n 't even know of PCBs before 1968 or '69. 21 I'm sorry. . 22 In your August 6th, 1988 summary to Mr. McCrea you 23 indicate that in the fall, September and October, of 904782 -- ---- --- ----------- : --- ------ :--------:----- -- -- -- -- -*tr? 1 1970 the U. S. scientific community was beginning to 2 pressure the U. S. government to regulate the use of 3 PCBs . 4 What specifically is your basis for that 5 statement? 6 A My recollection of -- Just my recollection of what the 7 situation was at the time. I don't remember what 8 meeting I had gone to where I had heard this discussed. 9 There were a number of meetings I went to where 10 government people were present and university people 11 were present talking about pesticides in the 12 environment and PCBs in the environment. 13 Q Apart from those meetings, you can't recall any 14 specific detail of pressure exerted by the scientific 15 community to have the U. S. government regulate PCB 16 use? 17 A No. Robert Risebrough at Berkeley at the time was 18 being very vocal about PCBs and levels in the 19 environment and was making very alarming statements at 20 the time about PCB use and detrimental affects and that 21 sort of thing. 22 You say that during that period you were shaken to 23 think that you might be working for one of the black 904783 ------ -- ----------- ----- --------- :---- -- -- ;-----:--- -ja 1 hat corporations who ware raping the environment in 2 pursuit of the almighty buck. 3 What was the basis for that concern at that time? 4 MR. YOUNG: When was it? 5 MR. FELDMAN: He's unable to better fix 6 the time than late '70s. 7 My basis for that was when I discovered -- I had been 6 hearing -- You have to remember this was a time after 9 Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. Do you remember the 10 date? Sometime in the '60s or something. It was when 11 certain folks were beginning to predict our doom. 12 That's what Silent Spring is all about, first the birds 13 and then the humans because of what we were doing in 14 the environment. 15 There was not a tremendous amount of regulation of 16 industrial effluents going on. I was a flag-waving 17 environmentalist at that time and young and idealistic. 18 And 1 discovered one day that after I had learned about 19 PCBs I had read some of the material, and PCBs at that 20 time sounded as though they presented the saine threat 21 as DDT, which was fairly well recognized by those who 22 were paying attention at the time as quite a threat. 23 And then you can imagine my shock when I 904784 -------- ------------------- -------;---------- -- -- ----- :-- ;----1 discovered that Westinghouse was using, i I remember 2 the numbers, millions of pounds a year of the stuff in 3 its manufacture of transformers and capacitors. 4 Q Is it fair to say that that concern that Westinghouse's 5 use of PCBs might be "raping the environment" was part 6 of your motivation in doing- the study in Bloomington? 7 A Sure. 8Q You indicated earlier that at least to some extent you had pitched Exhibit 23 in a way that would prompt 10 people to want to fund the project that you were 11 proposing; is that correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Is it fair to say that the drafting of what ultimately 14 became the report for the Bloomington area was pitched 15 in the same way? 16 A Perhaps to a certain extent, yes. 17 Q And you understood at the time that you wrote the 18 Bloomington report that the continued funding- of that 19 kind of a project was subject to competition from other 20 projects; is that right? 21 A Yes. Although, 1 felt it had enough priority. 1 22 expected that project to continue, I was surprised it 23 did not. 904785 --- ,---- --------------------------- ;---------------------- 2 U " _ 1 But you understood at that time that if you had 2 conducted your investigations and samplings and so on 3 and determined there was not a significant problem in 4 the Bloomington area that future funding for that 5 project would likely be cut off? 6 THE WITNESS: Would you read that question 7 again. 8 {The Reporter complied with the witness's request 9 and read as directed.} 10 We were essentially seeking an answer to the question 11 was there leakage to the environment or not and how 12 much and what might be done about it. Basically I felt 13 the project was going to continue until we answered 14 those questions. I felt like we were seeking for the 15 truth. And I believe the truth is what I put in that 16 report. 17 That doesn't really answer my question. 18 I understand that. 19 Is it fair to say that you understood when you drafted 20 the Bloomington report -- Let me get it into the 21 record. - 4m 4m {Defendant's Deposition Exhibit 24 was marked for i 23 identification.) i 904786 1Q Is Exhibit 24 that the court reporter has just marked a 2 copy of the report that ultimately was generated from 3 your sampling in the Bloomington area? 4 A It looks like it. The only thing that's missing is all 5 of the copies of the report that I generated had a big 6 red inked company proprietary class 1 label stamped on 7 them. I stamped them all personally mys elf . 8Q 9 Apart from that difference, is that a true and correct a copy of the report that you generated from the sampling 10 in Bloomington? 11 A Well, true and correct, I don't have an original, but 12 it looks like the report. Okay. I 've seen only copies 13 of it and not since -- Well, I believe I was shown a 14 copy by Eric Ordway in New York. When was that. Last 15 year. And then again by David recently. But I have 16 not seen an original in the ensuing however many years 17 that is, 15 or more. But this looks to me like a true 18 and correct copy of the original report, yes. 19 Q Now, back to my original question, you understood when 20 you drafted Exhibit 24 that if your conclusions were 21 that there was not a problem disclosed by your sampling 22 and research in Bloomington that there would likely be 23 no additional funding for further sampling and analysis 904787 1 in Bloomington; isn't that correct? *> 4m Yes, in Bloomington. My understanding was we would 3 then proceed with the survey to the other sites, the 4 repair facilities, to complete the survey of the 5 possible environmental impact by Westinghouse's use of 6 PC B s . There would have been no further reason to 7 sample at Bloomington had we found no problem. 8 And if subsequent sampling at other sites disclosed no S problem, then eventually the entire project would come 10 to an end rather than generate additional funding; 11 isn't that correct? 12 Yes. 13 Do you know the date that Exhibit 24 was actually 14 finalized and sent to its addressees? lb No, I don't. I don't think there is a date on it. I'm 16 at a bit of a disadvantage because I don't have any of 17 this material anymore. 18 I have some recollection of your questioning whether 19 there were more pages beyond some document or some copy 20 of Exhibit 24 that you were shown on a prior occasion. 21 Are you satisfied as you sit here today that page 22 15 is as high as it went? 23 I think it is. 904788 ------------ ----------------- -------- ---- ------------ -- ---- ----Z-3- 1 Q Did you have an office in Bloomington that you worked 2 out of r 3 A No. 4 Q Everything was done from the plant? 5 A Or motel rooms. 6 Q Who else was involved in the work that you did in 7 Bloomington? 8 Let me break that down. Who else was involved in S actual collection of samples? 10 A Okay. I'm trying to remember the names. I believe or* 11 one sampling trip a fellow named Sam Stearns, 12 S-t-e-a-r-n-s, drove with me in a truck pulling a 13 trailer with a boat on it to Bloomington. And he and I 14 did some sampling. On another occasion I believe I did 15 some sampling with a fellow named Karl Armour. I think 16 that's A-r-m-o-u-r. He was from the environmental 17 systems division, same group where J.G. Terrill worked, 18 T-e-r-r-i-1-1, shown on Exhibit 24. 19 0 Basically a group of three? 20 A Stearns and I came by ourselves on on trip. Another 21 trip there -- There may have been three of us. Another person may have been Mr. Gray, G-r-a-y, Lyons, 23 L-y-o-n-s, as the support technician 1 brought with me 904789 ---------- ------- ----------------- ------------ -- ------ :-- 2TT 1 Iron our organization. And I believe at that trip we 2 net up with Hr. Armour, and I believe the three of us 3 sampled at that time. In addition, samples were 4 collected by Lew Shoaff, S-h-o-a-f-f, I think, from 5 Bloomington and sent to me. T h a t 's Mr. J.L. Shoaff I 6 see on this. 7 Those are the only people I recall from outside 8 Bloomington who were involved in the sampling. 9 } Mr. Shoaff was in Bloomington? 10 Yes, he worked at Bloomington, I guess. I don't know. 11 Maybe he still works at Bloomington. 12 Before you started doing sampling in the area did you 13 have a meeting with individuals at the Bloomington 14 plant? 15 Y e s . 16 What was the first meeting that you had with people in 17 Bloomington? 18 What date? 19 Well, if you can give me the date and also who the 20 participants were. 21 Oh, that will be tough. I may have tried to 22 reconstruct that date in one of the documents that I 23 provided for David. 904790 --------------- -- ^------- -------- :------ :--------------- ------2ir51 Q Why don't you tell me who the participants in the * meeting were and where it took place. 3 A Well, I believe at that nesting Mr. Brittain was there, 4 J.B. Brittain, 1 believe Mr. McCrea was there and Mr. 5 Shoaff. 6 Q And did that take place at the Bloomington plant? 7 A Yes. Now, at some point Don Sauter, S-a-u-t-e-r, I 8 think, also was at. the meeting, but I don't recall 9 whether he was at that time. I'm sure that on a number 10 of occasions I met with Brittain, McCrea, Shoaff and I 11 believe Mr .Sauter as well. 12 Q When you say a number of occasions you mean throughout 13 the course of this sampling project? 14 A Yes . 15 Q Now, at that first meeting what was the subject of the 16 meeting? What was discussed? 17 A I told them about the survey that I was going to 18 perform. 19 Q To your knowledge, had anyone called up or written or 20 had you yourself done that prior to your arriving in 21 Bloomington? 4* 4. A I certainly must have called them and set up the 23 meeting. But I d i d n 't know at the time that they had 904791 7T= 1 been contacted by someone else. I subsequently just 2 recently through David saw a memo that came to them 3 from somebody at Sharon. Because I had already been to 4 Sharon telling them that I would be coming. 5 Was that a memo written by Don McClain? 6 I don't remember. 1 believe it should be in this bock. 7 L e t 's leave that alone for the moment. We d o n 't need Vo to look for it. How long after this first meeting did 9 you actually begin conducting sampling? 10 I think it was shortly -- it was within a month or so, 11 I believe. 12 Were you working on the Bloomington project 13 continuously from the time of that first meeting until 14 you started doing sampling? 15 No. All I would have done is plan the sampling. But 16 we were doing other things at the same time. I already 17 had visited Sharon. So, I was planning to sample IS Sharon. In fact, we may have actually sampled South 19 Boston before we went to Bloomington. I d o n 't 20 remember. 21 In any event, you had an initial meeting with the 22 individuals y o u 've mentioned at the plant and then 23 began to plan out the sampling program; is that right? 904792 -------------- --- --------------------------------------------- 21~ --i 1 A Yes. 4 Q Did you plan out the sampling program in coordination 3 with any individuals at the plant? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Did you ask them questions about where samples should 6 be taken? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And who did you ask those questions of? 9 A The person 1 worked with most closely through this from 10 the point of view of sampling was Mr. Shoaff. I 11 believe he was responsible for the disposal of the 12 waste that left the plant and was trucked away. So, he 13 showed me where the landfills were to be sampled. 14 Q Other than maybe your work books were there any notes 15 or maps drawn up to show where the sampling sites would 16 be? 17 A This page, figure 6, it says movement to Stout Creek, I 18 believe that is a Xerox, a poor one, of a map I was 19 using, the U. S. geological survey topographical maps. 20 I think they're called the seven and half minute 21 quadrant maps. I had them that covered the entire area 22 that Mr. Shoaff indicated where the landfills were. I 23 had the maps that covered the area around the plant. 904793 --- ;-- ;------ --- !------ :---- :-- ;---------- :---------;---- ---- 2To~ 1 Using these saps I could project where stream flow 2 would be if there were streams or where runoff would be 3 if there were rain. And using those I decided where to 4 take the samples. But that information was then 5 transferred into the notebooks. In fact, I think even 6 the maps themselves were cut out and pasted into the 7 notebooks. 8 What about the sampling around the plant? 5 Was that done in conjunction with someone, at the 10 plant? 11 Yes. 12 Did someone tell you where you should sample? 13 They gave me some information like suggesting I sample 14 by the tank car because they knew there had been some 15 spills. As far as away from the immediate area around le the plant, I then used what I judged to be the flew 17 patterns for surface runoff and took the appropriate 18 samples. 19 At any time before Exhibit 24 ultimately was completed 20 did you submit drafts or portions of Exhibit 24 to 21 anyone? 22 I d o n 't think so. 23 Can you recall anything about discussions you had with 904794 -- ------------------ -------- ---------- -- -- '--- ;-------------- 2T? 1 Don McCrea concerning this project? A No, I don't think so. 3 Q Can you recall any conversations that you had with 4 Robert Sawyer about the project? 5 A No, I don't. 6 Q Can you recall any conversations you had with Mr. 7 Sauter about the project? 8 A I don't remember any conversations with him. 9Q 10 Can you recall any conversations you had with Mr. Brittain? 11 A 12 I do remember a conversation with Mr. Brittain. And that was -- I c a n 't remember. I think he took me out 13 to lunch somewhere. And we were sitting at the table. 14 And I was telling him that one of the samples I wanted 15 to take but I was told I had better not take it is th^ 16 sample of the sewage treatment plant. Because it was 17 clear from the operation at the time there was a PCB 18 containing effluent going into the sewage system that 19 then went to the sewage treatment plant on that side of 20 tow n. 21 And after I had done the sampling in the 22 discussion I had with Mr. Brittain I told him that, you 23 know, that effluent should be processed in such a way 904795 --------- ------------ ,-------------------------------- ---- J2V 1 to trip the PCBs out of it, that that could easily be 2 done. I mean the engineering existed to do that. 3 Let me interrupt you for just a second. You mentioned 4 that somebody told you not to do some kind of sampling. 5 Was this before this conversation with Mr. Brittain or 6 during or after? 7 That was before this conversation. This conversation ' 8 was taking place after I had finished the report. I 9 hand carried the report to them and we sat down and 10 discussed it. 11 And subsequently had a lunch with Mr, Brittain? 12 I had a lunch with Mr. Brittain. 13 Was that shortly after the report had been issued? 14 Yes, I believe it was at the same time I gave them the 15 report. 16 Who was it that told you samples should not be taken of 17 the Winston^Thomas plant? 18 The structure of the thing at the time I was thinking 19 Brittain was manager of the plant. And he really 20 wasn't. Sauter was in on the front and and he stepped 21 back. And it was then handled by Brittain, McClain, 22 Shoa ff, Sawyer working with me and they sort of worked 23 like a committee. A lot of these discussions we sat 904796 ----------------------- .-------------------- :------------ -- - a 1 down around table. Because part of the ground rules 2 for this survey was that I didn't go out and take any 3 samples before I had explained to tha people what I had 4 in mind. And this was true of all of the locations 5 that I sampled. 6 0 Dr. Munson, I'm just trying to determine who told you 7 that. 8A a I don't know. It would have been one of those three. Brittain, McClain, Shoaff, or Sawyer. 10 Q 11 Can you tell me anything about the circumstances surrounding that statement, where it was said, when it 12 was said, who else was present, the words that were 13 spoken? 14 A I can tell you my understanding of why they did n't want 15 me to sample i t . . 16 Q Is that all you can tell me about the circumstances 17 surrounding that statement? 18 A Well, it would have been before this report before I 19 took the samples on the first sampling expedition, 20 whatever date that was. But other than that, I just 21 don't remember. I just know that I wanted to take 22 samples in the plant and wasn't allowed to. 23 Q In the treatment plant? 904797 1 In the treatment plant. TTZ I take it that instruction not to sample the treatment 3 plant was not reduced to writing anywhere? 4 No. 5 2 No, it was not? 6 No, it was not reduced to writing. It was verbal. 7 Did the person or persons who told you about this also ' 8 tell you why they didn't want it sampled? 9 Yes . 10 Did they tell you that at the same time they instructed 11 you not to sample that area? 12 Yes, it was part of the instruction. 13 Had you verbally requested that you take such a sample? 14 Yes . 15 What was the reason told to you, not what you surmised 16 but what you were told, as to why whoever told you not 17 to take the sample told you not to do it? 18 Bcause if I went to the sewage treatment plant to take 19 the sample, I most likely coul dn't get the sample 20 without identifying myself, and the folks at the sewage- 21 treatment plant would want to know why a Westinghouse 22 employee was sampling the sewage treatment plant. And 23 at this time, as you can well understand, this project 904798 1 was considered quite high priority top secret within 2 the company. 3 Q Was it part o the statement that was aide to you not 4 to sample the Winston-Thomas treatment plant that this 5 project was high priority top secret? 6 A No. Their statement was -- I t 's not the exact words, 7 obviously, but they wanted me to take no samples in ` 8 such a manner as to draw attention to the sampling 9 survey. 10 Q And taking samples at the Winston-Thomas plant would 11 have drawn attention to that survey; is that correct? 12 A Yes. Sure. They didn't object to my sampling the 13 outfall from the sewage treatment plant. I just 14 couldn't go into the plant itself and ask to take a 15 sample of a sludge digester, for instance, or a raw 16 effluent or something. 17 Q Now we are back to the lunch with Mr. Brittain. What 18 can you recall about the conversations you had at that 19 lunch? 20 A W e l l , basically I told him that my primary concern was 21 about the movement of PCBs from the plant, Westinghouse 22 plant, to the sewage treatment plant would most likely 23 have to have contaminated the sludge as well as the 904799 -------------------- ----- ------- -------- -- --------- ;--- T T T 1 ffluent from the plant. I told him that someday all 4m of this was going to become public because the amount 3 of PCBs I was finding out there were readily visible to 4 anyone who chose to sample. I mean it was hot that 5 difficult. 6 When you say visible you don't mean you can see them? /mm No. I mean findable. Anyone who wanted to sample a 8 fish in the stream would suddenly say wow, where are 9 all these PCBs coming from. So, I told him that what 10 they should do is they should put together a stripper 11 of some sort to take the PCBs out of that effluent 12 before it went to the sewage treatment plant because if 13 some years went by before this problem surfaced, the 14 sewage treatment plant would purge itself. And there 15 would not be high levels of PCBs in the plant to be 16 alarmed about or in the effluent downstream from the 17 plant. Because I felt that would be a fairly easy 18 thing to do. 19 He said that they had thought about doing that. 20 At the time 1 didn't realize, no one told me that there 21 had been a previous study actually of that very thing. 22 But they had estimated it was going to cost $10,000 to 23 do that. And this plant was very marginal in terms of 904800 1 return on investment. They were returning like one or 2 one end a half cents on the dollar he said. And if 3 they had to that year shell out a $10,000 capital 4 equipment expense like that, it could be enough to 5 break the back of the plant. He was afraid it would be 6 closed, and they would all lose their jobs. And so he 7 said they simply were not going to do that. 8 Q The purpose of the stripper would be to reduce the 9 quantity of PCBs in the effluents; is that right? 10 A Yes . 11 Q 12 And your recollection of the conversation with Mr. Brittain was that they did not want to spend $10,000 to 13 install some device that would serve that function? 14 Yes, that's what he told me. 15 Do you know if the Bloomington plant ever installed any 16 devices to reduce the quantity of effluent -- of PCBs 17 in effluent leaving the plant? 18 1 don't know for sure that they did. 19 Prior to the time you left Westinghouse did you ever 20 inquire of anyone at the Bloomington plant or of anyone 21 at Westinghouse as to whether such devices had been O installed? 23 No, I didn't. 904801 -- -- ------ -------- ------------- :----------- . 22b 1 Have you ever heard of sonething called a manifold 2 filling system used in the production of capacitors? 3 I don't renenber the term. That sounds like it might 4 describe the way it was -- If that's the big vacuum 5 oven where they put them in and evacuate it and flood 6 it full of PCBs to fill them, I have seen one, but I 7 d o n 't remember the term manifold filling. 8 If I were to tell you that the Bloomington plant 9 installed a system called a manifold filling, to the 10 best of my understanding of the term, manifold fill 11 system, which was designed to reduce the PCBs in the 12 effluent leaving that plant at an expense in excess of 13 a hundred thousand dollars, would that be the first 14 time you had heard that? 15 I think so. 16 HR. McCP.EA: Do you have a year on that? 17 MR. FELDMAN: Not precisely as I sit here 18 If that system were installed sometime shortly after 19 1971, would it be your understanding that that would be 20 inconsistent with Mr. Brittain's expressed concerns 21 about spending $10,000 for a stripper to install to 22 reduce the PCBs in the effluent? 23 Yes. That goes just opposite to what he said they 904802 --- _------------------------------------------- --------- -- -- 1 would do. 2 (A recess was taken during which tine the 3 preceding question and answer were read.) 4 0 Looking at the exhibit, the first page of the report of 5 Exhibit 24 after the cover page you indicate in the 6 second full paragraph there that one of the goals or 7 the objectives was to take suitable corrective action. 8 I did not see that in the preliminary report, 9 Exhibit 23. Who authorized that as an objective of 10 this project? 11 A I d o n 't know the answer to that. Prior to writing this 12 report, in fact, prior to beginning the survey, I did 13 have a meeting along with Dr. Kelly with Dr. Shoupp who 14 was the vice-president of R and D. And 1 think the 15 three of us had a clear understanding of what it was I 16 was going to do. So, I would say higher management had 17 in mind that that's what this was going to do. And 18 that's certainly my understanding of what we were 19 doing. 20 Q But you can't recall as you sit here today specifically 21 who it was who authorized that to be a part of this 22 project? 23 A No, 1 don't remember. 904803 1 You said you brought the report over to the plant 2 personally; is that right? .3 4 And there was a meeting there with Mr. McClain, Mr. 5 Brittain, Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Sauter; is that correct? 6 I don't specifically remember the meeting. 7 3 Let me probe that a little bit, if you will, Doctor. .8 When you say you don't remember the meeting do you mean a 9 that you don't remember specifically who was there? 10 Yes . 11 3 Do you remember anyone who was there? 12 No. I know that each site I visited -- When I finished 13 the report I can't remember exactly. I may have mailed 14 copies of the report ahead of time to this 15 distribution, but I believe what I did is hand carried 16 them. But in any event, there was then a meeting so we 17 could all sit down around the table and discuss what 18 was in the report. 19 But as you sit here today you cannot remember being at 20 such a meeting? 21 Who was sitting at the table, no. 22 You do remember being at the meeting; you just can't 23 remember the participants? 904804 1 A I do remember being at such a eating, but I don't 2 remember the participants. 3 Q Do you remember how long it lasted? 4 A No, I don't. 5 Q Do you remember whether you began the meeting by giving 6 an overview of the results of the report? 7 A Basically the only thing I remember about that trip is 8 my disappointment in talking with Mr. Brittain to find, 9 at least according to him what he said -- He was the 10 engineering manager. Maybe someone changed his mind 11 later on. My understanding when 1 went home, what I 12 felt, was the key change was not going to take place. 13 Q Let me make sure I understand you. Other than your 14 conversation at lunch with Mr. Brittain you c a n 't 15 remember any specifics about meetings, a meeting or 16 more than one meeting, which you had with individuals 17 from the plant to discuss this report? 18 A No, 1 don't remember meetings. 19 Q Do you remember whether anyone at that meeting or at 20 any other time told you that you could not disclose the 21 existence of the report or the results in it? 22 A No. I 'm still thinking about the answer to that 23 question. And the answer to that question is, the 904805 -- ---------------------- -- ------- ;-- - ZHT 1 words you used I was told, that was ay understanding of n 4m the operating procedure about this report and all of 3 the reports. As to who said those words, whether it 4 was Kelly, Shoupp or whatever, I d o n 't think it would 5 have been these people because they were not laying out 6 the overall ground rules for the survey. 7 If they had had their desire, the survey wouldn't 8 have happened at all. The survey came-from the top 9 down. 10 Did anyone in thi9 group that's on the cover page of 11 Exhibit 24 tell you that if they had their way the 12 survey would not have happened at all? 13 I don't specifically recall those words coming from the 14 mouth of any of those people. Definitely I was told 15 that in Sharon, and I know that they shared the feeling 16 that this was going to do nothing but cause trouble. 17 The people at Sharon had that feeling? 18 Hell, the person that I went to at Sharon all but rode 19 me out of town on a rail the first time I was out 20 there. These people shared the view that it would be 21 better off not to do this survey. 22 But you d o n 't have a recollection that anyone on this 23 list of individuals on the cover of Exhibit 24 told you 904806 1 that; is that correct? 2 A No. Because the only specific conversation where I 3 remember the words with anybody at Bloomington is with 4 John Brittain at lunch. 5 Q And that's the conversation described earlier 6 concerning the stripper? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, are you aware of any efforts undertaken at the 9 Bloomington plant, personal knowledge that you have of 10 any efforts undertaken at the Bloomington plant, to 11 ensure that the existence of Exhibit 24 or the actual 12 document was never disclosed to the public? 13 A No, I don't know what they did with the document after 14 I left. 15 MR. CARNEY; Off the record. 16 (A discussion was held off the record.) 17 A (Continuing) That question you just asked me about 18 personal knowledge, I do recall that in the exhibits 19 which we have here that there is a letter where 1 20 believe it was Mr. Westlake who replaced Mr-. Sauter or 21 maybe he's several people down the road did make the 22 statement that he had no knowledge of any, well, in a 23 sense he was saying that he had no knowledge of any J 904807 -- --------------- -- ------ ;--- -- ----- ------- :-------- ;-- zrr 1 problems.having- to do with PCBs in the environment. 2 How, whether that wa he really didn't or the 3 other people who did didn't tell him or what, but there 4 was a golden opportunity where it went by where they 5 didn't mention this report. 6 This is a document that you have reviewed in connection 7 with this case; isn't that correct? 8 Yes. o And you hadn't seen that before -- 10 I hadn't seen that before. 11 You got to let me finish my questions. You had not 12 seen that document before you were retained in this 13 matter; is that correct? 14 That is correct. 15 You have not talked to Mr. Westlake about the content 16 of that letter? 17 N o , I have n o t . 18 Have you had any conversations with Mr. Westlake? 19 I have not. 20 Are you aware from personal knowledge about any cf the 21 investigation or other context surrounding the creation 22 of that letter from Mr. Westlake? 23 No. Prom personal knowledge, no. 904808 -- ------- -- ------:------- ---- :------:-- :-------- :-- ;-- 1-- - 23 1 Q Have you talked to anyone other than Mr. McCrea 2 concerning the context and the background of that 3 letter? 4 A Only talking to Mr. Conard-about the letter that caused 5 the subsequent letter. 1 believe that was in response 6 to a letter from Dale Conard. I have talked to Dale 7 Conard about the letter he wrote. 8 Q Did Mr. Conard indicate to you that he had talked to 9 Mr. Westlake or anyone else at Westinghouse about 10 investigations that might have gone into drafting that 11 letter? 12 A I don't know that he said anything about that. 13 Q And y o u 've never talked to anyone at Westinghouse about 14 what went into that letter? 15 A N o , I have n o t . 16 Q Do you have any personal knowledge about any efforts 17 that Westinghouse may have made to keep Exhibit 24 from 18 reaching any governmental body, state, federal or 19 whatever? 20 A No. I might refer you to one of the documents I 21 prepared for Dave and the question about who knew and 22 why wasn't it made public. And it may have been a 23 series of coincidences. I d o n 't know. 904809 ---------- --- - : ' 27T 1 You don't know that it wasn't a series of coincidences? 2 Yes, I don't know that it wasn't a series of 3 coincidences. 4 You d o n 't know whether it was just because people 5 forgot about it, do you? 6 Right. I saw in there I saw no evidence of conspiracy 7 to suppress or anything. 8 No trick or artifice to attempt to keep Exhibit No. 24 9 confidential; is that correct? 10 I have no knowledge of what became of Exhibit 24. 11 So, the answer to my question is you d o n 't know of any 12 trick or artifice? 13 Yes, 1 do not know of any trick or artifice. 14 And in fact, you indicate in one of the documents that 15 you prepared for Mr. McCrea on August 11, 1988 and I 16 believe testified to some of this at your last 17 deposition that you personally referred to the sampling 18 at Bloomington in testimony that you gave on behalf of 19 Westinghouse either in 1972 or thereabouts; i s n 't that 20 correct? 21 T h a t 's correct. 22 And you also indicated that as to the sampling that you 23 did at South Boston -- You have VA, but I assume you 904810 1 aean PA, South Boston? ^3-5- 2 A It's Virginia. 3 Q You indicated in a document you drafted on August 11, 4 1988 that was included in Exhibit 9 that individuals 5 from that plant showed officials from the state of 6 Virginia a copy of the report that you did relating to 7 that plant; is that correct? 8 A I was told that they did by someone at the plant. 9 Q Who told you that? 10 |A 11 Q 1 don't remember. And that was sometime in 1973, to the best of your 12 knowledge? 12 |A I believe it was about a year or so after I gave them 14 the report. And I d o n 't really remember when that was. 15 $ 16 And X believe you also indicated that Mr. P.idgway Hall in connection with your affidavit in 1976 was aware 17 because you informed him of it that you had done the 18 sampling in Bloomington in '71, and he d i d n 't object to 19 your not disclosing the substance of that sampling; is 20 that right? 21 A I d o n 't remember if I specifically called out sites. 22 But I told him I had done sampling around Westinghouse 23 plants. And he agreed we would not delve into that J 904811 ---------------- ------------ ------- --- ---------- ---- ;-- "73 6 1 material. 2 You were provided with a copy of some testimony that 3 Mr. .Don Sauter gave at the Environmental Management 4 Board hearings in 197$; is that right? 5 Yes. 6 I'm referring to your Exhibit 10, a letter you sent to 1 Mr. McCrea on November 6th, 1988. And from your own ' 8 knowledge or from things you had heard your review of 9 that testimony indicated that Mr. Sauter had been 10 truthful in his responses in that testimony; is that 11 right? 12 I believe so, yes. 13 MR. McCREA: I'd like the record to show 14 that we have four or five pages of his testimony and 15 that's all. The balance of his testimony was not 16 provided. 1" Did you ever ask for the remainder of Mr. Sauter's 18 testimony? 19 I did n o t , n o . 20 Did Mr. McCrea indicate that he would provide that to 21 you? 22 MR. McCREA: I think I asked you, Jan. 23 MR. FELDMAN; I don't think you did. 904812 -------- ;----- ------------------------ --------------- --------t V f- 1 A Basically Z had the pages that Mr. McCrea supplied to 2 e . And I responded as I responded based on those 3 pages. 4 MR. McCREA: For the record, we do not 5 have any of the other pages of his testimony. 6 Q In the same document that you sent to Mr. McCrea or 7 that you drafted on August 11 of this year you make 8 some mention of something called the Industrial Secrets 9 Act. What's the Industrial Secrets Act? 10 A I haven't a clue. I thought there was one. 11 Q Why did you think there was such a thing? 12 A I don't know. I was young and naive, I guess. Y o u 're 13 going to ask me who told me that. I haven't a clue. 14 Somehow I had a feeling that information that was 15 stamped company proprietary class 1 that if an employee 16 willingly revealed that to outside company sources that 17 there would be some sort of legal sanctions. 18 Q Dr. Munson, did you ever ask anybody, any attorneys or 19 anyone else, ae to whether there were such a thing as 20 the Industrial Secrets Act? 21 A <>n 4m 4k Q No, I didn't. Did you ever go to the library to look it up and see if 23 you could find a reference to it somewhere? 904813 1 No. 2 Is it fair to say that your belief that there was an 3 Industrial Secrets Act which might result in some kind 4 of penalties if you disclosed the Bloomington report is 5 it fair to say that thought prevented you from 6 disclosing it before all these years? 7 Up until the time I left Westinghouse ay clear 8 understanding was that I would lose sty job if I 9 disclosed the information. After that it was my 10 understanding that I was still prevented by law from 11 disclosing it. T h a t 's why I was not allowed to take 12 any proprietary material. That was my understanding j 13 that was why I was told why I could not take any of my 14 notebooks, any of those reports with me when I left. 15 Did you ever attempt to verify.that even after you lef* 16 Westinghouse that you were not permitted either by 17 company policy or by some law from disclosing any of IS the sampling that you did? 19 N o , I d i d n 't . 20 Do you remember who told you that you would lose your 21 job if you disclosed any of this information? 22 No. .ii j23 Do you have any written policies to that effect from 904814 ------------------ ------------- --------------- ---- ------------ 2 i 9 1 Westinghouse? 2 A No. 3 MR. FELDMAN: Let's taka a real short 4 break. 5 (A recess was taken.) 6 Q Dr. Munson, you said you thought you would lose your 7 job if you disclosed the existence of the report or the . 8 subject matter of the report. What is your basis for 9 or what was your basis for believing that to be true? 10 A I don't know. I mean I was told that when a document 11 was stamped company proprietary class 1 that if you 12 took that document off and handed it to a reporter or 13 something, No. 1, y o u 'd lose your job, No. 2, you'd be 14 sued for damages by the company. Now, maybe I was 15 naive. 16 Wasn't it your understanding that the proprietary stamp 17 was on there to ensure that at least the document 18 wouldn't be disclosed until the company had a chance to 19 review it and decide how, if at all, to disclose it? 20 That wasn't my understanding with tha proprietary 21 stamp. My understanding with the whole program was 22 that when we use the word scoped out the nature of th-.23 probleras, if any, that Westinghouse Electric was having 904815 ----- -------------------- ;------ ;----:---- -- ------ ;--- ZTu 1 relative to PCBs the necessary remedial steps would be 2 taken and at some appropriate point the information 3 would become public. 1 believed that was going to be 4 the case. 5 MR. FELDMAN: Can I have his answer back. 6 {The Reporter complied with Counsel's request and 7 read as directed.) 8 I take it from what you said that you didn't think that 9 the proprietary stamp was intended to be used to 10 maintain the confidentiality of a document in 11 perpetuity but only as a temporary matter; is that 12 right? 13 A My understanding of the proprietary 9 tamp is the same 14 as my understanding of a classified document that's 15 stamped top secret, that at some later point someone in 16 high enough authority can make the decision to 17 declassify the information. But clearly that w a s n 't my 18 authority. 19 Prior to your contact with Mr. Ordway were you aware 20 that there was a Super Fund Cleanup in Bloomington that 21 was being conducted? 22 N o . 23 Prior to your contact with Mr. Ordway did you have any 904816 ---------------------------- ; ---- ---- ------------ -- -------1 awareness that the PCB situation relating to 2 We9tinghouse had become a matter of public concern in 3 Bloomington? 4 A Yes, I knew that. I had read some small announcement 5 in Chemical and Engineering Hews I think that the 6 problems around the plant or something relating with 7 the plant had become public, yes. *8 Q 9 Is it fair to say that apart from that small item in Chemical and Engineering News that you were unaware of 10 any of the other details of the Bloomington situation 11 until Mr. Ordway contacted you? 12 A T h a t 's true. 13 Q Doctor, referring to Exhibit 24 on page 1, you list 14 five possible routes for 1 guess discharges of PCBs 15 into the environment; is that right? 16 A Yes. 17 0 And one of those routes is sealed units enroute to the 18 customer which you refer to as item 1; is that right? 19 A Yes . 20 Q And sealed units means capacitors? 21 A Yes, t h a t 's what I was referring to. 22 Q Were you ever made aware of the possibility of 23 discharges of PCBs into the environment from defective 904817 1 capacitors sold to customers of Westinghouse? 242 2 I don't specifically remember a discussion on that 3 topic. 4 You don't recall any discussion while you were at 5 Westinghouse of the possibility that ore PCBs might be 6 getting into the environment if capacitors manufactured 7 at the Bloomington plant had a higher defective rate? . 8 I don't remember such a discussion. 9 And that's not something you investigated, is it? 10 No. We were going to go to repair sites which is 11 presumably where those would come, but we never did 12 that. 13 To your knowledge, had there been any previous 14 investigations before yours of the third item on page 15 1, namely transporting of impregnated solid waste to 18 the sanitary landfill as a means that PCBs might be 17 getting into the environment? 18 I believe that at the time I went there they talked to 19 me about concerns about Neal's Landfill because of the 20 burning and that sort of thing. And that was why they 21 stopped using it. I 'm not sure -- I don't know if that 22 answers your question as a study. At that time 1 was 23 not aware that anybody like myself had come in and done 904818 1 a study. T"*** 2 Q Either at Bloomington or any other landfill; is that 3 correct? 