Document MGyap3kbOzbO1dpzvwpmG2zXL

87 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, ) 5) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs. )CivNo. 7 ) IP 8 3 -9-C ) 8 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, ) 10 ) BeiLeji^ajiJt sa1 11 12 13 The continued deposition of V/. B. PAPAGEORGE, 1 4 called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant 1 5 to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the 1 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United 17 States District Courts, pertaining to the taking 1 8 of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken 1 9 before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public and 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the 21 County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 1313 22 Merchants Bank Building, Indianapolis, Indiana, on 23 November 25, 1986, at the hour of 10:00 o'clock 24 3 tn. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036376 1 87 2 2 APPEARANCES: 3 Mr. Joseph V. Karaganis and 4 Ms. Kathleen M. Donahue Bell, Boyd 4 Lloyd 5 Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street 6 Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 7 8 appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; 9 10 1 1 Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald Barnes 4 Thornburg 1 2 1313 Merchants Bank Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 13 appeared on behalf of Defendant 1 4 Monsanto Company. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria 4 Goldsti.ne 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036377 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: 3 W. B. PAPAGEORGE 4 Direct Examination 5 By Mr. Karaganis 875 6 EXHIBITS 7 8 BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. 9 -S-XJU.J2l-k_N.2j. 10 345 through 399 1 1 387 A and 387 B 3 89 A 1 2 3 89 B 389 C 13 3 90 A 399 B 14 j?_a.g_e 890 96 9 981 9 82 986 988 100 3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 873 Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036378 874 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Let's go on the record. * 2 Let the record show that this is the 3 continued deposition of Mr. William Papageorge, 4 taken pursuant to notice, under rule 30 (b) 6 of 5 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 Mr. Fruehwald, you indicated off the 7 record that you had some corrections to make or 8 Mr. Papageorge had some corrections to make to his 9 testimony? 1 0 MR. FRUEHWALD: Right. 1 1 In the last session in Chicago, Mr. 1 2 Papageorge was asked some questions about whether 1 3 Booz, Allen had audited PCB studies done by the 1 4 Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories. And a request 1 5 was made that any report of such an audit be found 16 and produced. 1 7 In the context of searching for such a 1 8 report, it was found out that the testimony as to 1 9 whether there had been a validation was in error, 20 and Mr. Papageorge can, I guess, correct the 2 1 testimony at this time from what was said at the 22 last session about what Booz, Allen did in 23 connection with the IBT studies of PCB's. 24 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036379 875 1 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 2 having been previously duly sworn, 3 was examined and testified as follows: 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 6 Q. Go ahead, Mr. Papageorge, if there is 7 anything you want to change about the Booz, Allen 8 testimony. 9 A. Well, I was under the impression that 1 0 Booz, Allen had audited the 'PCB studies along with 1 1 the other studies that they had done for Monsanto. 1 2 It turns out I was in error. 1 3 I don't know what else to add, other than 1 4 that the PCB studies in themselves were not 1 5 audited because the National Cancer Institute had 16 come out with a report of a study that they had 1 7 sponsored and that was perceived to be a better 1 8 way to confirm or to validate the results of the 1 9 IBT studies, since the two results were similar or 20 identical. 2 1 Q. What was the National Cancer Institute 22 study to which you refer? 23 A. This was a study, a lifetime study with 24 rats using Aroclor 1254 a^s' the tested material and Longoria 4 Goldstine 23 6 1 03 0 f'H WATER_PCB-SD0000036380 876 / 1 as I recall it was performed by the Stanford 2 Research Institute. 3 Q. So it is correct then that Booz, Allen & 4 Hamilton did not audit the Industrial Bio-Test PCB 5 study? 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. And it is correct also that there was no 8 audit of any kind of the Bio-Test PCB studies? 9 A. There was a review of tissue samples 1 0 performed as a confirmation of previous findings. 1 1 Q. A review of - 1 2 A. Which was a form of audit. 13 Q. By whom was that performed? 1 4 A. I don't recall the consultant's name. 1 5 The best I can remember, I believe he was 16 associated with the Eppley Institute in Omaha, 17 Nebraska. 1 8 Q. That was a tissue analysis? 19 A. IBT was instructed to go back to there 20 research organ samples, prepare new tissues and 21 have those tissues reviewed by their pathologist / 22 and by the consultant to make certain that their 23 original conclusions were still valid. 2 4 Q. And did Eppley come up with a report? Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036381 877 1 A . Yes. There was a report. ' 2 Q. Other than Eppley, the various animal 3 studies and the methodologies, procedures, various 4 steps in the process, were never audited; is that 5 correct? 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. I would like to direct your attention, 8 Mr. Papageorge, to the organization called the 9 corporate management committee, which you have 1 0 discussed previously in your testimony. 1 1 Did the corporate management committee 1 2 have any other name? 1 3 A. A similar committee at other periods of 1 4 time was referred to as the corporate 1 5 administration committee. The CAC 16 Q. Okay. 1 7 A. I do not recall the periods when the 1 8 names would change. 1 9 Q. All right. 20 Was there also, we said the CMC and the 2 1 CAC are the same, when you use those terms? 22 A. To me they were roughly the same, yes. 23 Q. Was it also called at any time the 24 corporate development committee, CDC? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER_PCB-SD0000036382  87 8 1 A. I have never heard of that. I don't 2 know . 3 Q. Mr. Papageorge, can you describe the 4 chronology and purpose of the so-called ANSI 5 committee or ANSI taskforce? 6 A. The ANSI taskforce was originally formed 7 by the National Electrical Manufacturers 8 Association, NEMA, in about 1970. 9 Q. All right. 1 0 A. And the intent was to communicate to 1 1 manufacturers and users of electrical equipment 1 2 that used PCB s on the then perceived proper 13 to handle PCB ' s i n transit and in use and in 1 4 disposal. 1 5 In about 1971, the NEMA group believed 16 that it would be more appropriate that the ANSI, 17 the American National Standards Institute, sponsor 1 8 such a study, primarily because the individuals 1 9 and companies that would be impacted represented 20 more than Just the electrical manufacturers. 21 And it was the intent at that time also 22 that once and American standard was established, 23 the ANSI organization would help, if appropriate, 24 to make it an international standard. Longoria & Goldstine ? 3 fi ^^i . WATER PCB-SD0000036383 879 1 Q. And this standard was supposed to be on 2 the handling, use and disposal of PCB's? 3 A. In the electrical applications, yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 And why simply in the electrical 6 applications? 7 A. Because the group that originally 8 conceived of this approach were only interested in 9 the electrical application. 1 0 Q. Well, by the time that the ANSI committee 1 1 was formed, you had closed off sales to the other 12 applications, had you not? 13 A. The ANSI committee itself was formed when 1 4 we, if memory serves me right, Monsanto was still 1 5 selling PCB's to the heat transfer application, in 1 6 7 1. 17 Q. Was there anything about handling, 1 8 discussing a committee to handle the heat transfer 1 9 applications? 20 A. Not at that time, no. 2 1 Q. Was there at any other time? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Was there legislation pending at the time 24 the ANSI committee was formed, federal Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036384 880 1 legislation, regarding the ban of PCB's? ' 2 A. I don't recall any legislation pending at 3 that time, no. 4 . BY MR. KARAGANIS: 5 Q. Are you familiar with legislation by 6 Congressman Ryan to ban PCB'3 about that period of 7 time? 8 A. I recall Congressman Ryan's statements 9 regarding the banning of PCB's. I don't recall 1 0 whether he introduced any bills. 1 1 Q. Do you recall whether Congressman Ryan's 1 2 legislation were ever discussed at ANSI meetings? 13 A. No, they were not discussed. 1 4 Q. What was the term C 107, why did that 15 term come to be used, ANSI C 107, if you know? 1 6 A. The ANSI organization once it approves 1 7 the establishment of a committee assigns for their 1 8 internal administrative purposes a committee 1 9 number. This was committee 107. 20 I don't know if it has any specific 2 1 significance other t L a n that. 22 Q. Do you recall ever -- I am sorry. 23 Do you recall the meeting that you were 24 installed as chairman of the ANSI C 107 committee? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036385 A. Yes I recall a meeting I don't know that it stands out in my mind as. unique. Q. The organizational meeting of the ANSI committee, do you recall that? A. I recall the meeting at which I was appointed chairman. Q. And do you recall mentioning at that time Congressman Ryan's bill to prohibit PCB'3? A. I don't know that I recall -- I don't recall mentioning a bill. I do recall Congressman Ryan's strong position and I shared that with the group more than once, really. Q. His strong position to your knowledge was. what ? A. He did not believe PCB's should be in commerce and that they should be banned. Q. You were chairman of the C 107 committee, right ? A. Yes. Q. Did you keep minutes or materials regarding your role in the C 107 committee? A. I didn't personally keep any notes, no. Q. You didn't keep any notes? T M f /1-1 -AA -` * WATER PCB-SD0000036386 882 1 A. No . 2 Q. Was there a secretary to the committee? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q. Who was the se cre tary to the committee? 5 A . Mr. Saliz ar from the NEMA organization 6 served as secretary. 7 Q. How was the ANSI C 107 committee 8 organized, in other words, what was its structure? 9 Did it have any subcommittees? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. Could you describe what that structure 1 2 was? 13 A. We had a steering committee, which 1 4 established the direction that the full committee 1 5 should take, and monitored our activities. And 16 the ANSI committee itself broke out into two 17 groups. One addressing the use of PCB*s in 1 8 transformers, and the other addressing the use of 1 9 PCB's in capacitors. 20 Q. Those were the two applications in the 21 electrical equipment industry? 22 A. The two principal applications. 23 Q. Who chaired the steering committee? 24 A. I don't recall who chaired that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036387 883 1 commi11 e e. 2 Q. Vho was on the steering committee? 3 A. I recall, as best I recall, it was Mr. Ed 4 Haab, Mr. Paul Benignus. I believe Mr. T. K. 5 Sloat. I don't recall the other members 6 Q. T. K. Sloat. Now, Sloat worked for 7 Westinghouse, did he not? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who did Raab work for? 1 0 A. General Electric. 1 1 Q. And Benignus worked for Monsanto? 1 2 A. Correct. 13 Q. Then you said there were two 1 4 subcommittees, one for capacitors and one for 1 5 transformers; is that right? 1 6 A. Yes. 17 Q. Who to your recollection was on the 1 8 capacitor subcommittee? 1 9 A. Dr. Pozefsky was the chairman. I don't 20 clearly recall the members, I would be guessing. 2 1 Q. He was with GE? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. That was capacitors, right? 24 A. Correct. Lonfforia A 9i(! imn v, -i ~ - -- WATER PCB-SD0000036388 884 1 Q. Do you recall who else was on it? 2 A. Not clearly. 3 Q. Anybody from Westinghouse? 4 A. I believe Don McClain was a member. 5 Q. Okay. 6 Who on transformers? 7 A. The chairman was Mr. Ed Raab. 8 Q. That was the fellow from GE? 9 A. Correct. . / 1 0 As best I remember, Mr. T. K. Sloat from 1 1 Westinghouse was a member. I just don't remember 1 2 the mem b er s. 1 3 Q. Did you ever review in the ANSI meetings 1 4 what the various recommendations would be with 1 5 regard -- or I am sorry -- the impact of the 1 6 various recommendations on anybody's individual 17 plant? 1 8 A. No. 1 9 Q. Did you provide recommendations to the 20 ANSI committee, either of the ANSI subcommittees, 2 1 or the steering committee, regarding what should 22 be the disposal practices? 23 A. Yes. 2 4 The recommendations were those that we Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036389 885 1 had been informing our customers of all along. 2 Q. And what were those recommendations, what 3 were your recommendations? 4 A. Cb, avoid mixing it with water, designing 5 the proper facilities at their plants.to trap the 6 material that might spill. Improve their sampling 7 techniques to avoid spillage. Handle it at as low 8 a temperature as their process would permit to 9 avoid vaporization. 1 0 And for liquid wastes, the preferred 1 1 method of disposal was incineration. For solid 1 2 waste, the use of permitted landfills was the 13 available technology. 1 4 Q. Now, for permitted landfills, you mean 1 5 landfills that had been licensed to handle 1 6 chemical industrial waste, isn't that correct? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Was there ever any discussion -- I am 1 9 sorry. 20 Was there ever any discussion as to the 21 need to adopt guidelines or standards to prevent 22 or to defer federal regulation? 23 A. I don't know that there was any in-depth 24 discussion. But that was certainly a thought or a LonunH a t finU.M.. * c. WATER PCB-SD0000036390 886 1 premise that was expressed'. And lacking any 2 governmental guidance, the group felt that they 3 better come up with their own. 4 Q. Well, was there ever a thought that 5 without industry standards, that government would 6 act, and that one of the purposes of the industry 7 standards was to defer government regulation? 8 A. I don't recall any discussion that talked 9 about deferring regulation. Influencing 1 0 regulation, yes. 1 1 Q. In what way in was the intent to 1 2 influence regulation? 1 3 A. It was our considered opinion that w e 1 4 found nobody in government that understood this 1 5 issue. Therefore, they were in no position t o 16 come up with any regulations that would have been 17 practical. 1 8 And one of our intentions was to develop 1 9 guidelines that would be practical and acceptable 20 to any regulatory body. 21 Q. So it was your intent to develop 22 guidelines or standards which you then hoped you 23 could convince government to adopt; is that right? 24 A. That's right. I. a JL o^ ^ oo i no A a u .* - - - - WATER PCB-SD0000036391 887 1 Q. In lieu of a ban, for example, on the use * 2 of PC Bs? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, were you chairman of the ANSI C 107 5 committee all the way through its existence? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And when did it go out of existence? 8 A . 1 974 . 9 Q. 1 97 4? 1 0 A. Yes, that is when we published the final 1 1 report. 1 2 Q. Did it continue on in existence after the 1 3 publication of the report? 1 4 A. Not to my knowledge. 1 5 Q. Did you ever attend any meetings to your 1 6 knowledge after 1974? 1 7 A. I don't recall any. 1 8 Q. Do you recall serving as chairman until 1 9 1 976 ? 20 A. No. 2 1 Q. Do you recall being replaced by Cole 22 Webber in 1976? 23 A. No. I don't remember that. I recall a 24 meeting at which I informed the group -- let me Longoria A Goldstine - 236 1 03 0 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036392 888 1 think a bit. I informed the group that I felt it 2 appropriate that someone else chair the group. I 3 believe that was in *74, '75. 4 Q. You had testified previously that you 5 shifted away from PCB responsibilities in 1976, as 6 I recall; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. February. It was really early in 8 76 . 9 Q. Early ? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. Do you recall whether or not your 12 resignation from the ANSI C 107 committee was 13 contemporaneous with that shift internally? 14 ; A. No. It was before that point in time, as 1 5 I remember. 16 I do not know who they picked as my 17 successor. I don't recall who they picked. 1 8 Q. Did you continue on with rewrites of the 19 suggested standards after you published them in 20 1 97 4 ? 2 1 A. I don't know of any rewrites. 22 MR. KARAGANIS: Just as a matter of business 23 we are attending to, if you weren't going to show 24 up already* here is a subpoena for your attendance Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036393 8 89 1 at trial, to make certain. I imagine that you 2 were going to be in attendance, but just to be 3 certain. 4 For the record, Mike, since I don't have 5 the Monsanto documents here, do you have copies of 6 the documents you were adding to the exhibit list? 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: Three of them are in that 8 stack that has just been produced. 9 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. 1 0 MR. FRUEHWALD: The other one is already on 1 1 your exhibit list. 1 2 MR. KARAGAM IS: Which one? 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: The bottom one. 1 4 MR. KARAGANIS: And the first three are just 1 5 being produced today? 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: Right. 17 Do you want to take a break while you 1 8 look through them? 1 9 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. Could we take a short 20 break. 21 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 22 MR. KARAGANIS: Let's go on the record. The 23 first thing I am going to do is go through the 24 documents that you handed me today, simply to Longoria & Goldstine in n r^i ~ -- WATER PCB-SD0000036394 890 1 indicate for the record what the documents are and 2 whether or not Mr. Papageorge has any knowledge of 3 them. 4 (The documents above-referred to 5 were .marked Bloomington Deposition 6 Exhibit Nos. 345 through 399, both 7 inclusive, for identification.) 8 Q. Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention 9 to the first document which has been marked as 1 0 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 345. It is a 1 1 memorandum from N. T. Johnson to a list of people 1 2 dated 4/25/7 1 . 1 3 Have you ever seen that document before? 14 A. I saw this document earlier this morning 1 5 for the first time. 16 Q. Now, attached to what has been marked as 17 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 345 is a summary 1 8 called major account summary, and it lists various 19 Westinghouse facilities. 20 Can you tell me what the word next to the 21 Bloomington plant is, "Rego, " what does it mean? 22 A. Yes. That is the name of the newly 23 assigned salesman to cover that account. 24 Q. Now, could you tell me, maybe you can Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER_PCB-SD0000036395 89 1 1 explain, it says here, "Attached are the summary 2 sheets prepared by Randy Graham on those accounts 3 which you will be taking over." 4 What does that mean? 5 A. Mr. Graham was terminating his employment 6 with Monsanto, and the accounts were reassigned to 7 other Monsanto sales representatives. 8 Q. And Rego was taking over Bloomington; is 9 that right? 1 0 A. Ye s. 1 1 Q. And Seger was taking over the 1 2 Westinghouse Cleveland facility? 1 3 A. Whatever is noted there, yes. 1 4 Q. Who was N. T. Johnson? 1 5 A. He was the new market manager, new to PCB 16 dielectricfluids. . 17 Q. Who had he replaced? 1 8 A. Mr. Benignus. 1 9 Q. When had he replaced Benignus, do you 20 recall? 2 1 A. I believe it was '72. 1972. I don't 22 remember the exact date here. 23 Q. Now, the notes that are attached. Are 24 those Graham's notes, the notes that are attached Lonsoria & finlHsHns 551! i n i n ru.- -- -- WATER PCB-SD0000036396 892 1 to Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 345? 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. It says in the cover that these are 4 summaries prepared by Randy Graham. 