4 A I don't remember having in my possession somebody 5 else's study of a PCBs landfill somewhere. I don't 6 remember having that. 7 Q And you just indicated that when you arrived or shortly 8 after you arrived in Bloomington someone informed you 9 that Westinghouse had used Neal's Landfill for a period 10 of time; is that correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And then subsequently directed Neal to stop taking 13 capacitors to that site; is that right? 14 A I'm not sure who was given the direction, but my 15 understanding was they stopped using that landfill site 16 because of problems and they cited burning and some 17 other things that I d o n 't remember. And they had then 18 chosen a new landfill site. 19 Q Do you recall who that conversation was with? 20 Probably Lew Shoaff, but I cou ld n't swear to that. 21 Do you recall someone telling you at that time that the 22 new landfill site that was to substitute for N e a l 's 23 Landfill was chosen in conjunction with the State of 904819 1 Indian* or Monroe County or the City of Bloomington? 2 I don't remember them saying how it was chosen. 3 2 Other than the burning, can you recall any other 4 problems that were mentioned as having led to the 5 switch from Neal's Landfill to another site? 6 k One of them -- I'm not sure who it was. Might have 7 been McClain. I don't know why McClain's name jumps in . 8 in association with this. But one of them told me 9 about the farmer adjacent to the landfill. It wasn't 10 the Conards. It was the other farmer, the farm along 11 the road there. Might be shown on figure 2. They said 12 this farmer had had problems of poor reproductive 13 success, stillbirths, deformities, that sort of thing 14 with his livestock who drank 1 think some water that 15 came across there, water out of the landfill. 16 And that's what specifically caused me to take 17 those samples right along in there. 18 Are you referring to the paragraph at the bottom of 19 page 6? 20 Yes . 21 Is it your clear recollection today that someone from 22 Westinghouse told you that there had been a farmer who 23 had claimed that materials leaching from the landfill 904820 1 -V 4 A * wre interfering with the reproduction of his cattle? Yes . 3Q 4 Can you tell me anything sore about the circumstances surrounding that conversation? 5A 6 No. Basically I wouldn't have had any way to know about that because I wasn't allowed to go talk to city 7 officials, state officials, that sort of thing in the 8 community because the peopl*e at Bloomington, the plant 9 at the Westinghouse plant, didn't want me to become 10 visible as a sampling operation. 11 Did you review any legal papers in connection with the 12 lawsuit that you describe at the bottom of page 6? 13 A No. 14 Is it fair to say that all of the information that you 15 have in the bottom of page 6 and top of page 8 16 concerning the farmer's livestock was taken from 17 individuals at the plant who allegedly knew about it? 18 yes. 19 And you never confirmed one way or. the other whether 20 that statement was true? 21 The answer is no. There was no way I could have 22 without alerting somebody outside of Westinghouse that 23 I was concerned about PCBs leaking from the landfill. 904821 T3T 1 You never talked to any of the farmers in that area; is 2 that correct? 3 Absolutely not. I never talked to anybody. I sneaked 4 over fences and took samples. 5 Was the reason that the story about the farmer was told 6 to you that given that situation Westinghouse wanted to 7 know what levels of PCBs were in that area? 8 T h a t 's my recollection. 9 And that was expressly stated to you? 10 Yes. 11 Did you have information as to specifically where that 12 livestock was? 13 Someone showed me on the map where that farm was. 14 Is that on figure 2 of Exhibit 24, the area marked 15 farm? le Yes . 17 Have you since come to know who owned that farm at chat, 18 time? 19 No. 20 Have you ever done any additional investigation beyond 21 what you did for this report, Exhibit 24, of possible 22 contamination that might have led to reproductive 23 problems in farm animals from that farm? 904822 --------------------------------------- -------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------1 A No. -> Q And the sample that resulted from your investigation of 3 that farm is marked BL25 at 2 parts psr million on 4 figure 2? 5 A The sample that came from the farm is that one, ye9. 6 Q Were there other samples that you took around that 7 farm? 8 A Well, the downstream sample, the one BL2, was a fish -- 9 Q Excuse me, Doctor. I think you meant BL -- 10 A Oh, BL27 . Yes. That was part of investigating that 11 route as well. 12 0 1 take it all of the samples that you took in 13 connection with this report were either sediment or 14 some other solid; is that right? 15 A I think we took some fish. 16 Q T h a t 's what I meant by other solid. You took no water 17 samples; is that correct? 18 A To the best of my recollection, that's correct. 19 0 Are all of the samples that you took leading up to this 20 report reflected in the report itself? 21 A a# a"w> 1 don't know the answer to that. I coul dn't answer that without the record books showing. There may have 23 been -- Maybe I can answer this way; To the best of my 904823 IT S 1 knowledge, every ample that I analyzed that was 2 collected the data are present in this report. In 3 other words, up to this point. 4 There may have been one or two samples we took 5 that I made a judgment call later back in the lab and 6 did not analyze that particular sample. It may have 7 seemed redundant or something with another one. There 8 were some later samples not in this report that I think 9 some were sent to me by Mr. Shoaff. 10 I see references to a BL2. Is there a BL1 somewhere? 11 Yes, figure 1. There is a BL1. 12 What about numbers between 2 or 3 and 27 and 24 and so 13 on? I d o n 't see numbers in the teens. 14 Well, without the reports - - W a i t a minute. I see some 15 in the teens here. 16 On page 11? 17 Yes. Okay. Here we go. Figure 5 around the plant 18 there's 13, 16, 12. There's 14. And then on the next 19 page figure 6 movement to Stout Creek. That one shows 20 10, 14, 16, 18, 19. 21 Is it your understanding that if there is a B L 5 4 , there 22 ought to be numbers from 1 to 53 in this report? 23 Yes. Samples that were collected were numbered 904824 -- --------------- --------------------------- ------- ------------------------- ;------------- :--------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------- -------- '---------- 1 sequentially. 2 Q Well, look at figure 7. That's a sample BL54 from 3 Beanblossom Creek that shows .02 parts par Billion? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Where are 1 to 53? 6 We have found some of them, but we have n't found 7 them all, have we? .8 A I d o n 't know the answer to that question. 9 q Do you agree that there are not samples 1 to 53 10 accounted for in this report? 11 A It looks as though not every single sample that vas 12 collected is represented in this report. !3 Q As you Sit here today can you explain that? 14 A What I can tell you for sure is that if the numbers go 15 from BL1 to BL54, there was a sample taken 16 corresponding to each number. 17 D When you began the sampling in Bloomington did you work 18 continuously exclusively on Bloomington until this 19 report was issued? 20 A N o . 21 Q Is it possible that some of the samples before 54 were 22 samples of areas other than Bloomington? 23 A No. That's what the BL stands for, Bloomington. 904825 1 Sharon was SR or SH, et cetera. 2 I also d o n 't a any samples in this report that were 3 nondetectable. Do you agree with that that there are 4 none? 5 k That's probably likely. 6 Do you recall taking any samples that were analyzed as 7 nondetectable for PCBs around Bloomington? ' 8 No. 9 Everywhere you took a sample you found PCBs? 10 Yes. 11 2 As you sit here today does that lead you to question 12 the accuracy of some of the results in your report? 13 Not at all. If you crawl down in a crevasse in the 14 Antarctic and take an ice sample, you find PCBs. The 15 globe is contaminated with PCBs everywhere. 16 Did you do any investigations as to what the background 17 levels for the Bloomington area were for PCBs in soil 18 or fish or any other of the media that you sampled? 19 A Only to the extent that I tried to position some of the 20 samples at some remote locations. But I wasn't aware 21 there was any PCB data in existence at the time. 22 Did you attempt to find any by analyzing soil from the 23 town square or some other area far away from any source 904826 1 of PCB7 2 A Well, some of these samples are kind of far away. And 3 that's why the detection limit is down, say, at 10 4 parts per billion. 5 Q 10 parts per billion? 6 I think so. For some of the sediment samples. Sure. 7 D i d n 't I say .010 parts per million. That's 10 parts r 8 per billion. And you sample any field in Indiana 9 y o u 'll probably get a number like that. 10 Q Is that above the method detection limit for the method 11 that you were using in analyzing these samples at that 12 time ? 13 Sure 14 Q So, as you sit here today you are confident that the 15 .010 reflects the level of PCBs in that sample as.it 16 existed before you took it out of the soil? 17 Yes . 18 Q And you didn't find a single sample that was below the 19 detection limit of your method; is that correct? 20 A Yes. If I had analyzed it and it was nondetec table, it 21 would appear on the chart and it would say 22 nondetectable. 23 Q I d o n 't see any like that, do you? 904827 -- ;------------------------:---- ------------- :----- -------- 25: 1 No. 2 > Can you answer my question? 3 I thought 2 had. The answer to your question is as I 4 sit here today, I believe that every sample 1 analyzed 5 for PCBs in the Bloomington survey came out positive. 6 1 Above the detection limit? 7 Above the detection limit, yes. 8 Have you looked at any other data on soil samples 5 around Neal's Landfill or Neal's Dump? 10 No, I don't think so. Well, I saw some water samples, 11 I think. 12 If I were to tell you that the EPA in the early '80s 13 took some samples around Neal's Dump and came up with 14 several locations where their analysis found no 15 detectable level of PCBs in soil, would that lead you 16 to doubt the accuracy of your samples which 17 consistently came up with something above the detection IS limi t? 19 Not at all 20 You just think it is coincidence that they found 21 nondetectable and you d i d n 't? 22 No, I don't say it is coincidence. Their detection 23 limit quite possibly wasn't as low as mine. Perhaps if 904828 ------ ;-- -------------------- ----------- ---------------- ------ 2-5rr 1 they rmember, I managed an BPA laboratory for a while, 2 the organic analysis section where we routinely did PCB 3 analysis. 4 Q You weren't managing an BPA laboratory, though, when 5 you did this study in 1970 and '71, were you? 6 A No. But what I'm going to tell you is frequently one 7 makes a management decision that this laboratory is not ' 8 concerned in any values lower than a certain value, and S you report those values as nondetectable. I t 's a v. . 10 little harder to detect the low value. You only work 11 as hard as you have to. So, if it is well below some 12 enforceable limit, you may well not bother to analyze 13 below that level. 14 Q Do you recall as you sit here today that the detection 15 limit, the method detection limit, for your laboratory 16 analysis in '71 was .01 PPM? 17 A It depends on what sample you're talking about. 18 Q The soil samples. 19 A I don't specifically remember what my detection limit 20 was at that time. I d o n 't remember that I put it in 21 this repo rt. 22 Q I 'm sorry. I thought you referred to it as .010? 23 A No. I said there was a reported .010. 904829 3T 1 And from that you figured your detection liit had to 2 be that or better? 3 Sure. 4 But you don't know how low it went? 5 I don't recall how low it went. It depends on what 6 size sample we were using and a whole bunch of factors 7 in the analysis. We did have samples that we analyzed 8 at the same time that we analyzed these that came out 9 as zero. Those were our control samples. We had some 10 very clean sand. Every set of samples that we analyzed 11 from Bloomington or anywhere else in each sample set 12 there was a control sample of clean sand. If that did 13 not come out to be zero, then we would suspect the 14 results. That's part of quality control in a 15 laboratory. 16 Por the tissue samples we had a sample of beef 17 liver that came out zero for PCBs. 18 How did you determine what the detection limit was for 19 any particular sample that you took in 1971? 20 It's a calculation one makes based upon - - T h e r e is no 21 short answer to this question. 22 Well, I d o n 't want you to tell me how generally one 23 akes it. I want you to take a sample that you took at 904830 2-5-51 level like .1 parts per Billion in soil iron 2 Bloomington and tall me how you determine what the 3 detection limit was for that, if you resember. 4 A Well, I remember how it's done. Basically -- 5 Q Excuse me. I just want to be sure you understand my 6 question. Do you remember how it was done by you in 7 1971? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Go ahead. 10 A The way the analysis works, you inject the sample in a 11 gas chromatograph. Out of the gas chromatograph you 12 get a series of peeks. They look like a bunch of 13 wiggles on the chart. You've probably seen them on the 14 bits of evidence we have here. Basically you can turn 15 up the magnification on those wiggles and make those 16 peeks taller. There is some limit as you increase this 17 sensitivity where the noise if the instrument gets so 18 big that you can't see the little peeks anymore. 19 Okay. How, typically one chooses a signal to 20 noise ratio of 5 to 1 or something like that. But you 21 look at the chart. If you can see the little peeks 22 that correspond to all the peeks in PCB, t h a t 's your 23 detection limit. Now, as to what it calculates out in 904831 ------ ------------- -- -------- --------------- ;-------------- 7T6* 1 g i v e n ample, you have to go iron there how many 2 nanograms that represents in the instrument and back 3 calculate on how much solution did you have and how 4 much of it did you take to inject in the instrument, 5 how much sample did you start with to make that extract 6 that was that solution, and all of those numbers are 7 involved. The number is different from soil than it is 8 for fish than it is for water. 9 To determine whether your instrument was accurately 10 detecting or recovering, if you will, levels at the .01 11 parts per million level of PCBs at that level did you 12 inject a known quantity at that level into a blank 13 sample and determine whether it would bring that tack? 14 I don't remember if we did any recovery studies at that 15 level 16 What's that called, that kind of confirmation that I 17 just described? IS 1 think you would call that running a spiked sample. 19 If we were losing any, the effect would mean that the 20 value we reported for the sample was actually lower 21 than it really was in the sample. The control sample 22 guards us against having a sample come up positive when 23 it really ought to be negative because we've 904832  _______________________________________________________ft C-7 1 accidentally got contamination in the lab or something. 2 Q That wouldn't be the case, though, if there is noise 3 from other substances that's being disclosed in your 4 gas chromatograph such as pesticides; i s n 't that 5 correct? 6 A That could be mistaken for PCBs, you mean? 7 Q yes. 8 A Yes, that kind of noise would give you a higher result 5 unless you corrected for it. 10 Q Can you define what's meant by the term field blanks? 11 A Usually a field blank is a sample, a clean sample, you 12 start with in the laboratory that you carry out to the 13 site and then bring back with you with the samples that 14 you have collected, and you analyze that along with the 15 samples. 16 Q Isn't it correct that you take the blank front the 17 laboratory and you insert that into the container that 18 you are using in the field and then bring that back and 19 test it to see if there is any contamination from the 20 container? 21 A You can't have your field blank and a sample in the 22 same container. What you do is you put it in one of 23 the containers. All it does is test that one 904833 - --------- ------------ -- --------------------------- ----- rrr 1 container. The real purpose of the field blank is 2 y o u 're concerned about when you collect the samples out 2 in the field maybe you put them in the back of a truck 4 that somebody spilled PCBs in or something and they 5 could migrate in. Well, they would also contaminate 6 your field blank at the same time. 1 And w h a t 's the nature of the substance ycu take from 8 the laboratory to use as a field blank out in the 9 field? 10 It can be any material. Usually if you are going to 11 sample a biological specimen, you take some biological 12 material. If you sample soil, you take a soil or sand 13 or something that will go through the same analytical 14 procedure. 15 Did you have field blanks in any of the samples you 16 took in Bloomington? 17 A No, we were not using field blanks at that time. 18 Where did you get the equipment that you U3ed to take 19 the soil samples around Neal's Landfill? 20 We brought that equipment with us from the ocean 21 research lab. 22 Describe the equipment for me. 23 Dry soil in the field I think we simply used a trowel 904834 ---------- .------- ;--------------------------------- --------- ^rr 1 or a Ball shovel. The stream sediment samples we used 2 a -- I can't remember the name of it, but i t 's a device 3 that you drop into the water with it loaded open and 4 then send a little messenger down and It trips it 5 and -- 6 Q Is that a grab sample? 7 A It's a grab sample, but there is a specific name for 8 it. 9 Q And it goes below the surface of the water; is that 10 right? 11 A Yes. It's designed to take sediment samples from the 12 bottom of the stream. 13 Q Did you just have one trowel for all the soil samples 14 you took? 15 A I don't remember. We rinsed them between samples. 16 T h a t 's a routine process. Rinsed them with solvents. 17 Q What did you carry the solvents in? 18 A Probably gallon bottles that they come in from the 19 manufacturer. 20 Q How did you rinse them? What was the process? 21 We poured the solvent over the implement. a Poured it over this implement into the ground? 23 Yes. 904835 1 Did you ever collect any of the a d v e n t that you used 2 to wash the trowel? 3 No. 4 Never tested any of that to see if chare was anything 5 on it? is that right? 6 Oh, the solvent itself before I rinsed with it? 7 Start with that, yes. 8 Yes. The solvents were purchased. They're special 5 glass distilled solvents designed for pesticide 10 analysis. Each bottle i9 quality controlled by the 11 manufacturer to have a minimum level of electron 12 capture peeks. 13 And that was being used in 1971; is that correct? 14 Yes . 15 But you don't remember how many trowels you had? 16 No. 17 Do you remember the size? 18 I d o n 't . 19 Can you give us an estimate or you have no recollection 20 of it? 21 Hell, I was gathering enough samples to fill a pint 22 jar. So, something on the order of a garden trowel. 23 Possibly I think we had a small like folding Army 904836 1 -> Q hovel. Did you wear any special kind of clothing? -tfrt 3 A No. 4 Q What kind of jars did you use to collect the samples, 5 soil samples? 6 A Glass jars with lids lined with aluminum foil prerinsed 7 with solvent. 8 Q Prerinsed at the lab? 5 A Yes. 10 Q Where was your lab? 11 A Annapolis, Maryland. 12 Q Is it the case that all the samples were analyzed at 13 Annapolis? 14 A Y e s . 15 Q Did you mail them out there? UPS them out there': ie A Except for the samples that were sent to me by Lew 17 Shoaff, they were carried by .the people who did the 18 sampling in the back of a pickup truck. 19 Q You drove from Bloomington to Annapolis with the 20 samples? 21 Y e s . 22 And all the samples were transported in that manner? 23 Except the samples mailed by Lew Shoaff, yes. 904837 1 Q What kind of jars were they? 2 Was it a Ball jar or something of that nature? 3 No. These were specimen jars bought from a laboratory 4 supply house. 5 2 Had they been used before? 6 A No. 7 2 How do you know that? 8 k 92 I bought them new. * Were they used again after this? 10 A Possibly. 11 2 But this was the first time these jars had been used 12 for samples? 13 K Yes. 14 2 Were any of them reused in the course of the sampling 15 in Bloomington? 16 I really don't know. 17 J So, some of them might have been reused? 18 A Possibly. 19 2 If they were reused, where would they have been 20 cleaned? 21 A In Annapolis. 22 Under your supervision? 23 A Y e s . 904838 1 Q By you? T9 A4k, Probably not. 3 Q When you say under your supervision, what do you mean 4 by that? > 5 A Following the protocol that I prescribed done by a 6 technician that I had trained. 7 Q Would you expect that in samples taken from a rural . 8 farm area that there would be greater levels of 9 pesticide in the soil than in other areas? 10 A You mean as detectable by the methodology which I was 11 using? 12 Q I guess I meant just generally would there be more 13 pesticide in the ground in soil taken from a rural area 14 farmland? 15 A It depends upon what they're using. Some pesticides 16 break down to nondetectable sorts of residues. If they 17 had used chlordane and DPT, things of that nature, 1 18 would expect to find residues of those. But not 19 everybody uses those. 20 Q What did you do to strip out the pesticides from your 21 samples? 22 A Basically the only -- We didn't strip them out. If 23 they occurred in the chromatogram, we corrected for 904839 1 them. 4t 4 2 Mathematically? 3 Yes . 4 What is a Florisil, F-l-o-r-i-s-i-1, Florisil column? 5 It's a column of an adsorbent called Florisil usually 6 an inch or so in diameter. Typically they're used for, 7 well, one of the procedures is a general cleanup 8 procedure, I believe, just to get rid of materials in 9 general. If my memory is serving me rightly, there was 10 a procedure that someone published for separating 11 pesticides from PCBs using such a Florisil column. 12 The person who wrote the procedure touted it 13 highly. A lot of others, including myself, found it 14 didn't work very well in our hands and don't use it. 15 ^ Isn't it the case the use of the Florisil column is 16 part of the approved EPA method for stripping samples 17 of pesticides? 18 I think it is in their steps, yes. 19 You didn't use that or any other method for eliminating 20 pesticides from your PCB samples; is that right? 21 I wouldn't say that, no. We used a method of digesting 22 the extract from fuming sulfuric acid which destroys 23 all but the most resistant of the pesticides. 904840 1Q -- ------ ---------- ---- ------------------------------------ re-5Why did you need to do that if you could get rid of the 2 pesticide noise through calculations in the lab? 3 A We would remove -- Well, two reasons. When you say 4 pesticides w e 're talking a broad range of chemicals. 5 T h a t 's the manner in which I answered that last 6 question. We used the fuming sulfuric acid to remove 7 the unwanted organic materials including all those 8 pesticides that could be degraded by fuming sulfuric 9 acid. 10 Q Which is not all of the pesticides; i s n 't that true; 11 T h a t 's correct. 12 What did you do to remove those remaining pesticides? 13 A We didn't remove them. We corrected for them 14 mathematically. 15 Q Isn't it the case that having those remaining 16 pesticides in the sample makes it impossible to 17 accurately measure PCBs at levels in the tenths and the 18 hundredths part per million in the soil? 19 That's not the case. That depends upon the given 20 sample how much PCb is there, how much pesticide is 21 there. If you have very high quantities of pesticide 22 compared to the PCB. Accurately, yes, it's difficult. 23 Once again, you have to talk about what do you mean by 904841 " TFS" 1 accurately. If you mean plus or minus 1 percent 2 accuracy, you have a problem. 3 Can you tell me what the accuracy level was for your 4 sample that shewed up .01 parts per Billion? 5 Not really. 6 Why is that? 7 Well, in order to determine that you have to go through 8 a considerable exercise which if I ever went through 9 it, I d o n 't remember it with a sample. We were looking 10 for movement of PCBs from the plant, from the landfill. 11 We weren't terribly concerned with 10 parts per million 12 or .01 PPM. And we weren't terribly concerned with 13 plus or minus 1 percent or even a tenth of a percent 14 accuracy . 15 You say you weren't concerned with .01 parts per 16 million. Is that because that level is so low that it' 17 is not a matter of concern? 18 No. In a soil sample out in the middle of a farmer's 19 field that may be of concern if a farmer is growing 20 fodder for his animals. But the thrust of this survey 21 was to look for large scale problems. It looked as 22 though the .01 PPM level was the background. I assumed 23 it was from aerial fallout. 904842 --------,-- -- ---------- ;------- ------ ;-----------;-- -- -- ; - 26-7" 1 Q What wade you assunte that was a background level? 2 A Because I found it in all of the samples. 3 Q You found that or greater in all the samples; is that 4 what you're saying? 5 A In the samples I analyzed, yes, I think so. 6 <2 So, when you say on page 6 at the top that the .14 7 parts per million found in B26 is about 10 times the 8 background from environmental fallout, what you meant 9 was it's about 10 times the lowest level that you found 10 in the samples you took; is that right? 11 A Yes. That's correct 12 Q You said that you didn't know what the accuracy level 13 was for a sample in the .01 part per million range. Do 14 you know what the accuracy is of any sample in this 15 report? 16 I don't remember. We did a few samples in duplicate. 17 And that gives a person a clue as to what the accuracy 18 is. If you don't want to go to more rigorous methods, 19 do a sample twice and see how close the numbers 20 compare. 21 Q What else would one do to compare what the range of 22 error is in the sampling other than doing two samples, 23 running two analyses of the same sample? 904843 ---- ------- - - -- -- ------------ - *00 1 Hell.,, if you really want to beat on it hard, you have 2 to do things like run a hundred samples of what's a 3 homogeneous sample. Various people try various things. 4 You can try spiking a sample with a known quantity and 5 seeing what you recover. But the problem there is what 6 if some of it is reversibly absorbed into the sample. 7 What does that do to your accuracy. Accuracy is a . 8 measure of how close a value is to the true value. 5 Actually to be precise -- Pardon me -- reproducing 10 the same sample many times really is just a measure of 11 your precision. In other words, how close a repetitive 12 measurement is the same measurement. You can still be 13 at some distance from a true value. 14 What else does one do other than spike samples and 15 trying to reproduce the same sample? 16 What else does one do to try to determine what the 17 range of error is in a method? 18 Well, that's really the most common way. EPA now is 19 very big on using labeled standard materials, rated 20 compounds that are essentially the same compound with 21 an internal chemical label in it that you spike into 22 your sample and then along with your sample value 23 report the recovery of that particular spiked material. 904844 ----------- ----------- ------- -------- ;-- ------------- -- -----it-Sr 1 Q You d i d n 't do that either? 2 A Oh, that procedure came many years after the time I did 3 this study. 4 Q What does the term round robin refer to? 5 A A round robin basically i9 where you construct 6 homogeneous samples and then split them into sets and 7 send the sets off to various laboratories to do the 8 analysis. 9 0 You didn't do that either, did your 10 A No, I d i d n 't, not with this study. How could 1. This 11 study was secret. I did do some sample splits with the 12 Maryland Department of Natural Resources laboratory and 13 occasionally with the EPA laboratory. 14 Q Not in connection with this sampling program, though? 15 A No, but with similar samples from other programs. 16 Q You didn't do that with any of the samples that you got 17 from the project involving the various Westinghouse 18 plants, though, did you? 19 A No. 20 Q Did you use any carbonless copy paper, carbonless paper 21 forms, around the time that you were doing the samples? 22 A No. We were aware that they contained PCBs and are a 23 source of internal contamination. At this time the gas 904845 ----------- -- ------------------------------------------- 2777 1 chromatograph we had drew the line with an inked pen on * the paper. 3 (A recess was taken.) 4 You raised that, Doctor, because I aisui* you suspect 5 now or may have suspected then that there might have 6 been some contribution of PCBs from that ink; is that 7 correct? 8 No. No. A later instrument we bought from Hullett 9 Packard had an -- it's not a carbonless reproducing 10 paper but essentially the line appeared by a heating 11 process. We did analyze the paper and found no PCBs, 12 but we were concerned because it was an ink-impregnated 13 paper . 14 2 Did you ever analyze the ink that was used to draw the 15 profile in the samples that you took in Bloomington? 16 N o . 17 Is it possible that could have contributed PCBs to the 18 samples? 19 I really doubt it. 20 But it is possible? 21 I d o n 't think s o . 22 Why not? 23 Well, basically if you have a source of contamination 904846 -------------- ------- --------- ---------------------- ------- ;-- ?T- 1 in the laboratory, if it's a source in the room like a * ballast from a light, for instance, that has PCBs in it 3 or did at that time, then you have to imagine, then, 4 that every sample has a chance of being contaminated. 5 He ran blank samples that came up zero below our 6 detection limit. We had quite a number of other 7 samples we analyzed that were down in the low pai t per 8 billion range. If we had such an internal source of 9 PCBs, I think it would have been obvious. 10 Q What other PCB samples were run in that laboratory in 11 Annapolis around the time that you were running the 12 Bloomington samples? 13 A I d o n 't remember exactly the chronology. But we did 14 have samples out of the Chesapeake Bay sediments. None 15 of them were -- Well, few of them were very high. Put 16 it that way. There may have been an overlap that some 17 of the samples from South Boston, the Westinghouse 18 plant there, and with Sharon, Pennsylvania, the 19 Westinghouse plant there. 20 Q Did you have any samples of oil? 21 A Of transformer oil? We had several, yes. I think we 22 had one sample from an oil skimmer at South Boston. 23 And, of course, we had the PCB standards themselves 904847 T7T 1 that were the ones I had were like pint jars of PCBs 2 from Monsanto. 3 Other than those did you have any other oil samples? 4 No, I don't think so. 5 Were you doing any samples at that time for Sharon? 6 Didn't I just say that? 7 Is that where the skimmer was? 8 No. The skimmer was South Boston. But Sharon and 9 South Boston, those samples may have been overlapped at 10 one time with the samples at Bloomington. 11 Were the Sharon samples oil samples? 12 I d o n 't think so. They were stream sediments and 13 biota. 14 2 Were you capable of analyzing water samples at the time 15 you did the Bloomington project? 16 A Yes. 17 Were you doing it at that time? 18 1 d o n 't think I was doing any water samples at that 19 time. 20 Do you know what temperatures you ran the gas 21 chromatograph on the samples in Bloomington? 22 I couldn't tell you without looking it up somewhere. 23 Where would you look it up? 904848 ----------------------- ;---- -------- --------------------------'-iT* 1 A I 'd have to find a report that describes the 2 methodology I used. 3 Q Is there such a report somewhere? 4 A X suspect so, yes. 5 Q Where? 6 A Well, we were using a fairly standard methodology. I 7 think the method, well, No. 1 -- I hate to keep saying '8 it -- i t 's in the record books. No. 2, I believe in 9 the report called the Chester River survey. And quite 10 likely i t 's very similar to what we were using in 11 several of the references in my CV. 12 Q I 'm sorry. Is one of those published somewhere or is 13 it just in the record books? 14 A The Chester River survey was a printed volume. It 15 wasn't published in the refereed literature. 16 THE WITNESS: Did I send you a copy of 17 that? IS I sent you a copy of -- Mr. Ord w a y , did I send y: 19 any bound volumes? 20 At one point you asked me for everything I had 21 published on PC B s . I sent you quite a stack. 1 22 thought I had included a copy of the Chester River 23 study and a three-volume set of the Upper Bay survey 904849 -- ---------------------- ---- --------- ;------ --- :-- :-- 2TT 1 report. 2 In any case, would one of those documents contain the 3 methodology that you used on the Bloomington samples? 4 I think so, y e s . 5 When you say you think so, do you have some doubt about 6 this? 7 Yes. 8 Is the doubt as to whether it's the same method or is 9 the doubt as to whether it was published? 10 The doubt is it was almost 20 years ago, and I haven't 11 had my record books in those 20 years. And to best of 12 my recollection, we used the same protocol for all the 13 samples during that period. I believe it was an 14 isothermal gas chromatograph run at a particular 15 temperature. And I d o n 't remember the temperature. 16 We used several different columns. And there was 17 a temperature that was optimal for one type of column 18 and a temperature that was optimal for another type of 19 column. 20 M R . McCREA: Jan, do you have the 21 information he sent through Mr. Ordway? 22 If you do, you could hand it to him and save time. 23 MR. FELDMAN: Thank you. 904850 1 MR. McCREA: We've requested it. Check 2 the stall. 3 Q Did you keep records of what the peek heights and the 4 sample weights and the calculations you went to to 5 ultimately produce your parts per million in these 6 samples? 7 Is that also in your record books? 8 A Absolutely. 9 Q What is the difference between peek height and pattern 10 recognition method? 11 A I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. The 12 pattern recognition is how you decide you have PCbs in 13 the first place. You should have a certain pattern of 14 peeks with certain relative peek heights among the 15 peeks. You may be referring to some buzz words in a 16 terminology, perhaps, that's been generated since I 17 last did the analysis. You use the peek heights, then, 18 of either all the peeks or specific peeks to estimate 19 the quantity. 20 Pattern recognition is used to decide, No. 1, do 21 you have PCB, and if so, which formulation. 22 Q Going back to Exhibit 24, again, on page 1 you say 23 until very recently capacitor cans were coated on the ' 904851 TTo 1 outside with Inerteen which was removed by a washing 2 process. 3 What is the change that was in effect in the six 4 months before you wrote Exhibit 24, if you can recall? 5 1 don't know. X read that sentence recently and 6 wondered myself. And that sentence implies they d o n 't 7 fill the capacitor cans that way anymore or d i d n 't by 8 the time I wrote this report. 9 But you can't recall what the different process was? 10 I really don't. I really can't. 11 Do you now believe that Clear Creek does not empty into 12 Monroe Reservoir? 13 I think somebody told me that, but I have not verified 14 that with maps. I don't know. If it does not, then I 15 made a mistake at the time. 16 Were you ever able to identify any other sources of 17 PCBs into Clear Creek other than the sanitary sewer IS system? 19 I 'm trying to find that map on this report. It's been 2 0 a while since I've looked at this report. 21 Would it help you to look at a map of the city of 22 Bloomington? 2 3 I thought I had a map in here showing Clear Creek. 904852 -- ------------------------------------------------ -- ----------------- ;--------------------- ---------------- 1 MR. McCRBA: Is this it? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. That's it. 3 MR. McCREA: Page 4. The fourth page. 4 A (Continuing) To the best of my recollection, the only 5 samples I have from Clear Creek are the ones that are 6 shown here. I don't recall that I was aware of any 7 additional input -- Well, at the time I d o n 't think 1 8 drew the conclusion there was anything other than the 9 plant. 10 Q How did you determine that the 64.2 parts per million 11 in BL2 couldn't have resulted from someone spilling 12 brake fluid or transmission fluid or some other 13 accidental single spill into that part of Clear Creek? 14 A I didn't determine that. I took the sample where the 15 sewage treatment effluent was obviously adding a sludge 16 type deposit to the creek, and I analyzed the sample. 17 And I made that leap of logic. 18 Q So, it is possible as you sit here today, i s n 't it, 19 that that 64.2 parts per million might have resulted 20 from something completely independent from the 21 treatment plant, isn't it? 22 Anything is possible. 23 And it requires a leap of logic to reach the conclusion 904853 --------------------------- ;--------: -- 2TB" 1 that you reached on page 2 of Exhibit 24, does it not? * k When I knew that they were discharging Inerteen down 3 the sewer and it went to that plant and I find it out 4 at the end of the effluent pipe in the sludge it's not 5 a very big leap. But yes, 1 made an assumption. 1 6 drew that conclusion. 7 2 How many samples did you take below the sewage 8 treatment plant from Clear Creek? S I d o n 't recall at the moment. We could thumb through 10 the report and figure it out, maybe. We obviously took 11 the one at Ketcham Road. Yes. I really don't 12 remember. 13 2 Well, do you see any reference to any other samples 14 from Clear Creek other than the ones reflected on 15 figure 1? 16 N o , I d o n 't . 17 Do you conclude from that that there probably wer e n 't IS any if they d o n 't appear in the report? 19 Well, I would believe that if I had taken others 1 20 probably didn't analyze them because I believe this 21 report showed all of the ones that we analyzed. 22 Do you think that as a researcher in the fate of PCBs 23 in the environment that taking three samples downstream 904854 ------------------------------- -------- -------- ;---- --------- ? f* r 1 from the wage treatment plant gives you sufficient 2 data base to determine that PCBs were moving out of 3 that sewage treatment plant? 4 A You're questioning my judgment that the 64 PPM came 5 from the plant? I don't understand youi question. 6 Q All right. Let me rephrase it. As I see it, you have 7 taken three samples of Clear Creek below the sewage 8 9A treatment plant; is that correct? a You're counting the one in Monroe Reservoir? 10 Q I wasn't counting that because it doesn't really go 11 into Monroe. 12 A Are you counting the 6.98 one? There's the Winslow and 13 then there is the Rhorer Road. Are you counting B L 1 , 2 14 and 3? 15 Q Rig ht . 16 A Okay. I think those are the ones I took adjacent and 17 downstream from those, yes. 18 Q Now, as someone who has done research into the movement 19 of PCBs from various sources, do you think taking three 20 samples in this configuration is an adequate data base 21 to determine that there is sufficient movement of n^ Inerteen into Clear creek from the treatment plants? 23 A In this case I think the only way I could have added to 904855 ---------------------------------------------- ------------ -- Z W 1 the strength of y contention was to have sampled the 2 sewage treatment plants themselves which I was not 3 allowed to do. If I had taken a hundred samples within 4 10 feet of the BL2 sample, it would still be open to 5 the contention that somebody made an isolated spill. 6 If I were allowed to study movement from the 7 sewage treatment plant, obviously I first want to 8 sample the sewage treatment plant, then sample S downstream. The answer to your question is no, this is 10 not an adequate study. I wasn't allowed to do an 11 adequate study. 