5 Does that indicate to you, having looked 6 at the document, that the attachments to the 7 memorandum, Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 345, 8 were prepared by Randy Graham? 9 A. That is the way I would interpret that. 1 0 Yes. 1 1 Q. Now, did Graham keep in touch with you at 1 2 all with regard to what had been done at the 13 plants that were under his sales supervision? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. What does he mean by the phrase and I 16 quote, "have made tremendous strides in plant 17 clean up, Papageorge should plan to visit during 1 8 1971." 1 9 What were the tremendous strides? 20 A. This referred to Mr. Graham's 2 1 understanding of what the plant had done to 22 control the loss of PCB's. 23 An example would be the elimination of 24 the use of saw dust to absorb spillages. The Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036397 893 1 plant had taken that step. 2 The attempts to remove PCB's from water 3 effluents. The studies that I believe were 4 underway then to determine different ways of 5 introducing the PCB's into the capacitors. 6 Q. Tou say the steps to remove PCB's from 7 water effluents. What do.you mean? 8 A. Well, I recall some studies that had to 9 do with attempting to determine if centrifuges 1 0 would be effective. 1 1 Q. Yes. 1 2 A. There were several -of those studies as I 13 remember. 1 4 Q. Was a centrifuge ever put in? 1 5 A. No. 16 Q. All right. 17 So that wasn't a stride. They studied 1 8 it, but they never put it in, did they? 1 9 A. That is true. 20 Q. All right. 2 1 Anything else? 22 A. They also, as I remember, segregated some 23 of their waste and had it incinerated instead of 24 allowing it to go into the sewer system. Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 r h f o a <r WATER_PCB-SD0000036398 894 1 Q. What waste was that? 2 A. I think it was the wash water. It was a 3 waste with a high concentration of PCB's. I 4 believe it was the wash water. 5 Q. This would have been during 1971? 6 A. Yes. Well, at least that was the status 7 in *71. I don't know when they started some of 8 these things. 9 Q. Did they put in any water pollution 1 0 control equipment? 1 1 A. I don't know what you mean by that. 1 2 Q. Well, had they put in any pollution 13 control equipment on the water, the contaminated 1 4 water going to the sewer to clean it up? 1 5 A. Not that I recall. 16 Q. But from a plant standpoint within 17 Monsanto, you were shooting for a 10 ppb, 10 parts 18 per billion, were you not, as a discharge limit? 1 9 A. Eventually that was a goal. The 20 initial -- it had to evolve. The initial intent 21 was to whatever xs technically feasible. With the 22 longer range objective of 10 ppb, yes. 23 Q. There was indication, was there not, and 24 indeed it has been proven out that carbon T m < a m 4 0 ^^ 4 rt ^ u j _ _ WATER PCB-SD0000036399 895 1 filtration can produce a 10 ppb or less effluent? ' 2 A. Ye s. 3 Q. Did you ever visit during 1971 or any 4 time thereafter, after Bloomington Deposition 5 Exhibit 345? 6 A. No. 7 Q. For the record, until I stop, Bloomington 8 Deposition Exhibit 345 is the first in a series of 9 documents handed to plaintiff in a hand delivered 1 0 letter dated November 25, 1986 by Mr. Fruehwald, 1 1 with a list of the documents. It is the first 12 item listed. - 13 For the record, Bloomington Deposition 1 4 Exhibit 346 is item 2 on Mr. Fruehwald's letter of 1 5 November 24, 1986, it is from Bryant to Schoaff, 1 6 dated March 16, 1970. 17 I show you 346, Mr. Papageorge, and ask 1 8 you whether you have seen that document before? 1 9 A. I saw that this morning for the first 20 time. 2 1 Q. ` And that document relates to the Findett 22 program, does it not? 23 A. It doesn't specifically state. So I 24 don'tknow. Loncoria A do! ilst.l na min r u ; - ~ -- WATER PCB-SD0000036400 896 1 Q. All right. 2 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 346 does, 3 however, deal with the recycle program where scrap 4 Aroclor went back to Monsanto, does it it not? 5 A. May I see that again? 6 Q . Sure. 7 A. There is no reference as to what material 8 is going to be pumped from truck to drums or drums 9 to truck. Whether it is even dielectric is not 10 mentioned. There is no reference to virgin 1 1 material versus scrap material. I can only guess. 12 I don't know. 13 Q. Based on your knowledge of the program 14 that had been initiated that we have discussed . 1 5 earlier in your deposition, Bloomington Deposition 16 Exhibit 346 relates to the transportation of scrap 17 Aroclor back from the Bloomington Westinghouse 18 plant to Monsanto, does it not? 1 9 A. I don't know that. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Mr. Bryant, Jim Bryant, did he work for 22 Graham? 23 A. No. 24 Q. He worked for Benignus? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036401 897 1 A. Ye s . 2 Q. Both Graham and Bryant worked for 3 Benignus? 4 A, Yes. 5 Q. Bryant was based where, in St. Louis? 6 A. At that period of time. Yes. 7 Q. Now, directing your attention, and 8 perhaps what may refresh your recollection on 9 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 346, I show you 1 0 what has been marked as Bloomington Deposition 1 1 Exhibit 347, a memorandum dated March 16, 1970 1 2 from Bryant o Graham, and ask you whether you 13 have seen that document before? 1 4 A. I saw this document earlier today for the 1 5 first time. 16 Q. All right. 17 Now that talks about shipping the scrap 1 8 Aroclor from the Westinghouse plant back to 1 9 Findett, does it not? 20 A . Ye s. 2 1 Q. So taking 346 and 347 together, and 22 knowing that Mr. Schoaff was in charge of disposal 23 or had some responsibility for disposal of Aroclor 24 at the Bloomington Westinghouse plant, would it Lonffnr 1 a t. C. r> 1 H a f n ooA inrjn r> ' WATER PCB-SD0000036402 898 1 not be correct or accurate to conclude that 346 2 refers to shipment of Aroclor back to Monsanto? 3 A. The probability is high that it does, but 4 I cannot vouch for it, - 5 Q. That is all fight. 6 I would like to direct your attention to 7 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 348, which is a 8 memorandum dated May 1, 1970 from Olson to Bergen. 9 Are you familiar with that document? 1 0 A. Yes. I saw this document this morning. 1 1 I vaguely recall having seen it previously, but I 1 2 don't know just when. 13 Q. Mow, would you describe again who Olson 1 4 was? : 15 A. Olson was the director of marketing for 16 PCB dielectric fluids at that time. 17 Q. So he was Benignus' boss? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. All right. 20 And Bergen was what, what was his 2 1 position? 22 A. Bergen was the business director, was Mr. 23 Olson's boss. 24 Q. Mr. Papageorge, would I like to.go SL (IaI Hof't wa 9 1 rt O A Pm a^ a WATER PCB-SD0000036403 899 1 through each of the items. " 2 Vould it be correct that Bloomington . 3 Deposition Exhibit 348 refers to the part of the 4 overall closing the loop program that had been 5 discussed with the corporate management committee? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And item 1 refers to the fact that scrap 8 Aroclor has come back to Monsanto from 9 Westinghouse and General Electric; is that right, 1 0 item 1 in the memorandum? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. And when it says for reclamation or 1 3 disposal, that relates to the fact that for 1 4 reclamation it was sent to Findett, was it not, at 1 5 that time? 16 A. Not necessarily. 17 Q. How else would it be reclaimed? 1 8 A. It is possible for some of the material 1 9 that didn't meet the electrical specifications, 20 they could have been returned to the plant and 2 1 used in other applications without any 22 reprocessing required. 23 Q. Okay. 24 But I asked you, now that wouldn't be InnCT/Ni.'la ''"> '' WATER PCB-SD0000036404 900 1 scrap Aroclor. Ve went through this earlier in 2 your deposition. That would be material that 3 didn't meet the contractual specifications and was 4 rejected for that reason. Is that correct? 5 A. All right. - 6 Q. And we agreed before that scrap Aroclor 7 was related to Aroclor that was sent back that had 8 been lost somewhere in the manufacturing process, 9 is that correct, at either Westinghouse or General 1 0 Eleetric? 1 1 A. Lo s t ? 1 2 Q. Well, it had dripped into barrels or 1 3 collected, it was waste Aroclor as opposed to 1 4 Aroclor -- 15 A. Or contaminated. . 16 Q. -- or contaminated Aroclor; is that 17 correct? 1 8 A. That's correct. 19 Q. All right. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. So what was coming back was either waste 22 or contaminated Aroclor, was it not? 23 A. By that definition, yes. 24 Q. And that's the definition we had agreed Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036405 iMil V. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4:-, 90 1 early in your deposition was used for the term scrap Aroclor ? A. Yes. But I don't know if Mr. Olson used the- same definition. Q. But that's the way you understood it? A. Yes. Q. That is the way you understood the terra being used in the recycle or closing the loop program , did you not? A. Yes . Q. All right. ' Just parenthetically, so I can get the record clear. During the period of time from 1 970 to 1976 while you were involved with the PCB program , who was your immediate superior? A. Initially it was Mr. Bergen, and then I forget the dates, Mr. Corey was my superior at one time and then Mr. Robert Potter. Q. Okay. Now, did Potter come in prior to '76? A. Yes. Q. Okay. We will go back over those dates. It was Bergen, Corey and Potter? WATER PCB-SD0000036406 902 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Now, when we talk about scrap Aroclor 3 being either waste or contaminated, we talk about 4 reclamation. The reclamation would be the 5 filtering program we talked about at Findett, is 6 it no t ? 7 Didn't you indicate that Findett had used 8 filters, or for distillation? 9 A. I think the Findett Company attempted 1 0 filters and distillation or a combination of the 1 1 two. 1 2 Q. Okay. 13 But the reclamation for waste or 14 contaminated Aroclor would involve that, would it 1 5 not? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right. 1 8 Now, disposal would mean what? This is 19 now 1970. 20 A. 1970. It would mean incineration or 21 storage for, pending incineration. 