12 But even if you weren't allowed to sample the sewage 13 treatment plant isn't it the case if you did a greater 14 grid or a longer string of samples downstream from the 15 sewage treatment plants you could have gotten a clearer 16 idea as to why PCBs in that creek were emanating from 17 the sewage treatment plant? 18 Not at all. Open to the same contention. Somebody 19 spilled it at BL2. It's now moving downstream. It 20 doesn't matter if I got a hundred samples. Doesn't 21 change it. The contention of whether it's coming from 4b the sewage treatment plant to the stream, sample the 23 plant, sample the effluent pipe. I w a s n 't allowed to 904856 r-- -- --------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 do any of those things. 2 Q What is between Rhorer Road and Winslow Road In Clear 3 Creek? 4 A I don't remember. 5 Q Can you explain why there is only 6.9 parts per million 6 in BL1 and 64.2 at BL2? 7 A No, I c a n 't explain that. 1 can invent you a scenario ' 8 that would cause it to happen that way. But I do not 9 know the answer to the reason why one is 6.9 and the 10 other is 64. 11 Q 12 Is it your testimony that unless you were allowed inside the sewage treatment plant you could not have 13 provided any more certainty for your conclusion about 14 movement from the sewage treatment plant by doing other 15 samplings in Clear Creek? 16 That's a complicated question. Do you want me to 17 redo it or do you understand it? 18 A No. I think I understand it. If w e 're trying to make 19 an assessment of grams, if you want, of PCB moving 20 downstream from the point of discharge, certainly, a 21 lot of other samples. Bottom grab samples really are 22 just an indication that at some point PCBs went by 23 there. They don't help you too much as far as amount. 904857 TS 1 But the key question is did it come from the 2 sewage treatment plant. I had knowledge that it was 3 going to the sewage treatment plant. But one would 4 like to sample the effluent from the sewage treatment 5 plant. 6 All right. Let me do that again. If you took 7 additional samples of Clear Creek downstream from the . 8 sewage treatment plant, isn't it true that you would at 9 least be able to tell whether the samples you got were 10 isolated or whether they were reflected in a lot of 11 othei samples between the two points BL2 and BL3? 12 Yes. Yes. Okay. If I understand what you're saying. 13 Wouldn't it be the case that if you sampled a number of 14 different location between BL2 and BL3 and they came up 15 nondetectable that you would not have concluded that 16 there was a substantial movement of Inerteen into Clear 17 Creek from the treatment plant? 18 If they had come up nondetectable, it would have been 19 quite unusual. Once again, that doesn't bear on 20 whether or not the PCB came from the sawage treatment 21 plant. You remember that the link between the sewage 22 treatment plant and BL2 isn't affected by whether or 23 not I took a hundred samples between those two. 904858 r -------- --------------------------------------- -------------- -a** 1 Now, if I cook a hundred samples between those two 4* and they all came up nondetectable, then something 3 would be very strange because there was a movement of 4 water and sediment downstream from BL2 to BL3. And it 5 would be very unusual if I had 64.2 at BL2, e nondetectable for a hundred samples and 2.81 at BL3. 7 It doesn't make sense. '8 Q 9 It doesn't make sense if you assume discharge from the * treatment plant; isn't that right? 19 A 11 It has nothing to do -- If the sediment from BL2 is heavily contaminated, the water movement coming by 12 picks up the contaminated particles, carries them 13 downstream. The downstream sediment can't be clean. 14 Q Unless that sediment sample recently was deposited 15 there? 16 A You mean like five minutes before I sampled, okay, 17 maybe so. We can invent scenarios to cover just about 18 anything. 19 Q If you were going back to redo that, would you have 20 taken more samples between BL2 and BL3? 21 A No, not if I had the same marching orders. Because we 22 were looking at the overall environment around 23 Westinghouse. It was a given that PCBs were going to 904859 ------- --------------------------------------------- ------- JST 1 the aewage treatment plant. The question was how bad 4n is the sediment there in the stream. I sampled it, and 3 I answered that question. I sampled downstream a ways. 4 Are they moving downstream. The answer, as far as I'm 5 concerned, is yes. 6 Based on two samples? 7 Based upon two samples and my knowledge of the movement 8 of PCBs in the environment. 9 MP.. McCREA: Jan, could I ask a question? 10 MR. FELDMAN: Yes. 11 MR.' McCREA: Are you disputing this 12 information? 13 Are you contending this information is not 14 accurate, that PCBs from the Westinghouse plant 15 contaminated Clear Creek? 16 If you are, I don't mind the questions. I don't 17 see how you can seriously doubt. Agreed to clean it up 18 and it is a PCB. If you can answer that question, 19 obviously I would object to the line of questioning as 20 being an uttex waste of time. 21 MR. FELDMAN: I don't think it's a waste 22 of time. He's written a report and come to some 23 conclusions. And I 'm probing the conclusions. 904860 -2-^rSr 1 MR. McCREA: It seemed to me you would be 2 willing to stipulate that PCBs iron the Bloomington 3 Westinghouse plant in fact contaminated Clear Creek. I 4 don't see there is any dispute in that. I don't know 5 why w e 're going into all those questions. 6 Q Doctor, on page 4 at the top you've got another 7 reference to an anticipated background level for a 8 clean lake. What is the background level that you are 5 referring to? 10 A The top line is missing from my copy. 11 Q It says -- I can read you my copy. Although the level 12 of PCBs is about 50 times above the anticipated 13 background, et cetera, et cetera. 14 A Yes. You're asking what the level for a clean lake 15 would be? 16 Q Right. 17 A I d o n 't see the value I 'm referring to here. But 18 basically one expects down at the 10 to 20 to 30 part 19 per billion level in a sediment, .01 to .03 PPM, 20 something like that, in a sediment in a clean lake oi 21 sediment in the Chesapeake Bay or wherever. Much 22 higher levels indicate some input of some local source. 23 .01 parts per billion; is that what you said? 904861 --------- -- -------------------------------:----------------TKo 1 No. No. .01 parts per million, 10 parts per billion, n 4m dry weight sediment. 3 So that the level in a clean lake is the same as the 4 level in soil? 5 It's in the same ball park. Depends upon the grain 6 size of the sediment and quite a few others things. 7 Did you derive that from some review of the literature . 8 on background levels in lakes and soil or was it from 9 the fact that the lowest level you got in sampling was 1C . 0 1 ? 11 I don't remember exactly whether it came from this 12 data, Chesapeake Bay, review of the literature. Levels 13 around .01, .03, .04, .05 are typically what people 14 find everywhere. 15 But you d o n 't remember where you got that? 16 N o . 17 Moving on to the sanitary landfill. No. 1 on page 4, 18 under 2.1 it says during the approximate period 1957 to 19 '67 both solid and liquid Xnerteen wastes were removed 20 from the plant for disposal in the sanitary landfill 21 adjacent to Highway 48. 22 Mho told you that? 23 Lew Shoaff. 904862 -- -------- ------:---------------------------------------- ----- -2^7- ( 1 Q Do you.have any question in your mind that Lew Shoaff 2 told you that the latest period of disposal of 3 Westinghouse Inerteen waste to that landfill was 1967? 4 MR. McCREA: I don't want to be picky, but 5 that's not what the statement says. The statement says 6 both solid and liquid Inerteen. 1 don't want to answer 7 the question for him, but the statement does not say 8 that they ceased disposing of PCBs at the landfill. 9 That's not what it says. It says both solid and 10 11 Q liquid. Did Mr. Shoaff tell you that any Inerteen wastes from 12 .Westinghouse were taken to that landfill in 1967? 13 A I don't remember. Basically this was background 14 information which was supplied to me by Lew Shoaff. I 15 apparently at one point made some notes that during the 16 period 1957 to 1967 th at 's where the solid and liquid 17 wastes from the plant were going, and after '67 I guess 18 they were going to another landfill. 19 Q That was your understanding at that time? 20 A I believe s o . 21 MR. FELDMAN: Does that clear it up for 22 you, David? 23 MR. McCREA: That certainly clears it up 904863 ------- -- -------------------------- ---------- -- -------- ~'"2g 1 as to what was told him. But I can also understand how 2 Lew Shoaff would say solid and liquid Inerteen were 3 disposed to '67 and thereafter only solid. I mean I 4 could understand how the source of the information 5 could be saying one thing and Dr. Munson could be 6 interpreting another. 7 MR. PELDMAN: But there is no question as 8 to his understanding in your mind? 5 MR. McCREA: That's true. I d o n 't dispute 10 what Dr. Munson has written down. I mean in fact they 11 know they disposed of waste at Neal's up to '71 or '72. 12 But 1 don't dispute that. 13 MR. CARNEY: T h a t 's not right. 14 MR. FELDMAN: No, th at 's not right. 15 MR. McCREA: You're saying they didn't 16 dispose of solid PCBs waste -- 17 MR. CARNEY: Other than the one load. 18 MR. McCREA: In '71 and '72? I think 19 there are a number of -20 MR. PELDMAN: I'd like to continue with 21 the questioning of Dr. Munson. 22 MR. McCREA: There are a number of 23 documents that will dispute that. 904864 1 28 9-------------- ------------------- ;------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------1 Q You indicate in the next sentence that the procedure 2 I assume you mean of disposing of those materials at a 3 landfill -- was an accepted practice; is that right? 4 A Yes. S Q What was your basis for that opinion at that time? 6 A Well, my understanding was that they were doing this 7 disposal with a state and county permit. Maybe I was 8 But my understanding was they were not 9 breaking any laws in doing this. This was an accepted 10 procedure. They had state and county permits to do it. 11 Q When you took BL24 in figure 2 which is the next page 12 after 4 how did you get into the landfill, into that 13 property? 14 A I just walked over and took it. 15 Q Do you recall that as you sit here today? 16 A Well, all of these samples, basically. We did not have 17 anyone with us. We just walked over and took them. in 18 some cases it meant stepping through a fence to do it. 19 It looks to me as though the location as pinpointed on 20 this map is in the little gully actually outside of the 21 landfill. I don't recall where that is in relation to 22 the house that sits about in that location. 23 But my guess is one of my notebooks has a sketch 904865 TTU 1 aap showing it in greater detail. I d o n 't remember. 2 You state that judging from the 3.0 parts per m i l l i o n 3 just below the landfill and the 2.0 parts per Billion 4 on the edge of the farm and 2.3 in the downstream 5 position of Richland Creek, substantial Inerteen 6 leaches from the landfill, again referring to page 4 7 there. 8 How do you know that those samples ranging from S 2.0 to 3.0 parts per million are not within the range 10 of error of your methodology, your analytical 11 methodology? 12 I'm not quite sure what you mean by range of error. 13 Y o u 're saying that not being able to tell the 14 difference between 3.0 PPM and .01; is that what you 15 mean? 16 } T h a t 's right. I asked you earlier whether you could 17 tell me what the range of error was for that analytical 18 measure, and you told me you could not? 19 V You asked me about the accuracy. The. accuracy is how 20 close you are to the true value. As far as to the 21 precision I certainly can tell you. I can tell the 22 difference between a sample that gives me 3.0 PPM and 23 one that gives me .01. 904866 --------------- -- ........................................ . 291 1 Q Hell, 1 thought I asked you what the plus or minus 2 variable was for the result that you get, in other 3 words, what your confidence range is for those numbers. 4 A I thought you asked me accuracy. Basically I don't 5 remember the exact number. But we did do some samples 6 in duplicate. And I certainly am confident that 1 7 could tell the difference between 3.0 PPM and 2.3 PPM. ' 8 Q Did you do these samples in duplicate? 9 A 1 don't remember. 10 Q Do you know how long before you did these samples you 11 did the last duplicate samples? 12 A How would I know. I don't have the notebooks. All I 13 haye is the data in this rep ort . 14 Q So, the answer is you d o n 't know? 15 A I don't know. 16 Q How frequently did you do duplicate samples? 17 I really d o n 't remember. 18 How can you tell me you are confident that you can tell 19 the difference between 3.0 parts per million and .01 20 parts per million? 21 MR. McCREA: To which I will Object. This 22 question has been explained in an hour and a half or 23 two hours of testimony. He's described the procedures. 904867 T? 1 Furthermore, Westinghouse has never challenged the 2 accuracy of these test results in 17 years. The 3 information stands as written. If Westinghouse had 4 challenged the accuracy of this information, 1 assume 5 that the author of the information would have been 6 contacted with respect to the accuracy thereof. 7 In that he never was contacted, it must be 8 accepted that the accuracy of this is not challenged by 9 Westinghouse. 10 MR. FELDMAN: Where is that written? 11 MR. McCREA: That's not written. 12 It's simple logic. A small leap. 13 MR. FELDMAN: T h a t 's not my logic. 14 MR. McCREA: I think, Jan, we've got areas 15 of information that you could be going into rather than 16 this which would be more productive. If you say this 17 is.not accurate, fine. Bring somebody in to explain 18 that. But it would seem odd to me in 17 years you 19 never contacted Dr. Munson to ask him about the 20 accuracy or inaccuracy. And this report is obviously a 21 critical report with respect to what Westinghouse knew 22 about the Bloomington information. 23 So, if your position is i t 's inaccurate, I find 904868 --------------------------- -- --------- ;-------- ------ ;-- 293 1 that hard to accept in that ha was never contacted to 2 explain the Methodology. 3 MR. FELDMAN: Is it possible to get back 4 to my question? 5 MR. McCREA: What I'm saying is your 6 question is unnecessarily prolonging this deposition, 7 Jan. 8 MR. FELDMAN: David, Dr. Munson produced a 5 report which you intend to produce into evidence to the 10 extent it is relevant. And 1 am asking the only person 11 that I could possibly ask as to the accuracy of these 12 numbers. There is no one else I can ask about it 13 because he's the only, person that is capable of 14 testifying to it. And he's certainly the one you will 15 have at trial on it. 16 I can't imagine why I shouldn't be allowed to 17 probe into the area of the accuracy of these samples. 18 MR. McCREA: Proceed. 19 (The Reporter complied with Counsel's request and 20 read as directed.) 21 Well, all I can say is we analyzed a lot of samples. 22 We did various quality control procedures such as doing 23 samples in duplicate. The difference between .01 and 904869 V. 1 2.5, you're talking about a 250-fold difference. That 2 eans if the .01 gives you peeks this tall on the 3 chromatograph, the other one gives you peeks that go 4 through the ceiling. I don't see how you could fail to 5 notice the difference. 6 Now, in terms of whether the 2.5 is 2.5 plus or 7 minus .1, without going back to the notebooks and 8 looking at all the things we did at the time, 1 can't S tell you the answer to that question. I d o n 't know. 10 You're referring to 2.5. I don't see where you're -11 A Well, I'm pulling a sample out of the air. Say a 12 sample 2.3 parts per million.. If you want to know 13 whether that's 2.3 plus of minus .1, 20 years later I 14 can't tell you the answer to that. But I can certainly 15 tell you that I am absolutely confident that I could 16 tell the difference between that sample and the 2.0 or 17 the 3.0 sample or the 7.2 sample. 18 Doctor, look at figure 3, and then if you would back on 19 page 6 where you were explaining the data on figure 3, 20 you indicate that none of these samples -- and I assume 21 you mean those reflected in figure 3; is that right? -22 is alarmingly high? 23 Y e s . 904870 1 Q You determine that those are five times higher than * what would be expected if aerial fallout had not taken 3 place. I thought you said that the background level 4 was .01. Oh, 1 see. So, you're saying background is 5 .01 and .05 is five times as big. Is that the point? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And you think even though you can't remember the range 8 of error in your method that there is a significant $ enough difference between .01 and .05 for you to have 10 confidence in that conclusion? 11 A I think so, yes. 12 Q What is it about .07 or .05 that assures you that those 13 levels are not alarmingly high? 14 A Well, you have to put this back in the context of which 15 this report was written. We're talking about movement 16 of PCBs from a plant that is using tank car quantities. 17 Okay. So, while at the time I saw .07 and .05 as being 18 higher than I expect by background, it's not -19 0 Tank car quantities? 20 A Tank car quantities. It's not as high as we saw 21 downstream from Neal's Landfill. It's not as high as 22 we saw in the sample from the sewage treatment plant. 23 Q Do you view the samples around Neal's Landfill as 904871 1 alarmingly high or did you at the time? TTo" 2 Yes. 3 i Why is that? Because they were a hundred times higher 4 than the ones near the dump, the ones reflected in 5 figure 3? 6 k Yes. T h e y 're several hundred times higher. If we're 7 talking about .01 as being a background, 300 times 8 higher is 3.0. 9 ; When you say alarmingly high, other than the fact that 10 it's higher than some other number, what makes it 11 alarmingly high from any public health point of view? 12 Well, I'm speaking from the point of view of potential 13 for being taken up in the food chain, setting aside 14 bothering, say, agricultural operations, possibly the 15 potential of human beings eating animals that are 16 contaminated. Those to me at the time and still do 17 look like levels high enough to accumulate up the food 18 chain. 19 1 And .01 does not? .05 does not? 20 Well, a sediment sample - - I ' m sorry -- a soil sample 21 ou t in the field, I don't know. If you grew grass 22 there and fed it to a cow, I would guess you would see 23 a little PCBs in the c o w 's milk. 904872 --------------- ------------------------ ;-------------- -- ---- 2-971 Q So, these samples might be alarmingly high, too; is 2 that right? 3 MR. YOUNG: No. 4 A No. I would expect the level in the cow's silk would 5 be quite possibly below the alarming limit. It would 6 be there. But it's a relative term. 7 Q Is there any data that you rely on to become alarmed at ' 8 a level of 2.3 or higher than that as potentially 9 having impact on cows and not be alarmed at .01 or .05? 10 A What can I say. I wrote the report 20 years ago. I 11 don't remember what data I had at my fingertips at the 12 time I wrote that. Today I'm alarmed by all of it. 13 Q And is that based upon studies that show that cattle 14 who live in areas with those kind of levels in the soil 15 accumulate them at some rate? 16 A I'm thinking more of by accumulation in fish and that 17 sort of thing. 18 Q But these are not water samples. 19 A No. But these are sediment samples that are going to 20 find their way into the gullies and streams. 21 Q Do you have any studies that alarm you today relating 22 to the possible effects on cattle of these kinds of 23 levels in soil? 904873 1 I d o n 't have any, no. iT S 2 And yet you're still 'alarmed about it? 3 I 'm alarmed, y e s . 4 Looking on page 8 -- 5 MR. McCREA: Jan, i t 's 15 after. 6 MR. FELDMAN: Doctor, we have to adjourn 7 the deposition to meet your airplane schedule, but 8 we'll have to come up with a date to resume it. 9 10 (The deposition was adjourned at 4:15 o'clock p.m. 11 to be resumed at a future time to be agreed upon by the 12 parties.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 904874 1 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: 2 COUNTY OF MARION ) 3 I, Beverly S. Evans, a Notary Public in and f 4 the County of Marion, State of Indiana at large, do hereby 5 certify that THOHAS OREN MUNSON, the deponent herein, was 6 by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth 7 and nothing but the truth in the aforementioned matter; 8 That the foregoing continued deposition was taken 9 on behalf of the Defendant at the law offices of Baker & 10 Daniels, Indiana National Bank Tower, 15th Floor, 11 Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, on the 17th day of 12 December, 1988, commencing at the hour of 11:00 o'clock 13 a.m., pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 14 That said deposition was taken down in Stenograph 15 notes and afterwards reduced to typewriting under my 16 direction, and that the typewritten transcript is a true 17 record of the testimony given by the said deponent; 18 That the parties were represented by their counsel 19 as aforementioned. 20 I do further certify that I am a disinterested 21 person in this cause of action; that I am not a relative or 22 attorney of any of the parties, or otherwise interested in 23 event of this cause of action, and am not in the employ 904875 ------ ;-------------------- :--- --- ---------------'---- :------- TJV 1 of the attorneys for any of the parties. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 3 iffixed ay notarial seal this 20th day of December, 1988. 4 5 6 BEVERLY S. EVANS, Notary Public 7 8 1y commission expires September 29, 1990. 9 County of Residence: 10 rtancock. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 904876 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 4 DALE COWARD and CONNIE CONARD ) ) 5 Plaintiffs, ) ) 6 -vs- } CASE NO. IP84-1667-C 7 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC ) CORPORATION, ) 8) Defendant. ) 9 10 11 12 13 The continued deposition upon oral examination cf 14 THOMAS OREN MUNSON, a witness produced and sworn before me, Beverly S. Evans, a Notary Public in and for the County of 15 Marion, State of Indiana, taken on behalf of the Defendant at the law offices of Baker & Daniels, Indiana National 16 Bank Tower, 15th Floor, Indianapolis. Marion County. Indiana, on the 30th of December, 1988, commencing at the 17 hour of 10:58 a.m., pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with written Notice as to time and place. 18 19 20 21 JOHN E. CONNOR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 1860 ONE AMERICAN SQUARE INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46282 23 (317) 632-5533 904877 7T 1 A P P E A R A N C E' S 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 4 5 6 7 '8 David S. McCrea McCREA & McCREA 119 S. Walnut Street P. 0. Box 1310 Bloomington, IN 47402 and YOUNG & YOUNG Howard S. Young, Jr. 128 N. Delaware Indianapolis, IN 46204 9 FOR THE DEFENDANT: IO 11 12 13 Jan Feldman PHELAN, POPE & JOHN, LTD. 180 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 and Joseph B. Carney BAKER & DANIELS 810 Fletcher Trust Building' Indianapolis, IN 46204-2454 14 15 I N D E X OF E X A M I N A T I O N 16 PS z: 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) .... 304 18 Questions by Mr. Jan Feldman DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)......................... 349 19 Questions by Mr. Jan Feldman CROSS EXAMINATION ............................. 42S 20 Questions by M r . David S. McCrea REDIRECT EXAMINATION .... ....................... ....... 429' 21 Questions by Mr. Jan Feldman 22 23 904878 1 I N D E X OF E X H I B I T S 2 Defendant's Deposition Exhibit No.: TOT Page 3 25 - 12/21/88 letter to Munson from McCrea and Instructions for Handling Inerteen Insulating 4 Fluid P.D.S. 54201CM and Installation and Maintenance of Inertrteen Transformers .......... 305 5 26 - 6/5/72 letter to Shoaff from Munson ............. 38S 27 - 6/29/72 and 7/29/72 letters to Brittain from 6 Munson and worksheet ................. *............ 392 28 - 12/13/72 Summary of Follow-Up Sampling at 7 Bloomington by Munson ............. ............... 395 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 904879 ; 1 THOMAS : OREN :------------------------------------------------------------- 30 4 M N S O N, having been first duly 2 sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and 3 nothing but the truth, relating to said matter, 4 was examined and testified as follows: '5 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued), 7 QUESTIONS BY MR. JAN FELDMAN: 8 Q Let the record reflect that this is the continued 9 deposition of T. 0. Munson. Dr. Munson, since your ' i 10 last deposition have you done any more work on this 11 matter? 12 A I have read-one document that was sent to me by David 13 McCrea. I'm not sure exactly what it's in relation to. i i 14 I don't know if he has a copy of it for you or not. 15 MR. McCREA: I should have a copy of it i I 16 here somewhere. ! j 17 A (Continuing) A copy apparently cf a manual from 18 Westinghouse instructions for handling Inerteen fluids. 19 MR. FELDMAN: David, do you intend to 20 provide Dr. Munson with any more documents after today? 21 MR. McCREA: As I get them I may. I just 22 got this document the day I sent it to him. I had not | 23 seen that document before that day. And it is in the 904880 ----------------------- :-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------:-- -----------------j u t 1 approximate time period that he was doing his work in 2 the Bloomington area. And these are written policies 3 of Westinghouse on how to handle the disposal of P'CBs 4 which would be consistent with the work that he was 5 doing with regard to those practices. 6 MR. FELDMAN: You don't have any current 7 intention to send him any more; is that right? 8 MR. McCREA: Correct. 9 (Defendant's Deposition Exhibit 25 was marked for 10 identification.) 11 Q For the record, Exhibit 25 is a cover letter from David 12 McCrea to Dr. Thomas 0. Munson dated December 21. 19SS 13 with a document, the second page of which is entitled 14 Instructions for Handling Inerteen Insulating Fluid 15 P.D.S. 54201 CM. 16 MR. McCREA: I do have a copy. 17 Q Just for the record. Doctor, is Exhibit 25 what you 18 received from Mr. McCrea the other day in the mail? 19 A Y e s , it is . 20 Q Other than Exhibit 25 have you looked at anything else 21 in relation to this case or in relation to any other 22 23 A Westinghouse cases since your last deposition? No, I have not. 904881 -- I----- ; --------------------- -----------: - T U T 1 Q Have you had any other meetings with Mr. McCrea or any 2 other counsel for the Conards since your last 3 deposition? 4 A N o , I have n o t . 5 Q What about telephone conversations? 6 A I had a conversation last night with David simply 7 confirming the arrangements for the meeting today and 8 also a message on my answering machine. Some day last 9 week he left it. 10 Q What was that concerning? 11 A Same thing, just telling me the date that was set up 12 for this meeting. 13 Q Do you anticipate doing anything else before the trial 14 of this case to prepare for your testimony at trial? 15 A I d o n 't think so. 16 Q Has Mr. McCrea or Mr. Young indicated anything to you 17 in that regard? 18 A No, they haven't. 19 Q Have you read a copy of the transcript of your previous 20 deposition sessions? 21 A N o , I haven't. 22 Q Do you have a copy? 23 A No, I don't. --------- ---- ---------------- ---- -- -- ---------- 904882 :------------- '----------------------- --- ------------ -------- -------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --- " 20" 1 Q Doctor, you don't have a copy. So, the pages won't 2 mean anything to you. But on page 182 of the second 3 session of your deposition you indicated that you 4 believed -- and I 'm quoting -- that people near or on 5 the downwind side of the incinerator are going to be 6 exposed to levels high enough to cause injuries and 7 disease. .8 9 10 A What injuries and disease do you anticipate will be experienced by people who live in that location?- . Well, that's really hard to say. It depends upon I i j j ! j 11 whether my concerns are realized. I'm just ... j j 12 anticipating that from what I have heard described for j 13 the incinerator that the people on the downwind side 14 will be exposed to PCB in the vapor. As to what sorts 15 of responses, it's hard to say. I don't know. 16 Q In your previous testimony you indicated that you 17 thought the incinerator would produce high enough 18 levels to cause injury and disease. What injuries and 19 disease did you have in mind that would be caused by 20 levels of whatever comes out of the incinerator? 21 A Well, I was thinking in terms of perhaps neurological 22 problems that might be associated with breathing levels 23 of PCBs over a long-term period. 904883 1Q ---------What neurological problems are associated with Jus 2 breathing PCBs over a long period of time? 3 A I 'm not entirely sure. 4 Q Are you aware of any neurological diseases or ailments 5 caused'by breathing PCBs over an extended period of 6 time? 7 A I suspect there are s o m e . I.suspect that there are '8 some that are not documented in the medical literature. 9 If I recall correctly, you were asking me if I had 10 concerns. And I was expressing to you my concerns. 11 Q Well, the questioning began with a statement that you 12 made that says I predict there are going to be 13 significant injuries from the environmental exposures 14 to PCBs. And then you indicated that that was based on 15 your personal experience. And then I asked you what is 16 the personal experience that that conclusion of yours 17 is based on. And you said that levels of PCBs from the 18 incinerator would cause injury and disease. 19 So, that's the basic line of questioning that I 20 want to ask you to explain. What I 'd like to know is 21 what neurological diseases you believe or believed at 22 your last deposition would be caused by the levels of 23 PCBs produced by the incinerator. 904884 -- ------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Ttr? 1 A That's really hard to say. I think you've established 2 I'm not a toxicologist or an epidemiologist. I'm 3 simply an observer of what appears to me -to be some of 4 the problems people working with PCBs have had 5 medically. I've talked to several individuals. There 6 have been respiratory problems. People talk about 7 irritability, things of that nature, personality 8 changes. .9 Q 10 What is the nature of the personal experience that leads you to make that prediction? 11 Have you ever been exposed to PCBs that have 12 caused any problems? 13 A No. No. I was talking in terms of my prediction was 14 that the incinerator would not be handled properly. 15 According to the plan that I've heard described is the 16 incinerator is supposed to be zero discharge PCBs. My 17 prediction is it will not be. 18 Q What is your prediction as to the level of PCBs that 19 the incinerator will discharge? 20 A Well, I don't know. My prediction is that there will 21 certainly be some that will not be zero d isc harg e. It 22 could be most anything, depending upon how serious the 23 situation g e t s . 904885 ---------------- ------------------------------------ -- -------- JTu 1Q 2 3A You don't know what the levels are, but you know they're high enough to cause injury and disease? i I'm guessing. You asked me for my prediction, and 4 that's my prediction. 5 Q Have you reviewed any materials as to the function of 6 the incinerator and the likely discharge of PCBs as 7 by-products of the incinerator? '8 A I have hot seen written plans for the incinerator, no. 9 It has been described to me. 10 0 Who described it to you? 11 A 12 I think Mr. McCrea, for one, I believe. I can't remember. I've been present at several discussions 13 where the incinerator was talked about. I know 14 basically the plan involves providing the heat for the 15 incineration from the pyrolysis of sanitary w a s t e , I 16 believe, or essentially municipal refuse. 17 Q You don't consider yourself an expert in the 18 by-products of incineration of materials in this kind 19 of a device, do you? 20 A Not particularly, no. 21 Q 22 Also, I interrupted you in an answer to a question at your last deposition. That always comes back to haunt 23 you. You s a i d -- And I 'm quoting -- "I have spoken to 904886 ITT 1 at least" -- 2 MR. McCREA: Page, please. 3 Q Page 183. "I have spoken to at least one individual 4 who worked at the Westinghouse plant. I've been told," 5 and that's when I cut you off. The question that 6 prompted that was a question about whether you know of 7 any individual who sustained personal injuries as a . 8 result of environmental exposure to P C B s . 9 My question now is: Who did you talk to at the 10 Westinghouse plant that you were referring to in that 11 answer? 12 A Well, I didn't talk to the man at the plant, I met 13 this particular individual -- And I'm having trouble 14 remembering his name -- one evening at Mr. McCrea's- 15 house. 16 Q Is it Jason Morrow? 17 A Perhaps. 18 THE WITNESS: Was that Jason Morrow? 19 20 A MR. McCREA: No. Mont Toon, I believe. (Continuing) The fellow who needs oxygen. 21 MR. McCREA: Yes. First name is Mont, 22 M-o-n-t, last name Toon, T-o-o-n. 23 Q Now, this was a person that Mr. McCrea had brought to 904887 1 2A his house to meet you? is that correct? 3T7 I believe Mr. Toon came on his own. He and his wife 3 came to an evening get-together at Mr. McCrea's house. 4 Q Was this on your first trip to Bloomington when you 5 were there with your wife? 6 A Yes. 7Q 8 And who else was at the get-together at Mr. M c C r e a 's house? 9 A Oh, my. It was quite a group of people. I don't 10 remember them all. In fact, I don't remember hardly 11 any of them. Vernice Lockridge was there. Her husband 12 wrote Rain Tree County, a great American novel. The 13 brother of the Dalai Lama was there and his wife. 14 Q Was this a party that Mr. McCrea had arranged and you 15 happened to come to it or was it a party that was 16 arranged for you to be at? 17 A I think the latter case. He invited some people over 18 that he thought I might like to meet and who might like 19 to meet my wife and I. And we got together out on the 20 patio and had a couple of beers and hors d'oeuvres. 21 22 Q David's mother was there as hostess. I forgot that. Can you recall the names of any other people at the 23 party? ;______________________________________________ 904888 -------------------------------------------------------- --------rry 1 A Let's see. I think it was Stu Curry was there, I 2 think. David McCrea was there, of course. No, I don't 3 remember any of the other people. 4 Q Any governmental officials? 5 A Governmental. There was one person who I recall as 6 being part of the local government, I think. I don't 7 remember. He was some kind of a politician of some 8 sort or another. 9 Q Do you recall whether there were any other clients of 10 11 A Mr. McCrea that were at the party? I d o n 't k n o w . 12 Q No o n e .was introduced to you as such? 13 A No. 14 Q What did you talk about with Mr. Toon? 15 A O h , let's s e e . 16 Q By the way, were the Conards there? 17 A I don't believe so. I'm trying to remember. We talked 18 a little bit about the Westinghouse plant. And I 19 mentioned to him having done some sampling around. I 20 can't remember what else specifically. He talked about 21 some of the record keeping for PCBs and the fact that 22 the records were all gathered up and removed from 23 people's files. 904889 - --- ~ ------ ------------------------------------ ------- -- 31'4 1 Q Now, i asked you the question at the previous 2 deposition as to whether you were aware of anyone who 3 had sustained personal injury as a result- of 4 environmental exposure to PCBs. And that was when you 5 started speaking about what you have now identified as 6 Mr. Toon. 7 Did Mr. Toon indicate to you that he had been 8 injured from PCB exposure? 9 A I'm pretty sure that we talked about that. He 10 certainly feels that his illnesses have been caused by 11 his exposure to PCBs. He is medically in pretty bad 12 shape, I understand. 13 Q What are his illnesses? 14 A Well, I don't remember all of them specifically. He 15 has very brittle bones, for one thing, I think, that j 16 break very easily. He also has some severe respiratory ! 17 problems. He has to spend a lot of time inhaling ! 18 oxygen. Other than that I'm not really familiar with i 19 all of them. We didn't really -- I mean the thrust of 20 our conversation wasn't going over his medical 21 22 Q problems. I thought it was. What was the thrust of your j I 23 conversation with Mr.Toon? 904890 iI -- -- --- --------------:---- :------- ----- :--- : - _ ..-- 315-- 1 A Well, it was meeting him, him meeting me. We talked 2 about a number of things. And I don't know that that 3 was the purpose for him being there or my. being there. 4 He was just one of the people, and I met him and I 5 realized he was the person that David had talked to me 6 about as one of the people who used to work at the 7 plant who now was in very bad shape medically. 8 Q Did Mr. McCrea indicate to you that he thought that Mr. 9 Toon's problems resulted from his exposure to PCBs at 10 the Westinghouse plant? 11 A Oh, certainly. 12 0 I take it Mr. Toon said that as well? 13 A Yes, he believes that as well. 14 Q Did either of those two or anyone else tell you about 15 whether any physicians had made such a connection 16 between Mr. Toon's problems and his exposure to PCBs? 17 A I don't remember whether anyone says that or not. 18 Q Did you draw any conclusions as to whether Mr. Toon's 19 problems resulted from the exposure to PCBs? 20 A Well, I -think it's highly likely. But, you know, I 21 certainly can't prove that in court. I'm not sure 22 anyone c a n . 23 Q And that connection that you concluded as to whether 904891 _ ;: --------:-- ; " : irr~ 1 his exposure to PCBs caused his physical problems is 2 not an area that you profess to have any expertise; is 3 that right? 4 A That is t r u e . 5Q 6 On 184 of your second deposition you referred to women who were emotionally damaged because they c o u l d n 't 7 breast-feed infants because of PCBs. '8 Do you recall that testimony? 9 A Yes . io 0 I 'd like to know what women you are referring to. li A I was referring to information I had -- I can't 12 remember whether I read it or heard it -- presented at 13 a conference that included PCBs. It was a study that 14 was done some years ago of sampling mothers' breast 15 milk across the United States and finding it higher 16 than the allowable limit for cow's milk for sale, 17 higher than the FDA limit, I believe, of 5 parts per 18 m i ll ion . 19 And many of these women were counseled by their 20 doctors not to breast-feed their infants. 21 Q Do you remember who conducted the study? 22 A No, I don't. I believe it was a federal study. 23 Q Did anyone study whether they had sustained emotional 904892 -- '------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------3TT 1 damage as a result of that experience? 2 A Oh, I d o n 't know. That may well be my step of logic 3 there. 4 Q So, t h a t 's not based on any review of the literature or 5 any personal studies that you made? 6 A No. That was my example of persons whose lives had 7 been damaged by their exposure to P C B s . '8 0 9 You said that the limit in cow's milk under the FDA * standards' is 5 parts per million; is that correct? 10 A I 'm not sure what it is today. 11 Q At one point it was 5 parts per million? 12 A At one time it was 5 parts per million. 13 Q In your last deposition we introduced the Exhibit 23 14 which was the preliminary proposal to the Environmental 15 Protection Agency. Do you recall that? 16 A Y e s , I do. 17 Q Do you have a set of exhibits with you today? 18 A I d o n 't remember if I came away with a copy of that one 19 or not. I d o n 't believe I got a copy of that. 20 Q Well, you may not need it for this question. Was it 21 common for Westinghouse to make proposals to the EPA 22 for projects which the EPA might fund or might be 23 jointly funded by EPA and Westinghouse in the early 904893 1 2A 70s? I b e l i e v e so. TTF 3Q So, this was n o t the f i r s t p r o p o s a l , to y o u r k n o w l e d g e , 4 that W e s t i n g h o u s e made to the EPA for i n v e s t i g a t i o n of 5 6A e n v i r o n m e n t a l p roblems; is that right? No. 7Q Were there others that were made after this one that 8 yo u are aw a r e of, o t h e r p r o p o s a l s to the EPA? 9A I'm pretty sure there were. I r e member v i s i t i n g an EPA 10 o f f i c e . I t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a f t e r t h i s d a t e , I t h i n k , 11 12 Q w i t h John Kel l y to d i s c u s s a p o t e n t i a l program. Would the EPA ever come to W e s t i n g h o u s e with studies 13 t h a t i t w o u l d l i k e W e s t i n g h o u s e t o c o n d u c t o n i t s 14 b e h a l f ? 15 A I d o n 't r e m e m b e r t h a t h a p p e n i n g at the O c e a n R e s e a r c h 16 L a b o r a t o r y . T h e W e s t i n g h o u s e R a n d D l a b o r a t o r y i n 17 P i t t s b u r g h , p o s s i b l y . I k n o w t h e y h a d s e v e r a l s t u d i e s 18 g o i n g o n h a v i n g t o d o w i t h w a s t e d i s p o s a l a n d t h i n g s o f 19 t h a t n a t u r e . I d o n ' t r e m e m b e r w h o w a s f u n d i n g t h o s e o r 20 21 22 Q 23 w h o i n i t i a t e d them. But s u c h p r o p o s a l s g o i n g to EFA would not have been unusual. The p r o p r i e t a r y class 1 stamp that appeared on at least some of the c o p i e s of y o u r re p o r t , is it your 904894 ~ ----- T - ----------------- --- ------------ :-------- -- -- --- -- - r r?1 understending that that stamp appeared on other 2 documents other than your report? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Did it appear on other documents other than your 5 sampling work at other plants? 6 A I'm sorry. The documents that I generated or -- 7 Q Well, whether or not you generated them, are you aware 8 of whether other documents at Westinghouse were stamped 9 proprietary class 1 other than documents relating to 10 your sampling programs? 11 A O h , y e s . 12 Q Was it fairly common for that stamp to be used on 13 documents at least initially? 14 A Documents that were considered containing information 15 which needed to be closely held, yes. That's what the 16 stamp is for. I t 's like top secret in the military. 17 0 And is it your understanding that documents that were 18 stamped class 1 initially in some instances were 19 subsequently disclosed to the public? 20 A I believe s o . 21 Q Was that a common phenomenon, as far as your knowledge 22 goes? 23 A I have no way of knowing that. 904895 -- ---- -- -- -- | !1 1; - : " -J2U 1 Q Do you remember whether any of the documents that you 2 caused to be stamped with the proprietary class 1 stamp 3 were ultimately disclosed to the general public? 4 A I know of one document that I was told was disclosed to 5 I believe some officials from the state of Virginia. 6 Now, whether that was ever made known to the general 7 public, I don't know. But the report I generated for ' 8 the South Boston plant -- I think I mentioned that 9 earlier -- my understanding was that report was at 10 least shown. Whether it was given, I don't knew, but 11 it was shown to the state officials. 12 Q Can you think of any others, whether they were shown to 13 the general public, that at least were shown to people 14 outside of Westinghouse? 15 A That's the only one I am aware of. I 'm sorry. 16 Obviously some of them were. I mean the Bloomington 17 report came to David through outside Westingheuse 18 channels. So, clearly that report was produced at some 19 20 Q point. Which brings me to my next question. Did Mr. McCrea 21 tell you where he got a copy of the preliminary 'report 22 relating to the Bloomington plant? 23 A I 'm not sure I can quote it exactly. But if I am 904896 ITT 1 remembering correctly I'm sure he told me. N o w , 2 whether I can remember what he told me is something 3 else. But I believe he said it came from' an 4 administrative law judge's files somewhere. David 5 could correct me. 6 0 When was the last time you did any laboratory analysis 7 for PCBs or other chlorinated compounds? "8 A 9Q Other chlorinated compounds opens the door pretty wide. * Why d o n 't we start with PCBs. 10 A The last time I did a PCB analysis with my own hands 11 would probably have been about the time I left 12 Westinghouse in '76. Others did them under my 13 supervision while I was at EPA say through *82. They 14 were being done routinely in the laboratory. 15 0 None a f t e r l 9 8 2 ? 16 A After '82, I went to the FBI after '82. 17 Q And did no PCB analysis there? 18 A And did no PCB analysis. 19 Q You did some gas chromatography at the FBI; is that 20 right? 21 A I did a lot of gas chromatography and GC/MS. 22 Q Did any of that involve PCBs or pesticides or dioxins 23 or benzofurans? 904897 -- --------- ; !-----------1 ;--- : : ' ' JT2~ 1A 2Q No. Does the EPA currently, to your knowledge, have a 3 published method for detecting PCBs in various kinds of 4 media? 5 A Sure. 6 Q Do you have a copy of that in your files back in 7 Minnesota? 3 A I 'm not sure. I don't believe the method has changed 9 since I was at EPA. And in my files somewhere I think 10 I have the EPA -- it's called the Federal Register 11 method because that's where it's published. Federal 12 Register. I think I have the Federal Register method 13 for PCBs somewhere in my files. 14 Q To your knowledge, is any part of the Federal Register 15 method based on work that you did either at 16 Westinghouse or at EPA? 17 A I don't think specifically that it is, no. 12 Q In your 1976 testimony you discussed methodology for 19 testing for PCBs in the laboratory; is that right? 20 A Which testimony was this you are referring to? 21 Q The testimony you provided on behalf of the EPA when 22- you were working there. I said '76. That may be a 23 wrong date. I think that that was right. 904898 1A -- -- -- -------- --------- ---------- -------- : -- ' I think y o u 're right. That was the PCB registry TZT 2 hearing, I think, the one that lasted -- I think I 3 testified for a whole day and then worked as a 4 consultant for maybe five or ten days. I c a n 't 5 remember exactly. I c a n 't remember whether I 6 specifically testified about methodology. I believe 7 EPA wanted me to testify because of the information ' 8 that I had published on PCBs in the Chesapeake Bay. 9 0 You d i d n 't propose a methodology for testing for very 10 low levels of PCBs at those hearings? 11 A Y o u 're remembering correctly. I 'm not remembering 12 correctly. Yes. T h a t 's right. One of the things I 13 did was I provided a deposition to Ridgway Hall, the 14 EPA attorney, where I mentioned the feasibility of 15 measuring PCBs at very low level. I d o n 't recall that 16 being part of my testimony. 17 I believe that Ridgway Hall took a deposition from 18 me on that subject and from Dr. Gilman Vieth, 19 V-i-e-t-h, I t h i n k , who was from the EPA lab(oratory in 20 Duluth. Why he did that I 'm not sure. But I think my 21 testimony -- 22 You d o n 't recall being cross-examined by 23 representatives of various industries relating to the 904899 --------- ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------------- - ............ 324 1 feasibility of measuring PCBs and the percentages of 2 parts per billion or lower? 3 A I don't remember that. But, you know, th'at testimony 4 was a long time ago. 5 Q Is it correct to say, whether or not you testified as 6 to those methods at this hearing, that you have 7 developed certain methodologies for testing at low 8 levels for PCBs in the parts per billion, parts per 9 trillion? 10 A Yes. That's correct. 11 0 To your knowledge, has the EPA adopted your 12 methodologies for testing at those levels as the 13 accepted methodology to be used to comply with their 14 own regulations and standards? 15 A I d o n 't think s o . 16 Q Do you know whether any governmental body other than 17 the EPA has adopted your methodologies? 18 A Not that I am aware of. 19 Q Is it fair to describe the purpose as you understood it 20 of the sampling in Bloomington to be to locate deposits 21 of PCBs in the Bloomington area, if they existed, that , i 22 might be related to Westinghouse? | 23 Let's start with that. Was that part of the 904900 -- . -- ^ ----- :-------;------------------------ ;--- --- ;----- TT3T5 1 purpose of the study as you understood it? 2 A X don't think we were searching for deposits. We knew 3 where the PCBs had been placed. What we .were 4 interested in was the amount of movement of PCBs from $ the plant as one source of PCBs and the movement cf 6 PCBs to what extent they moved from the landfill sites 7 that had been used. `8 Q All right. And was it another part of the purpose cf 9 your study to determine what could be done to reduce 10 movement like that in the future such as corrective 11 measures at the plant or using better landfills? 12 A That really wasn't a part of the study, to determine 13 those measures. Hopefully the data from the study 14 would indicate where such measures were necessary. It 15 was my understanding that if there were problem areas, 15 we could perhaps identify them with the study so that 17 Westinahouse could take remedial action. 18 Q By remedial action I understand you to mean if PC3s are 19 escaping from landfills that Westinghouse will use 20 different or not use landfills at all in the future; is 21 that correct? 22 Or was that laid out for you at that time? 23 A Well, I 'm not sure that was really laid out. At the 904901 TZo 1 tine I sampled we were taking a fairly simpleminded 2 approach as far as doing enough sampling to get an idea 3 if there was a serious situation and if there were, how 4 serious was i t . 5 Q The different kinds of possible remedial measures that 6 might be taken -- You mentioned some in the plant 7 itself -- excluding those for the moment, as a result 8 of the results that you found in the environment 9 weren't discussed either before or after the report was 10 made; is that right? 11 A 12 Q 13 I d o n 't remember any that I was involved with. I think we discussed in one of the previous sessions a geographical mistake that you had made in the report i j I | 14 relating, I believe, to Clear Creek and whether it fed j | 15 into the Monroe Reservoir. Do you recall that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q 18 Other than that did you learn of any other mistakes in j ii your report after you wrote it and sent it to people at 19 the plant? 20 A I'd like to mention that mistake with Clear Creek, I 21 didn't learn about that mistake until this year. No 22 one pointed that out to me at the time. And I don't j 23 quite know why. But no, I'm not aware of any other j 904902 1 mistakes that are in the report. 2. Q You said that no one had pointed out the Clear Creek 3 mistake to you in 1972, '71? 4 A No. 5 Q I take it the same is true on any other mistakes, if 6 there are any, in the report? 7 A I don't recall anyone pointing out any mistakes in the '8 report. 9 Q Where did you actually type the report or write it? 10 Where were you when you did that? 11 A 12 That would have been at the Ocean Research Laboratory. Actually the sight is at Bay Bridge, Maryland. It's I 13 near Annapolis, Maryland. 14 Q Do you remember how long a period of time there was 15 between when you finished your sampling and the results ; !! 16 were back from the laboratories, between that point and i 17 when that report was finally completed and forwarded to 18 Westinghouse in Bloomington? 19 A No, I don't. I've tried to reconstruct that period. 20 But in the absence of my notebooks I really can't do 21 i t . 22 Q And you still c a n 't recall anything about the actual 23 sending of the report or delivering it to Westinghouse 904903 - ______ 3 ------ -------------------------------- -- ------- -------- ;--- ITS-, 1 in Bloomington? 2 A Yes. I don't remember if I sent the report to them and 3 then traveled out for a meeting or whether I traveled 4 for the meeting hand carrying all the copies and 5 distributed them around the table. I know there was a 6 meeting. 7 Q Was there any communication with anyone at the . 8 Bloomington plant while you were out of state preparing 9 a report? 10 A I can't remember. There may well have been. But I 11 just can't remember. 12 q Do you remember whether the report was delivered in a 13 timely fashion? 14 A As soon as I had the results I would have put the 15 report together. But as to how long that took, whethe 16 we carried the samples right back to the lab and 17 analyzed them in a few weeks or whether it took six 18 months, I don't know because I c a n 't reconstruct what 19 we were doing at the time. It was a busy period. It 20 could have taken some time before the analysis was 21 complete. 22 Q Could it have taken as long as six months? 23 A Possibly. I just don't remember whether we tried to 904904 ------- --------------------------- -- -- ---------- --- :--------- -- TZT 1 sample as many sites as possible during a particular 2 time frame and then do the analysis. I am fairly sure 3 that we sampled South Boston, Sharon and Bloomington 4 within the same spring through fall period, spring, 5 summer, fall period. My recollection is that's what we 6 did. But we did sample several of the sites more than 7 once . 8 Q Have you ever read any reports or studies that have 9 been published on the subject matter of the presence of 10 levels of PCBs in various locations? 11 A I'm sure I have, yes. 12 Q Do reports like that that are useful in the scientific 13 community generally include a description of the 14 sampling methodology? 15 A Y e s . 16 Q Do they generally include a description of the quality 17 control methods? 18 A Depends upon the audience of the report. If it's 19 published in a scientific journal, yes. 20 Q Will it generally include a description of the method 21 detection limit of the analytical techniques being 22 utilized in the laboratory? 23 A It depends. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. ------------------------- ----------------- ---- 904905 -- ---------- --------- --- :------------- ---- ----- :-------- : I T T 1 Q Will it include a description of how many samples were 2 taken usually? 3 A Usually, yes. . 4 Q Will it include a description of the efforts taken to 5 ensure the integrity of the samples from the point 6 where t h e y 're taken to the point where they're measured 7 in the laboratory? 8 A Once again, it depends upon the audience how much 9 detail is put into a report. 10 Q Well, if t h e y 're going to be used in the scientific 11 community, would they generally include that kind of 12 information? 13 A Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. 14 Q If such reports include conclusions about subject 15 matters other than the one being tested for. namely, 16 whether there is a level of PCBs in a particular sample 17 or not, would there generally be a bibliography to cite 18 the source of those other conclusions? 19 A In scientific journals, sure, there's usually 20 references cited. 21 Q I s n 't there kind of a form that scientific articles 22 like that usually follow that's actually published 23 somewhere? Am I wrong about that? 904906 1A T3T No. Bach scientific journal usually publishes once a 2 year -- And they call it different things -- 3 information for authors or something like- that in which 4 they specifically spell out their policy about format, 5 style, how things are going to be abbreviated and 6 referred to. 7 Q In your second deposition session at 269, for the `8 record, you indicated that you didn't do any round 9 robin quality control in the samples you had taken? 10 A In the Westinghouse study? Right. I c o u l d n 't. 11 Q You d i d n 't? 12 A I did not, yes. That's true. 13 Q Then you said just like y o u 're saying now that you 14 couldn't. Why would it have been impossible to send 15 samples to independent laboratories without identifying 16 where they came from to let those other laboratories 17 confirm or deny the levels that you were finding in the 18 samples? 19 A I suppose it might have been possible. At that time 20 there were not many reliable commercial laboratories 21 available to a person in 1971 or '12, not like there 22 are today. But it might have been possible to do that. 23 Q Did anyone tell you not to do that? 904907 -- -- --- ----- --- :---------:------------- ---------------- ------- J 7 T 1 A I don't suppose we ever discussed it. I don't recall 2 anyone telling me not to do that. 3 Q Did anyone tell you not to describe the quality control 4 measures that you used in the sampling around 5 Bloomington in your report? 6 A No. 7 Q Did anyone tell you not to include references to ' 8 articles that would support some of the conclusions you 9 reached concerning reproductive problems or 10 bio-accumulation or those kinds of conclusions that you 11 have in that report? 12 A No. I ma<3e the decision of what the format of the 13 report was going to be based on the audience for whom 14 it was intende d. 15 Q I take it no one, told you not to include a description 16 of the methodology used at taking the samples or in 17 analyzing them in the report? 18 A T h a t 's t r u e . 19 Q Was it your understanding that the individuals at the 20. Bloomington plant who would read this report had no 21 experience in reading scientific journals? 22 A Some of them may have. Some of them probably did net. 23 Q Did you know for a fact that some of them did? 904908 -- :_____ ___________________________________________ -- ------- T T J 1 A No. 2 Q Was it your understanding that none of them had that 3 kind of background in reading scientific .journals? 4 A I had no understanding one way or the other. 5 Q I take it you didn't ask any of the people at the 6 Bloomington plant the kind, of format that would be 7 appropriate to -- 8 MR. McCREA: Asked and answered. 9 MR. FELDMAN: No. It's a completely 10 different question. 11 Q You didn't ask anyone at the Bloomington plant what 12 kind of format they would prefer for your report; is 13 that right? 14 A No, I did not. I made up my mind what was the 15 appropriate format and wrote the report accordingly. IS <2 Did you have any meetings with individuals from 17 Monsanto that you were in attendance as well as other 18 people from Westinghouse? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Were those in St. Louis? 21 A There was one in St. Louis. 22 Q Where were the others? 23 A Well, I don't remember them. There were at least half 904909 ------- --------- ------------------------------- ------ " JJZ~ 1 a dozen occasions where I saw Mr. Pappageorge at 2 scientific meetings, Mr. Pappageorge from Monsanto. I 3 met once with Dr. Tucker from Monsanto at- St. Louis, 4 but I can't remember whether it was different from a 5 general meeting I went to in St. Louis. And I 6 encountered him several times at scientific meetings as 7 well. 8 Q I have a document that was produced at your first 9 deposition labeled Exhibit M which refers to that 10 letter in what we have marked as your deposition 11 Exhibit No. 3, a list of exhibits. 12 A I have it. 13 Q Do you recall that meeting that's reflected in the 14 memorandum? 15 I call it a memorandum. I t 's entitled meeting 16 with Monsanto on Inerteen December 16, 1972 in St. 17 Louis. 18 A I dimly recall that meeting, yes, 19 Q If indicates you were in attendance. You d o n 't think 20 that's incorrect, do you? 21 A I was in attendance. 22 Q What was the nature of your work at that time that led 23 you to being in attendance at that meeting? 904910 .v --- ---------- ----------- ----------- --------;----- -- -- :----T ? 1 A Well, at that time I was analyzing samples for 2 pesticides and PCBs. I believe that I had already 3 sampled several Westinghouse plants. 4 Q Do you recall what the purpose of the meeting was? 5 A Other than what's in this memo, I don't remember much 6 7q about the specifics of the meeting. Do you know where you obtained this document, Exhibit .M ' 8 referred to on Exhibit 3 of your deposition? 9A 10 q From Mr. McCrea. Do you know where he got it? 11 A N o , I d o n 't . 12 Q And you can't recall anything further about the purpose 13 of the meeting other than what you've told us; is that 14 right? 15 A No, other than what you might deduce from reading these 16 pages. I don't remember any specifics about the 17 meeting. 18 Q I think you answered this, but I just want to be sure 19 I've got it right. You said there were other meetings 20 other than the one referred to in Exhibit M where you 21 on behalf of Westinghouse had a meeting with people 22 with Monsanto. Is that correct? 23 I don't want chance meetings with people from 904911 -- 1 ------ -- ---------------------------- :------ -- - jT o Monsanto. 2 A I met on one occasion with the person referred to here 3 as Scott Tucker. That was Dr. Scott Tuck-er who was 4 their analytical chemist. I met with him in his 5 laboratory. And I don't recall whether it was on this 6 trip in December of '71 or whether it was earlier or 7 later. 8 Q Is it your understanding that during this period around 9 December 16, 1971 that Westinghouse was attempting to 10 control or reduce the escape of PCBs into the 11 environment from its plants and that that was one of 12 the reasons why this meeting with Monsanto occurred? 13 A That sounds reasonable. Some of the memos I have read 14 that are here do indicate that some individuals were 15 attempting to do that at Westinghouse. 15 Q Was there also, to your knowledge at that time, an 17 effort by Westinghouse to acquire the data that existed 18 on the environmental effects of PCBs? 19 A I d o n 't know whether that was true or not. I think so. 20 I believe that Ed Boquist at headquarters had that 21 interest as part of his job. 22 Q Are you aware of any efforts that were being made at 23 the Bloomington plant in 1971 and later to find methods 904912 -- --------- --- -----------1------ ------------ -- --- ;-- -- ---- yrr-- 1 to reduce the escape of PCBs into the environment? 2 A From the memos I have read in preparation for this 3 deposition, it appears that that was taking place. 4 There had been a study which I don't believe the 5 Bloomington people mentioned to me at the time, but one 6 of these documents indicates that there was .a study- 7 done by a Westinghouse group called Aquatechnics. 8 And from my own report it appears that seme chance 9 had recently been made I believe in the can washing 10 process or the manufacturing process of the capacitors. 11 But I can't remember today what that change was. 12 Q All right. From reading your report, even if you don't 13 have any independent recollection of it, you have 14 concluded that individuals at the Bloomington plant 15 discussed with you measures that they had taken to 16 change the process in F-30 to reduce the loss of PCBs 17 18 A in the environment; is that right? .j iI I have concluded that at least something was discussed 19 in that regard. I d o n 't remember them mentioning the 20 Aquatechnics study and what it was about. I think I i 21 would have remembered that if they had done it. That 22 came as a surprise to me when I was reading some of the documents I have been supplied. 904913 -- --- ---- 1------------------------ : : : : 3T2 1 Q You say it came as a surprise to you. Did it conflict 2 with some conclusion that you had previously reached as 3 to the efforts being taken at the Bloosti-ngton plant to 4 reduce the escape of PCBs into the environment? 5A 6 7 No. The surprise came that Acquatechnics had been involved. And that really goes back to some " '' politicking that was going on as to which group within | i '8 9 . 10 Westinghouse was going to spearhead the environmental * ... effort. And John Kelly's plan was that it would be our j j group. Acquatechnics was a group that was apparently 11 doing some of that kind of work as well. But I never j 12 actually found out what they were doing. 13 I became familiar with the Westinghouse 14 environmental systems division group who were also in 15 competition with us or so we perceived it. 16 Q Had you seen the document that is labeled Exhibit H to 17 the list of exhibits that we've marked as your 18 Deposition Exhibit No. 3? 19 And for the record I'll identify that as memo from 20 J. C. Rissinger, R-i-s-s-i-n-g-e-r, dated January 12. 21 1971 to, among other people, R. D. McClain with an 22 eight-page attachment. I d o n 't know if I asked a 23 question in all that. 904914 ------ -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------- -------- ;-- 3'IT " 1 My question about this document that I have just 2 identified is: Were you aware of the existence of this 3 document at or about the time it was written? 4 A I don't think so. 5 Q Were you not supplied with the information that 6 Westinghouse was accumulating in the early '70s about 7 PCBs from Monsanto and other sources? 8 A N o , I was n o t . 9 0 Now, looking at the memo t h a t 's got the H on it dated 10 January 12, 1971 -- Let's mark this whole thing as an 11 exhibit. 12 MR. FELDMAN: For the record, Exhibit 3 to 13 Dr. Munson's deposition dated 11-30-88 was just a 14 single page and referred to documents from A through V IS with one deletion. And what we are going to do with 16 stipulation of counsel is to insert the references on 17 the exhibit list of Exhibit 3 so we will have documents 18 A through V with one deletion that will now become part 19 of Exhibit 3. 20 Is that okay, David? 21 MR. McCREA: That's agreeable. 22 Q My question was: On Subexhibit H, the memo dated 23 January 12, 1971 and the attachment to it, did you see 904915 ---------- -- ------------------ ------- 7-- -- ____ :: j lu. 1 that memo and the attachment at or about the time it 2 was written? 3 And I answered. -_ 4 Your answer was no? 5 My answer was no. 6 Did you discuss any of the attachment to Subexhibit H 7 with any of the individuals at the Bloomington plant? 8 Whether you saw the document itself, did you 9 discuss any of the things that are discussed in this 10 attachment with anyone from the plant? I 11 Oh, well, I suspect so, talkina about persistence and i | 12 toxicity and that sort of thing, yes. 13 You do have recollections of talking about that with ! 14 people from the plant? 15 I don't have specific recollections of such a 16 conversation, no. But I would naturally have talked 17 about those things in the discussion of the report that 18 I carried to them because that was what my concern was, 19 persistence, toxtoxicity, bio-accumulation, that sort 20 of thing. 21 In your report there's a mention of a change from one 22 of Neal's landfills to another landfill. Do you recall 23 that? 904916 T?T 1 A Yes. 2 Q Other than that effort do you have any recollection as 3 you sit here today of discussions with people at the 4 Bloomington plant about other efforts they were taking 5 to reduce the escape of PCBs to the environment? 6 A Well, I had a number of conversations with Lew shoaff. 7 After I left the plant Lew was the person I talked to .8 most frequently. And I believe his function was to see 9 that the solid waste leaving the plant or the waste, 10 whatever form it was, that was going to the landfill 11 went to the landfill. And he sent me samples. I 12 believe his concern was whether the landfill that was 13 currently being used was being operated properly. I 14 know I had discussions with Lew Shoaff in that regard. 15 Q What about measures taken in and around the plant 16 itself to reduce the loss of PCBs into the environment? 17 Do you have any recollections of discussions about 18 that? 19 A I don't have a specific recollection about that. I 20 mean other than I suggested to them to do something to 21 22 23 Q eliminate the movement of PCBs, the passage of PCBs, to the sewage treatment plant. That was your lunch with John Brittain? 904917 1A 2 J42. In the plant effluent. I remember at lunch where he told me they were not going to take those. I 'm not 3 sure whether -- It was probably earlier where I 4 suggested to them they should do that. 5 Q Looking at Exhibit 0, Subexhibit 0 to your Deposition 6 Exhibit 3 which is a memorandum dated November 17, 7 1970, I just ask you to review that to yourself for a 8 moment. 9 A Okay. 10 Q I take it you have no recollection of seeing that 11 document in the early 1970s? 12 A No, I'm sure I wouldn't have seen that document 13 because this is the document where Acquatechnics is 14 mentioned. 15 Q Other than the Acquatechnics study do you have any 16 recollection of seeing or of discussing any of the 17 measures that are mentioned in this Subexhibit 0 to 18 Exhibit 3 with anyone from the Bloomington plant in the 19 early 197 0s ? 20 No, I really don't. 21 Q Is it fair to say that you didn't know about any of 22 these efforts that have been undertaken as of November 23 17, 1970 to reduce the loss of PCBs to the environment 904918 -- ----- ------------------- --- ------ ; 34j " 1 2A from the plant? To the best of my recollection, that would be fair to 3 say except I 've got this nagging problem that in that 4 report I wrote there's a sentence that indicates that 5 they had made some changes. And somebody had to have 6 told me something that some changes had been made. And 7 I just have no recollection of what that was. ' 8 I'm pretty sure that the specifics that were going 9 on here described in this memo were not discussed with 10 me . 11 Q Did you have any discussions with Mr. McCrea about the 12 relevance of any of the documents that are listed cn 13 Exhibit 3 to your testimony in this case, excluding 14 from that question Exhibits A through D? 15 A I d o n 't think so. 16 Q Do you have an understanding of the relevance of these 17 documents, if any, to the testimony that you expect to 18 provide at a trial in this case? 19 A N o , I d o n 't . 20 21 A MR. FELDMAN: That makes two of u s . \ (Continuing) You asked for all of the documents which 22 23 Q David had sent me and that's what you got. In a letter that's dated August 24, 1988 that you wrote 904919 -- --- -- 34% 1 to Mr. McCrea that appears as one of the documents, in 2 Exhibit 11 -- 3 A What was the date of that letter? -- 4 Q August 24, 1988. 5 Q It may be in a package that begins with a November 7, 6 1988 letter . 7 A Oh, okay. '' 8 MR. FELDMAN: Let's go off the record. 9 (A discussion was held off the record.) 10 Q Doctor, you've located the August 24, 1988 letter from 11 you to Mr. McCrea; is that right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And t h a t 's part of Exhibit 11 that we previously 14 identified. Towards the bottom you indicate that you 15 have tapped the grapevine to see if the record books 16 are located and if anyone has tried to find them 17 rec en tl y. 18 Who did you ask whether anyone had tried to find 13 them recently? 20 A 21 22 Oh, we already discussed that. I called Dick Usury, U-s-u-r-y, at the Westinghouse Oceanic Division at the j Bay Bridge site in Annapolis. 23 Q I take it he's the one you asked if anyone had tried to j 904920 -- 1 2A -- -------------------------------------------------- --- " 345 ; find the books recently? Yes. 3 Q And why did you ask him whether anyone_had tried to 4 find those books recently? 5 A I was curious if anyone had. Well, I was curious for 6 two reasons. ' Ho. 1, I wanted to know if he knew where 7 they were. And No. 2, I was curious if -- I had 8 mentioned the record books to Mr. Ordway, and I was 9 curious if he had followed up to try to find them. 10 Q 11 A Why did you want to know that? Well, basically I guess deep down I feel like t h e y 're 12 mine and I 'd like to have them back someday. And if j I| 13 they are found and exist, then there is a chance that I 14 might be able to somehow some way talk somebody into 15 giving them to me or copies of them. Because I'm a 16 research scientist and I have seven years of my 17 research notes missing from my files. 18 Q In the second paragraph of that same letter of August 19 24, 1988 you refer to a fee of S500 a day. Is the fee 20 21 A 22 that you are charging in this case $500 or S600 a day? Well, I d o n 't know the answer to that. I would have to go back to the original letter that I wrote to David as 23 to what it was, which should be in here somewhere. The 904921 -- -- "3 " -------------:-- ----- ---------- :---------- --------i T o ~ 1 answer to your question right now is I had in the back 2 of my mind it was $75 an hour times eight hours, 3 whatever that works out to be. 4 Oh, it says here in the letter on 5-16-88. This 5 is where I laid out the costs. If I come to 6 Bloomington, we should think of actual hours work 7 exclusive of travel time up to a maximum of $600 per 8 day. And I apparently then misquoted myself in the 5 later letter. 1 Q 11 Okay. Now, going to Exhibit 10 which begins with a \ November 6, 1988 letter from you to Mr. McCrea, going > 12 to the second page of that letter where you are 13 referrina to the deposition of Jason Morrow which is i 14 part of Exhibit 12, did you conclude from reading the 15 deposition of Jason Morrow that people had been injured 16 at the Westinghouse plant as a result of exposure to 17 18 A PCBs? I d o n 't know if I came to that conclusion from reading i I j 19 Mr. M o r r o w 's deposition or not. I have come to that 20 conclusion. 21 Q 22 Was there anything in Mr. Morrow's deposition that you relied on in reaching that conclusion? i j 2.3 MR. FELDMAN: Let's go off the record. 904922 .347 1 (A discussion was held off the record.) 2 MR. FELDMAN: Would you read back the 3 question. 4 (The Reporter complied with Counsel's request and 5 read as directed.) 6 THE WITNESS: Could you read me the I 7 question previous to that one. 8 (The Reporter complied with the w i t n e s s 's request 9 and read as directed.) 10 A Okay. Now, you were asking about the statement I made 11 in a letter to David. I would say some of what Mr. 12 Morrow says there goes along with a general feeling I 13 have that individuals who worked at the plant were 14 harmed by the PCBs and other vapors they were 15 breathing. 16 Q Okay. You refer to that as a general feeling. T h a t 's 17 not an area in which you profess to have any expertise? 18 I think you asked me that question before. The answer 19 is that is an area that I don't profess expertise. 20 Q Is it the case, then, that your opinions on possible 21 connection between PCB exposure and human injuries is 22 not something that you would expect individuals to rely 23 on? 904923 A I don't know how to answer your question. What J48 individuals? Q Well, individuals, for example, employed at 4 Westinghouse who may be able to control PCB exposure. 5 A I really don't know. Q In your experience in the scientific community is it 7 common for people to rely on nonexpert testimony or ' 8 nonexpert opinions in areas relating to medical 9 causation? 10 A Sometimes. I mean if I walked into the shop and the 11 vapors were strong and I said that you should do 12 something about this, those vapors are harmful, my 13 guess is they would probably listen. Now, whether they 14 would do something, I don't know. It depends. I make 15 those judgments in my laboratory all the time. 16 Q What judgments do you make in the laboratory? 17 A When working in the laboratory if I can smell solvent 18 vapors I take steps to remove them because solvent 19 vapors are harmful to you. 20 MR. FELDMAN: Let's take a quick break. 21 (Whereupon at 12:30 o'clock p.m. the deposition 22 was recessed for lunch to be resumed at 1:18 o 'clock 23 p.m. at this same place). 904924 ------------------- ---- -- ---- --- ---------------- -- ; .j49 ,1 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed), 4 QUESTIONS BY MR. FELDMAN: 5 Q On page 6 of your preliminary report for Bloomington 6 which has been marked as Exhibit 24 in the second full 7 paragraph about the middle of the page you are, as I 8 understand it, trying to explain the sample that you 9 marked as B23, BL23; is that right? 10 A 11 Q Yes. Does the dotted linethat leads ` from the dump to BL23 i j I j j i ! j 12 13 A in figure 2 depict a gully of some kind? I don't know the answer to that question. It's not the i i i 14 same kind of a line. It's a dash and a dot. The J 15 gullies are shown as dots. 16 Q Gullies are shown as dashes, a r e n 't they? 17 A 18 19 I mean as dashes, yes. I d o n 't know the answer to that i question. Unless that's supposed to indicate a little i | road. There is kind of a road there that goes into the 20 dump at that point and crosses the highway. 21 Q I'm trying to understand your statement there. You 22 seem to be trying to find a means by which the .72 23 parts per million could have gotten from the dump to 904925 :------------------------------------------------ - j 5 c 1 where you found it? 2 A Yes, I am. 3 Q And I take it that that was an issue because there was 4 no readily visible stream that would take it to that 5 6A point; is that right? BL23 was a sample .taken in a field that was being 7 farmed. If I remember correctly, I walked down that 8 road and I just kind of dipped through the barbed wire 9 fence and went out into the field. And so one would 10 expect that to be an indication of aerial fallout. 11 Now, at that time I was unaware of how much 12 burning of capacitors was taking place in the landfill. 13 Today as I sit here t h a t 's readily displayed. That was 14 certainly aerial fallout of PCBs carried in the smoke 15 from the landfill. 16 Q And how can you determine that? 17 A Well. I have heard a number of descriptions of the type 18 of burning that took place at the landfill like daily 19 capacitors were split open and burned and, well, that 20 it wasn't hot enough to incinerate PCBs, only burn 21 them. And so I would suggest that .72 is a result cf 22 the surface soil being contaminated by the PCBs falling 23 out of the smoke from the landfill. 904926 ------------,-------- -- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------- :--------- ;--------------------J5 T 1 q Are you reaching that conclusion as you sit here today? 2 A Yes. Yes. At that time, you see, I was not aware of 3 how much burning took place. Nobody told me. 4 Q You do, though, indicate on page 6 that there had been 5 some burning from that landfill; isn't that right? 6 A I think I was told there was some burning, that he had 7 been cited several times about burning. -I have since 8 learned through the Conards and through others who live 9 in that area and could observe it that the burning was 10 a continuous process. 11 Q You recall as you sit here today that in 1971 and '72 12 you did not understand that the burning was a 13 continuous process? 14 A No, I w a s n 't told that. 15 Q Have you done any research on the levels one is likely 16 to find in surrounding soil in an area that's had 17 18 A continuous burning as opposed to intermittent burning? No. 19 Q Have you reviewed any studies that discuss that 20 question? 21 A I 'm not aware that there have been any. 22 Q Can you think of any other explanations for why there 23 might be a level of .72 across from the landfill at 904927 1 2A 737 B23? Hell, I give one in the report. I say in the report 3 one can imagine a number of explanations, a good 4 possibility being that at one time the landfill 5 operator sold waste Inerteen to the farmer down the 6 road and carry-over contaminated the field next to the 7 road. . 8 And you've decided today that that was not the event 9 that caused the P'CB level of .72 parts per million at 10 B23; is that right? 11 A I'm suggesting another possibility as the aerial 12 fallout. 13 Q Well, a minute ago I asked you if you concluded that's 14 what caused it, and you told me that you had concluded 15 that. Is your testimony that these are two 16 possibilities that you can't distinguish between as to 17 their relative likelihood or have you concluded that 18 one is the true one and one isn't? 19 A Perhaps I was a little careless with my terminology 20 here. With the information that I have at hand today I 21 would be more likely to suppose that it got there by 22 aerial fallout. Now, I have no way of proving either 23 one of those suppositions. But based upon the other 904928 T57 1 data I have seen on PCBs in soil in less contaminated 2 areas, that one is too high. 3Q 4 Do you think there are any other possible sources for that sample, for that deposit, of PCBs in that field 5 other than the two you've mentioned here; namely, 6 aerial fallout and a farmer who took some Inerteen from 7 the landfill? . 8 A Well, there probably are. It's possible that the 9 farmer could have used a pesticide preparation that had- 10 PCBs in it as an extender and applied it to the field. 