22 Q. Now, item 2 says Uestinghouse and GE have 23 been formally offered our proposal that Monsanto 24 will take responsibility for disposal of fluid Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036407 903 1 from their manufacturing facilities, their service 2 shops and their customers. 3 Do you recall how and when Westinghouse 4 and GE were formally offered that proposal? 5 A. This was a letter to customers, informing 6 them of our intent to install incineration 7 equipment and offering to have that material 8 stored on our premises until the unit was able to 9 be put into service. 1 0 Q. Do you recall who sent out that letter? 1 1 A. I think it was signed by Mr. Olson. 1 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Mike, we may have had this 13 produced, we may not have. I will ask 1 4 specifically either to identify or produce the 1 5 letter that Mr. Papageorge refers to for item 2 16 on -- 17 MR . FRUEHWALD: All right. 1 8 MR. KARAGANIS: -- Bloomington Deposition 1 9 Exhibit 3 48 . 20 Q. It says here, item 4: 21 "We have worked 22 directly with 16 customer 23 locations to review their 24 scrap situation with the aim 1nrttrr\r>4f% f- P ~ 1 J - ------ n- ' " WATER PCB-SD0000036408 904 1 "of reducing product loss and 2 upgrading the scrap material 3 returned." 4 Can you tell me what that means.. 5 Reducing product loss and upgrading scrap material 6 returned? 7 A. This was the program that included plant 8 visits by Monsanto representatives to review, 9 control disposal practices. 1 0 Q. Allright. 1 1 To reduce product loss and to upgrade the 1 2 quality of the scrap Aroclor? 13 A. That was part of their discussion, yes. 1 4 How to try to improve it, so it is reusable. 1 5 Q. It says: 1 6 "With the capacitor 17 industry, we have helped 18 change impregnation processes 1 9 which will give lower loss of 20 product and less contaminated 21 absorbent." 22 Can you tell me what activities you 23 engaged in to change impregnation processes? 24 A. Well, the major one was the introduction Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036409 905 1 of a method for individually piping up the 2 capacitors to a system for delivering the liquid 3 into the unit, rather than flooding a chamber in 4 which the units were stacked. 5 Q. Okay. 6 So you were engaged in working with the 7 capacitor manufacturing industry to deal with 8 direct impregnation as opposed to flooding? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: Are we talking about you here, 1 0 Bill Papageorge? 1 t MR. KARAGANIS: No. You, Monsanto. 1 2 A. Representatives from Monsanto were ' 1 3 suggesting to customers the use of this approach. 1 4 Q. Which representatives of Monsanto? 1 5 A. It would be Individuals such as Mr. 16 Benignus, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bryant. 17 Q. Just as a matter of clarification here. 1 8 Why wouldn't you be listed as a recipient 1 9 of this memorandum, bloomington Deposition Exhibit 20 34 8 ? 2 1 A. That I don't know. 22 Q. All right. 23 You had the specific charge for PCB 24 containment, did you not, environmental control of I.nnfni*! a K f! n 1 H 5 H n o O "i f 1(11(1 ('hi n ^ n WATER PCB-SD0000036410 906 1 PCB's? 2 A. To coordinate the activities. Yes. 3 Q. And yet the people who received it are 4 Benignus, Bryant and Mason but not you. 5 Is there a reason for that? 6 A. I don't know what Mr. Olson had in mind. 7 Q. All right. 8 Directing your attention to Bloomington 9 Deposition Exhibit 349 for identification, 1 0 memorandum dated July 13, 1970 from Papageorge to 1 1 Sido. t 2 Do you recall seeing that document 13 before? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. And when did you see it? 16 A. At about the time it was typed for me. 17 Q. Did you also see it today? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 -- Q. Mr. Papageorge, can you tell us what that 20 memorandum refers to? 21 A. It refers to an approval we received, we, 22 Monsanto, received from Westinghouse regarding the 23 addition of the environmental statement for PCB's 24 to the Inerteen product labels. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036411 907 1 Q. This is the label that would be put on a either the tankcar or the drums? B A. Correct. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: And we have an outstanding 5 request for the originals of the labels we talked 6 about. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. 8 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 9 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 1 ff marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 350 for 1 1 identification, memorandum from Wood to Paton, 1 2 P-a-t-o-n, dated November 7, 1974 with copies to 13 Bergen, Moore and Papageorge. 1 4 Do you recall seeing this document 1 5 before? 1 6 A. Yes. 17 I recall when it was first issued and I 1 8 again saw this document this morning. 1 9 Q. All right. 20 What does it relate to? 21 A. It refers to a Monsanto effluent sampling 22 program, which was underway at or on about the 23 date of the memo, 1974. 24 Q. Now, when you say effluent sampling Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036412 90 8 1 program. Vould you describe what that program 2 was? 3 A. This was a program that Monsanto was 4 requested to participate in, which involved the 5 sampling of several PCB customer effluents, ' 6 submitting them to one laboratory and Monsanto to 7 be analyzed for PCB content. 8 Q. Who requested Monsanto to conduct such a 9 program? 1 0 A. This request, as I remember it, came from 1 t a committee, the PCB ad hoc committee of the 1 2 Electronic Industries Association, EIA. 13 Q. What was the purpose of the sampling 1 4 program? 15 A. The committee wanted to establish, if it 1 6 could, the lowest achievable concentration of 17 PCB's in the typical plant effluent. 1 8 Q. And their sampling program, did it relate 1 9 to a proposed government regulation? 20 A. Yes. 2 1 This was in response to a proposed 22 regulation by EPA regarding the amount of PCB's 23 which would be permissible in water effluents. 24 Q. To your knowledge -- I am sorry. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chioaeo WATER PCB-SD0000036413 909 1 What was your role in the sampling 2 program? 3 A. I was aware of the request and I 4 recommended that we participant, if at all 5 possible. 6 Q. And did you? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And what plant did you sample? 9 A. I don't remember all the plants. 1 0 Q. Did you sample the Bloonington 1 1 Westinghouse plant? 1 2 A. Bloomington I do remember. Yes. 13 Q. So there was a sample by Monsanto as 1 4 opposed to Westinghouse sending you a sample of 1 5 their e fflue nt ? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: If we don't have it already, I 18 would request the sampling results by Monsanto. 1 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: You have got it. You got it 20 in the first production, many years ago. 2 1 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 22 Q. How frequently or how often did you - 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: As a matter of fact, there is 24 a copy, a more legible copy of Ed Stewart's notes ' ~~ WATER PCB-SD0000036414 910 1 in the stack. 2 MR. KARAGANIS: No, I know it is as legible 3 as -- 4 M R. FRUEHWALD: We keep improving the 5 legibility, and that is a better copy than one of 6 the original documents produced to you a while 7 ago. 8 B Y MR. KARAGANIS: 9 Q. How frequently did you sample the 1 0 Bloomington plant, do you recall? 1 1 A. I am only aware of one by Monsanto. 1 2 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 13 Deposition Exhibit 351 for identification, which 1 4 is a memorandum dated 2/17/72 from Rego to Cumaing 1 5 Pa t o n. 1 6 Do you recall seeing this document? 17 A. I saw this document for the first time 1 8 this morning. 1 9 Q. Okay. 20 Cumming Paton was whom, what was his 2 1 position? 22 A. Cumming Paton was the marketing manager 23 for the 19 -- 1 972 , as best I he call. Dr. Paton 24 was involved with dielectric PCB fluids located in Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 * Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036415 91 1 1 St. Louis, supporting the field representatives in 2 a role very similar to that played or that 3 performed by Mr. Benignus and Mr. Bryant. 4 Q. He gave technical support.to the field 5 representatives? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Showing you what has been marked as 8 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 352, by Rego to 9 Cumming Paton, dated 5/31/72. Does that 1 0 memorandum discuss a similar problem as Exhibit 1 1 351 ? 1 2 A. It does. 1 3 Q. That is the question of the leaking 14 tankcars ? ; 1 5 A. Yes. 1 6 Q. All right. Let's take a break. 1 7 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 1 8 The next document which has been marked 19 as a deposition exhibit is Deposition Exhibit 353 20 for identification, dated 8/29/72. 2 1 Directing your attention to Exhibit 353, 22 are you familiar with that document? 23 A. I saw this document this morning for the 24 first time. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Phioae-n WATER PCB-SD0000036416 912 1 Q. And to what does it relate? 2 A. It refers to the transmittal of a drawing 3 of a catch basin to Hr. McClain at Bloomington. 4 Q. Now, what was the purpose of the catch 5 basin, to your knowledge? 6 A. This was to trap any spilled, major 7 spilled PCB's and prevent it from getting into the 8 plant sewer system. 9 Q. And at the time of the letter, such catch 1 0 basin did not exist, is that not correct? 1 1 A. Gxist where? 1 2 Q. At the Bloomington plant. 1 3 A. To my knowledge, that is correct. 1 4 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 1 5 Deposition Exhibit 354 for identification, which 1 6 is a memorandum from Corlew dated January 15, 1971 17 to Graham. 1 8 Will you tell me what that document 19 relates to and whether you have seen it before? 20 A. I saw this document for the first time 2 1 this morning. And it refers to to PCB scrap 22 material from two sources, Vestinghouse at 23 Bloomington and General Electric at Rome. 24 Q. Rome, New York? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036417 913 1 A Rome, Georgia 2 Q Georgia? 3 A Yes. 4 Q. All right. . 5 Exhibit 3.5 4 then relates to the scrap 6 Aroclor return program with Monsanto, does it not? 7 A . Ye s. 8 Q. The next document has been marked as 9 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 355, dated March 1 0 16, 1970 from Bryant to Graham. 