11 Possible. Less likely, I think, but possible. 12 Q Any others? 13 A None spring to my mind. 14 Q Are you aware of any other industries that sent 15 materials to Neal's Landfill other than Westinchcuse? 16 A I 'm n o t , n o . 17 Q If I were to tell you that Neal took materials from 18 other companies than Westinghouse who manufactured such 19 things as TV sets and refrigerators and other 20 electrical devices, would that information lead you to 21 conclude that there are other possibilities for the 22 source of PCBs to either the landfill or this location, 23 B23? 904929 ----- :---- -- ----- --------- ----------------- '----------------------------------- T 5 T 1 MR. McCREA: Jan, I'm going to object to 2 your question. If you ask for information other than 3 what you are telling Dr. Munson about TVs and 4 refrigerators, fine. But there is no avidence in the 5 record to support your question. 6 MR. FELDMAN: In what record? 7 MR. McCREA: Any record. And if you have '8 evidence that you want to then incorporate into the 9 question, fine. But to deal with something that is 10 purely speculation as part of your question is 11 inappropriate. 12 MR. FELDMAN: If you are suggesting that 13 I'm making this question up out of thin air, you're 14 clearly wrong, and you know that. And I am entitled to 15 ask him a reasonable hypothetical question without 16 having to produce one drop of evidence in this 17 deposition as to the basis for the question. 18 MR. McCREA: Would you like him to exclude 19 himself from the room while we discuss it? 20 Do you have any evidence that there were PCBs from 21 any other source? 22 MR. FELDMAN: Well, David, I think I have 23 the right to ask the hypothetical question. 904930 --------------- ,------------------- ------------------------- ;--- 7T5 1 MR. McCREA: The answer to your question 2 is no, you have no basis, and you know it. 3 MR. FELDMAN: Are you going to instruct 4 him not to answer? 5 MR. McCREA: No. 6 MR. FELDMAN: Then let's get on with it. 7 MR. McCREA: Let's stick with the ' 8 information that you as attorney of record know and 9 that Joe Carney as attorney of record in Westinghouse 10 matters since 1956 knows and please incorporate that 11 information into your question. If you have a basis 12 for the question, fine. If you have no basis, you're 13 wasting everybody's time. 14 MR. FELDMAN: You made your objection. 15 You can answer my question if you remember it. 16 A I think I do. I d o n 't think it alters my statement 17 that my most likely supposition is that the PCBs out IS there in the field got there from the landfill. 19 Q Are there other sources of PCBs other than pesticide 20 extenders that could have accounted for the presence of 21 B23 having nothing to do with N e a l 's Landfill? 22 A Sure.' Maybe a student from the local high school was 23 using an oil emersion microscope and he chose that 904931 TFd 1 location to dispose of the microscope. Sure, X can 2 think of a thousand of them, but w h a t 's the point. 3Q 4 Is that the only other one that you could think of that could plausibly account for the presence of positive 5 PCBs of .72 parts per million in a f a rme r's field. 6 I'm sorry. You didn't say plausibly. I don't consider 7 that last response plausible. But I was making a 8 point. 9 Q I assumed we were only dealing with plausible answers. 10 A Hell, okay. The list of uses of PCBs is long. I think 11 we read through that at one point, either you did or I 12 did. Could be in brake fluids. It goes on and on. 13 Now, since w e 're a hundred yards from a landfill that 14 has a reputation for receiving, liquid PCBs and burning 15 material creating a black, dense smoke that blew across 16 that field, I thought that was the most likely 17 response. 18 Q Why do you think that's more likely than the pesticide 19 extender ? 20 A Because I don't think that was a very wide use for 21 PCBs . 22 Q Did you make any investigation of the use of pesticides that contain PCBs as extenders in the Bloomington area 904932 -- 1 2 3A ---- -- ----- ------- ------------ -------- -----:-------- rrr before you reached the conclusion in Exhibit 24 that had to have come from Inerteen at the landfill? No, I didn't. But I didn't find high levels of PCBs in 4 every sample I took that came from farm fields or 5 adjacent to farm fields, which would lead me to 6 conclude that the farmers in the area were not 7 routinely spraying with PCBs. That one particular 8 farmer could have, sure. Okay. 9 Q But despite that possibility you still believe B23 is 10 more likely to have coma from aerial fallout than from 11 pesticide extenders; is that right? 12 A I would say more likely, yes. 13 Q Or from transmission fluid; is that correct? 14 MR. McCREA: That was not his testimony, 15 a g ai n, J a n . 16 MR. FELDMAN: I'm asking the question. 17 MR. McCREA: You're dealing with 18 possibilities. You d o n 't deal with possibilities in 19 law. You deal with basis information. 20 MR. FELDMAN: That's what I'm asking him. 21 MR. McCREA: Does he have any basis 22 information that there were any other PCBs dumped at 23 this site other than the PCBs which he was told were 904933 --------- -- ------ ----------------- 1-- " 3b B-- 1 dumped there by Westinghouse; is that your question? 2 MR. FELDMAN: No, that wasn't my question. 3 MR. McCREA: Let's talk about basis 4 information, not possibilities. Anything is possible, 5 Jan. 6 MR. FELDMAN: .David, I'd like him to 7 testify. I appreciate your input, but I would prefer ..8 to have Dr. Munson testify so we can get out of here at 9 4:15. . i ! ! 10 MR. McCREA: If you will deal with the j 11 questions that are in the record, that's fine. 12 MR. FELDMAN: You were not here when he 13 indicated other applications for -- 14 MR. McCREA: Do you h a v e .information that j 15 there was brake fluid dumped at this landfill? 16 Do you? 17 MR. FELDMAN: I'm not going to argue with 18 you. It's a legitimate question, and I'd like to ask 19 it to the witness. 20 MR. McCREA: About what's possible. 21 Q My question was: You still believe that it is more 22 likely that B23 came from aerial fallout than from a i I i 2.3 spill of transmission fluid? 904934 ------ ;------ ------------------ -- ---------------- ------------- -- ST? 1 A I would think so. The sample was taken out in the 2 farmer's field, not on the road. However, a tractor 3 can have a leaky transmission. Anything is possible. 4 0 Doctor, look at figure 3 in Exhibit 24. This is the 5 same landfill, is it not, as the one that's depicted on 6 figure 2? 7 A I think so. 8 Q Both referred to as landfill No. 1? 9 A Yes, I believe so. 10 Q If .72 at B23 is from aerial fallout, why is it that 11 the levels reflecting aerial fallout in figure 3 are 12 all in the hundredths of parts per million? 13 A It's difficult from this map to see what the scale is. 14 I 'm guessing that those samples are at some further 15 distance away. 16 0 You can't tell that from the report, can you? 17 A Basically it's showing roads that are not on figure 2. 18 See Highway 48 and then those other lines represent. I 19 believe, roads. I think we're looking at a greatly 20 expanded scale here. 21 Q Well, Highway 48 is the road that goes just beneat-h the 22 landfill both on figure 2 and on figure 1; isn't that 23 correct? 904935  ------ :-------- ;------------- ------- ---------- -- -- =yoF = A Y e s , I think so. 2 q Can you tall given those relative distances, namely, 3 from the road to the dump, where B45 would be on the f 4 map of figure 2? 5 A I can't really, no. C 6 Q Would this be far away from B23? 7 A I would think so, yes. But I c a n 't tell for sure. Q As I look at those at the distance from B45 to the road c ,8 9 and B23 to the r o a d , it doesn't seem like there's much 10 difference there at all. Would you agree with that? l 11 A I don't think we can tell from the map. I d o n 't 12 indicate a scale on them. Figure 2 doesn't show the 13 road that loops up over the top there. I c a n 't really 14 t e l l . 15 Q All right. Let memake sure I 'm reading this right. 16 The distance from Highway 48 to the dump in figure 2 17 would be represented by the distance from Highway 48 to C 18 the dump in figure 3, wouldn't it? 19 A Well, only if it was drawn to scale. These may not be C 20 drawn to scale at all. 21 Q You mean the distance from Highway 48 to the dump in 22 figure 3 might represent a mile and in figure 2 it 23 would be an entirely different distance? 904936 TT A Well, obviously the distance between the dump and the highway is what it is. It's just on my drawing here I may not have been careful enough to put -- On the scale of 3, for instance, it may be that the dump should be shown practically touching the road. I don't remember the intent of what I was doing here when X drew it. I think I was showing a broader scale, the samples at some greater distance, but I can't say that for sure. But BL23', th samples on figure 2, the numbers go up to 27. We're looking at numbers here up in the high 40s. So, some 20 samples have been taken since these were taken. So, I really d o n 't know the answer to that question of how close BL23 is to BL45. Q You say you don't know the relative scale of those distances as you sit here today. Is it fair to say there is nothing in your report that would indicate that the scale of figure 3 and figure 2 were meant to be.entirely different? A I'd say you would draw that conclusion from the fact there is a road that isn't shown on this one. Q Referring to figure 2? A Yes . Q Is it your understanding that the road that intersects 904937 - 1 j"oT 1 Highway 48 and going toward the top of both figure 2 2 and figure 3 pretty much follows Richland Creek? 3 A I d o n 't know the answer to that question. My problem 4 is I haven't seen any of the backup material used to 5 generate this report for 17 years. What we have is 6 what we have in front of us and what little bit I can 7 remember. I can't remember. 3 Q Well, let me ask you this question: Given the fact 9 that there is no indication in the report that the 10 scale of figure 2 and the scale of figure 3 are 11 drastically different, would you concede that someone 12 reading this report would wonder why if aerial fallout 13 is contributing to PCB levels around the dump BL45 14 would be so much lower than BL23? 15 A If you knew they were close to each other you would 16 wonder that, yes. 17 Q I think you've told us that from the drawings 18 themselves they appear to be fairly close to one IS another; i s n 't that correct? 20 A I just don't know the answer to that question. 21 Q I d o n 't mean their actual location. I mean from the 22 way they appear in these two figures BL23 and BL45 23 appear to be pretty close to one another; wouldn't you 904938 "STS agree with that? A No, I won't agree because I don't know the scale on these maps. And I don't see any indication in the report as to whether this was a close in sampling and figure 3 is a further out sampling and I just haven't indicated the dump on the right scale or whether for some reason X chose not to indicate the road. I didn't number the road. I don't know the answer to the question, how close those samples are to one another. Q What road d i d n 't you number? . A The highway that loops up that connects with 43 t h a t 's shown on figure 3. Q That loops up to BL46? A .Y e s . <2 I'm referring to the road that goes underneath the dump, Highway 48. A Yes, I know. Q You agree that's labeled on both drawings, right? A Yes. Q If it turned out that BL45 and BL23 were in fact a few feet from one another, would that change your opinion that the most plausible explanation for those samples 904939 CD -- ----- --- ------ :-- ------ ---- ;----- -- -- ------------- -- -------- Ir 11 is serial fallout? 2 A Mot necessarily. That sample at .07 is still a bit 3 high. 47 and 48 ara around .01. And I still have BL23 C 4 to deal with. The aerial fallout is not necessarily 5 going to create a uniform blanket of PCBs on the C 6 surface soils. In the report I notice that the 40 7 series is BL -- BL23 is referred to as being earlier or at least the other ones are referred to as being later 9 soil samples. 10 Q Where are you referring to? < 11 A On page 6 the middle paragraph there. It says one can 12 imagine a number of explanations for B23 being more 13 than 10 times higher than the later soil samples. And 14 another possibility, only it's not clear from this (. 15 report, is that these samples were taken at a later i 16 point in time. They could be next to each other. ' , . . ! 17 Maybe the farmer disked the field in the meantime and 18 turned up fresh soil. I don't know. 13 Without the backup information to tell me exactly C 20 what these samples are and when they were taken and 21 exactly where, I can't really answer that question. 22 But this sentence seems to indicate that they were not 23 taken at the same time, that the samples shown in 904940 -- --- --------------------------- -- ---------;-- n ? s5, 1 figure 3 were taken at a later date than was the high f 2 sample, B23. 3 All right. W o u l d n 't you agree that not knowing r 4 anything about the backup data that lead to all these 5 samples, not having your daily record, not having taken r 6 the samples, a reader looking at figure 2 and figure 3 7 would question your conclusion that the samples found 8 around that dump ar6 indication of aerial fallout? c 5 What would be your basis for questioning it? 10 Well, I'm asking you `if you think that's a reasonable c 11 question that a reader of this report would come to 12 based on figure 2 and figure 3. 13 Well, but sorry. You have to tell me what the reader 14 has assumed. Has the reader assumed BL23 and BL45 are 15 directly adjacent to each other? c 15 Is that what's disturbing the reader? 17 If you want to ask me what's in the reader's mind, t 18 you have to tell me w h a t 's in his mind. 19 All right. If a reader concluded that BL23 and BL45 c 20 were close to one another based upon looking at figures 21 2 and 3, would he reasonably call in and question your 22 conclusion that any of those samples resulted from 23 aerial fallout? 904941 ---- = - ---------- :------ --- :-- :--- -- -- ;_____ _______ _____ :iTsr r 1 A He might wonder why the levels are not nearly the same. 2 If he asked me that question, I would suggest that if 3 in fact those samples are adjacent to each other, they C 4 are separated in time as indicated by the report. 45 5 is referred to as a later sample than 23. That opens ' 6 up a number of possible explanations for a difference, 7 the most likely one being that if indeed it was aerial 00 fallout perhaps the farmer came in and turned the soil 9 over prior to my sampling of BL45. I don't know. 10 Q Looking at page 8 of your report at the top of the page c 11 did you conclude from the work that you did in 12 Bloomington that the problems the farmer was having 13 referred to at the top of page 8 and the bottom of page 14 7 resulted from exposure to PCBs? C 15 A Did I conclude it? 16 Q Yes. 17 A Yes, that was my conclusion. t 18 Q Looking at the next paragraph, the leaching from this 19 landfill could easily be getting into the human feed C 20 chain. That's a quote from that middle paragraph. Did 21 you conclude at that time that in fact that was 22 happening? ji i ! 23 A I don't remember whether I specifically came to that j ! V. 904942 TS7 1 conclusion. Although, I do state there that it's f 2 highly likely. Well, actually I state could easily be 3 getting into the human food chain. Depends upon C 4 whether they were eating the pigs or someone was eating 5 the pigs. 6 Q Are you aware that cattle from the C o n a r d s ' farm was 7 tested for PCBs in the early 1980s? 8 A I don't remember any data like that. 9 Q Mr. McCrea never told you that cattle from the Conards' 10 farm were tested for PCBs? { 11 A I d o n 't remember if he did or not. 12 0 Is it your feeling that that's, the first time you have 13 heard that, my telling you today? 14 A Well, if I've heard it before, I don't remember hearing 15 it. t 16 <2 If I were to teli you that the C o n a r d s ' cattle were 17 tested for PCBs in the early 1980s and the levels came t 18 up negative, would that alter your conclusion in this 19 middle paragraph on page 8 about the possible c 20 contamination of livestock around that landfill? 21 A What did they test? 22 Q Fat. 23 A And to what level did they test? 904943 .. ...................... . :-- job t 1 Q Well, what if I were just to tell you that the levels 2 came up negative, would that alter your conclusion in 3 any respect? f 4 MR. McCREA: Your question does not 5 incorporate where those cattle consumed water, either? f6 MR. FELDMAN: No. Just from the C o nard s' 7 farm. ( .8 A Well, I 'd like to know the answer to how low the levels 9 were they tested. If the cattle had been grazing on 10 the pasture on Conards' farm, I'd be surprised if the 11 fat came up negative. 12 Q When you say you'd be surprised if the results came up 13 negative, if in fact the results did come up negative, 14 would that alter your conclusion at all as to the C 15 possiblity that PCBs from the landfill might be 16 regularly getting into cattle that graze around there? 17 A All I can say is I find that surprising. Now, whether 18 it would alter my conclusion, I'd like to see some more 19 data. I'd like to know about the cattle, where they C 20 were, how long they were there, what was tested. But I 21 would find that surprising, yes. 22 Q At the bottom of page 8 referring to the paragraphs 23 under the heading called sanitary landfill No. 2, have 904944 -------------------------------------- -------- 3 6-9- 1 you come to identify that landfill as the Neal's Dump 2 in Spencer County or does that term not mean anything 3 to you? 4 A Yes, I've heard that term. I think that's right. But 5 I'm not a hundred percent sure of that. 6 MR. FELDMAN: David, will you concede 7 that's what sanitary landfill No. 2 is? 8 MR. McCREA: Yes. in Owen County. 9 Q Would you read the first paragraph under sanitary 10 landfill No. 2 on page number 8 just to your yourself.* 11 A (Witness complied). Okay. 12 0 Was it your understanding in 1972 when you drafted this 13 report that in 1968 Westinghouse instructed its waste 14 hauler to take all Inerteen waste not to Neal's 15 Landfill, not to landfill No. 1, but to the Neal's Dump 16 in Owen County? 17 MR. McCREA: Are you asking him if based 18 upon reading this that's his opinion? 19 MR. FELDMAN: I asked him to read this so 20 that he could refresh his recollection. What I 'm 21 asking now is for his understanding in 1972. 22 A 23 Yes. My understanding and I'm basing that upon what I have written here and what I take this to mean chat I 904945 TTU 1 wrote here is that sometime in the period 1968 to 1972 2 a new landfill was started and that I was told only 3 solid waste Inerteen was put in that landfill. 4 Q What was your understanding at that time as to where 5 liquid waste Inerteen was going? 6 MR. McCREA: Can you define solid waste 7 for us? - 8 MR. FELDMAN: Well, whatever his 9 definition was in the report. 10 MR. McCREA: Well -11 MR. FELDMAN: It's his term. 12 MR. McCREA: I would object to the 13 question unless solid waste is defined and liquid 14 waste. If you don't want to define it, fine. 15 MR. FELDMAN: Let's first ask him. 16 Q Y o u 've referred to solid waste. I take it that is 17 meant to be distinguished from liquid waste, right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What was your understanding of where liquid waste 20 Inerteen was being taken once the solid waste was taken 21 to the Neal's Dump? 22 A I believe I was told other than the liquid that was 23 going to the sewer -- There was surely some there as 904946 ------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- '-------- - 3TT 1 part of the manufacturing process -- that the liquid 2 was being sent to Monsanto. But I have no personal 3 knowledge of that. I know just what I was told. 4 Q Okay. You have no personal knowledge of it. You're 5 basing it on what people at the plant told you as to 6 where they were deposing of those materials at the 7 time; is that right? 3 A The people that I was dealing with. 9 0 Which would have been Lew Shoaff primarily; is that 10 right? 11 A Primarily Lew Shoaff. 12 Q On page 10 the paragraph that begins with the words "at 13 first analysis" you refer to a statement by the 14 Monsanto Chemical Company that solid waste can be 15 contained in a sanitary landfill. 16 Do you remember what that refers to? 17 Do you see where I'm looking? 18 A I see what y o u 're saying, yes. 19 M R . McCREA: Again, I would like for you 20 to define solid waste, if you have a definition. If 21 you do not, fine. 22 MR. FELDMAN: I 'm merely asking him to explain the sentence here. I'm not coming up with a 904947 -------------- ----------- -------------------------------- --- ----------------------- 1--------------------------------------------:--------------------------------------------------------- 1 term and asking questions about it. I'm discussing his 2 terminology. 3 MR. McCREA: Pine. My objection is we do 4 not have a working definition of solid waste. If a 5 capacitor filled with liquid is solid waste as opposed 6 to metals with contamination on them, I think we have 7 two different working definitions. 3 I do not know what you mean when you address the 9 issue of solid waste. 10 MR. FELDMAN: For the purpose of my 11 question, I'm referring to whatever was meant by the 12 term as used on page 10 in that middle paragraph. 13 MR. McCREA: Fine. 14 A (Continuing) If I understand your question, you want 15 to know what I meant by as has been asserted by the 16 17 Q Monsanto Chemical Company? T h a t 's r i g h t . 18 A Okay. My recollection is that at that time Monsanto 19 maintained that PCB solid waste could be adequately 20 contained in a landfill covered with soil because it 21 did not, PCBS did not, migrate through the soil, 22 according to their claim. 23 Q Do you remember where Monsanto made that claim? 904948 _____ - -------------------------------------------- --- 1-----rrr 1A 2q Ho, I don't remember. Has your review of any of the materials that Mr. McCrea 3 provided to you refreshed your recollection on that 4 question? 5 A I don't remember. There is a bit of information from 6 Monsanto in these pages somewhere. And I believe at 7 some point Monsanto recommended not putting stuff in 8 the landfill. But I'm not sure when that change was 9 10 Q 11 made. * Going down that same paragraph there's a reference to capacitor cans from the plant which had not been 12 emptied. What was your understanding at that time 13 about the plant's practice of emptying capacitor cans 14 before sanding them to landfills? 15 A Well, my understanding was that the cans would be 16 opened and the Inertean poured out and that the can 17 that was left, then, was then defind as being solid 18 waste to be taken to a landfill. 19 Q Now, when you say that the capacitor cans had not been 20 emptied, then you're saying there was some indication 21 that not all the capacitor cans that went to Neal's 22 Dump had gone through the process that you just 23 described? 904949 1 Yes. 2 Do you know where you got that information? T7T 3 I'm assuming I got it from Lew Shoaff. 4 Do you remember what he said to you in that regard? 5 No, I don't. 6 Do you remember what he said to you about the quantity 7 of capacitor cans which had been emptied as opposed to 8 the ones that had not been emptied? 9 I don't remember anything about that. 10 At the time that you took the samples at N e a l 's Dump 11 was Westinghouse still disposing of materials to that 12 dump? 13 I don't know the answer to that question 14 Do you know the circumstances of the switch from 15 sanitary landfill No. 2 to sanitary landfill No. 3? 16 MR. McCREA: Are we talkina about Neal's 17 Dump in Owen County to the Anderson Road landfill? 18 MR. FELDMAN: Right. 19 Q Well, let's clear that up. T h e r e 's a reference to 20 sanitary landfill No. 3 on pages 10 to 11. Is it your 21 understanding that's the Anderson Road landfill? 22 A I really don't know. 23 Q W e l l ,whatever sanitary landfill No. 3 is, did anyone 904950 -------- ---- ;--- --------- ----- --------------- ----------'------- 3T5 1 explain to you what the circumstances were of the shift 2 from Westi nghou se's materials being taken to sanitary 3 landfill No. 2 and then to landfill No. 3? 4 A The best of my recollection is that they were not 5 satisfied with how things were working at landfill No. 6 2 and wanted to go to a new area. 7 q Do you remember how that dissatisfaction came about? 8 A Only what I have reported in the report here. I 9 mention that there were some complaints. Apparently 10 the landfill operator was not doing what he was 11 supposed to be doing. The last sentence before you get 12 to section 2.3, actually the next to the last, refers 13 to a game warden complaining about oily materials 14 getting into the river. 15 0 By the river I take it that means the White River or do 16 you know? 17 A Yes, I think it was the White River. | i 18 Q If oily materials were getting into the White River, I 19 gather, then, you would be able to see the oil on the 20 river; is that right? 21 A It depends. It might be a slick on the surface or mere 22 likely oily deposits going down the bank. 23 Q If it were a slick on the surface, would that be PCBs? _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ____ j 904951 " 1A 20 --: :1 ! ~TJT~ Probably not. PCBs are heavier than water. I'm not sure what you mean by oils on the bank. Can 3 you explain that? 4 A Well, you could see if material were moving from the 5 landfill over down into the river, one would see 6 essentially oily material on the surface of the soil. 7Q 8 9 You mean like a big blob of material progressing along i the surface of the land and spilling into the river; is | | that what you are referring to? 10 A 11 Q 12 Yes. Is it likely that the levels that you found in the various locations around Neal's Dump would be what you | 13 have reported them if that phenomenon had occurred and 14 the oily material was PCBs? j 15 A If the oily material were Inerteen or were pure 16 Inerteen, of course not. The levels would be much, 17 much h i g h e r . 18 Q From that analysis can you conclude that the oily 19 material that the game warden referred to would not be 20 Inerteen? 21 A It may not be pure Inerteen. It's really hard to say. 22 5 How could the levels in the White River be at the .49 23 parts per million, .12 parts per million level and in 904952 - -SI 1 the gully that leads from the landfill in the .34 parts 2 per million level if the game warden is reporting 3 visible PCBs in the river? 4 A Well, he most likely is not seeing pure PCB material. 5 It's hard to tell. Depends upon what they put in the 6 landfill. 7 Q Well, if the material that he was seeing was noc PCS 8 material, then the fact that the game warden reported 9 it wouldn't really reflect badly on the disposal of 10 Inerteen into that landfill, would it? 11 A No. It would be reflecting upon the operation of the 12 landfill as a whole. 13 Q I take it like the other reports of events preceding 14 your sampling that appear in this report, you don't 15 have any other information about the game warden other 16 than what appears here? 17 A Unless there is more detail written in one of my books. 18 Basically -- 19 Q What you see is what you get? 20 A What you see is what you get at this point. 21 Q 22 Referring back to the sampling you did at the Neal's Landfill referred to in figures 2 and 3 and look, if 23 you will, at figure 2, BL26 is not on the C o n a r d s ' 904953 1 f a r m , is it? 2 A I don't know the answer to that question. TTS 3 Q You've never tried to ascertain the geography of the 4 Conards' farm and match it up with figures 2 and 3? 5 A No. 6 Q There appears to be some creek or river or stream or 7 something leading out the top of the dump or near the . 8 dump. Do you know whether that dash line refers to S Conard's Branch? 1 A I really don't.. That was drawn essentially from a 11 topographical map. Not actually -- I never set foot on 12 the Conards' farm at that time. 13 Q How do you know that? 14 A I beg your pardon. 15 Q How do you know that? 16 A How do I know what? 17 Q That you never set foot on the C o n a r d s ' farm? 18 A I 'm sorry. If BL26 is on the Conards' farm, I did. 19 Q But from figure 2 I take it that you understood that 20 21 22 A there was a stream leading out the other side of the landfill from Highway 48 opposite 48? I had a topographical map that was showing the lay of 23 the land, and I sketched this sketch using the 904954 ---------- ------------------------------------- -- -------- " 3'75 1 topographical map. I did not in fact walk down the 2 other side of the land -- In fact, I d i d n 't set foot in 3 the dump, in the landfill. So, I never ascertained as 4 to whether there was a creek there or not. 5 Q How did you get the BL24 if you didn't go into the 6 landfill? 7 A Walked through the fence. BL24 I d o n 't think is in the 8 landfill. 9 Q Or at least t h a t 's your understanding; is that right? 10 A Well, I don't think it is. We did our sampling by 11 walking from the roadway. Nobody appeared to be 12 looking. We walked over and took a sample. 13 Q Now, looking at figure 3, the road that intersects 14 Highway 48 and goes up to BL46, describe the area of 15 BL46. 16 A I don't remember. 17 Q Is it near a road? , 18 A I think so. I mean I believe that black line is a road 19 that loops from Highway 48 goes north loops around and 20 comes back to Highway 48. 21 Q But you don't know whether BL46 is on the C o n a r d s ' 2 2 f a r m ,. do you? 23 A N o , I d o n 't . 904955 1Q 380 And you don't have any recollection of actually taking 2 the sample at BL46? 3 A No, I don't. 4 Q Given the fact that these maps may not be drawn to 5 scale, it would be impossible to reconstruct the exact 6 location of BL46 from this report, wouldn't it? 7 A Probably. 8 Q Doctor, on page 10 again -- I'm sorry to keep jumping 9 around -- just before the section 2.3, the last 10 sentence says: Obviously the data do not accurately 11 reflect upon the disposal of Inerteen contaminated 12 solid waste in a sanitary landfill. 13 What was inaccurate about the way the data 14 reflected upon the disposal? 15 A Because the landfill had apparently received liquid in 16 addition to solid waste. 17 Q I'm still confused. Are you saying that the data would 18 indicate very low level of PCBs; whereas, the landfill 19 accepted liquid Inerteen which you would suggest would 20 have higher migration? 21 A 22 23 No. What I 'm saying is we thought the landfill site would represent a site showing whether or not solid waste contaminated with PCBs put in a landfill would ! 904956 --- -------------------------------------- --------- ----- --- -- -- 7BT~ 1 fail to migrate. But as it turns out, this was not 2 such a test because we found that the landfill operator 3 had put liquid waste in the site. 4 So, in fact we had a landfill that had liquid and 5 solid waste in it. 6 Q The end result of that was that you c o u l d n 't conclude 7 that solid waste Inerteen could be contained in a 8 sanitary landfill as stated by Monsanto Chemical based 9 upon the data here? 10 A Yes. Yes. It was not a clear-cut case because an 11 unknown amount of liquid had reached that landfill. 12 Q Is the only source of liquid that you were aware of to 13 that landfill, liquid Inerteen, the amount of liquid 14 Inerteen in the capacitor cans that would have been 15 drained had all of them been drained out? 16 A All I know is what I was told. And that's that the 17 operator was putting in capacitor cans that had not 18 been emptied. 19 Q My question was: Was the only source of liquid 20 Inerteen that you were aware of at that time the 21 Inerteen in the capacitor cans that otherwise would 22 have been drained out? 23 A Yes. I understand your question now. Yes, that was ----------------------------------------------- J 904957 ' - - . --- -------------- :-- --- :------- ....... ..... J 8 i. 1 understanding was that the intention had not been to 2 put liquid into that landfill, but it was discovered 3 some cans that had not been emptied had gotten into the 4 landfill. 5 Q Now. going to the sampling you did around the plant, 6 starting on page 1 1 , have you reviewed any other 7 sampling data taken later than your sampling data from 8 the plant for PCBs? 9A 10 Q I d o n 't think so. Is the same true with respect to the levels that you 11 reported in figure 6 ? 12 A I've seen a lot of stuff since I got involved here, but 13 I don't recall comparing another set of data with this 14 set of data. I d o n 't recall having seen any. 15 Q In any case, it would be not material that you provided 16 us if you had seen it: is that right? 17 A I think so. Well, I have given you everything that 18 David gave to me. 19 Q I 'll have you assert that one or two more times today 20 and then we're done. On page 11 you refer to a fish 21 sample at the junction of Stout Creek and Beanblossom 22 Creek which showed 5 parts per million. 23 Was that in the whole fish or the edible portion. 904958 ----------------------------- -- ---------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------- TST 1 if you remember? 2A 3Q I think that was the whole fish. When you say Inerteen formulation, what formulation are 4 you referring to? 5 A That would be 1242. 6 Q Going down on page 15 you indicate that the samples 7 from the White River indicate another source other than ..8 Westinghouse. 9 I take it t h a t 's figure 7 that you are referring 10 to? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Can you explain how figure 7 indicates an alternate 13 source or different source for the PCB materials in the 14 White River other than the Westinghouse operations? 15 A I don't see the answer to that question. Well, I've 16 looked at the information here, and I 'm not quite sure 17 how I came to that conclusion. I may have beer, putting 18 a lot of faith in the relative values for PCB in these 19 samples. If you notice, the samples close to the 20 Westinghouse plant, referring to figure 7, BL22 is 23 21 PPM. As you move downstream they get lower. Until you 22 have the Beanblossom flowing toward the White River, 23 you have the Beanblossom at .27, then in the White 904959 --- ---- ;------------------------- --- ------------------------------------ 1 S T 1 River BL50 is .07, BL49 is .17, BL31 .21, essentially 2 getting higher as they go downstream. 3 I may have been concluding that that d i d n 't seem 4 logical, that you would expect a deluding out effect if 5 you went downstream if the source of all of the PCB in 6 the White River was back here at the Westinghouse 7 plant. 8 Q Did you do anything to determine other sources in the 9 Bloomington or Spencer area for PCBs into any of these 10 waterways? 11 A N o . 12 Q Have you become aware of any other possible sources of 13 PCBs into any of those waterways since doing the 14 report? 15 A Well, I have been told about -- And I haven't picked 16 out any of them on the map -- about various places 17 around Bloomington that were contaminated with PCBs 18 early on with people tearing down capacitors and that 19 sort of thing. I don't know how any of those relate to 20 any of this geographical area. 21 Q I take it all those locations that you were told about 22 ultimately emanate from the Westinghouse plant in the 23 sense that materials came from there to begin with? 904960 1A 20 T3T I think so. And I take it it was Mr. McCrea that told you about 3 those; is that right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q He didn't tell you about any source of PCBs to the 6 waterways in this area other than Westinghouse related' 7 sources; is that right? S A I 'm not sure. I 've had a lot of information given to 9 me. I do have some recollection of some other PCBs. 10 but I c a n 't remember what they are or where they were 11 from. 12 Doctor, looking at the first full paragraph on paae 15 13 you say in the last sentence of that paragraph that 14 it's not possible to determine the magnitude of the 15 contribution from Westinghouse compared to the amount 16 from the unknown without undertaking a detailed water 17 monitoring program. 18 Would you agree that i t 's not possible to 19 determine the amount of contribution from Westinghouse 20 to the samples that you took around the landfills 21 without undertaking some more detailed investigation? 22 THE WITNESS: I 'm sorry. Could you read 23 me the question again. 904961 -- ------ ------------------- -- -- ------ ;-------------------- :-- JST 1 (The Reporter complied with the witness's request 2 end reed es dir ec ted.) 3 A That's what I thought you asked. I don't care how many 4 samples I take around the landfill, I still can't make 5 any statement about Westin gho use 's contribution. I can 6 make a statement maybe about movement of material from 7 the landfill to the sample site, but I can't say 8 anything about W es tin gh ous e's contribution. 9 Is that what you were asking? 10 Q T h a t 's right. Thank you. Would you agree that if you 11 were to take PCB measurements in most landfills that 12 accept urban waste and industrial waste in the period 13 that you sampled Neal's Landfill around Bloomington 14 that you would find some level of PCBs in those 15 landfills? 16 A Certainly. 17 Q Would you also agree that given that fact you would 18 find some level of PCBs having migrated out of those 19 landfills? 20 A Probably. 21 Q Just so I'm clear on something, in the report on page 22 15 you list some fish samples you took which range from 23 4.3 to 7.2 parts per million. You're not contending in 904962 ------ 1-- :-- 1-- :------------------ --------------- =====------ ----7 3 7 ' 1 this report that those levels came from PCB discharged 2 from the plant, from the Westinghouse plant, are you? 3 A No. These were bought from a commercial fisherman on 4 the White River near the Worthington bridge. 5 Q And I understand your point to be that fish taken from 6 that area would not be accumulating PCBs from the 7 Westinghouse plant? 8 A Hard to say. 9 MR. McCREA: Read the report. 10 A (Continuing) Last sentence says -- 11 Q I can read the report. But my question is: You d i d n 't 12 conclude from those fish samples and any other work you 13 did in that area that the PCBs that you found in those 14 fish had emanated from the Westinghouse plant? 15 A T h a t 's true. I did not make that conclusion. I did, 16 however, verbally urge that since we knew these fish !i 17 had PCB levels higher than the FDA limit for human 18 consumption that it was our moral responsibility to 19 report the data. 20 I felt bad about not saying something to somebody 21 about those levels. 22 Q On page 6 of your report you indicate that there were 23 some samples taken in June of '72. See that at the 904963 - --------~ ~ --------- :--------- ;---------- ---- ----------- - 3 Si1 bottom of the first paragraph? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And if I'm not mistaken, on Exhibit 22, which is your 4 daily record books, there are references to some 5 samples which were recorded in August of '72; is that 6 right? 7 Looking at the first page of Exhibit 22. 8 A Yes . 9 Q And those samples would be Bloomington samples as part 10 of this report, right? 11 A Yes. Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Those Bloomington 12 samples say July after them. 13 Q Well, but they were analyzed in August? 14 A They were extracted, the EXS-3-82 -15 Q 72? 16 A Yes, 72. Yes. These samples are all from a July 17 sampling tr i p . 18 Q And they weren't analyzed until sometime in August of 19 '82. right? 20 A '72. 21 Q I'm s o r r y . '72? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Does that indicate that the report would have been 904964 TFT 1 drafted sometime after August of 1972? 2 I think so. I just wanted to check, Some of those 3 sample numbers did appear on a figure back here, did 4 they not? 5 Q 54, I believe, did. See? 6A 7Q 8 Yes. Okay. So, can you conclude from your review of Exhibit 22 and the report that Exhibit 24 would have had to have been 9 drafted sometime after August of '72? 10 A Yes. 11 Q 12 13 A Does it refresh your recollection any more as to the exact month? It really doesn't. I was doing too ma ny things at the 14 time. 15 (Defendant's Deposition Exhibit 26 w as marked for 16 identification.) 17 Q 18 Referring you to what we have just marked as your Exhibit 26 which is a June 5, 1972 letter from you to 19 Mr. Shoaff, do you have a recollection of drafting this 20 letter on or about June 5, '72? 21 A I knew there were some communications. I guess I don't 22 remember this particular letter, no. 23 Q Does this refresh your recollection that some of the 904965 ------- ---- ;---------- ;-------- ' ------------ J'sv 1 samples that you took in the Bloomington area that 2 appear in your report were done by Mr. Shoaff or 3 someone at his direction? 4 A He took some samples for me. 5 Q Pursuant to the directions in this letter; is that 6 right? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Looking at the second page of Exhibit 2$. does this 9 refresh your recollection that some of the locations 10 for the samples were determined not by yourself but by 11 Mr. Shoaff or somebody at his direction depending upon 12 his assessment of drainage and slope and things like 13 that? 14 A In the landfill sites for sure. In fact, he continued 15 sending me samples for quite some while. And I d o n 't 16 remember how many boxes of sediment or soil samples he 17 sent m e . 18 Q I believe you indicated in your first deposition the 19 soil samples were taken physically in a truck from 20 Bloomington to Annapolis. Does your review of Exhibit 21 26 refresh your recollection that some would have been 22 sent by perhaps common carrier from Bloomington to 23 Annapolis? 904966 -- m r-- -- ------ ------------ -- ---------------- --- ;_________________ -- r 1 A I thought we said that, that Shoaff took later samples 2 and sent them to me. The samples that were taken by 3 myself and others with me when we visited out there we 4 took home with us in a truck. 5 Q When you said that Mr. Shoaff took samples around the 6 landfills, did he take any samples around Neal's 7 Landfill? 8 A Not that I am aware of. I think we took all of those 9 samples. 10 Q Are you certain of that as you sit here today? 11 A I remember taking those samples. I don't remember Lew 12 Shoaff was with us when we sampled Neal's Landfill. 13 Q Did he do the sampling around Neal's Dump? 14 A I visited Neal's Dump once, I 'm sure, but I'm not sure 15 how many samples were taken there over which time 16 period. So, I'm not sure whether I took them all or 17 whether he took some of them. I believe I took one set 18 myself. 19 (Defendant's Deposition Exhibit 27 was marked for 20 identification.) 21 Q Doctor, you just reviewed Exhibit 22 a little bit more. 22 Does it cast any doubt or add any information to your 23 previous answers? 904967 "-- '! ' 3t t 1 A No. I was just trying to figure out what date this 2 series BL38 to BL44 was taken. 3 Q Referring you to a three-page document that w e 've just 4 marked as your Exhibit 27 consisting of a June 29, 1972 5 letter from you to John Britton and a July 29, 1972 6 letter from you to John Britton, the first one being 7 two pages and the second one being one page, did you 8 send both of these letters to Mr. Britton at or about 9 the dates that they bear? 10 A I presume so. 11 Q As I look at these two letters they are almost 12 identical word for word, but there are some changes and 13 one is a month later. Can you explain to me why there 14 are two letters with almost the same information but 15 slightly different wording? 16 MR.' McCREA: Could we go off the record? 17 (A discussion was held off the rec or d. ) 18 A I d o n 't have a clue why the June letter has got the 19 d a t a . 20 Q Well, I w o n 't guarantee that the July letter didn't 21 have the d a t a . 22 The June letter appears to make a stronger statement 23 about the fact that PCBs are not leaching from the 904968 '-m 1 2Q 3 landfill. Is it possible that the July letter is the one that was sent and the June one was a draft that you never sent? 4 A I really don't have a clue. 5 Q Did you at some point come to learn that Mr. Brittain 6 was not the general manager as indicated in the June 7 letter? 8 A Yes. I carried in my memory for years that John 9 Brittain was the general manager. Somehow I got that 10 in my computer wrong. It was only recently it was 11 pointed out to m e . 12 Q Does the mistake that you have made in Mr. Brittain's 13 title change any of the testimony that you gave in your 14 earlier depositions about the lunch that you had with 15 him? 16 A Oh, I definitely had the lunch with John Brittain. 17 There is no doubt in my mind about that. I don't 18 remember if I correctly identified him as the 19 engineering manager or the plant manager. At the time 20 I lunched with him I thought he was the plant manager, 21 even though I met Mr. Sauter at the time. 22 Q Did you do any work on analyzing the effluents in the 23 sewer system at the Bloomington plant that you can 904969 ------ ;------------- ------------------- ------- --------- - -- *4-. 1 recall? 2 A Not that I recall. 3 0 Do you remember that being a topic of conversation to 4 try to measure the amount of PCBs that might be 5 escaping into the sewer system from the Bloomington 6 plant? 7 A I recommended to them that they stop discharging PCBs 8 to the plant. Now, I don't recall proposing to them 9 that we attempt to monitor how much was leaving via * 10 that route. 11 Q Exhibit 24 is entitled preliminary report. I probably 12 asked you this. Is there a final report? 13 A No. 14 (A recess was taken during which time Defendant's 15 Deposition Exhibit 28 was marked for identification.) 16 Q Doctor, Exhibit 18 is the letter you produced to me 17 last time, June 11, 1976, which, as I understand it, 18 was written when you were at the EPA; is that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And was it written because Westinghouse wanted you to 21 perform some consulting work? 22 A Westinghouse did, and I 'm trying to clarify whether 23 there was somebody else as well. But yes, I was 904970 ------------------------------ -- -------- -------- ..____ ___ ______J9S1 essentially requesting permission to do outside 2 consulting. 3 Q Requesting that of the EPA? 4 A Yes. 5 Q This letter was written to the EPA? 6 A Yes. 7 0 And sent to them; is that right? 8 A Yes, to Christopher Seglem, regional counsel. 9 Q So, as of June 11, 1976 you had indicated to Mr. Seglem 10 that 11 M R . McCREA: The letter speaks for itself. 12 Q -- that Westinghouse had performed an environmental 13 survey of PCB leakage from the plant, from the 14 Bloomington plant; is.that right? i 15 A Yes. I state in there that I had performed such a 16 sur ve y. 17 0 Now, we've just marked your Deposition Exhibit No. 28. 18 Can you identify this three-page document for us? 19 A It appears to be a follow-up report written by myself 20 having to do with samples taken around Bloomington. 21 Q Dp you have any recollection of drafting this 22 three-page document? 23 A Vaguely. I remembered there was more fish data than j ! 904971 -------------- ----------------- : -------1------------- 3T 1 2Q the data which I had seen up to this point. When you say that sufficient PCBs are coming down the 3 White River from Indianapolis to obscure inputs from 4 our plant via Beanblossom Creek, what was the context 5 of that statement? 6 Why was that made? 7 One of the things I was trying to do was alert the 8 people at Bloomington to the fact that the levels of 9 PCBs which could be associated to the Westinghouse 10 plant were high enough that they were easily 11 discoverable. Now, in that vein I'm saying that the 12 inputs to the White River from Westinghouse via the 13 Beanblossom Creek would be somewhat obscured by the 14 presence of PCBs coming downstream from Indianapolis. 15 All right. L e t 's go to page 3 of Exhibit 28. At the . 16 top is Waverly; is that right? 17 Yes . 18 All right. If you keep going upwards, is that where 19 you get to Indianapolis? 20 I believe so. 21 And Bloomington doesn't seem to appear on this map, 22 does it? 23 I believe i t 's in that square box with a B in the 904972 ------------------------------------- ------------------------- t t t 1 middle of it just above sample 2 1 . 2 Q I see. Are you aware of any other sources of PCBs 2 other than Westinghouse downstream from the 4 Westinghouse plant at Clear Creek? 5 A No, I don't think so. 6 Q If there is a plant in Bedford, a CM foundry in 7 Bedford, at around the sample point 20 that had been 8 found to have discharged levels of PCBs, would that 9 change your opinion at all as to the relative 10 contribution of the Westinghouse plant to levels found 11 in Clear Creek? 12 MR. McCREA: Are you suggesting that 20 is 13 where the White River is located? 14 Bedford is on the White River, not Clear Creek. 15 Q Well, let's redo the question. If there is a CM 16 foundry at or around point 20 that had levels of PCBs 17 discharged from it, could that account for levels below 18 that point of PCBs? 19 A If they were discharging into the stream, they 20 certainly would be contributing to levels downstream. 21 Q And was your conclusion that the contributions from 22 Indianapolis into the White River could account for the 23 levels found in the White River? 904973 -------- -- ------------------------- :---------------------------:------ITS- 1 A I think so. It seemed to me that the White River was 2 carrying PCBs with it from up toward Indianapolis. So, 3 upstream of where the Westinghouse inputs would go in 4 it would seem that there were other sources. 5 Q Can you answer the question No. 2 based on the 6 information that you developed in Exhibit 28? 7 A Well, if one assumes that there were no other sources 8 than the sewage treatment plant, the data they give is 9 indication of the level of contamination downstream. 10 Q Where is the sewage treatment plant on this map? 11 Is that the B, the box with a B in it? 12 A Yes, right in there. 13 0 Is that your understanding? 14 A Yes. It's been 16 years since I've seen this thing 15 Q Doctor, you took some fish samples at Haysville at 16 station 8 ; is that right? 17 A Yes . 18 Q And then you took some other samples below Haysville 19 20 A also of fish; is that right? I d o n 't see fish from station 7. 21 Q I d o n 't either. I'm just referring to your statement 22 at the bottom of the first page. 23 MR. McCREA: Do you have a copy which has 904974 ---------- -------------------------------------------------- --- JTS-- 1 the right-hand column at the top of the -- 2 MR. FELDMAN: That's more legible, no. 3 A The sample No. 8 possibly station 8 , that may possibly 4 be below. There is a small mouth bass and a shad both j 5 below 5 PPM. 6 Q I don't see the resident fish at 5 parts per million 7 that you are referring to in that last sentence on the 8 first page. 9 A Where I say in general the resident fish are higher 10 than the limit for human consumption? 11 Q Right. 12 A Okay. Well, if you look at samples that are labeled 13 station 9, there's a small mouth bass at 7.73 parts per 14 million. 15 Q T h e r e 's also a catfish at .116. IS A True. Then on station 11 there's two sunfish I think 17 that is at 17.8, blue gill at 5.95. I'm assuming 18 that's what I 'm referring to in that last sentence. 19 And that the fish at station 8 that station 8 is 20 below Haysville. 21 Q But when you say that generally the resident fish are 2 2 higher than the limit of 5 parts per million you got 23 three fish that are higher but many more that are quite 904975 1 2A a bit lower, don't you? Many more? 4Uu 3 Q Well, I mean significantly more that are under 5 parts 4 per million than above it; isn't that true? 5A 6 Well, station 9, 11, 15. 15 is at 4.25, if I can read that right. Oh, I'm sorry. That's a crayfish. T h a t 's 7 not a fish. Okay. So, basically I guess I 'm looking 8 at the two sets of fish at station 11, one is at 5.95, 9 one is at 17.8, a small mouth bass at station 9 at 7.73 10 and then the only other fish listed there in that area 11 is the catfish at .116. 12 Q And sediment is .042 above that at station 9 further 13 up? 14 A Yes, that's a sediment sample. 15 Q By the time it gets to Haysville it's quite low. i s n 't 16 17 A i t , 3.39 and .716? What are you referring to? The fish or the sediment? 18 0 The small mouth bass and the shad. 19 A At? 20 0 Station 8 . 21 A 8 . Well, 3.39 and .716, I wouldn't call that quite 22 low. It's below the 5 parts per million. 23 Q Doctor, did the Bloomington plant use 1 2 4 8 ? 904976 1A I don't think so. TuT" N But as the 1242 formulation, the 2 Inerteen formulation, weathers in the environment it 3 then is best quantitated as 1248 because the pattern of 4 the peeks shifts as the material biodegrades. 5 Q Does it biodegrade if i t 's in a fish? 6 A It probably biodegraded before it got to the fish. 7 Q There is a dam at the Williams station, is there not? 8 A I don't know. 9 Q If there were a dam at the Williams station, would that 10 have any effect on PCB values below that point? 11 A 12 Could. It depends upon what's happening and how the material is being transported. 13 Q Did you do samples of sheep, sheep parts? 14 A That rings a faint bell, but I c a n 't think in what 15 Connection. 16 Q Is that your answer? 17 You sounded like you were going to say something 18 else. We're all waiting breathlessly. 19 A Yes. Unfortunately the gray cells have failed me. 20 Vaguely I recall something having to do with sheep, but 21 I can't remember what it was. 22 Q Doctor, in Exhibit 15 which was marked at your first 2 3 session, for the record t h a t 's P lai nt iff 's Answers to 904977 ~ estinghouse Electric Corporation Supplemental nterrogatories Concerning Expert Testimony, the laintiffs indicate that you will testify that you nformed personnel at the Bloomington plant that recautions were necessary to prevent the further scape of PCBs from the Bloomington plant.' Dr. Munson ill testify that his recommendations were not acted pon because of the costs involved. You d o n 't really know, do you, whether your ecommendations were acted upon after you left looroington? guess I just know what I was told, that they wouldn't e. Now, whether they were or not, I d o n 't know, ou d o n 't know that your recommendations were not acted n and you really don't know what was done at the plant fter you left to reduce discharge to the environment, o you? MR. M c C R E A : H e 's answered it yes. ight. Of my own knowledge, I don't know. True, ell, you say of your own knowledge. Has someone nformed you of that other than me since you left the loomington area in 1972? ir. McCrea has told me various things about what took 904978 --- -------------- ------------- :-------- --- ------ ------- --- TUT 1 place at the plant. 2 Q What did Mr. McCrea tell you about what took place at 3 the plant? 4 A That liquid wastes were put down the sewer. 5 Q Did he tell you anything else? 6 A On this particular topic he told me the drains were 7 welded shut at one point. There was an employee who 8 was instructed to come in in the middle of the night 9 and pour liquids down the drain. That's all I can 10 11 Q remember on this particular topic. Did he tell you who the employee was who was instructed 12 to come in in the middle of the night and pour 13 materials down the drain? 14 A If he did, I don't remember his name. 15 Q Did he provide any other details concerning 16 We sti ngh ouse's pouring of Inerteen down the drain at 17 the plant? 18 A I don't think so. 19 Q Did he provide you with any information concerning 20 other measures other than sealing the drain to reduce 21 22 A the discharge of PCBs into the environment? I don't remember any. 23 MR. FELDMAN: L e t 's take a real shore 904979 --------- - ' :---------------------- 1 2 3Q break. (A recess was taken.) Doctor, in the disclosure of your opinion, sir, likely 4 testimony, the document indicates that you will testify 5 that it was unconscionable for Westinghouse not to 6 communicate the information in his report to Dale and 7 Connie Conard who had maximum exposure to the PCB 8 contamination. 9 Is that a. correct characterization of your opinion 10 as you sit here today? 11 A Yes, I think so. They had an opportunity to do it and 12 should have done it. 13 Q What should Westinghouse, in your opinion, have told 14 the Conards in 1972? 15 A Well, at that point or later they should have told them 16 about the movement of PCBs away from the landfill onto 17 their property. 18 Q What would that information have meant to Dale and 19 20 A Connie Conard in 1972? How do I k n o w . 21 Q 22 A The answer is you don't know, do you? No, I don't know. But I do believe they had a right to 23 know that. 904980 -- ------ ------------ -- ---------- " " ----------- -- ... . " 40 5 1 0 Doctor, another thing that you are supposed to testify 2 to, according to Exhibit 15, is the risks of the 3 cleanup at Neal's Landfill and the adverse impact which 4 the cleanup will have on the Conard property. 5 What are the risks of the clean up at N e a l 's 6 Landfill, in your opinion? 7 A The risks are that there will be overflows and spills 8 that will flood across the Conard property. 9Q 10 Is that also the adverse impact which the cleanup will have on the Conard property? 11 A 12 Well, the adverse impact will be what one might expect from contaminating their farm with PCBs. 13 Q Which is what? 14 A Making it unsuitable for farm animals, for agriculture. 15 0 Anything else? 16 A Probably w o n 't do their health any good. 17 Q Why do you say that? i i 18 A Because they live there. 19 Q Why does their living there indicate that that won't do 20 their health any good? 21 A 22 Well, because I seriously believe that living on land contaminated with PCBs is bad for your health. I think 23 that's well documented. 904981 1q 2 3 :: 40T l told you I 'd do this, and I want to keep my promise. T h a t 's also an area in which you have no expertise; is that true? 4 A It's general knowledge. I read the newspapers. 5Q 6 I've looked at everything that I was given in connection with your deposition and find no information 7 in there on the manner of the cleanup at Neal's 8 Landfill. 9 Is it fair to say that you have reviewed none of 10 the documents that describe the manner in which PCBs 11 will be removed from Neal's Landfill? 12 A That's true. 13 Q Are you aware of the remedial measures that have 14 already been taken at-Neal's Landfill? 15 A I'm aware of some of them, yes. 16 Q What are they? 17 A I believe there was a clay cap put on and some sort of 18 sediment fence that seems to break with some regularity 19 and allows the sediment to run through anyway. I know 20 they came in and stripped Conard's Branch considerably 21 taking out sediments. And I presume t h e re 's no further 22 dumping at the landfill. 23 Q Are you aware of whether any of the measures that have 904982 :----------------------------- --------- 1------------ :-- : " "407 1 2 2A already been taken at Neal's Landfill have caused any adverse impact on the Conard property? Well, certainly the stripping of the creek d i d n 't do it 4 any good. It used to be a creek. I t 's now a giant 5 6Q drainage ditch. Will that have any adverse impact on the Conards' 7 8 A health? I d o n 't know. 9 Q You think it might? 10 You have no information one way or the other as to 11 whether that will have any adverse impact on their 12 'health? 13 A N o , I don't. 14 Q What were the representations of Monsanto to the fact 15 that Aroclor 1016 does not bio-accumulate? 16 A Basically the claim was that it was biodegradeable 17. because the higher chlorinated isomers had been removed 18 from the preparation and therefore would not 19 b io-accumulate . 20 Q What is the relationship between biodegradation and 21 22 A bio-accumulation? Well, basically if the input of the material into the 23 biological system is slow enough and the material is 904983 ----- ------- ------------- -- ---- :--- ----------------- :------ Terr 1 biodegradeable, what will happen is the biological 2 system will digest the material away and it won't be 3 available to be accumulated into organisms and then 4 bio-magnified up the food chain. 5 Q If the organism takes in PCB, even if the PCB is less 6 biodegradeable than other formulations, w o n 't it 7 bio-accumulate just as much as other formulations which 8 are more or less biodegradeable? 9 A I'm not sure your question makes any sense. 10 Q 11 All right. Let me do it again. I'm sorry. If an organism ingests 1016. at that point i s n 't its tendency 12 to bio-accumulate fixed and wouldn't be any different 13 from a higher chlorinated formulation? 14 A It would probably if the 1016 were biodegradeable more 15 so than the 1254. The organism would probably 16 accumulate the 1016 to a lower amount. 17 Q Why is that? 18 A Because both processes are going on at the same time. 19 It's like filling a tank with a little hole in the 20 bottom. If you patch the hole, the tank fills faster. 21 So, if the organism is not biodegrading the material at 22 the same time it's taking it up, it will take it up 23 m o r e . 904984 1Q 1-- ---- ;-- :-------------- !------------ ----------- 1------ 40 9 You're, saying the organism itself biodegrades the 1016? 2 A Some of them do, yes. 3 0 What was the major PCB spill into the river near the 4 Westinghouse plant in Sharon, Pennsylvania, that you're 5 going to testify to? 6 A What was it? 7 Q Yes. 8 A Are you_ asking how did it occur or what formulation it 9 was or what? 10 0 No. What actually occurred? 11 A A large storage tank was being removed for scrap. It 12 was lifted. The description sounded like they were 13 lifting it with a crane. It was thought to be empty. 14 And a plug in the bottom of the tank that was rusted 15 fell out. And I was told somewhere in the order of two | 16 or three thousand gallons of PCB came out of the tank, 17 went into an adjacent storm drain and directly into the 18 river. 19 Q Did you actually see the storm drain that the tank had 20 drained into? 21 A I saw the pipe in the river. I d i d n 't see that part of 22 23 Q the p l a n t . Is it your understanding that the drain is just a 904985 -------------------- ------------------------------------- -----"'410 1 direct conduit into the river? 2A 3Q Yes. And that it was that way at the time of the spill? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What was the tank holding? 6 A Whatever PCS formulation they were using. 7 Q Was it waste Inerteen or was it -- 8 A I don't think it was waste. Well, I guess I don't know 9 for sure. It was described to me as being PCB. 10 Q Based on what you were able to determine do you know 11 the level of PCB in the fluid in that tank before it 12 spilled into the drain? 13 A No. 14 Q Were you given any information about the use of PCBs to 15 control weeds around Bloomington? 16 A No. Oh, you said weeds. I was thinking you were 17 talking about spraying around the plant. Yes, I was 18 told about dumping Inerteen in a lake to control the 19 20 Q aquatic weeds. Who gave you that information? 21 A 22 I don't remember. It was someone who was driving me around. 23 Q What did this person tell you about the use or about ,,904986 ------------------------- :------------- --------------------------ITT 1 pouring PCBs into a lake for weed control? 2 A Said they had tried it as an experiment because they 3 thought it might kill the weeds. 4 Q Who had tried it? 5 A It's my understanding it was somebody from the 6 Westinghouse plant had done this in this little lake. 7 Q Where was the lake? 8 A I d o n 't know the exact location of it. David and I 9 found it driving around one day. 10 Q How do you know that you found it? 11 A Because we drove down this road, and I remembered the 12 layout of a lake on the right and a lake on the left. 13 Although, the one on the left i s n 't a lake anymore. 14 It's been drained. 15 Q Have you told me all that you were told about the 16 experiment to control weeds by using Inerteen in this 17 lake in Monroe County? 18 A Yes. basically t h a t 's all my recollection was. I was 19 20 Q told they put PCBs in the lake to control the weeds. Did Mr. McCrea have any information about that event? 21 A 22 Q I d o n 't think so. Had he talked to anybody who could report on it? 23 A If he h a s , he hasn't mentioned it to me. 904987 ---- -- ;------------------------------------ :--------------------------------- ---------------------- 412 1 Q According to the statement submitted to the court, you 2 will also be testifying to an on-site visit to the 3 C'onard property. I know you told me that you had had 4 such a visit. 5 What exactly did you do at the Conard property 6 when you visited it? . 7 A Walked around, looked at Clear Creek, chatted with the S Conards -- 9 Q Excuse me. Looked at Clear Creek? 10 A 11 C o n a r d 's Branch. Pardon me. And they showed me a deformed piglet. 12 Q 'Was the piglet dead? 13 A Yes, it had been in the freezer. 14 Q Who showed you the piglet? 15 A I think Connie did. 16 0 Did she say anything about any other pigs that had been 17 deformed on their property? 18 A Yes, she said there had been many. 19 Q 20 A Did she tell you how many? Oh, at one time or another I 'm sure somebody has said 21 that. I've heard, I think, hundreds, maybe thousands, 22 something like that. 23 Q Do you know what the age of the piglet that was frozen 904988 ------------------------------ ---- --------- :---- ---------------- TXT 1 that was shown to you was? 2 Not the age that it was but when it died. 3 A No. 4 Q Did anyone ever describe to you an incident in the late 5 '60s or early '70s in which an oily substance came 6 through Conard's Branch from Neal's Landfill? 7 A I have heard that that took place, yes. 8 Q Who did you hear that from? * 9 A Well, I think Dale has mentioned to me that during 10 periods of very high flow h e 's had occasions when the 11: creek has gone over its banks and left an oily 12 substance. 13 Q Did anyone tell you that some of the pigs that had been 14 in the creek around the time of that incident or one of 15 those incidents developed blisters and had offspring 16 that had to be destroyed? 17 A I don't remember that story specifically. 18 0 Is it your understanding that the deformed pig that 19 Mrs. Conard showed you related to one of those 20 incidents? 21 A She d i d n 't say. 22 Q You didn't ask her? 23 A I didn't ask her. 904989 1-- -- ----------- :------------------------------------------------------ I T T 1 Q What did the pig look like? 2 A I think this particular one was notable for having sort 3 of a double mouth, two snouts, I think, if I remember 4 right. 5 <2 Was that the only pig you saw? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And it's your understanding that pig was born on the 8 Conard farm? 9 A I think so. 10 Q Is it your understanding that there are more frozen 11 pigs that look like that? 12 A I don't know how many frozen pigs there are. I 've seen 13 that one. I 've been told that over the years there 14 have been many of them. 15 Q And you came away with the opinion based on what you 16 had been told that there were hundreds, possibly 17 thousands, of deformed pigs; is that right? 18 A I d o n 't know if I was given that statement at that time 19 or whether t h a t 's occurred later. But somebody gave me 20 the estimate that there were surely hundreds and 21 22 Q perhaps thousands. Did anyone tell you about any efforts to seek advice 23 from veterinarians as to the cause of those deformed 904990 --------------- ------------- ------ --------------- ------ :------------ --- " 4 1 5 1 pigs? 2 A I think so, 3 Q What was told to you? 4 A I think Dale mentioned to me that over the years he had 5 shown a number of the pigs to the local veterinarian. 6 Q And what response had he gotten, according to Mr. 7 Conard, from the veterinarian? 3 A If I remember correctly, I don't think the veterinarian 9 knew what was causing the problem. 10 Q Any other efforts, to your knowledge, to determine what 11 had caused the problem with the pigs? 12 A Not that I am aware of. 13 Q Did you ask anyone whether any of those pigs had been 14 sampled for PCBs? 15 A I don't remember if X asked that about the pigs. 16 Q In your interview-with Mr. McCrea in his office that 17 was recorded by a court reporter you refer to an 18 incident in one of the plants where you observed an 19 individual filling capacitor cans. 20 Do you recall that? 21 A 22 Q Yes. Do you think that was in the Bloomington plant? 23 A I think so. But I can't swear to it. 904991 ------ --- ----- ' --------- - ' 5TF 1 Q Would that have been at or about the time of your 2 sampling in 1972? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Physically how was he filling the capacitor can? 5 A The person I saw was using a nozzle that looked like 6 the nozzle you would fill the tank on your car. I 7 can't remember for sure that it was a capacitor can or 8 perhaps a small transformer. So, I 'm not sure that it 9 was Bloomington, say, and not South Boston. 10 Q Can you tell the difference between a capacitor and a 11 transformer? 12 A Possibly if you put them in front of me today. My 13 recollection as to 17 years ago is a little fuzzy. 14 Q Could you smell the Inerteen at that time? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Do you know w h a t 's the lowest concentration of PCBs 17 that you can actually detect by smell? 18 A N o , I d o n 't . But I guess i t 's very low. 19 Q Why do you guess that? 20 A The human nose is one of the most sensitive chemical 21 detectors. Well, a dog's nose is probably the most. 22 Q Had you ever smelled it in any of the samples you took 23 around Bloomington? 904992 1 A Some of them. 2 Q Where ? TTT 3 A I took some around the plant that were, I think, on a 4 percent basis of Inerteen. 5 Q Any of the ones you took around the landfills or the 6 sewage treatment plant could you smell the Inerteen? 7 A I don't think so. 8 0 Also in your interview with Mr. McCrea that was 9 reported by a court reporter and it's been marked as 10 Exhibit 13 in this deposition you indicated that you 11 were concerned that people eating fish that were over 5 12 parts per million could have adverse health effects. 13 Is that an accurate statement of your opinions? 14 A I think so . 15 Q Have you reviewed any studies that indicate that people 16 who eat fish with 5 or more parts per million in the 17 edible portion have adverse health effects? 18 A I assume the FDA knew what they were doing when they 19 set the limit. I d o n 't recall any human studies. 20 0 Are you aware of any human studies that indicate that 21 even though people who eat that fish with those 22 quantities of PCBs may accumulate them in their bodies 23 they don't have any adverse health effects as a result? | 904993 -- ---------------- ------ ------ :-- -- -- :----- -- -- -- -- -------- T T 5 " 1A 2Q I don't rtcill reading any studies like that. At another point in the same statement referring to the 3 work you did around N e a l 's Landfill you state --- This 4 is on page 30 -- I really felt like the information 5 Should have been made public. I agonized over it a t 6 some length in the early 1970s and finally, as I 'm sure 7 many others, decided that I could not stand the risk of 8 losing my career at Westinghouse by bringing that 9 information forth. So, I didn't do so. 10 Who else other than you, to your knowledge, 11 agonized over the possibility of risking their career 12 if they brought that information forth? 13 A One of the fellows who sampled with me. Carl Armour, 14 shared my concerns. He worked for the Westinghouse 15 environmental division. 16 Q How do you know ha shared your concerns? 17 A Because we talked about it. 18 0 What did he tell you? 19 A He had the same concern as myself that we should make 20 the information public, but we didn't dare to. 21 Q 22 A When did he tell you that? When we were doing the study. 23 Q Do you know where Mr. Armour is today? 904994 ; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------: 419 1 A I h a v e n 't a clue. 2 Q Did he tell you that he couldn't stand the risk of 3 losing his career at Westinghouse if he disclosed that 4 information? 5 A I don't know if he used those exact words. 6 Q Did he use words to that effect? 7 A I think so. 8 Q You found a level of 6,300 parts per million in the 9 soil around the plant; is that correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And to your knowledge what are the risks to human 12 beings of a level like that around the-plant? 13 It depends upon what they do with it. To the people 14 who were working inside where the PCBs were it probably 15 d i d n 't mean a thing. They had much higher exposures 16 inside. If it was on a playground where my kids were 17 playing ball, I w o u l d n 't like it much. 18 Q Was it on a playground where kids were playing ball? 19 A I don't think so. 20 Q Was there any activity in the area, to your knowledge. j 21 that the 6,300 parts per million samples were taken? 22 A I don't think so. 23 Q What about later? 904995 --- ------------ -- --- 1--- ;-- ------------- ---- :-------- ------ STu 1A 2Q I don't know about later. Have you visited the Westinghouse plant since you met 3 Mr. McCrea? 4 A No. 5 Q Driven by it? 6 A I've been by it. 7 Q Did you go onto the property? 8 A No. 9 Q What did you observe? 1.0 A Just drove by the building and looked at it. 11. Q Who is.Renata Kimbrough? 12 A I believe she's a -- Let's see. I think s h e 's a 13 toxicologist with the Center for Disease Control, 14 m a y b e . 15 Q Y o u 're not sure who she is? 16 A I don't remember her exact title and where she i s . 17 I've heard her speak several times.. 18 Q Has she done work on PCBs? 19 A I think s o . 20 Q Have you ever read anything of hers on PCBs? 21 A Probably. 22 Q Do you consider her to be an authority on the health 23 effects of exposures to PCBs on humans and animals? i 904996 --------- ----- --- --------- ------- ----- ------------------- -----------5 T T 1 A I'm not sure exactly what her area of expertise is. I 2 h a v e n 't read any of her stuff recently. 3 Q So, you don't have an opinion as to whether s h e 's an 4 authority or not on the health effects of PCBs? 5 A I really c a n 't remember. I heard her speak some years 6 ago. But I can't remember exactly what her area of 7 expertise is. 8 <2 If I were to tell you that in a report, study, that she 9 drafted in 1987, the Annual Review of Pharmacological 10 Toxicology, if I were to tell you that Dr. Kimbrough in 11 that paper stated that no significant chronic health 12 effects have been causally associated with PCBs or 13 PPBs. would you have any reason to doubt the truth of 14 that statement? 15 A I 'm sure she believes it. I think she's wrong. 16 Q What materials do you rely on in support of your 17 opinion that Dr. Kimbrough was wrong on that statement? 18 A Basically the problem is any time you get a plant like 19 Bloomington and you look at the number of people in it 20 who work there who get ill, folks like Renate Kimbrough 21 do not consider that a causal relationship because the 22 sample size is too small. 23 But if you just look at the number of people and 904997 -- 1 2 ------------ ;---------------------------------------- ----- -- 3 T T the illnesses they've got, your common sense tells you there's something wrong there. And I'm convinced for 3 the levels those workers were exposed to their health 4 was adversely affected regardless of what Renate 5 6Q Kimbrough says. And regardless of whether those illnesses establish a 7 statistically significant correlation with PCS 3 exposure; is that right? 9 A The problem is I don't think there is enough data to 10 establish that correlation. If the statistics say you 11 have to have 2 0 0 people in your sample set, you only 12 ' got 20 and they call die, there is no correlation. 13 Q You don't have any expertise in the area of statistical 14 studies of sample populations who have had certain 15 kinds of exposures to toxic substances, do you? 16 A No. You keep asking me these questions, and I keep 17 answering them. 18 Q I appreciate that, Doctor. And t h a t 's a new question. 19 You'll have to give me that one. What are the primary 20 studies in the literature on the chemical properties of 21 PCBs ? 22 A I don't know. I h a v e n 't reviewed the literature 23 recently. 904998 --- -- -------- :--------- -- ------------- ----------------- :----- r r r 1 Q What about the mechanism of bio-accumulation and 2 bio-magnification of PCBs in organisms? 3 A I can't cite you the literature. 4 Q You anticipate providing testimony on the mechanisms of 5 bio-accumulation and bio-magnification and the chemical 6 properties of PCBs, do you not, according to your 7 statement that's been submitted to the court? 8 A Quite likely. 9 Q You don't anticipate citing any documents in-support of 10 the opinions that you will testify to on that topic? 11 A I may. 12 Q But you can't cite me any as we sit here today? 13 A No. 14 Q Do you intend to reviw the literature before you 15 testify? 16 A I probably will. 17 Q The last time you reviewed the literature was when? 18 When you were working for the EPA? 19 A Probably, yes. About that time. 20 MR. McCREA: Would you please read that 21 statement into the record just -- 22 MR. FELDMAN: It says Dr. Munson will 23 describe the chemical properties of PCBs, the 904999 --- -------------- ----------------------- ------------------ 37T 1 m e c h a n i s m s of b i o - a c c u m u l a t i o n and b i o - m a g n i f i c a t i o n . 2 MR. McCREA: Is there a n y t h i n g else? 3 MR. FELDMAN: No. There are other 4 statements. 5Q Let me r e a d a n o t h e r one. Dr. M u n s o n will t e stify as to 6 the r i s k s of the c l e a n u p at N e a l ' s L a n d f i l l and the 7 adverse impact which the cleanup will have on the 8 Conard property. 9 Can you cite me any doc u m e n t s or studies in the 10 l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h y o u w o u l d r e l y o n i n s u p p o r t o f y o u r 11 t e s t i m o n y o n t h a t i s s u e ? 12 A No, I can p r o b a b l y go m a i n l y on my e x p e r i e n c e and 13 s t u d y i n g t h e m o v e m e n t o f P C B s 14 Q So, y o u c a n 't c i t e me a n y s t u d i e s on t h a t t o p i c ; is 15 t h a t r i g h t ? 15 A I c o u l d d i g a c o u p l e o ut of my r e s u m e if y o u w a n t e d 17 t h e m . B u t I c a n ' t c i t e t h e m c h a p t e r a n d v e r s e a s w e 18 s i t h e r e , n o . 19 0 Would you do that? 20 A I don't think we have time for that, Jan. 21 0 22 You have to leave at 4:15. It's only 5 after. MR. McCREA: We p r o v i d e d y ou w i th a 23 w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t a s t o h i s t e s t i m o n y . 905000 -- ;---------- ------ -------- ;----- --- ---- -----------TT51 MR. FELDMAN: But you didn't provide me 2 with what I asked for which is the material he relies 3 upon in support of his statement. All you said was 4 what he's going to say. You never provided me with the 5 material he relies on in support of his testimony. 6 MR. McCREA: Jan, he gave us a statement 7 on that which has been furnished to you. ..8 MR. FELDMAN: Which also doesn't include 9 any supporting literature. 10 MR. McCREA: It certainly does. And the 11 position of Westinghouse that you can only test to 1 12 part per billion is erroneous. 13 MR. FELDMAN: What does that have to do 14 with the risks of cleanup and the adverse impact or, the 15 Conard property? 16 MR. McCREA: The safe level is 0.00079 17 parts per million which we have furnished to you in our 18 documents. What you're saying is higher than what the 19 EPA says is safe. Dr. Munson is going to testify that 20 you can only teat 1 part per billion is erroneous. 21 I t 's been that way for years. 22 MR. FELDMAN: David, when I asked about 23 what that statement meant he told me about the effects 905001 ----------------- :----- -- -------- :--- ;----:------ " -- T7S----------- 1 of the cleanup on the removal of sediment at N e a l ' 3 2 Landfill and had nothing to do with parts per trillion. 3 MR. McCREA: True. H e 's described that. 4 We have given you a report that this position of yours 5 that you can only test at 1 part per billion is 6 hogwash. And he has given you a report on that. 7 MR. FELDMAN: Just want to see if you 8 agree with that, Howard. 9 0 He is referring to actually the only remedial action at 10 Neal's Landfill. L e t 's leave out for the moment the 11 parts per trillion issue. What I'm asking you is: 12 What studies can you cite me in support of your 13 statement that the remedial action that will be 14 performed at Neal's Landfill would have an adverse 15 impact on Conards' property? 