1 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: It is it is a repeat of 347. 1 2 Missed that in duplication. 1 3 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. I will just move 1 4 o n. 1 5 356 is also a repeat, is it not? 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: I think s o. 17 MR . KARAGANIS: Of which one, do you know? 1 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is the s ame date . That 1 9 is 347 . 20 BY MR. KARAGANIS 21 Q. Exhibit 356 for identification is a 22 memorandum from Bryant to Schoaff dated March 16, 23 1970, relating t.o the transportation of bulk scrap 24 Aroclor. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036418 914 1 ' Directing your attention to Bloomingt.on 2 Deposition Exhibit 357 for identification, which 3 is a letter from Raleigh Garcia to Keith Kelly 4 dated May 20, 1971, can you tell me who Mr. Garcia 5 was ? ' 6 A. Monsanto sales representative. 7 Q. For whom did he work? 8 A. I don't recall the district manager. I 9 don't remember. 1 0 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 1 1 Deposition Exhibit 357. Have you seen that 1 2 before? 13 A. I saw this document this morning. 1 4 Q. This document, Exhibit 357, relates to a 1 5 price increase regarding Inerteen, does it not? 1 6 A. Let me see it again. 17 A. It does. 1 8 Q. One of the reasons for the price increase 19 was the reduction in volume because of the 20 termination of sales to essentially non-closed 21 loop industries; is that right? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 24 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 358 for Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036419 915 1 identification, letter from Benlgnus to Kelly, " 2 dated July 7, 1971. Have you seen that document 3 before? 4 A. I saw this document this morning. 5 Q. That document describes the economic 6 relationship of the closed loop program, does it 7 not, in terms of credits versus charges? 8 A. It does refer to that. Yes. 9 Q. And if the material could be reclaimed 1 0 and then resold as a PCB product, Vestinghouse got 1 1 cash from Monsanto, did it not, or a cash credit? 1 2 A. They got credit. Yes. 13 Q. And if the material could not be 1 4 reclaimed or refinished and resold, it was 15 incinerated and Monsanto or Westinghouse was 1 6 charged an incineration charge, was it not? 17 A. That's correct. 1 8 Q. And that was the 3 cents a pound referred 1 9 to there, 3 cents a pound charge referred to 20 there? 2 1 A. Yes. 22 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 23 Deposition Exhibit 359 for identification, 24 memorandum from Benignus to A. Leisy, dated I. nn<rni*ia t f! n 1 rt a H n e ? 3 fi 1 nifl Phi oa jn WATER PCB-SD0000036420 9 16 1 September 1, 1972. Do you recall who Mr. Leisy 2 was ? 3 A. He was the superintendent at the Sauget, 4 Illinois plant under whom the PC8 department . 5 reported. 6 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 7 Deposition Exhibit 359 have you seen that 8 document before? 9 A. I saw this document this morning. 1 0 Q. Now, directing your attention 1 1 specifically to the second paragraph of that 1 2 document and keeping in mind the date of the 13 document, do you know what the phrase means: 14 "They are very . 1 5 sensitive about PCB pollution 16 and keenly feel that Monsanto 17 transferred responsibility to 1 8 Vestinghouse for anything that 1 9 happens after the material 20 leaves our plant."? 2 1 A. Has that a question? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. I am sorry. 24 Q. Do you know what that phrase means, what Lonsopia (!l dsH pa o ? & inon nut -- -- WATER PCB-SD0000036421 917 1 that terminology means? * 2 A. The first part tells me that they are 3 aware of the need not to pollute. They are 4 sensitive to PCB pollution. And the second part 5 refers to the legal responsibility, which was 6 assumed by Vestinghouse signing a special 7 agreement with Monsanto. 8 Q. That was the indemnification agreement? 9 A. Ye 3. 1 0 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 1 1 Deposition Exhibit 360 for identification, memo 1 2 from Corlew to Graham, have you seen that document 1 3 before ? 1 4 A. I saw this document earlier today. 1 5 Q. Now, for our purposes, the document 1 6 refers at the bottom to the sending of some basin 17 drawings to Mr. Pickett, does it not? 1 8 A. It refers to a request. Yes. 1 9 Q. And the fact that those drawings are 20 being se nt ? 2 1 A. I don't know that this specifically says 22 they will be sent. It is just a documentation of 23 a req uest. 24 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington Longoria A Goldsti ni> in'an v, ~ ~ ~ WATER PCB-SD0000036422 91 8 -* 1 Deposition Exhibit 361 for identification, a 2 letter from Luzar of Westinghouse to Tucker of 3 Monsanto, dated November 1, 1972. Have you seen 4 that document before? 5 A. I saw this document this morning and I 6 think I saw it as a previous exhibit. 7 Q. All right. 8 Directing your attention to Bloomington 9 Deposition Exhibit 362 for identification, a 1 0 letter from Keller to Kleinvehn of Aqua Technics 1 1 dated February 9, 1971. Have you seen that 1 2 document before? ' 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. And what did that relate to? 1 5 A. This is a letter of transmittal, which 16 Dr. Keller of Monsanto sent to Mr. Kleinvehn of 17 Westinghouse Aqua Technics. The analytical 1 8 procedures for determining PCB's in materials. 1 9 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 20 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 363 for 21 identification. Are you familiar with that 22 document? 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: Excuse me. Can we go off the 24 record for a minute. T A M A M 4 m 9 n *1 J .4 J -- -- *%> i /S ^ A L1 - WATER PCB-SD0000036423 919 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Discussion had off the record.) A. I saw this document earlier today and I believe I saw this previously as one of the exhibits. BY HR . KARAGAHIS: Q. Can you tell me what it is? A. It appears to be a copy of a page out of someone's notebook, which consists of handwritten notes referring to Westinghouse Bloomington. Q. All right. Do you know whose notes those are? A. I am under the understanding that these are notes taken by Mr. Ed Stewart of Monsanto. Q. And what is the time, on what date? A. These are dated January 8 and 9, 1975. Q. Okay . Directing your attention to Exhibit 363, the sampling by Ed Stewart reflected i n Bloomington Exhibit 363 is this the single sampl event by Monsanto at the Bloomington plant to which you earlier referred? A . Yes . Q. In 1975, when Stewart went through the plant -- f ^ Jm * A <1 f 4 A A WATER PCB-SD0000036424 920 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: It doesn't say that. 2 MR. KARAGANIS: I take that back. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: He didn't go through the 4 plant. 5 B7 MR. KARAGANIS: 6 Q. In 1975 when Stewart visited the plant, 7 did he make any notes about the kind of wash 8 system they had? 9 A. The only reference to washing that I see 1 0 in this document is the reference to detergent 1 1 waste. 1 2 Q. Where it says - 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: It could be wash. i 1 4 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 5 Q. Where it says, "have detergent alkaline 16 wash." I realize the handwriting - 17 A. Oh. All right. I thought that was 1 8 waste. 1 9 Q. Do you recall when you said you had gone 20 back in 1970 through the plant, I believe in your 2 1 earlier testimony you made reference to 22 recommending an alternative to washing capacitors, 23 compacitor cans. You talked about vapor 24 degreasing. Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036425 921 1 Do you recall having made that 2 recommendation? 3 A. I referred to solvent degreasing, not 4 vapor. 5 Q. Solvent degreasing. What is 'solvent 6 degreasing? 7 A. This is the use of a liquid material that 8 will remove the PCB off the surface of the 9 capacitors. 1 0 Q. Okay. 1 1 Instead of washing with a caustic or a 1 2 detergent? 1 3 A. That is correct. 1 4 Q. And what would you have done with the ; 1 5 solvent, when you talk about a solvent degreaser? 1 6 A. Solvent. There is two approaches. One 17 is to incinerate it or to distill and recover the 1 8 usable solvent and incinerate the residue 1 9 material. 20 Q. All right. 21 But in any event, the solvent would be 22 captured and either recycled or incinerated; is 23 that correct? 24 A. That's correct. WATER PCB-SD0000036426 922 1 Q. So it wouldn't go down a sewer; is that 2 right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you know whether Westinghouse ever 5 adopted that pro po s al? 6 A. I do not know. 7 Q. Did you ever go back to check? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 1 0 Deposition Exhibit 364, for identification, which 1 1 is a memorandum from Papageorge to Sido, dated 1 2 April 28, 1970. Are you familiar with that 1 3 document? 1 4 A. Yes, I am.1 5 Q. Okay. 16 And can you explain what the purpose of 17 that document was and what the handwritten or 1 8 whose notes those are in handwriting on the 19 document? 20 A. I do not recognize the handwritten notes, 21 so I don't know who wrote them. The intent of the 22 memorandum to Mr. Sido was to request that he take 23 whatever steps were necessary to include a new 24 paragraph on labels that would be attached or Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036427 923 t affixed to containers of the various PCB products. 2 Q. All right* 3 Now, who inserted the words, "extreme, 4 use," and, "entry," in the quotation, the language 5 of the label? 6 A. I don't recognize the penmanship. 7 Q. Were those words ultimately used in the 8 label? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. So, someone at Monsanto added those words 1 1 in addition to the language that you had drafted? 1 2 A. That is correct. 13 Q. Now, the handwriting on the bottom, 1 4 5/ 1/70 , is that your handwriting? 15 A. N 0. 16 Q. Do you know whose handwriting that is? 17 A. No, I don't. 18 MR. KARAGANIS: For purposes of discovery, do 19 you know on Exhibit 364 whose handwriting it is? 20 HR . FRUEHWALD: I do not. 2 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Do you know whose file it came 22 from? 23 MR . FRUEHWALD: No. 24 MR . KARAGANIS: Do you know? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036428 92 4 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: No, I am just saying, on the 2 copy, the carbon copy recipient* s writing, it is 3 speculation that probably the most likely 4 candidates for having a copy of the memo and 5 writing on it are those four. But I really have 6 no idea. 7 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 8 Q. Okay. 9 Directing your attention to what has been 1 0 marked as Bloomington Exhibit 365 for 1 1 identification, a memorandum from Papageorge to 1 2 Richard dated November 23, 1970. Do you recognize 13 that document? 14 ; A. I do. 1 5 Q. Can you tell me what that document 16 relates to? 17 A. This relates to sampling of PCB -- I am 18 sorry, correct that. It is the analysis of PCB 1 9 samples by Monsanto's laboratory. 20 Q. Now, what is the Ohio litigation to which 21 it refers? 22 A. This refers to dairy farm cases in the 23 State of Ohio. 24 Q. By-., dairy farm cases, what do you mean? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036429 925 1 A. These were milk oontami nation allegations * 2 that were thought to result from a coating which * 3 was used inside of silos that got into the feed to 4 which cattle were exposed. 5 Q. And Tucker's lab was being asked to 6 conduct analyses oh these samples; is that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 9 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 366 for 1 0 identification, a memorandum by J. R. Savage dated 1 1 June 18, 1974 to Paton. 1 2 Do you recall having seen that document 1 3 before? 1 4 A. Yes. I do. 1 5 Q. When did you see it? 16 A. On or about the date of its issuance, 17 June, 1974. 1 8 Q. What subjects are being discussed there? 19 A. This is the reference to drums of scrap 20 Inerteen waste, this is askarels, which arrived at 21 the Monsanto, Illinois plant from Westinghouse in 22 Bloomington. 23 <3. Okay. 24 There is an indication in the memorandum Longoria & Goldstine insn r* ~ WATER PCB-SD0000036430 926 1 that there are photographs attached to the 2 memorandum. 3 A. There is a reference to pictures, yes. 4 Q. We would request those photographs. 5 So as of 1974, as of June 18, 1974, 6 Westinghouse Bloomington was still shipping back 7 Inerteen waste for incineration, was it not? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And among other things, the shipment was 1 0 characterized by barrels having loose and missing 1 1 bungs and the barrels were leaking onto the 1 2 trailer floor; is that correct? 13 A. That is what it refers to, yes. 1 4 Q. And the purpose of the saw dust was an 1 5 attempt to prevent the leaking liquid from leaking 1 6 out the truck; is that right? 17 A. That is correct. 1 8 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 1 9 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 367 dated 20 November 22, 1968 from Richard to Stark and 21 Bannister. 22 Are you familiar with that document? 23 A. I saw this document this morning for the 24 first time. Lonsoria & Goldstine ? P 6 inpn r. h s ^ WATER PCB-SD0000036431 927 1 Q. Do you know what the letter refers to or 2 the memorandum refers to? 3 A. It refers to the presence of a chemical 4 in askarel material received from Westinghouse and 5 its potential use in industrial fluids other than 6 dielectric uses. 7 Q. All right. 8 So the memorandum refers, does it not, to 9 the program where Westinghouse would send back 1 0 scrap Aroclor and it would be reclaimed and used 1 1 for other -- and sold as another form of askarel; 1 2 is that right? 13 A. Not askarel. 1 4 Q. I am sorry. 1 5 Another form of dielectric fluid -- not 1 6 dielectric fluid. What form would it then be 17 resold in? 1 8 A. Well, it refers in this particular memo 1 9 to an industrial hydraulic fluid. 20 Q. Okay. 2 1 A. And to other, they are both industrial 22 fluids. 23 Q. The concept would be if it was reclaimed 24 by Findett, it would then be resold for other Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER_PCB-SD0000036432 92 8 1 nondielectric purposes; is that right? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. And would it be fair to say that Monsanto 4 would not only pay Hestinghouse for the material, 5 but, then, would also make a profit on the resale? 6 A. I don't know about paying Hestinghouse. 7 Q. We indicated there was a credit given, a 8 cash credit for this material, was there not, if 9 it was reclaimable? 1 0 To refresh your recollection, we talked 1 1 about an earlier letter. 1 2 MR. FR0EHWALD: That is a later letter than 13 that. 1 4 MR. KARAGANIS: An earlier exhibit. 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: We are talk about '68 here. 16 A. Yes, 1968. I don't know what the 17 practice was in 1968 regarding credits for 1 8 material that at that time was not perceived to be 19 an environmental problem. 20 I just can't speak to that. I don't 21 know. 22 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 23 Q. Well, the letter indicates that the 24 recovery program, the reclamation program, began Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036433 92 9 1 as early as '68, did It not? 2 A. This is one of the very first periods, 3 yes. 4 Q. And the program as it ultimately 5 developed, whether in '68 or later, was that for 6 material that was reclaimable and could be resold, 7 Westinghouse was given a cash credit, was is not? 8 A. In later years, yes. But I don't know 9 about 1968. 1 0 Q. All right. 1 1 On the resale of the material, would it 1 2 be correct to say that Monsanto priced it so as to 1 3 produce a.profit for Monsanto? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. Next document is Bloomington Deposition 1 6 Exhibit 368, a letter dated October 23, 1959 from 17 Wheeler to Speicher. Have you seen Exhibit 368 1 8 before? 1 9 A. I saw this exhibit earlier today. 20 Q. All right. 2 1 Had you had any knowledge of it prior to 22 this date? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Would it be fair to say, Mr. Papageorge, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036434 930 1 looking at the 1959 letter by Mr. Wheeler to Mr. 2 Speicher, that Mr. Wheeler knew as of 1959 that 3 care needed to be taken in the handling of 4 Aroclor? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 7 Deposition Exhibit 369 for identification, which 8 is a letter dated April 25, 1962 from Speicher to 9 Wheeler. Have you seen that document before? 1 0 A. I saw this document this morning for the 1 1 firsttime. 1 2 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 13 Deposition Exhibit 370, an April 30, 1962 ietter 1 4 from Wheeler to Speicher, have you seen that 1 5 document before? 1 6 A. I saw this document earlier today. 17 Q. Now, it references a bulletin 0-P-115, 1 8 are you familiar with that bulletin? 19 A. I don't recall O-P-115. 20 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 2 1 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 371 for 22 identification, a letter from Benignus to Viland, 23 dated June 10, 1970. Are you familiar with that 24 document? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036435 93 1 1 A. Yes, I an. 2 Q. Have you seen it prior to today? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. When did you see it? 5 A. I received a copy on or about July 10, 6 1970, the date of the letter. 7 Q. Was that in response to a letter from 8 Viland ? 9 A. Let me refresh my memory here. t 0 Yes, it is in response. 1 1 Q. All right. 1 2 Directing your attention to the phrase 13 that is in paragraph 2, numbered paragraph 2 of 1 4 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 371 and I quote: 1 5 "On this point we 16 quote the statement from our 17 legal people, 'All companies, 1 8 whether selling or buying, 19 must recognize a 20 responsibility to prevent the 21 entry into the environment of 22 products which could prove 23 harmful.'" 24 Are you familiar with the statement from Lonfforla R n 1 H M n a 'i o C. i ft ? n ^^ -- -- WATER PCB-SD0000036436 932 1 the legal people referred to? 2 A. I was aware of that statement at the time 3 of this letter. 4 Q. Who made that statement? 5 A. Somebody in Monsanto's law department. I 6 don't recall the specific person. 7 Q. Was It given to you in writing or 8 verbally? 9 A. It was not given to me* I saw it as 1 0 quoted in this letter. 1 1 Q. You saw it in another document? 1 2 A. No. In this letter. 13 Q. Did you ever see it in the legal 1 4 documents? 1 5 A. No. 16 Q. All right. 17 Obviously the author of the letter had 1 8 seen it to quote it, had he not? 1 9 MR . FROEHWALD: Or heard it. 20 A. That I don't know. 2 1 MR . KARAGANIS: We would ask for any ind all 22 documents relating to the legal department 23 quotation that is referenced in Bloomington 24 Deposition Exhibit 371. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036437 933 1 Q. Okay. 2 The next document is identified as 3 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 372, memorandum 4 from Randall Graham to Benignus, dated 1/8/70. 5 Have you seen that document before? 6 A. I saw this document for the first time 7 this morning. 8 Q. Exhibit 372 relates to a visit by Graham 9 and Benignus to the Westinghouse Bloomington 1 0 plant, does it not? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 1 3 Deposition Exhibit 373 which is a memorandum from 1 4 Mason to Bergen dated September 14, 1970. Are you 1 5 familiar with that? 16 A. Yes, I am. 17 Q. When did you first see that document? 1 8 A. On or about September 14, 1970, which is 1 9 the date of this memorandum. 20 Q. And what was does that document refer to? 21 A. This refers to a review that Mr. John 22 Mason had with the Monsanto's CMC. 23 Q. Now by CMC, is that the corporate 24 management committee? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036438 934 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you attend this meeting? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Directing your attention to the third 5 full sentence, the last full sentence in the first 6 paragraph, do you recall seeing that at the time 7 of the exhibit, September 14, 1970? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What did you understand that sentence to 1 0 require you to do? 1 1 A. This required those of us involved with 1 2 talking to users of PCB's to keep copies- of any 13 notices, minutes of meetings, trip reports, that 1 4 would reflect that we had emphasized the need to 1 5 prevent escape to the environment. 16 Q . All righ t. 17 So that you were required to keep a 1 8 record of how you had warned customers to prevent 1 9 releases to the environment. Is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 MR. KARAGANIS: Let's take a break for lunch. 22 (Whereupon a recess was taken 23 to 12:45 p.m. of the same day.) 24 Longoria & Goldstine . 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036439 935 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; andMONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, ) 5) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs. ) Civ No. 7 ) IP 8 3 - 9-C ) 8 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, 10 ) ) LS-fe.niiajH.2j.1 11 12 13 The continued deposition of W. B. PAPAGEORGE, 1 4 called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant 1 5 to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the 1 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United 17 States District Courts, pertaining to the taking 1 8 of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken 1 9 before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public and 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the 2 I County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 1313 22 Merchants Bank Building, Indianapolis, Indiana, on 23 November 25, 1986, at the hour of 12:45 o'clock 24 p . m. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chioaim WATER PCB-SD0000036440 936 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 4 Mr. Joseph V. Karaganis and 5 Ms. Kathleen M. Donahue Bell, Boyd & Lloyd 6 Three First National Plaza 70 Hest Madison Street 7 Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 8 9 appeared on behalf of the PIaintiffs ; 10 11 12 13 Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald Barnes 4 Thornburg 1 4 1313 Merchants Bank Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 15 appeared on behalf of Defendant 1 6 Monsanto Company. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria-4 Goldstine 2^6 1030 r h i ^ a rr WATER PCB-SD0000036441 937 1 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, . 2 having been previously duly sworn, 3 was examined and testified as follows: 4- DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 6 Q. Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 375, 7 memorandum to Papageorge to a list including 8 Benignus dated August 31, 1970. Have you seen 9 that document? 1 0 A. Yes, I have. 11 MR. FRDEHWALD: Did we skip one here? ' 12 MR . KARAGANIS: I am sorry. We will come 1 3 back. That is all right. 1 4 Go ahead with 375. 1 5 A. I have seen this document. In fact, I am 1 6 the author. 17 Q. Was there ever a final draft prepared and 1 8 sent out? 1 9 A. No. 20 Q. Can you tell us why not? 2 1 A. We decided it'would be best if the ANSI 22 committee or the NEMA at that time and later a 23 ANSI committee addressed this. Q. All right. =T CM LoUJOria A fi (l 1 H a H n o 05^ Irtan u -1-------------- WATER PCB-SD0000036442 938 r But you did send that document to S 2 Westinghouse, we talked about that before? ' 3 A . Ye s. 4 Q. And the purpose of the recommendations 5 that you had drafted was to close the loop, as you 6 call it? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 9 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 374, 1 0 which is a memo from Papageorge to Graham dated 1 1 July 27, 1970. Have you seen that document 1 2 before? 1 3 A. Yes, I have. 1 4 Q. And you are the author of that document? 1 5 A. I am the author, yes. 16 Q. And that document reflects the series of 17 plant visits that you had undertaken in the summer 1 8 of 1970, isn't that correct? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Indeed, you recommend -- I am sorry. 21 The purpose of the communication, the 22 purpose of the plant visits, was to enable the 23 customers to whom you were going to continue 24 selling PCB's to close the loop; isn't that right? Lonsoria A Rnl H at.l ne o "if i n 1 n rk ^ ~ WATER PCB-SD0000036443 93 9 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. And you say that: . 3 "Some of the 4 customers' plants have a long 5 way to go to achieve the 6 standards we believe will be 7 acceptable." 8 Vhich customers' plant? 9 A. I don't recall all of them at the moment. 1 0 Bloomington was one of them. 1 1 Q. So the Bloomington plant was one which 1 2 would fall within the category, quote, "some of 13 the customers' plants have a long way to go to 1 4 achieve the standards we believe will be 15 acceptable"? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Whywa3that? , 1 8 A. Because of the obvious spills and use of, 19 for example, the saw dust to capture the spills. 20 Q. To attempt to capture the spills? 2 1 A. To attempt to capture. The highly 22 visible oil stains. 23 Q. By oil stains, you mean the highly 24 visible stains of PCB's, o'f Inerteen? Loneoria A (? n 1 rt t i ^ .... WATER PCB-SD0000036444 94 0 1 A. I have to assume that some of those were 2 PCB's. 3 Q. In the F 30 area on the floor, you mean? 4 A. I don't recognize that number you just 5 mentioned. 6 Q. But in the capacitor impregnation area? 7 A . Ye s. 8 Q. You state here -- I am sorry. Were there 9 any others reasons which you would categorize 1 0 Bloomington as having a long way to go? 1 1 A. I can't think of any. 1 2 Q. How about the washer system? 13 A. The washer system in itself was not 1 4 perceived to be a problem. It is the effluent 1 5 from that system that had to be managed better. 16 Q. Allright. 17 By managed better, what do you mean? 18 A. Make sure it is not freely discharged 1 9 into a sewer system. The PCB's levels in it are 20 controlled, brought down as far as they can. 21 T . All right. 22 By brought down as far as they can, your 23 August 31, 1970 memorandum, which you subsequently 24 sent to V/estinghouse Bloomington, suggested that T. o n it n r i a t. n1 . M n 0 511 1 (15 (I Phi n . <r n WATER PCB-SD0000036445 94 1 1 they had to be treated before release Into the ' 2 environment; isn't that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And that detergent emulsions must be 5 broken, free PCB must be removed after phase 6 separation, and dissolved PCB can be reduced by 7 its absorption on activated-carbon; isn't that 8 right? 9 A. That's right. 1 0 Q. And Bloomington wasn't doing any of that, 1 1 is that right? 12 A. To the best of my knowledge, they were' 1 3 not. 1 4 Q. And you would consider those to be, your 1 5 recommendations, the kind of standards which 1 6 should be applied; isn't that right? 17 A. They were certainly recommendations, I 1 8 don't know that I would -- 19 Q. It was your - 20 A. -- label them as a standard. 2 1 Q. It was your opinion as to what acceptable 22 practice should be; isn't that right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Now, you state in Bloomington Deposition t n rt trn * -l -> C n n ~- WATER PCB-SD0000036446 942 1 Exhibit 374 and I quote: 2 "It would behoove us 3 to call on these customers 4 frequently to assure that . 5 substantial progress is being 6 made and that interest is 7 maintained. 8 That was your quotation, was it not? 9 A. Te s. 1 0 Q. Vhat program did you have to follow up 1 1 inspections on the plants, in particular the 1 2 Bloomington . Westinghouse plant? 13 A. Well, the reliance was totally on Mr. 1 4 Graham and Mr. Benignus to do the follow up. 1 5 Q. And to report back to you? 16 A. Not only to me, but to all the people 17 listed on that memorandum. 1 8 Q. Which were Olson and Benignus and Bergen; 19 is that right? 20 A. Correct. 2 1 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 22 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 376, a 23 memorandum from an R M McCutchan to A. E. Leisy, 24 dated February 23, 1972. Longoria & Goldstine 2^6 insn n * s--------- WATER_PCB-SD0000036447 943 1 Have you seen that document before? 2 A. I saw this document this morning for the 3 first time. 4 Q. Now, that relates to again the tankcar 5 situation, does it not? . 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. It refers to the fact that the car was 8 used prior to the 1/14/72 deadline. What was the 9 1/14/72 deadline? 1 0 A. I don't know which deadline they had in 1 1 mind here. 1 2 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 13 Deposition Exhibit 377 for identification - 1 4 strike that. 1 5 I will make a request at this time, and I 16 tell you why I think the date tracks unless there 17 is something different. The 1/14/72 deadline is 1 8 either the same day or the day before the deadline 1 9 imposed under indemnification. And if it is, I 20 would like any documents that reflect what the 2 1 deadline was and how it related to the tankcar 22 shipments, if there is something that relates to 23 they are not going to do anything after a certain 24 deadline. That deadline seems to be the Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036448 944 1 indemnification deadline 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: That would be my perception as 3 well. I believe we have produced documents where 4 there was concern about whether they should make 5 shipments to Vestinghouse Bloomington in the ' 6 absence of signature of the hold harmless 7 agreement by, I thought, January 15 of *72. But 8 it may have been the weekend or whatever. As a 9 result, that's the way I would read it. 1 0 And we have produced the documents 1 1 regarding whether they should release additional 1 2 shipments to Westinghouse pending the signature of 13 the indemnity agreement. I think that is what it 1 4 refers to. And that is my reading. 15 I don't know what you are asking for in 16 the way of additional documents, Joe. I think we 17 have produced the Westinghouse, the documents 1 8 expressing the concern about shipping at that 19 period of time to Westinghouse. 20 MR. KARAGANIS: I am thinking particularly of 21 any more documents, apparently this document, 376, 22 Exhibit 376, reflects again the significance of 23 that deadline. 