16 Basically I was going to respond in the regard of the 17 movement of the materials to their property. Now, if 18 you don't accept it as a given that covering their 19 property with PCBs is an adverse impact, then we've got 20 a pro bl em . 21 3 I d o n 't, but let me just ask you if you can tell me 22 what studies you would rely on in support of your claim 23 that the remedial action will result in the movement of 905002 ------ ------ ------- 1-----1-- ---------------- -- ----------------- -- -- -- --- 4 27 1 PCBs onto their property. 2 A Okay. Well, I will be referring to the studies that I 3 did when I was at Westinghouse in the Upper Chesapeake 4 Bay, movement of chlorinated hydrocarbons in Chesapeake 5 " B a y . 6 Q How does that relate? 7 How does that study relate to what's going to 8 happen at Neal's Landfill when they do the remedial 9 action? 10 A It shows the movement of chlorinated hydrocarbons fixed 11 to sediments, suspended sediments, which then settle 12 down into stream sediments. It shows that the PCBs 13 distribute through the ecosystem, through the aquatic 14, ecosystem. I think all of that is pertinent to w h a t 's 15 going to happen at Conards '. 16 Q Is there any study you will rely on in support of your 17 testimony in which there was a cleanup removal of soils 18 that may have been contaminated with PCBs and then an 19 analysis of possible movement of PCBs out of that 20 remedial action cite? 21 A No. I don't have such a study, and I d o n 't think we 22 need i t . 23 Q Now, I interrupted you before, and you were going to 905003 ~ -- 1 2 -- 1 ' ! ` 1 " T73 tell me other studies that you would rely on in support of your statement. You started off with the Bay study. 3 A Well, previous to that we did a similar study in the 4 Chester River in Maryland. There were several other 5 published reports having to do with chlorinated 6 hydrocarbons in the Chesapeake Bay. 7 Q None of those were situations where there was a cleanup 8 9A of sediment that contained PCBs , were there? * No. I already said that. 10 Q You said that as to the first study, not to the 11 subsequent ones. 12 MR. FELDMAN: I have nothing further. 13 Doctor. Thank you for your time. 14 MR. McCREA: I have one question. 15 CROSS EXAMINATION, 16 QUESTIONS BY MR. DAVID S. McCREA: 17 Q Dr. Munson, did you do a study on the bio-accumulation 18 of Aroclor 1016 and did you ask Westinghouse to publish 19 that study? 20 21 A 22 If so, what was the result? Oh, I didn't dp a study. I observed it in some organisms in the South Boston survey. We saw a clear 23 case of bio-accumulation of MCS 1016 in some freshwater j 905004 -- ,-- ------------;---------------------------- ------- ---------- ----- ;-- rrsr 1 clams, I believe they were. And that information is 2 affixed to the South Boston report. Westinghouse would 3 not let me publish that information. 4 Q Did they give you a reason? 5 A They didn't want anyone to know we had done the survey 6 around South Boston. 7 MR. McCREA: No questions. Thank you. 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION, 9 QUESTIONS BY MR. FELDMAN: 10 Q Doctor, the South Boston report was the one that you 11 indicated was disclosed at some point, was it not, to a 12 state agency? 13 A My understanding is it was disclosed to a state agency, 14 yes. 15 Q So that if Westinghouse didn't permit you to publish 16 it, in any event it was made public at some point; 17 isn't that correct? 18 A I would quibble as to whether that is making it public. 19 Q 20 Well, in any event, the state of Maryland received it; isn't that correct? 21 A Someone in the state of Virginia saw it. Now, whether 22 they received it or not may be something else again. 23 MR. FELDMAN: T h a t 's all I h a v e . \ 905005 --i 1 ' 4 J'J 1 Q Dr. Munson, I would like you to read this deposition 2 and determine that the court reporter took your words 3 down accurately. Will you agree to review the 4 transcript and ensure that in your opinion she took 5 down your words and maybe my words, too, accurately and 6 then sign the transcript with any corrections you have 7 to make? 8 A Yes, I'd be happy to. 9 Q You understand you cannot change your testimony. But 10 if she took the words down mistakenly, you can change 11 that. Is that understood? 12 A I understand that. 13 MR. Y O U N G : Let the record a l s o s h o w t h a t 14 the defendants will pay the witness for his time in 15 preparing and in testifying and in reviewing the 16 deposition. 17 MR. FELDMAN: I. don't accede to that. I 18 certainly d o n 't stipulate to that. 19 MR. McCREA: We'll have to take this 20 matter up with the judge. 21 AND FURTHER THE DEPONENT SAITH NOT. 22 23 DR. THOMAS OREN MUNSON 905006 ------- --------- ------------- --- !----------------------------- ---------- * 7 7 " 1 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: 2 COUNTY OF MARION ) 3 I, Beverly S'. Evans, a Notary Public in and f 4 the County of Marion, State of Indiana at large, do hereby 5 certify that DR. THOMAS OREN MUNSON, the deponent herein, 6 was by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 7 truth, and nothing but the truth, in the aforementioned . 8 matter; 9 That the foregoing deposition was taken on behalf 10 of the Defendant in the law offices of Baker & Daniels, One 11 Indiana Square, 15th Floor, Indianapolis, Marion County, 12 Indiana, on the 30th day of December, 1988, commencing az 13 the hour of 10:58 a.m., pursuant to the Federal Rules of 14 Civil Procedure; 15 That said deposition was taken down in stenograph 16 notes and afterwards reduced to writing under my direction, 17 and that the typewritten transcript is a true record of the 18 testimony given by said deponent, and thereafter presented 19 to said witness for his signature: 20 That the parties were represented by their counsel 21 as aforementioned;. 22 I do further certify that I am a disinterested 23 person in this cause of action; that I am not a relative or 905007 ------ ----------; TTT 1 attorney of any of the parties, or otherwise interested in 2 the event of this cause of action, and am not in the employ 3 of the attorneys for any of the parties. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 5 and affixed my notarial seal this 6 th day of December, 6 1989. 7 S 9 BEVERLY S. EVANS, Notary Public 10 11 My Commission Expires: September 29, 1990. 12 County of Residence: 13 Hancock. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 905008 r EXCERPTS FROM T,Q. MUNSON FILE 1. Memo; February 24, 1971, R. 0. McClain, Manager, Capacitor Unit Engineering, Westinghouse Bloomington Plant, to D. M. Sauter, Manager, Distribution Apparatus Division, Westinghouse Bloomington Plant, re: visit of T.O. Munson 2. T.O. Munson, "Preliminary Report of Inerteen Environmental Survey at BLoomington Distribution Apparatus Plant" 3. T.O. Munson, "Summary of Follow-Up Sampling at Bloomington" '4. Memo; October 18, 1972, 1971, R. D, McClain, Manager, Capacitor Unit Engineering, Westinghouse Bloomington Plant, to Dr. H. Wilber Speicher, Headquarters Industrial Hygiene (Westinghouse], re: "vital effort" documents on Westinghouse's PCB problem, w/ attachment, "Status of Polychlorinated Biphenyls 4/6/72" 5. Excerpts from Deposition of T.O. Munson fvol. Ill - December 30, 1988] 6 . Excerpts from Statement of T.O. Munson (August 13, 1988] 7. Letter; Roger E. Wills, JR., Attorney, Westinghouse, to Stephen R. Wassersug, U. S. EPA, re: response to "308 letter" by Westinghouse 8 . Curriculum Vitae of T.O. Munson 905009 f -< B L O O M IN G T O N W ORKS Mr. D. M. Sauter, Manager Distribution Apparatus Division hum . WIN . B L O O M IN G T O N W ORKS n a ie . S^ ftci FEBRU ARY IN E R T E E N 24, 1971 - POSSIBLE E N V IR O N M E N T A L P O L L U T IO N cc: Mr. J. B. Brittain, D.A.D. Engineering Manager C 1. John- Rissinger, Sharon, called and asked that I tell you that Dr. Hughes and Dr. Manson of the.Environmental Systems, (Annapolis) will call to discuss making a study of P.C.B.'-s in Bloomington area streets, streams, sewers etc. It is ray impression that their study will magnify the problem and not offer practical solutions or suitable alternatives. b 2. At the NEMA meeting in Chicago, yesterday, he reported increas ing concern evidenced by (a) legislation pending in Massachus etts calling for severe fines against anyone allowing PCB's into environment, and (b) G.E. reluctance to use MCS-1016 in -> C transformers if it cannot be rated "nonflammable". He also reported that Bill Papageorge of Monsanto has been requested to serve on proposed ANSI task force (which should be author- ized-by letter ballot-in mid March).' i- -- 3 . - Paul Benignus, of Monsanto, will be* in Bloomington,-February v C 25, to review the Chicago-meeting and.to discuss their plans ' for converting from Aroclor 1242 to MCS 1016. RDMcC/wi R. D. McClain, Manager... Capacitor Unit Engineering-. 905010 ^ .. r c C c c c \ % PRELIMINARY REPORT Or 1NER7IEN n.WlES.'0iEN7AL SL'RVTY a7 ELOOMINCTCN Z>1STRI5771ON APPARATUS PLANT Prepared by: T. C. Munson Mar.ager Aquatic Biological Sciences Vastinghsuse Ocean Research Laboratory * BIS jvaOc^ION Vice Presicene Research anc ^evelc7-er.r Cer.ier J. C. ?.. Kelly, Jr, a>^ C wC Atncs-r.iric, Terrestrial, anc Marine Research E. A. Kerr.s . Mar.ager Environmental' Control Headquarters 'Works Engineering J. C. Terrill Manager Special Projects Environmental Systems Department E. Boquist Product Safety, Reliability and Environmental Effects Headquarters Engineering J. B. Brittain Manager Engineering Bloomington " R. D. McClain Manager Capacitor Units Bloomington J. L. Shoaff Senior Materials Engineer r. preliminary report of isirtizn environmental SURVEY AT BLOOMINGTON DISTRIBUTION APPARATUS PLANT' J.. Background The initial sampling at Bloomington vas dcr.e in cid-Cc< obert 1971 by personnel of the k>$tir.ghouse Ocean Research Laboratory and the Vesting hruse Environment a2 Sys:ezs Deparment. The BIooringcor. portion of the Ir.er:eer. Environmental Survey has as i:s main objectives 16 determine if *-*esIir.ghouse activities in Blooming tor. hive caused readily identifiable leakages of Inerteer. (prlycrIcrobiphe ?CB; to the.e r . v i r , anc if sc, tc identify the sources cf the nateria f: ::a: suitable corrective actions can be taken. As a result of previous discussions with plant personnel, at the time of sampling, certain potential trouble areas had been identified. Ir.erteer. appeared tc leave the Vestinghouse property by five routes: 1) shipment in sealed units enroute to the customer; 2) washing into the sanitary sewer during cleaning of finished units; 3) transporting of im pregnated solid waste to sanitary landfill; A) leaching from spills extern to the building; and 5) shipment of waste liquids to Monsanto for reclaim! Routes 2, 3, and A appeared to be the potential sources of trouble. c 11. Results and Discussion ^ 1. Movement of Inerteen via the Sanitary Sever. Until very recently (the last six months) t during the manu facturing process capacitor cans were coated on the outside vith ; -i- 905012 (( T { Inertter. which was Teneved by a washing process drlining directly into the plant's sanitary system. This waste went into the Blcmningtor. s e w a g e works south of town. Twc s e w m g e treatment plants ire located About cr.e rile apart with effluents into Clear Creek '(it is unclear whether the Westinghousc effluent goes into only one of these plants or both). The possible mevement of Inertecn into Clear Creek was disturbing beuse Clear Creek meanders southward 12-15 tiles and ec;t:es into the henroe reservoir-- a large recreation area and Blooming- of the samples , * y sh.cv sustantial .t otn rer.: of 7 er:cen into Clear Creek (the chromatograms were iden tical tc the Irerteer. used in the plant). An imjertart point to notice is the crop from .2 parts per million (ppm) in 2 tc 2.81 ppm in 3 further dr-T.stream. A sample (EISA) taken further cc-T.stream in the % hrr.roe reserveir about one mile from the intake tc the loomingter. water supply shows G.60 ppm of a similar pattern, here importantly, the tissue of an adult, camivcTous fish taken from the reservoir exhibited o n l y low levels of.the type of PCB found in fish from fairly It would appear that, although substantial amounts of Inerteen were added to Clear Creek from the Westinghouse plant, this creek has a high enough bacterial population and sediment load cue to the inputs from the sewage treatment plants to serve as a fairly effective biolo gical filter for removing the Inerteen before it reaches the Monroe Reservoir. The creek also appears to have a limited food-chain which does not include fish so that oveoent of Inerteen from the creek to humans seems rather unlikely. 905013 ( ( Although the lev! of PC3's is about 50 tines above the anticipated background for a clean lake, the fish sample does not reflect this fact. The canner in which the ?C2 oeves into the ir. reservoir froc. Clear Creek nay prevent it froc moving up the % food-chain. Additional samples should probably be taken, however, `to strengthen this point. 2. hrvenent of Ir.erteen froz Sanitary Landfills. Three widely separated sanitary landfills have been used for Inertter. disposal and, because each represents a very different ( situation, they will be discussed separately, .* 2.1 .Sanitary Landfill Number 1. During the epprexizate period 1917-1S67, both solid ^ and liquid Inerteer. wastes were reicvec froz the plant by an .independent centractor for disposal in a sanitary landfill located or. a side-hill adjacent to Hivay ifi about three miles vest of the plant. Although at that time this procedure was an accepted practice, the results have been rather unfortunate. Figure 2 shows the locations of some-of the saaples c taken fror. this landfill area. Samples B21 and B25 were taker, iron a g u l l y which collects any leachates froz the landfill, passes through an anizal fare and joins Richland Creek. Judging froz the 3.0 ppm just below the landfill, the 2.0 ppz on the edge of the farm and 2*3 ppm in the downstream position of Richland Creek, sustantial Inerteen leaches from^the landfill.. The saaples shoved a complex pattern of FCB residues, probably due to biological degradation. A fish (Fish lA) seined from Richland Creek contained 3.8 ppm of a similar PCS residue pattern. 905015 /^v r c c c c \ 905016 V. n L < * vA A \ v\o. V Two of the, samples vere rather confusing: an upstrenn ample on Richland Creek (B26J contained 0.14 ppr. Inertecn (about 20 tires what or. would expect frcm background" environmental fallout) and a soil sample (B23) taken on a side-hil1'across froc th landfill contained 0,72 ppc. Cne possible explanation ves aerial fallout froc the landfill* and, when inquiries yielded the information that the landfill operator had been cited on several occasions for open burning, additional samples were taker, or. the hillsides surrounding the landfill in June, 1S72. Figure 3 presents data froc these angles taken around the landfill. Although none of the samples is ala the sarplts rerth and south of the landfill show 1 five z itt$ higr.tr than would be expected if aerial not taken glare. Runoff iron the slightly contanir.aned land north of the landfill could easily account for the high value of the upstream sample in Richland Creek. One car. icagine a number of explanations for 523 being core than ten times higher than the later soil samples-- a good possibility being that at one time the landfill operator sold waste Inerteen to the farcer to oil the road and carry-over contaminated the field next to the road. * c The most disturbing aspect of the leaching from this # landfill is that the gully runs directly through a fare where animals (pigs and cattle) are being raised. Several years ago, the farmer brought suit against the landfill operator claiming that materials leaching from the landfill were interfering with the reproduction of his cattle, iie claimed the .his cows 905017 f 1 ,( Z"' r\z4>-cn o. f. or -- 3C t c J c 5 -J S ! co r> 905018 - ... ( -( i wtre having fewer celvs end that the calves were scalier and less vigorous. The state of Indians analyzed leachates from the landfill but did not find anything to support the charge (they probably did not look for PCB's). Whether or not PC&Vs could be causing the farmer's problem is difficult tc say with out actually sampling his animals, but experiments with labora tory animals have shown that PCZ's dc interfere with reproduction in the caRr.er described above. The leaching iron this landfill could easily be getting into the human fcoc -chaina. ^ Clearly in the case of the fare Just below.the lanci:!!, rCZ1s could be contaminating the pigs and cattle.. In addition, Richland Creek meanders through many farms where cattle undoubtedly crir.k from it. Dairy cattle exposed to very low levels of FCB's will produce milk with levels several theusand-fcld increased ever the amount injestec (contamination of cilk is particularly serious because of the very large quan tities injestec by small children, and ihe possibility that the milk ir.jested may come from the same contaminated source over long periods of time). 2.2 Sanitary Landfill Number 2. During the approximate period 1968-1572 disposing of liquid Inerteen waste in sanitary landfill number 1 was dis continued and a new landfill (operated by a different indepen dent contractor) was started for disposal of Inerteen contaminated i olid waste only. This landfill is located about 20 miles north west of Che plant in a rather remote area. The data In Figure 4 show that Inerxeenif-i lea^tlng from 905019 W;\\ i W x r ( ( this 2 fill Iso. B30 was toVen from pile of spoil which had washed down the golly and into the edge of the White River. When one compares the upstream sar.pl on the White River (31, .21 ppa) with the downstreas sample (3^*, .2 ppm) it becor.es clear that, although material is leaching froa the landfill, the river is already pretty well contaminated before it passes by c the landfill area (as will be discussed later, however, the material could be emanating froc the Westinghruse plant). At first analysis, the data presented here seemed to t clearly indicate that Irarteer. contamir.ated solid waste could ,4 not be contained in sanitary landfill as had been asserted by the Monsanto Cher.:cal Ccrpar.y. This landfill appeared to be an ideal test site (unintentionally of course); the landfill seemed well attended, it reportedly had received only Inerteen contamir.atec solid waste, anc it was bounded by gullies sloping down toward c a common Junction. As it turned out, however, the case was not so simple. The landfill operator was removing capacitor cans i i i I from the plant which had not beer, emptied, and apparently the c landfill was only properly covered-over when somebody had arranged to come out for an inspection. The conditions were bad enough that a game warden complained about' the oily materials getting c into the river from the landfill. Obviously, the data do not accurately reflect upon disposal of Inerteen contaminated solid vaste in a sanitary landfill. < 2.3 Sanitary Landfill Humber 3. During 1972 a third landfill site was used for disposal of solid vaste contaminated with Inerteen. Prior to using the 905021 >i / V r. < ite, baseline sacf.2es were t-Vn around the arcc for PCB analysis. These samples all showed traces of very "weathered" PCB residues in the .010-.015 ppn range-- typical of areas throughout the country which have only received PCB* froc atmospheric fallout. 3. Kcvesent of Inerteen from the Plant. At the time of sampling the ocst likely area for rcvertn: fror. the plant appeared to be froc: the north side of the building where the tank cars delivered the material. All of the drainage iron the plant grounds seeded to cove northward toward Stout Creek. , ** The dara presented in Figure 5 shew the Inerteen levels around the plant. As was expected, all samples contained Inerteen anc the are; where the tank car coces in is quite high. The 316 sample seeded highe: ( than would be expected if this culvert receives drainages only froc the other ditches arcund the plant. The nose surprising samples were those at the south sice of the building-- B1C at 6,300 ppm is 20-fold higher than the highest sediment sartple which we had analyzed prior to this program. The material froc the south side of the building appears to move south ward into a small gully. Figure 6 shows samples taken off the plant grounds in the drainage leading to Stout Creek. Obviously a considerable aaoun: of Inerteen leaves the plant grounds and moves into Stout Creek. B22 shows 23.1 pp in Scout Creek, more than two miles from the 'ant. Figure 7 shows movement of Che Inerteen into the Beanblossom Creek and on Into Che White River A fish sample ax the j me cion of 'u 905022 ft ( r r Stout Creek and Seinblossoa Creek shoved 5.0 ppm PCD, escly of the ` i Inerteen formulation (the FDA Unit for human consumption in fish is 5.0 ppm). The samples on the White River indicate that considerable PCB material is being brought down river from some unoovn source which cannot be from Vestinghouse operations. It is not possible c to determine magnitude of the contribution from Vestinghouse compared to the amount from the unknown without undertaking a detailed water monitoring program. fV Three fish samples taken from a commercial fisherman down*' stream on the White River (near the Worthington Bridge) indicate that fish from this portion of the river exceed FDA limit for human V I consumption of 5.C ppm. Table 1 below presents these data. m Table 1 C 12^2 ppm 1254 ppa Total PCS Fish 8 2.9 1.4 ' 4.3 Fish 9 7.1 1.5 8.6 c Fish 10 4.5 2.7 7.2 These fish are very definitely transacting PCB's to huaans c because we bought dressed filets prepared for cooking. It would be very difficult to pinpoint the sources of the aacerial in the fish, but discovery of these high levels by a regulatory agency could lead to aa investigation which would almost certainly discover the leakage ( of material to the environment froa the Blooaington plant. 905026 December 13, 1972 SUMMARY OF FOLLOW-UP SAMPLING AT BLOOMINGTON y Two points were to be covered: 1 Could PCB material be coming down from Indianapolis? 2. To what extent had the material entering Clear Creek from the sewage treatment Plants contaminated the East Fork of the White River. Time has not yet permitted preparation of a final report on the subject but general observations can be made. Sufficient PCB's are coming down the White River from Indianapolis to obscure inputs from our plant via Bean Blossom Creek* The sediment at Waverly was two to three times higher than downstream, and the sunfish contained PCBfs as high as sunfish taken downstream. As was suggested by the earlier study, residues in biota and sediments of Clear Creek are quite high-- a sunfish at the head of the creek showing 58 ppm. The samples from Tunnelton (St. 14) show that the East Fork of th White River is quite low in PCB's upstream from where Clear Creek dumps in. In general, the resident fish in the Clear Creek-- East Fork of the White River system are higher than the limit for human consumption of five ppm but below Haysville, where the river widens, the levels drop below five ppm.. 905027 /; / it* '3 S' 4 if 1)0 l* ?1 '.JJ i. iIs Ia 's' 8 Jk - -/. r / - ' / / StAv* \ -'-V- 3 V;A.tV... 11 .C-Sf. ; 1 < G*lZ- \6" ixni 2,.<\ n 7_ \-.KM .HUM X trjCH \.o5 3 V.yj'i .6123 Us**i .ixC 4 I3H .tlsT 5~ 2 MX. \."2-3 S' \2 m i A.eiT U> \XhS .2-\3 <6. \2.H3 .l't e Q h t . 5.31 O k & alW f^-lx 1.13 : u . ii i \i p.na o'/i*5 * : 'H //^ 1H ;U`U M.*V ' iri r<M o i*j * 2.V ii*i2. ,r> I'll 7 L -, ... ! - V rr- ! 1 ,1 >) ... o>;W ..it*' i 2 61 '^Vv* 1 <\\ J ? -4. ^ \ \*\ , 1 905028 620S06 t - LAST PITTSBURGH WORKS, 2-G-.46 Dr. H. Wilbur Soeichcr Headquarters Industrial Hyciene "v' - ; 522-4273 *K : October IE, 1S72 Sx,icr' Your Letter, 1G-6-72 cc: Mr. 0. Ki He, Law Department, East Pittsburgh WBide. 1705 Mr. E. Karas, Headquarters Works Engineering," East Pittsburgh V Bide. 150 Mr. E. Boquist, Headquarters Engineering Product Improvement, TiD Center Mr. A. H2 xin, Safety Supervisor, Bloomington Works Mr. J. B r i t t a i n , Engineering Manager, Bloomington Works A. Nameplate Precautionary Statement 1. Tne subject of an appropriate statement to be carried on capacitor name plates, with regard to polychlorinated biphenyl content, has attracted considerable and diverse att en tion in recent months: a) The original nameplate statement is shown on Exhibit 1. b) In a communication from Mr. Boquist, 4-6-72, Mr. Kirk's desired wording was state d (Exhibit 2). c) As indicated on Exhibit 2, a reduction in verbiage was requested and approved, res ulting in a second nameplate wording, Exhibit 5. 2. Throughout the considerations l i s t e d above, the principle idea was to provide warning to users of capacitors th at proper disposal of defective or r e t i r e d capacitors should be made in order th at losses of PCB to the environment be minimal. As indicated in your l e t t e r , possible OSHA re quirements probably were not adequately acconnodated. 3. The problem of proper labelling of capacitors is not peculiar to, nor limited to, Westinghouse alone. Attached (Exhibit 4) is a l e t t e r fror. a General Electric representative on this subject, together with a copy of the proposed NEKA Joint Sections on Warning Labels Guidelines (Exhibit 5). Likewise, ANSI, ANSI C-107 has wrestled with th is problem as shown in Section 2, Paragraph VI (Exhibit 6). 4. Considerable time and expense goes into each subsequent change in^ wording. For th at reason, 1 am requesting th at the need for the indicated change be verified in l i g h t of the comments above. 1 am also asking :na: the recommended change be re-considered for possible reduction in wordacconsistent with the purposes that can be served. 905030 D-. H. Wilbur Spe 1cher Pape 2 October IB, 1572 B. Capacitor Unit Instructions as now contained on IS 35-411-1 (supplied wit.\ equipment instruction boons) -and on IT 35-411-1 which dupl i cates the information from IS 3S-411-1 (and 1s supplied as a tag with each capacitor unit shipped s e p a r a t e l y , `in a carton). (See Exhibit 7). 1. Tne .caution statement recommended ray be added to the next revision of the Instruction Sheet and Instruction. Tag. t ` 2. There Is some reservation to use of the disposal statement, however, based on practical considerations: a) It has not been regarded as practical to recommend that users remove fluid from Individual capacitors for return to Monsanto for incineration. (This is not true for transformers, which are much larger devices and which have PCS in "free" liquid as a major co n stit u en t.) b) DAD has not adopted the commercial policy of recomrendino return of defective apparatus to Chem-Trol for disposal or, the basis that t h e i r somewhat limited f a c i l i t i e s could be swamped by a sudden influx of large shipments from users throughout the country. ' 3. The problem of disposal of apparatus currently beino retired a ' t e r 20 years to 30 years of service is a large and real problem^ not yet resolved by the industry. I t must be faced by all the u t i l i t y and industrial user as well as by the su ppliers. Disposal services l i s t e d in ANSI C-107 do not appear to be su f f i c i e n t for the task, at this moment (Exhibit 8) ANSI C-107 recommended procedures for disposal (Exhibit S) are beino followed bv some users, but have not been tested nor approved by the multitude of potential ju r is d ic tio n a l agencies at federal, s t a t e , and local levels Under these conditions, the d e s i r a b i li t y of any statement beyond oivino notice of che problem to the user, seems questionable. P.DKcC:kc Robert D. McClain, Manager Capacitor Unit Engineering 905031 fXNaiovsi: proprietary ' statvs of poi.YcnLomsATF.n mynrKYLS /on i r * ( C Activities in severe! areas are worthy cf reporting since the list report. (1) ln-house controls to ciniisicc or eliminate plant effluents: *, ( a ). South Boston - analysis of samples indicated there is a leakage of PCD'* from the'plant (Sec ref 18 for further details) * ' (b) Other plants - still a need to complete analysis of samples at .**, Eloocington, Sharon, East Pittsburgh and to take sar.plcs of Phoenix, Cleveland, and Vicksburg. Dr. T. Munson vho hod requested 24 can months funding for PCS effort (ref 14) has only received 2 can months to date. Immediate corporate or divisional funding is needed to support this vital effort. (c) A rough draft of a corporate "Policy for Use and Handling of lncrteen" is in work using division procedures and a meeting to finaliae same will be held on April 7. (2) In use controls to minimise adverse effects on customer's environment: (a) A review of present product warnings was made with J. Kirk, Westinghouse legal department and the legal department feels that the following was the best usc-d by divisions and should be used by all*divisions in the future. "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS, EXTREME CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY ENTRY INTO THE ENVIRONMENT THHOUCH SPILLS, LEAK/rr ne? Al ^ VAPOR17.ATION UiH^TTTk*1S\'t.HEKH TO WEST! NCHOUSI; INSTRUCTION BUCK FOR INFORMATION ON USE, HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL PROCEDURES" This is a slight modification to an existing warning plate 9 2000AOH01. r- ) WESTINC110USF. PROPRIETARY 905032 ^ '/. / . - L V/V.?j:.0 *!i';j*i/Tv-.t; .. r>;i n r p [*. .r-r*. W.ri ; C A U T I o;-) FtUihTninsityfri.nmitnmnuoerti.rn\. carni:.':. rruvniinr.jirr.Trn niPiiriiYis. r.eunvniiu<ioou;umin:.i/m.::rmn Tinuwrreniiinvrt.iMirOUa'niEy iiirjuionn uniw rnn imuni/iAiiunuiiuet. n/jiume. AIID DISPOSAL PliUCL'UUIlLS. Wfiilr.cliuuicripetileforporailon .1S2P053IICIA IIJU.2.A. 0 \\f\w\<pLl\TC 5-25^72. .fiz z " 7/tx. CT/1/fji.C'S su~(-u ) 'r/.-j r;/J /z: r c /s'&j O - j./T'?A/ttTc'C/i c,\tcu.>? "c/ZGCoiMr; /111 07 HCP- LC7TZ:ZiraC 7 'z ii'iC 0.\! /J^oVZ^L fT/idZCCo.OtjO. Z'-'r' crtt'r,-/j rzw'/T/rs r r rr. / j . w / c n : c .:rrL .~ r.c . / fl'o G~u>t:*JCz; * / r / ? . v c .-j /.' c . c . o . i.::\j c c C '~-"a t' " /.ro Z 905033 r..Tp "J- .^nppifj-s Nul ;-I(Hurn IIi:; Orip.ii.;:! .\rlw.:*l; i v p \Vi:::iiiv'h-*n.r K ru; iiu. Pr intin;; *)r:illun), P:i. );>w /Min. .Ari (P iV-t-v Pr;t5i&I IHERTEcir CAPACITOR.. . ` aUTlON- - r.rftr 1 *!.ncTCjKrC2t3i4*AktT*U3D41jtTmm.tuC1r-mDrmjmTmUonwairkStrw.tn*iuuluiKufwcmUcniKuai"rjUutrTrbrmn.ac*rutVja~.i*ctf4ucrxai.1^J.-'.,T'm.\*. m . V' r/ 1 essentially requesting permission to do outside 2 consulting. 3 Q Requesting that of the EPA? 4 A Yes. 5 Q This letter was written to the EPA? 6A 7Q Yes. And sent to them; is that right? .8 A Yes. to Christopher Seglem, regional counsel. 9 Q So, as of June 11, 1976 you had indicated to Mr. Seglem 10 that -- - 11 MR. McCREA: The letter speaks for itself. 12 Q -- that Westinghouse had performed an environmental 13 survey of PCB leakage from the plant, from the 14 Bloomington plant: is that right? 15 A Yes. I state in there that I had performed such a 16 survey. 17 Q How, we've just marked your Deposition Exhibit No. 28. 18 Can you identify this three-page document for us? 19 A It appears to be a follow-up report written by myself 20 having to do with samples taken around Bloomington. 21 Q Do you have any recollection of drafting this 22 23 A three-page document? 905035 Vaguely. I remembered there was more fish data than : --- ------------ ---------- ;----------------- - T?5 1 the data which I had seen up to this point. 2 Q When you say that sufficient PCBs are coming down the 3 White River from Indianapolis to obscure inputs from 4 our plant via Beanblossom Creek, what was the context 5 of that statement? 6 Why was that made? 7 A One of the things I was trying to do was alert the 8 people at Bloomington to the fact that the levels of S PCBs which could be associated to the Westinghouse 10 plant were high enough'that they were easily 11 discoverable. Now, in that vein I 'm saying that the 12 inputs to the White River from Westinghouse via the 13 Beanblossom Creek would be somewhat obscured by the 14 presence of PCBs coming downstream from Indianapolis. 15 ) All right. Let's go to page 3 of Exhibit 28. At the 16 top is Waverly; is that right? 17 A Y e s . 18 All right. If you keep going upwards, is that where 19 you get to Indianapolis? c 20 I believe so 21 And Bloomington d o e s n 't seem to appear on this map 22 does it? 905036 23 I believe i t 's in that square box with a B in the 1 middle of it just above sample 2 1 . TT7 2 Q I see. Are you aware of any other sources of PCBs 2 other than Westinghouse downstream from the 4 Westinghouse plant at Clear Creek? 5 A No. I don't think so. 6 Q If there is a plant in Bedford, a GM foundry in 7 Bedford, at around the sample point 20 that had been 8 found to have discharged levels of PCBs, would that 9 change your opinion at all as to the relative ' 10 contribution of the Westinghouse plant to levels found 11 in Clear Creek? 12 MR. McCREA: Are you suggesting that 20 is 13 where the White River is located? 14 Bedford is on the White River, not Clear Creek. 15 Q Well, l e t 's redo the question. If there is a CM 16 foundry at or around point 20 that had levels of PCBs 17 discharged from it, could that account for levels below 18 that point of PCBs? 19 A If they were discharging into the stream, they 20 certainly would be contributing to levels downstream. 21 Q And was your conclusion that the contributions from 22 Indianapolis into the White River could account for the 23 levels found in the White River? 905037 1A 2 Tso I think so. It seemed to me that the White River was carrying PCBs with it from up toward Indianapolis. So, 3 upstream of where the Westinghouse inputs would go in 4 it would seem that there were other sources. 5Q 6 Can you answer the question No. 2 based on the information that you developed in Exhibit 28? 7 A Well, if one assumes that there were no other sources 8 than the sewage treatment plant, the data they give is * 9 indication of the level of contamination downstream. 10 Q Where is the sewage treatment plant on this map? 11 Is that the B, the box with a B in it? 12 A 'Yes, right in there. 13 c 14 A Is that your understanding? Yes. It's been 16 years since I 've seen this thing. 15 0 Doctor, you took some fish samples at Haysville at 16 station 8 ; is that right? 17 A Yes . 18 Q And then you took some other samples below Haysville 19 also of fish; is that right? 20 A I don't see fish from station 7. 21 Q 22 23 I don't either. I'm just referring to your statement at the bottom of the first page. 905038 MR. McCREA; Do you have a copy which has 1 'ft C .JCi & ct j .1 the right-hand column at the top of the -- ITS 2 MR. FELDMAN: That's more legible, no. 3 A The sample No. 8 possibly station 8 , that may possibly 4 be below. There is a small mouth bass and a shad both 5 below 5 PPM. 6 Q I don't see the resident fish at 5 parts per million 7 that you are referring to in that last sentence on the 8 first page. 9 A Where I say in general the resident fish are higher 10 than the limit for human consumption? 11 0 Right. 12 A Okay. Well, if you look at samples that are labeled 13 station 9, there's a small mouth bass at 7.73 parts per 14 million. 15 Q There's also a catfish at .116. 16 A True. Then on station 11 there's two sunfish I think 17 that is at 17.8, blue gill at 5.95. I'm assuming 18 that's what I'm referring to in that last sentence. 19 And that the fish at station 8 -- that station 8 is 20 21 Q below Haysville. ,,,,,,,,,, 905039 But when you say that generally the resident fish are 22 higher than the limit of 5 parts per million you got 23 three fish that are higher but many more that are quite :: 1 a bit lower, don't you? : '--- - ; r 400 2A 3Q Many more? Well, I mean significantly more that are under 5 parts 4 per million than above it; isn't that true? 5A 6 Well, station 9, 11, 15. 15 is at 4.25, if I car. read that right. Oh, I'm sorry. That's a crayfish. T h a t 's 7 not a fish. Okay. So, basically I guess I'm looking . 8 at the two sets of fish at station'll, one is at 5.95, 9 one is at 17.8, a small mouth bass at station 9 at 7.73 10 and then the only other fish listed there in that area 11 is the catfish at .116. 12 Q And sediment is .042 above that at station 9 further 13 up? 14 A Yes, that's a sediment sample. 15 Q By the time it gets to Haysville i t 's quite low. isn't 16 it, 3.39 and .716? 17 A What are you referring to? The fish or the sediment? 18 Q The small mouth bass and the shad. 19 A At? 20 Q Station 8 . 21 A 8 . Well, 3.39 and .716, I wouldn't call that quite 22 low. It's below the 5 parts per million. 23 Q Doctor, did the Bloomington plant use 1248? 905040 1A 2 3 4 TuT I don't think so. But as the 1242 formulation, the Inerteen formulation, weathers in the environment it then is best quantitated as 1248 because the pattern of the peeks shifts as the material biodegrades. 5 0 Does it biodegrade if i t 's in a fish? 6 A It probably biodegraded before it got to the fish. 7 0 There is a dam at the Williams station, is there not? 8 A I don't know. 9 Q If there were a dam at the Williams station, would that 10 have any effect on PCB values below that point? 11 A Could. It depends upon w h a t 's happening and how the 12 material is being transported. 13 Q Did you do samples of sheep, sheep parts? 14 A That rings a faint bell, but I c a n 't think in what 15 connection. 16 Q Is that your answer? 17 You sounded like you were going to say something 18 else. W e 're all waiting breathlessly. 19 A Yes. .Unfortunately the gray cells have failed me. 20 Vaguely I recall something having to do with sheep, but 21 22 Q I c a n 't remember what it was. n9r0.5c0r.4..1, Doctor, in Exhibit 15 which was marked at your first 23 session, for the record t h a t 's Plaintiff's Answers to 4uT" 1 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Supplemental 2 Interrogatories Concerning Expert Testimony, the 3 plaintiffs indicate that you will testify that you 4 informed personnel at the Bloomington plant that 5 precautions were necessary to prevent the further 6 escape of PCBs from the Bloomington plant. Dr. Munson 7 will testify that his recommendations were not acted 8 upon because of the costs involved. 9 You don't really know, do you, whether your 10 recommendations ware acted upon after you left 11 Bloomington? 12 A I guess I just know what I was told, that they w o u l d n 't 13 be. Now, whether they were or not. I don't know. 14 Q You don't know that your recommendations were not acted 15 on and you really don't know what was done at the plant 16 after you left to reduce discharge to the environment, 17 do you? 18 MR. McCREA: H e 's answered it yes. 19 A Right. Of my own knowledge. I don't know. True. 20 Q Well, you say of your own knowledge. Has someone 21 informed you of that other than me since you left the 22 Bloomington area in 1972? 905042 23 A Mr. McCrea has told me various things about what took -- ----- -- :------- -- -- :-------- --- --- :-------- ; :-- : 4o 3" 1 place at Che plant. 2Q What did Mr. M c C r e a tell you about w h a t took place at 3 the plant? 4A That liquid wastes were put down the sewer. 5Q Did he tell you anything else? 6A On this p a r ti cu l ar topic he told me the drains were 7 w e l d e d shut at one point. T h e r e was an e m p l oyee who 8 was i n s t r u c t e d to c o m e in in the m i d d l e of the n i g h t 9 and p o u r l i q u i d s d o w n the d r a i n . T h a t 's all I can 10 r e m e m b e r o n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c . 11 Q Did he tell you who the e m p l o y e e was who was i n s t r u c t e d 12 to c o m e in in the m i d d l e of the n i g h t a n d p o u r 13 m a t e r i a l s d o w n t h e d r a i n ? 14 A If he d i d , I d o n 't r e m e m b e r h i s n a m e . 15 Q Did he p r o v i d e any o t h e r d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g 16 W e s t i n g h o u s e ' s p o u r i n g o f I n e r t e e n d o w n t h e d r a i n a t 17 t h e p l a n t ? 18 A I d o n 't th i n k so. 19 Q Did he provide you with any information concerning 20 21 22 A 23 other m e a s u r e s other than s e a l i n g the d r a i n to reduce the d i sch arg e of PCBs into the enviro n me nt ? I d o n 't r e m e m b e r any. MR. FELDMAN: 905043 L e t 's t a k e a r e a l shore. 1 2 3q 7G1 break. (A recess was taken.) Doctor, in the disclosure of your opinion, sir, likely 4 testimony, the document indicates that you will testify 5 that it was unconscionable for Westinghouse not to 6 communicate the information in his report to Dale and 7 Connie Conard who had maximum exposure to the PCB ` 8 contamination. 9 Is that a correct characterization of your opinion 10. as you sit here today? 11 A Yes. I think so. They had an opportunity to do it and 12 should have done it. 13 Q What should Westinghouse, in your opinion, have told 14 the Conards in 1972? 15 A Well, at that point or later they should have told their. 16 about the movement of PCBs away from the landfill onto 17 their property. 18 Q What would that information have meant to Dale and 19 Connie Conard in 1972? 20 A How do I know. 21 Q The answer is you don't know, do you? 22 A No, I don't know. But I do believe they had a right to ; 23 know that. 905044 1 2A 3 4Q 5 6> 7 G 9 IO 11 A 12 13 14 15 l 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 charge? Yeah- It is an e l e c t r i c a l c h a r g e . It ca n b e viewed the same way. Dr. Munson, when you w e r e in Bloomington, did you go to an area known as Twin Lakes with a r e p r e s e n t a t i ve of Westi n g h o u s e ? (We d r o v e by Twin Lakes this morning.) Were comments made by the representative with respect to the k i l l i n g o-f w e e d s in o n e o-f t h e l a k e s ? A n d , i f so, can you tell us what you r e c a l l ? Yes. I recall driving down a hard surfaced road. We were chatting about one thing and another. I don't remember who this person was. I don't b e l i e v e it was Lou Shove, but I c a n ' t r e m e m b e r w h i c h o n e o-f t h e o t h e r p e o p l e it w o u l d h a v e been. He w as tel l i n g me a bout some years earlier they had done an experi ment. They apparently had a continual weed p r o b l e m in t h e s e lakes, and t h e y did an e x p e r i m e n t t o s e e if P . C . B . s c o u l d b e u s e d t o control the weeds in the lake. My u n d e r s t a n d i n g w a s t h a t t h e y p u t m a n y g a l l o n s -- I w o u l d t h i n k h u n d r e d s o-f g a l l o n s -- of P . C . B . s in t h e lake. J'm.not sure whether they sprayed it or h o w t h e y did it. But, I h a d n ' t r e c a l l e d the DEPO DEPOT 9050^5 (812) 331-2466 1 2 3 4 5 6 _7 8 9 lO 11 12 Q. 13 14 IS 16 17 A. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 name of the lake, but I had a very vivid memory, in my mind. As we d r o v e down the road, in t a l k i n g about it and l o o k i n g to the right and s e e i n g this long, o b long of water that we could see and then gesturing back to the 3eft to the other lake, as we turned around and looked there, that...There are more b u s h e s and t r e e s in front alo n g the e dge of the road, but t h a t 's e x a c t l y the s h a p e I had in my mind, and it s e e m s q u i t e l i k e l y t hat that was the location. You mentioned earlier that P.C.B.s are not s o l u b l e in water, as is s o d i u m chloride. And you explained how solubility comes about. Can you explain to us how P.C.B.s move through water? The one thing we have to be careful about when we talk about whether something is soluble or i n s o l u b l e . . It d e p e n d s u p o n w h a t c r i t e r i a you're using. Generally the way you say that is t h at, if y o u t a k e an a m o u n t , l i k e a f e w g r a m s of it, and t r y to d i s s o l v e it in a f e w l i t e r s of w a t e r , o r -- p u t it a n o t h e r w a y -- a quarter teaspoon and you try to put it in a q u a r t of water, and y o u s h a k e it and s h a k e it rHF D F P O D E P T T 905046 Y812) 331-2466 Electric Corporation. September 16, 197 V. G'i Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug Director, Enforcement Division Environmental Protection Agency Curtis Building 6 th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 pC>--* Re: Request For Information - Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds or M i x t u r e s ______ Dear Mr. Wassersug: In response to the request of the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Westing house Electric Corporation submits the requested information for Westinghouse facilities which are known to handle poly chlorinated biphenyl compounds or mixtures (Attachment A ) . Due to the lack of sufficient time and because records are not customarily maintained for all of this information there are some facilities for which a complete response cannot be made. With reference to the above-referenced letter and the questions attached thereto, Westinghouse has the following additional comments: 1. The presence of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds in the environment has been recognized for some period of years and has been a concern to the electrical industry. The industry recognized, that because of the documented need for the continued use of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds in capacitors and transformers to provide the public with safe, reliable/ and efficient electrical equipment, unusual protective measures would have to be taken. Westinghouse did not delay in introducing a new capacitor dielectric (Aroclor 1016 from which the higher-chlorinated persistent homologs have been substantially removed), sealing drains in manufacturing areas where PCB's were used, utilizing incineration facilities for scrap material and PCB 905047 Page Two September 16, 1975 contained wastes specially designed for the destruction of PCB's or special land fills, and instructing operating personnel and users regarding the need for care and waste disposal (Attachments.B and C) . Most of these methods were implemented prior to the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. 2. Any environmental standard or regulation must be developed upon a sound legal and technical basis. The history of the usage of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds reflects that while they were initially used in other applications, the only domestic supplier of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds voluntarily limited their sales to the electrical industry in 1971. Therefore, laboratory and environmental studies should reflect the types of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds used by the electrical industry for setting any effluent standards relating to capacitor and transformer facilities. Furthermore, the results of these studies should be made available to the scientific community and the Science Board for evaluation before they are used as a basis for any regulation. Very truly yours, a /\,v 7* ) Rog'er E. Wills, Jr. Attorney / R E W :mlm Enclosures 905048 po:.YC!!LoninATi:o niPin-MYL -;pc b) compounds or ixturlt. 1.. For ccch PCB compound or mixture produced or imported by your company, for each company facility, during each year of 1571, 1572, 1573, 1974, and the first two quarters of 1975: a. The total amount of each PCB compound or mixture produced or imported. b. The name and address of each of your company's facilities which handle PCB compounds or mixtures (including production facilities and wholesale and retail outlets), and the amount of each PCB compound or mixture distributed through each facility. c. The name and address of each customer of each PCB compound or mixture, and the amount of each FCB compound or mixture obtained by each customer from each facility. The entire question is not applicable for nil facilities. 2. For each PCB compound or mixture incorporated by your company into its products, for each company facility, during each year of 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and the. first two quarters of 1575: a. A description of each product. 1. Sharon - Transformers 2. South Boston - Transformers 3. Bloomington - Capacitors 4. Cleveland - Capacitors 5. Repair facilities - Transformers b. For each product the total (mount incorporated of each PCB compound ox* mixture, (pounds) (est.) 905049 c c c. For each .product the name and address of each source from which your company obtained each PCS compound or mixture, and the a* of each PCS compound or mix C ture obtained frer.. c;ich source. For all products and ail faciltiics the source Monsanto Chemical Co. 00 Forth Lindber^ Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri c c c I i i I I I I t 1 i 905050 cl. The nomc and a<}clrs" of coch of yoii.r company's feci li tie:; w h i c h hi...die :;u.:h product.:; (includin'. production facili ti and wholesale and retai 1 outlets), and the* a:ou:it of on eh product dis tributed through each facility. 1. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Power Systems Transformer Division 469 Sharpsvillo /`.venue Sharon, Pa. 16146 2. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Small Power Transformer Division Eox 920, Highway 5CVi South Eoston, Virginia 24592 3. Westinghouse. Electric- Corporation Distribution /apparatus Division Curry Pike Bloomington, Ind. 47401 4. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Outdoor Lighting Division 1216 V?est 58th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44102 5. Repair Facilities - See Attached Chart e. The name and address of each customer of each produc and the amount of each product obtained by each customer from each facility. For consumer products list only the total production of each product \at each facility and the total number of customers. Do not provide the name and address of each customer of consumer products. For each PCB compound or mixture used by your company in its operations other than for incorporation into its products, for each company facility, during each year of 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and the first two quarters of 1975: a. 7\ description of each use. 905051 - b. For each .use the to vl omx/urit. of c..ch PC)> co-'poundor mixture. For each PCB compound or mixture reclaimed by your company for e a c h company facility, during each year of 1071, 1973, 1973, 1974, and the first tv;o quarters cf 1975:. a. The total amount of each PCE compound cr mixture reclaimed. b. The name and address of each source from which your company obtained PCB compounds or mixtures, and the amount of each PCB compound or mixture obtained from each source. The entire question is not. applicable for all facilities. -4- 905052 c c c. c c ;I 5. For each PCD compound or mixture dir.por.od of by your company (vi ih or without the involvement of other par tier.) for each company facili 1.-, during each year of 197), 1972, 1973, 1974, and t h ? first two quarters of 1975: a. h descx'iption of each method of disposal. b. For each method of disposal the total amount of each re 13 compound or mi::ture. c. For each method of disposal, the location of every disposal site, the.- name and address of cadi party involved in the disposal of each PCS com pound or mixture, and the amount of each PCH compound or mixture disposed of by each party. DEFINITIONS AND SYMBOLS USED FOR THIS SECTION 1. Incration of liquid wastes by Monsanto, Sauget, 111., 62201, using approved thermal oxidation, scrubbing and neutralization. 2. Incration of liquid wastes by Chem-Trol Pollution Services, 1550 Balmer Road, Model City, New York 14107, "using thermal oxidation, scrubbing and neutralization in accordance with New York State and Federal Pollution Control Cedes." (See Note to No. 3) . 3. "Drummed solids and capacitors shall be disposed of (by Chem-Trol] in an approved scientific landfill in accordance with New York State and Federal Pollution Control Codes. All leachate shall be trapped, tested and treated as necessary prior to release." NOTE: Contract with Chem-trol provides further that "No other method of disposal shall be vised. There shall be no re-sale of any waste or the product of any waste received by Chein-Trol under the terms of this Contract." 4. N e a l ' s L a n d F i l l Off Road $603 Owen County, Indiana 5. S p e c i a l D e s i g n a t e d S e c t i o n o f Monroe County Landfill M o n r o e County, Ind. 47401 905053 6. Valor; Verde:: Laud Till 8. II. Koch 2.and 1-111 26301 S. Crcnnhnv lilvd. Harvard 6 Hast 78 St. Rolling liiJJs, California Clove]and Ohio (Special Area for Disposal of l'C15 Contaminated Waaler:) 7. Richmond Sanitary Dump 9. Rockr.ide Reclamation, I Richmond, California 5661 Canal Road (Special Area for Disposal of Cleveland, Ohio PCD Contaminated Wastes) FACILITY sraro:: YEAR TYPE (2) Liquid (3) Solid SOUTH LOSTOM (2) Liquid (3) Sol i d ^ RLC0MIKCT0R Liquid Solid V CLEVELAND Liquid Solid REPAIR FACILITIES 6. The composition cf each PCB compound or mixture produced, imported, sold, reclaimed, used, and/or disposed of by your company since January 1, 1971 Clt 905054 f ' -A c # v` . -* ' A lV 1 i 1 7. The results of ny and r. : sampling and analysis per formed by your company, its a<jc, Is or contractors since January 1, 1971, concerning the fol'owing: a , Concentrat ions of PCJ; compound:; or mixtures in the ( effluent of any discharges by the company (into waters j of the United States or Publicly .'Owned Treatment v.'urks) | or in the emissions of the coMipany into the air. j i The flow and/or composition of any- discharges or emissic i by the company (into v.*nters of the United State:; or i Publicly Owned Treatment Works, or into -th$&.air) which ! contain PCB compounds or mixtures. ! Concentrations of PCB compounds or mixtures in receivin'/ waters (both upstream and downstream) of any discharges by the company which contain PCD compounds or mixtures and concentrations of PCB compounds or mixtures in the air in the area of tire company. PCB A!*?.LYSES Sample Date 2/13 2/21 4/1G 5/17 6/18 7/17 7/30 8/13 8/30 10/15- 11/15 2/13 2/21 4/16 5/17 6/18 7/17 8/13 8/30 10/15 11/15 Sample Location 1974 Westinghouse Sharon R-Euilding Westinghouse Sharon A-Building 905055 5.7 (ili 50. \ 4.1 (12 GO) 1 '6.1 (12 CO ) [' 3.1 (12GO) f 8.0 (1260) l! 2.4 (1260) 7.2 (1260) 1 12.2 (1260) !j 9.7 (1242) i; 9.0 (1260) j 10.6 (1260) |! 3.3 (1260) Vi 4.8 (124 2) 1 .7 0 260) f: .4 (1242) ! 2.5 (1254 ) i 1.7 (1260) ; .4 (1260) : .3 (1260) .5 (1260) .4 (1260) 1.04 (1260) j 1.1 (1242) ] .7 (1260) ; .2 (12-12) ' .3 (12G0) .1 (1242) ^2 (1260) .1 i(] 24 2) r Sample Date r 2/13 2/21 4/16 5/17 6/18 7/17 7/26 7/30 7/31 0/13 8/30 C 10/15 11/15 C Date 2/20 2/27 3/06 3/13 X V '4/23 5/29 6/26 7/31 8/30 10/02 10/31 11/26 12/30 Date' 2/26 2/27 3/01 3/06 6/05 8/12 10/0 8 11/10 12/12 i Snmp]o Date V?e3tv mjhouse Sharon Power House . South Eoston Bloomington - 0- Hcr.uT. t:r. t 40.0 (1252) 26.6 (3 260) 2.2 (1260) 1.7 U 200 ) 5.0 (1260) 219.0 (1260)1 1.7 (1260) 1.7 (1260) 1.3 (.1260) 1.4 (1260) .8 (1242) 9.0 (1260) .1 (1242) 1.6 (1260) 5.3 (1242) .6 (1260) .6 ^(1242) (PP3) 33 `180 il48 34 5-*? 790 133 135 106 42 54.0 235 377 183 (PPM) "22.2 (secio 1.7 .903 3.2 1. S 2.3 .1.8 26 .4 3 905056 ( k. 1 ] 75 1/8 2/24 4/24 5/30 7/11 Westi -ighouse Sharon R - building 1/8 2/24 4/24 5/30 7/11 Westinghouse Sharcn A-Building 3.8 /(1260) 0.25 (1260) 5.5 (1260) 0.33 I12G0) 0.72 (1260) 1/8 2/24 4/24 5/30 7/11 Westinghouse Sharon Power House 1.6 (1260) 10.97 '1260 1.9 :i2G0) 0.98 (1260) 1.75 (1260 6/05 South Eoston 28.6 1/0 9 1/05 2/3 3/1 4/30 5/30 Bloomington (PPM) 4.6 3.17 .526 .96 4 .268 1.93 In addition, a sampling program was undertaken in February 1971 at Bloomington which indicated 3-40 ppb in the discharge with a rate of flow of 240-280 gallons/minute. The daily rate of flow from Sharon is: Power House, 252.000 gallons; A-Building, 378,720 gallons; and R-Builaing, 504.000 gallons. The South Boston facility discharges in a batch process with a daily rate of 13,500 gallons. -9 - 905057 The flow from Bloomingto to the .sanitary sewer for the dates sampled are as iolJ'.ws: Date Gal/Dav * 2/26/74 2/27/7 4 3/01/74 3/06/74 6/05/74 8/12/74 10/08/74 11/10/74 12/12/74 1/09/75 1/09/75 2/3/74 3/1/75 4/30/75 5/30/75 ' Sewer <s1oygod-Sown gc bc)c!: 225,615 232,463 232,468 178,000 *- 252,502 106,544 183,874 160,734 189,481 189,481 162,069 134,924 118,637 106,177 Receiving waters have been sampled at the following locations v;ith the indicated results: Sharon Shenango River at Bank above Clark Street Bridge Shenango River at Bank by Clark Street Substation (below dis charge) 6/6/74 6/6/74 <--l o 0.1 ppb. ppb Bloomington Clear Creek (above Sewage Treatment Plant) Clear Creek (below Sewage Treatment Plant) 1/9/74 1/9/75 ` . 0.25 ppb 5 ppb 8 . The methods by which PCB compounds or mixtures are trans ported to, by, and/or from your company, including: a. h description of each method of transportation, anc the form in which PCB compounds or mixtures are transported by each method. Where different methods of transportation are used at different facilities specify which transportation method is used at each facility. -1 0 - 905058 r r l C ( c x. ` f tA i sn ''<jn se Klootrie Co poration -(purchased material). Via bulk tank rs ('rail) . . Via truck in Sii gallon drums. From Westingbouse Electric Corporation (.scrap Incrtcen) Scrap Incrtec.n Via tank truck. (Sec question 5,) Scrap Incrtcen Via truck in 55 gallon drums.. (See question 5.) From-Viesting house Electric Corporation (material shipped IK Transformers). Shipped Via common motor carrier or rail transport. From Westinghouse Electric Corporation new material PDS'54201KA in 55 gallon drums for fielp filling of transformers. Shipped Via common motor carrier. . Each shipment of nev; material from Westinghouse Electric Corporation has the following instructions and information g i v e n .to the carrier. INERTEEN Method, of Shipment: Packaging: Meriting : Ship via all modes. Pack in leakproof container (see note). No marking required (except on water shipment container must be marked): "Liquid Plastics No Label Required". - !1 i | 1 Labeling : No label required. Billing: Note: Bill as "Liquid Plastic NOI" and add the following statement: "This product contains polychlorinated diphenyls (PCB's) which some studies have shown may be a persistant environmental contaminant. Prevent any entry into the environment through spills. During shipment avoid spills and leakage into inland waterways and the sea. Keep away f r o m food, animal feedstuffs, and pharmaceuticals. In case of emergency concerning this shipment, call collect 618-271-5835, or Chemtrec 800-424-5300 Any leakage vill_result in shipment being refused or stopped in transit. Leakage may cause liability for environmental damage. 1 1 - 905059  k < W s c u r ii o s t o :-: Received via b ilk tan): cara from Hon;:.'nto. _liquid ainWdlfclid wastes- arc shipped from South Boston by Privately-owned -tank trucks arid vans of Chem-Trol, Inc. Shipment of transformers containing PCB's are by common carrier received via 55 gallon drums from common carriers. liquid and solid wastes are shipped from Bloomington by privately-owned tank trucks and vans of Chem-Trol, Inc. Shipment of capacitors containing PCB's are by common carrier. REPAIR FACILITIES (see attached chart) b. The names and addresses of till known transporters of PCB compounds or mixtures. L & N Railroad 908 Broadway Louisville, Kentucky Transport Motor Express 3190 East 79 Street Cleveland, Ohio 44104 Monsanto Chemical Co. 800 N. Lindberg Blvd. St. Louis, K o .63166 (Plant:Sauget, 111.) Anderson 1511 Lakeside Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Moss Trucking Co. Charlotte, North Carolina Chem-Trol, Inc. Model City, New York 14107 C & H Transport Dallas, Texas -A & II Truck Line Incorporated 1111 East Louisiana Evansville, IN 47717 -12- 905060 9. All occasions (including r.pillu) of which you arc aware o n w h i c h PCB 'compound:;o mixture:; h o w or moy hav< been introduced into the environment. In particular, des cribe such occasions insofar os tlvoy involved TCB com pound.'.* or mixtures in their liquid state, as incorporated into closed systems, or os incorporated into open ;;ystons. For each occasion, indicate name and address of party in volved; dates, time, and location of the discharge or r.pil) and the amounts involved. 1. March 1972 - Rail tank car (No. ACFX4016) was dripping PCE upon receipt. The amount is unknown. 2. Carrier claim reports have indicated some leaking capacitors, however, only in one case is there information that P C B 1s were introduced into the environment. On 5/20/74 at 2:00 A.M., an A&H Truck Lines Trailer truck loaded with 4 capacitor racks and other equipment, overturned on U.S. Route 50 about 17 miles southwest of Bedford, Indiana. In this accident, capacitors broke resulting in seme loss of PCB. Leaking units were placed ir. sealed drums and sent to Chcmtrol. Soaked dirt was shoveled up (by Westinghouse personnel) and put in sealed drums and sent to Chemtrol. 3. On 3/23/72 n Moss Trucking Co. truck veered off Route 158 approximately ten miles west of Rcancke Rapids, North Carolina. Five transformers were dumped from the truck trailer and aioproxirately 1,000 gallons of Inerteen was spilled. The safety inspector for Moss Trucking Co. indicated that there were no creeks or water areas around the' area and that there was no danger of polluting streams. 10. A description of any adverse health or environmental effects which you know or believe to have resulted from the introduction of PCB compounds or mixtures into the environment. Indicate any specific occasions including dates, times, location, amounts, and parties involved for which such effects are known. We do not have any direct knowledge of any adverse health or environmental effects resulting from these compounds being introduced into the environment. -13- 905061 11. Any aml a l l e th e r infer/.: tio n which you .po:;scc:; c c n o e r n i a. The production, ii;.; tnti'U/, reelatratien-, u::<, ; distribution, and u i.:po::ul of PCI15 compound:; or l mixtures. b. The discharge of J'Cii compounds or mixtures into the environment. j Westinghouse Electric Corporation provided direct testimony on these matters during the i'PA Toxic Pollutants Hearings in 1974. In addition, v;e are aware that scientists for Monsanto Chemical Co. have published recent articles jen the degradation of these compounds and that the Electronic Industries Association has furnished Mr. Russell Train, additional information on these matters. : j -14- 905062; r>i fcivv;. V( NOTE (CHART) The attached chart lists those Westinghouse Industry Services Divisions facilities which handle Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds. Records are maintained for each project; however, these are not further coded to designate which project involved Polychlorinated Biphenyls. However, based upon the information available, disposal is to approved facilities when required. . i` '. (, 905063 r.-*i - Boston A .S .P , 60 Charles Street Mcec'.haa ile ights ,MA 0215m : Cufelo A .S .? . 1132 Seneca Street Cufelo, N? i*.210 Chicago A. S .P. 3900 West -.1st Surco Chicago, IL 60632 C 1e Ve i.n . S .P . '6CG Wo.*;t *60 th St. Cl c.vo 1*i:k I, O.i 4',13 S C . A...P. I0t:- .-ic:.viv: .\vei.ue \ Cin:,i:is. i. ^ '.02 3? J #?'.;i A . 7 lOOC'J A N : t 4M.. ;3 w >^ Jones Westinghouse 4' i:' u'i:tvfO. rg k '::: t l W e s t ir.g h o u s e : C.i te-.vtiy ; W'cs tc-rn J 905064 I ll 7 rrrcr inerteen sed (pounds) mr~ I 73 r .7 Westinghouse ,1.5.0. Location_______ ]75 Charlotte A.S.P. 920 Eastv/ay Drive Do:< 12037 Charlotte, UC 20205 Denver A.S.P. 200 Rio Crar.de Blvd. Denver, CO 80223 Emeryville A.S.P. 5099 Pc lade au St. Emeryville, CA 94G0U . Fort Worth A.S.P. 2J75 E. Long Ave. Fc. Worth, TX 7G 10G Houston A.S.P. 5730 Clinton Drive Houston, TX 7 7020 ns a s Cit y A.S.P. l *.Q Fron r.* S trout F m s a s C :ty , ::o Los An ge los ;. 1f020 F. San tu O u?, C A 1 3Cv*j7 ; H le. 905066 Amount disposed lbs. 71 72 73 74 75 Transporter of disposed inerteen * Westinghouse *i?. i i [ Hiddlewest Freightways i j | Rams Express .y J \ fel V->t- Westlngfwusc Electric Corporation Distribution Apparatus Division, Bloomington, Indiana <7^01 Effective January 1971 I ' . ... f." 905069 ! 1 r s curriculum \ Thomas 0. Munson 1001 Qth five S. E. St. Cloud, MN 56304 EDUCATION: University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin 1965-1968 Ph. I)..''Biochemistry Dissertation: Nitrogen Fixation by Rhodospiri11 urn rubrum Grown in Nit rogen-- 1im ited Conti nuous Cu11ure Major Advisor: Dr. Robert H. Burris 1963-1965 ' M. S. Biochemistry Dissertat ion: Cofactor Requirements for Nitrogen Fixation by Extracts of Clost r idi urn pasteur1anum Major Advisor: Dr. Robert H. Burris * National Institutes of Health Trainee ,* National Science Foundation Research Fellow * Instructor in course "'Radio-isotope Techniques" University of California Berkeley, California >59-1963 B.A. Zoology * Four-year California State Scholarship *. Alpha Chi Sigma Professional Chemistry Fraternity EXPERIENCE: ^ SEPT 19Q7' to PRESENT St. Cloud State University Department of Chemistry St. Cloud, MN 56301 Associate Professor * Teaching - First two quarters of freshman chemistry - Introduction to forensic science - Advanced forensic science laboratory * Honors and Awards v - Curriculum development grant - Membership in Phi Kappa Phi - Editorial Board, Crime Laboratory Digest APR 1982 to SEPT 1987 ~ Forensic Science Research Unit Federal Bureau of Investigat ion FBI Academy Quantico, Virginia Research Chemist 905070 V C NOV 1976 to APR 1962 MAY 1976 ^ to NOV 1976 MAY 1969 to MAY 1976 * Principal projects included: Comparison of adhesives by pyrolysis GC/MS - Analysis of gunpowder by capillary GC/MS Analysis of automotive paints by pyrolysis capillary GC/MS - Sex typing human blood by capillary GC/MS - Discrimination of human hair by pyrolysis capillary GC/MS and GC/MS/MS - Characterisat ion of gasolines by capi11 ary GC - Comparison of photocopy toners by pyrolysis capillary GC and GC/MS * Lecturer/lab instructor in the short courses: - Chromatographic Methods in Forensic Science - Explosives Analysis - Paint and Polymer Analysis - Arson Analysis Central Regional Laboratory, Region 2 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Annapolis, Maryland Chem ist + Chief of the Organics Analysis Unit * Senior GC/MS analyst-- performed nearly a thousand analyses of surface waters,, dr'inking waters, effluent discharges and landfill leachates for organic chemical contami nent s * Designated Regional Expert in Toxic Substances-- provided assistance in many of the regional enforcement efforts, including court testimony Chesapeake Bay Program U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Annapolis, Maryland Environmentalist * Designed the initial phases of the Toxics Program Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory Annapolis, Maryland Senior Scientist * Performed research on environmental contamination of marine and estuarine ecosystems by chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls <PCBvs) * Performed laboratory studies on the toxic effects of chlorinated pesticides and PCB's on oysters and softshelled clams. * Directed the efforts of the Aquatic Biological Sciences Group of WQRL in a study of the movement of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Chester River Estuary (a $'50,000 program for the State of Maryland) 905071 * Served as Chief Scientist on the Upper Bay Survey, a $750, 000 mult i-d isci.pl inary, mu 11i-institutional program to investigate the rates and.routes, sources, sinks and reservoirs of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Upper Chesapeake Bay (funded by the State of Maryland) * Performed env ironment a 1 surveys around all Westinghouse Electric Corporation manufacturing plants which used PCB's JAN 1968 to MAY 1969 Enchanter, Inc. Oceanographic Research Newport Beach, California Vice President * Performed underwater surveys, current studies and contract research related to sewage disposal in near . shore waters of California HOBBIES * OTHER ACITVITIES: Reading, running, cycling, writing, teaching an adult Sunday School class PUBLICATIONS: Publications in Sclent ific Journals <* written by T. 0. M. ) 1. *2. *3. *4. *5. *6. *7. *8. *3. *10. "The adensosine triphosphate requirement for nitrogen fixation, M. J. Dilworth, D. Sub.ramani an, T. 0. Munson and R. H. Burris, Biochem. Biophys. Acta 99: 486-503(1365). Method for dernonstrat iong cofactor requirements for nitrogen fixation, T. 0. Munson, M. J. Dilworth and R. H. Burris, Biochem. Biophys. Acta 104: 78-281(1965). Nitrogen fixation by Rhodospiri11 urn rubrurn grown in nitrogenlimited continuous culture, T. 0. Munson and R. H. Burris, J Bacterial. 97: 1093-1098(1969). Chlorinated hydrocarbon residues in marine animals of southern California, T. . Munson, Bull. Environ. Contamin. and Toxicol, 7: 223-228(1972). Current status of research on the biological effects of pesticides in the Chesapeake Bay, T. 0. Munson and R. J. Huggett, Chesapeake Sci. T3: S154-156(1972). A note on toxaphene in environmental samples from the Chesapeake Bay region, T. 0. Munson, Bull. Environ. Contamin. and Toxicol. 16: 491-494(1976). Purge-and-trap analysis using fused silica capillary column GC/MS, F. A. Dreisch and T. 0. Munson, J. Chrom. Sci. 21: 111118(1383). Comparison and identification of adhesives used in improvised explosive devices by pyrolysis capillary column GC/MS, N. L. Bakowski, E. C. Bender and T. 0. Munson, J. Anal, and Appl. Pyrol. 8: 483-492(1985).; Comparison of human hair by pyrolysis capillary column GC and GC/MS, Jeffery Vick and T. 0. Munson, J. Anal, and Appl. Pyrol. 8: 493-501(1985). Chemistry and the FBI, T. 0. Munson and L. C. Davidson, J. Chem. Ed. 62: 1054-1057(1985). 905072 4 11, Examint ion of automotive paints by pyrolysis capillary gas chromtography/mass spectrometry, D. McMinn, T. L. Carlson and T. 0. Munson, J. Foren. Sci. 30: 1064-1073(1985). *12. Getting started with pyrolysis capi1lary gas chromatography, T. 0. Munson, Crime Lab. Digest 13: 82-91(1986). *13. A survey of the use of analytical pyrolysis by forensic laboratories in the United States, T. 0. Munson, Crime Lab. Digest 14 : 112-117(1987) . *14. Evidence for the formation of 2,4-imidazolidinediones and pyrrolidinoLl,2aJ-3,6-piperazinediones in human hair pyrolyrate ; by pyro1ysis-gas chromtography-mass spectromet ry-mass spectrometry, T. 0. Munson and D. D. Fetterolf, J. Anal, and Appl. Pyrol. IT: 15-24(1987). *15. The status of hair comparisons by pyrolysis gas chromatography, T. 0. Munson, Crime Lab. Digest L4: 153-154(1987). 16. The comparison of black polyvinylchloride (PVC) tapes by C pyrolysis gas chromtorgraphy, E. R. Williams and T. 0. Munson, J. Foren. Sci. 33: 1163-1170(1988). *17. A simple method for sampling photocopy toners for examination by gas chromtography, T. 0. Munson, Crime Lab. Digest (in press). *18. The classification of photocopy toners by pyrolysis gas chromtography-mass spectrometry, 7. 0. Munson, J. Foren. Sci. { (in press). Other Pub1icat ions (* written by T. 0. M. ) 1. Intermediates and cofactors in nitrogen fixation, R. H. Burris, H. C. Winter, T. 0. Munson and J. Garcia-Rivera, in Non-heme Iron ^ Proteins: Role in Energy Conversion. A. San Pietro, ed. , the Antioch Press, Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1965. *2. Chapter 2: Biochemical Investigations, T. 0. Munson, in Chester. River Study: a Joint Investigation by the State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. W. D. Clarke, H. D. Palmer, and L. C. Murdock, eds. , Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory, Annapolis, Maryland, 1973. *3 Section VI-D: Chlorinated hydrocarbon analysis of sediment samples, T. 0. Munson, in Environmental Survey of an Interim Ocean Dumpsite Cruise Report :1-5 May 1973. compiled and edited by H. D. Palmer and D. W. Lear, Annapolis Field Office, Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland. *4. Chapter 6: Biochemistry, T. 0. Munson, in Upper Bay Survey. Final Report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Vol. II. T. 0. Munson, D. K. Ela and C. Rutledge, eds., Westinghouse Oceanic Division, Annapolis, Maryland, 1975. *5. Transport of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Upper Chesapeake L Bay, T. 0. Munson, H. D. Palmer and J. M. Forns, in Nat ionai. Conference on Polych1orinated Biphenyls. Conference Proceedings. Mar. 1976, GPO EPA-560/6-75-004. *6. Chesapeake Bay pollution: need for study of chronic toxicities, T. 0. Munson, The Capitol Chemist 29(6): 30(1979). 7. Survey of the Huntington and Philadelphia River water supplies for purgeable organic contarninents, F. A. Dreisch, M. Gower and T. 0. Munson, U. S. Environrnenta 1 Protection Agency Report, EPA-- 903/9-81-003, Nov. 1980. 905073 bT v ; * J [ ( C C 8. Identification of smokeless powders and their residues by capillary column gas chromtography/mass spectrometry, R. M. Mart:, T. 0. Munson, and L. D. Lasswell, III, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analysis and Detection of Explosives, Mar 1963. GPG 1384-426-235. *3. Examination of automotive paints by pyrolysis capi11 ary gas chromtography/mass spectrometry, T. 0. Munson, T. L. Carlson and Dennis McMinn, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analysis and Identification of Polymers, Pug 1964, GP0-027000-0165-5. Research Reports at Scientific Meetings <*presented by T. 0. M. ) *1. Cofactor requirements for biological rit>^ogen fixation, with R. H. Burris, Fed. Proc. 4: 541(1965). *2. Movement of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Chester River estuary, with H. D. Palmer and J. D. Tasler, presented at the _ ." Annual Meeting of the American Chemical Society, New York, New York, .August 1976*. 3. Scanning microscopy observations of oyster shell growth during pesticide toxicity exprimentt ion, with J. M. Forns, presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, 1973. 4. Presence of alpha and gamma chlordane in the Chester River estuary, with J. D. Tasler, presented at the 87th Annual Meeting, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D. C. 1973. 5. Effect of hydrological processes on the transport of sediment and pesticides in the Chester River, Maryland, with K. T. S. Tzou and H. D. Palmer, presented, at the Annual and Nat ional Environmental .Engineering Meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Oct. 9--Nov 1 1373. 6. Jj2 situ eva1uat ions of PCB uptake by Mya arenaria and Crassostrea virg inica. with J. M. Forns, presented at the 3rd Internat ional Research Federation Conference: Recent Advances in Estuarine Research, Galveston, Texas, 1975. 7. Transport of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Upper Chesapeake Bay, with H. D. Palmer and J. M. Forns, presented at the National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Chicago, Illinois, Nov. 19-21 1975. *0. Synopsis of the Chester River Study-- sedimentation, river flow, organic chemical and heavy metals data, presented at the Chester River Workshop, Horn Point, Maryland, Feb. 3 1977. 9. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Upper Chesapeake Bay, with D. M. DiSpirito, presented at the 11th Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Newark, Delaware, Apr. 20-23 1377. *10. The measurement of PCB1s in landfill leachates at the partspe*-- trillion level, presented at the 11th Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Newark, Delaware, Apr. 20-23 1977. 11. Priority pollutants-- the need for organic residue analysis, presented at the Workshop on Organic Residue Analyses in Seafood, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Glouchester Point, Virginia, Feb. 2-3 1978. 905074 'ir 1. Discovery of a source of carbon tet rach 1or ide in public drinking water, with J. W. Barrori, presented at the lth Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Hunt Valley, Maryland, Apr. 5-7 1978. *13. GC/MS/DS Analysis of organic chemicals entering groundwater from a 1andfi11, -with J. J. Austin, Jr., and J. W. Barron, presented at the lcth Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Hunt Valley, Maryland, Apr. 5-7 1378. *14. Monitoring of the Upper Chesapeake Bay for the S-triazin herbicides Atrazine and Simazine, with J. J. Austin, Jr. and R. C. Bubeck, presented at the lcth Middle At 1ant ic-.Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Hunt Valley, Maryland, Apr. 5-7 1378. *15. Examples of contaminent identification by gas chromtography/mass spectrometry, presented at the 844th meeting of the Chemical Society of Washington, meeting jointly with the Mass Spectrometry Discussion Group ot the Greater Washington Area, College Park, Maryland, Dec. 1378. *16. Priority pollutants in water, presented at the Organic Residue Workshop, Virgini a Institute of Marine Science, Glouchester Point, Virginia, Mar. 13-20 1373. *17. The presence of gaseous halocarbonsin landfill leachates, with . R. Trovato, J. L. Slayton and J. J. Austin, Jr., presented at the 15th Middle Atlant ic Reginal Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C. , Jan. 1381. *18. Contamint ion of drinking water supplies by purgeable halogenated hydrocav'bons, with F. A. Dreisch, presented at the 15th Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C. , Jan. 1381. *13. EPA GC/MS Methodology, presented at the March meeting of the Delaware Valley Mass Spectral Topics Discussion Group, King.of Prussia, PennsyIvania, Mar. 1381. *20. Analysis of gunshot residues by capillary GC and GC/MS, with N. L. Bakowski, presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, Baltimore, Maryland, Apr. 1383. *21. Use of capillary column gas chromtography and capillary column GC/MS at the FBI Laboratory, presented at th Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists Meeting, Missoula, Montana, May 1383. *22. Sex deterwination from dried bloodstains by GC/MS?, presented at the Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists Meeting, Missoula, Montana, May 1383. *23. Sex Determination from dried bloodstains by GC/MS?, presented at the 31st Annual Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics, Boston, Massachusetts, May 1383. *4. Chemistry and the FBI, presented at the American Chemical Society National Meeting, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1383. *5. The application of analytical pyrolysis using capillary column GC and GC/MS to forensic samples: automobile paints, adhesives, plastics, and hair, presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Meeting, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Oct. 1383. *26. The comparison of automobile paint samples by pyrolysis capi1lary column gas chromtography/mass spectrometry, with Dennis McMinn and T. L. Carlson, presented at the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Meeting, Harpers Ferry, Westviroinia, Oct. 1383. 905075 :7 Capillary pyrolysis GC/MS of adhesives in bombing investigat ions, with N. L. Bakowski, and E. C. Bender, presented at the MidAtlantic Association of Forensic Sci ent ist s--Nort heast err. Association of Forensic Scientists Combined Meeting, Atlantic City, New Jersey, Apr. 1984. Examination of automotive paints by pyrolysis capillary gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, with Dennis McMinn and T. L. Carlson, presented at the International Symposium on the Analysis and Ident if icat ion.- of Polymers, Quantico, Virginia, Jul. 1984. Comparison and identification of adhesives used in improvised explosive devices*by pyrolysis capillary column GC/MS, with N. L. Bakowski and E. C. Bender, presented at the 6th International Symposium on Analytical and App 1ied Pyro 1ysis, Uleisbaden, Federal Republic of Germany, Sep. 1984. 0. Comparison of human hair by pyrolysis capillary column GC and GC/MS, with Jeffery Vick, presented at the 6th International Symposium on Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, Weisbaden, Federal * Republic of Germany, Sep. 1984. 1. Pyrolysis capillary gas chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry of human hair, with D. D. Fetterolf, presented at the 33rd Annual Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics, San Diego, California, May 1985. 3. An overview of the FBI Forensic Science Research and Training Center, presented at the 67th Semi-annual Seminar, California Association, of Crim ina1ists, Concord, California, May 1986. 3. Recent applications of pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in forensic science, presented at the 7th Internat ional Symposium on Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, Reading, England, Sep. 1986. 4. Evidence for the format ion of *,4-imidazol idinediones and pyrrolidinoC1, a3-3, 6-piperazinediones in human hair pyrolyzate by pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-mass spectrometry, T. 0. Munson and D. D. Fetterolf, presented at the 7th International Symposium on Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, Reading, England, Sep. 1986. 5. Comparison of photocopy toners by pyrolysis capillary gas chromatography, presented at the Midwestern Association of Forensic Scient ists Fall'8Q Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Oct. 1988. 905076