24 It was obvious an statement that unless Loneoria A (!nl H a no inon ---- WATER PCB-SD0000036449 94 5 1 we got the indemnity, unless Monsanto got the 2 indemnity agreements, nothing was going to get 3 shipped. And it also seems to relate to the kind 4 of cars that were going to be used. And whether 5 there were instructions not to use any faulty cars 6 after that deadline or whatever. It does appear 7 to be the indemnification deadline. We are simply 8 asking for documents reflecting the 9 indemnification or relating to the 1 0 indemnification. 1 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: Those I think have been 1 2 produced and are being produced independent of 1 3 this document. 1 4 MR. KARAGANIS: The documents relating to the 15 sequence are being produced now, many of them. 1 6 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 17 Deposition Exhibit 377 for identification, which 1 8 is a multi-page document with the legend in 1 9 handwriting, "H.S.B. 11/19/71," it has a logo on 20 the first page, number 1, "Terminate immediately 21 all spot sales of PCB fluids for heat transfer 22 applications." 23 Are you familiar with that document? 24 A. I saw this document for the first time ' WATER PCB-SD0000036450 946 1 this morning 2 Q. This document relates to a series of late 3 1971 actions, does it not? 4 A. It appears to, yes. 5 Q. Based on your recollection, the first 6 step was to terminate sales for heat transfer 7 applications; is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. How, when is your recollection as to when 1 0 the heat transfer termination took place? 1 1 A. As best I recall, it was sometime in 1 2 1 972 . 13 Q. All right. 1 4 A. But I can't recall a specific date. 1 5 Q. Now, do you recall why all actions 16 regarding the termination had to be documented and 17 recorded and approved by the law department? 1 8 A. I do not know. 1 9 Q. Again, with respect to the heat transfer 20 applications, would it be correct that Monsanto 2 1 was going to take actions to deal wit;, the 22 handling and incineration of spent PCB fluids in 23 the heat transfer industry? 24 A. Yes. Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 -Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036451 947 1 Q. Now, point 2 related to the sale of PCB 2 fluids for transformer capacitor use. It says 3 will be dependent upon the receipt from customers 4 of documents acceptable to Monsanto'holding 5 Monsanto harmless from legal liability associated 6 with the use of PCB's in transformers and 7 capacitors. 8 Now, do you recall the circumstances 9 leading to that condition? . 1 0 A. No. 1 1 Q. Here you part of the discussions that 1 2 lead to the development of the program reflected 13 in Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 377? 14 A. No. : 1 5 Q. Who was? 16 A. Mr. Bergen, of course, and his marketing 17 team, marketing managers. 1 8 Q. Meaning Benignus, or was Benignus out of 1 9 the loop at that point? 20 A. Let me think. No, Benignus was still in 21 working for Monsanto. He was still involved. 22 Yes. 23 Q. Again, the second part of number 2 is to 24 continue with the program a-f reuse or destruction Loneoria A (Join.<*<- no o i & inon WATER PCB-SD0000036452 9 48 1 of PCB's, is that not correct? 2 A . Ye s . 3 Q. All right. 4 Let me see if I got your testimony 5 correct. You have no personal recollection, even 6 though you were responsible or partly responsible 7 for the whole control of PCB environmental 8 contamination by PCB under Monsanto, you have no 9 recollection of this program in late *71, '72 as 1 0 to the reasons why it was implemented? 1 1 A. That is correct. 1 2 Q. Was it ever communicated to you that this 1 3 program was going in place? 1 4 A. After it had been, the decision had been 1 5 made, yes. 16 Q. And the decision was made by whom? 17 A. That I don't know. Mr. Bergen informed 1 8 me that the decision was made. I don't know who 19 made it. 20 Q. Do you know whose idea it was to require 21 the indemnity? 22 A. I do not know. 23 Q. Now, step 3 was the termination of sales 24 of terphenyls, which had been used in plasticizers Longoria & Goldstine . 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036453 949 1 and hydraulic fluids; is that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: Mike, this Exhibit 377 is 4 obviously part of some kind of program document or 5 series of program documents that had to come up 6 and be approved and put together in draft form. 7 Obviously, Bergen got a copy of it. But it had to 8 come from somewhere, and I haven't seen any other 9 versions or drafts or circulations regarding this 1 0 program. ' 1 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: I have not either. 1 2 You asked me to produce documents and 1 3 those are the ones I found. We are continuing to 1 4 search. That appears to me to be at least 1 5 possibly Mr. Bergen's presentation to the board of 1 6 directors or to higher-ups as to what his program 17 was. I don't really know, I can't verify that. 1 8 But.that is, at least, one working hypothesis. 1 9 The timing fits with the later documents 20 and that very well may be a presentation Mr. 21 Bergen made. I just don't know what it is. But 22 it indicates his initials and is a time period 23 that we are concerned about here. So I produced 24 i t. WATER PCB-SD0000036454 But I can't vouch for any more details for it at this time. It does fit into sequence with later documents. MR. KARAGANIS: It doesn't indicate that it was presented to anybody anywhere. And assuming if it was, it should have some memoranda, if you look at the items 1 , and particularly 2 , have got to have memoranda supporting item number 2 . MR. FRUEHWALD: MR . KARAGANIS : What do you mean by that ? Item number 2 is don 't sell it unless you got a hold harmless from legal liability. If there is a three-step program being presented to senior management, this is a block, somebody has got to say here is why we are doing this, here is what we suggest. It doesn't come out of a block outline just fresh without without any kind of back up documentation. There is typically some communication back and forth between various principals within the company about this kind of a do cume n t. MR. FRUEHWALD: Maybe. I said we are searching, Joe. I tried to produce to you the documents as soon as I found them. And that is T -> f Aa 4 * n -> r\ --------------- WATER PCB-SD0000036455 95 1 1 what I have g9t 2 I can't tell you what that is, whether It 3 Is an end result or a first draft. I don't know. 4 Mr. Bergen was the person who could have done this 5 o n his ow n. 6 MB. KARAGANIS: We are requesting all 7 documents related to 377, in any way. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: You got a couple more of then 9 coming down the road here today that were produced 1 0 today. 1 1 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 2 Q. Is Paton still with the company? 1 3 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 1 5 Deposition Exhibit 378 for identification, which T 6 is a memorandum signed by C. Paton, P-a-t-o-n, and 17 W. S. Clark and and addressed to a list, including 1 8 the directors of marketing and field sales 19 directors, dated December 17, 1971. 20 Have you seen that document before? 2 1 A. I saw this document this morning for the 22 first time. 23 Q. You had not seen it before? 24 A . No. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036456 952 1 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington ` 2 Deposition Exhibit 379* which is dated 12/15/7 T, 3 addressed to the directors of marketing, field 4 sales managers and district sales managers. 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: One is a draft of the other. 6 MR. KARAGANIS: Can you tell us on 379 what 7 the handwriting up at the top is, which seems to 8 have been lost in xeroxing? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: I cannot. I think it says 1 0 policy. But I'll check and see if we have a 1 1 better copy. 1 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Can we get a stipulation that 13 379 is an earlier draft of 378? 1 H MR. FRUEHWALD: I can't stipulate to that. 15 That is what it appears to be. 16 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 17 Q. Mr. Papageorge, would you look at 378 and 1 8 379 and tell me whether 379 is an earlier draft of 1 9 37 8 ? 20 A. It appears to me that Exhibit 379 is an 21 earlier version of Exhibit 378. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Directing your attention to Bloomington 2H Deposition Exhibit number 380, which is a Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036457 953 1 memorandum from Corey to C. P. Cunningham, have 2 you ever seen that document before? 3 A. Yes. I saw it on or about the date of 4 that memorandum, and also earlier today. 5 Q. So you were aware of the so-called 6 implementation program which would only sell to 7 dielectric customers if they signed a hold 8 harmless agreement? 9 A. Yes, after the fact. 1 0 Q. Who made you aware of that? 1 1 A. Mr. Bergen told me and then I got a copy 12 of it. Thatis my initials up in the upper 13 righthand corner there. 1 4 Q. Which one are your initials? 15 A. WBP. It is kind of faint. 1 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, while we are on the 17 subject, how did you maintain your files at 1 8 Monsanto? When you were at Monsanto St. Louis 1 9 from 1970 to 1976, dealing with PCB problems, hew 20 were your files maintained? 21 A. They were just -- I would just organize a 22 folder and give it a name or a title that meant 23 something to me and I would have the secretary 24 drop the documents in the appropriate folder. WATER PCB-SD0000036458 95 4 Q. I see Was an index maintained, did you keep an 3 index of your files? 4 A. No. ' 5 Q. Did you ke.ep a list of the names of your 6 files? 7 A. No. 8 Q. To your knowledge has an index been 9 prepared of your files? 1 0 A. Ido not know. 1 1 Q. If you were required to find anything on 1 2 any particular subject, documents that were either 13 sent to you or submitted to you since between 1970 1 4 and 1976, how would you find it? 1 5 A. I would go to the law department today. % 16 Q. They have custody of all of your 1 7 documents? 1 8 A. That I don't know. I turned my files 19 over to my successor. I don't know what happened 20 after that. 2 1 Q. Have you had occasion since terminating 22 your activities with regard to PCB's to go back 23 and look through your files? 24 A. N o. T . ft n ff ft ^ o Jt rt a 1 /I o f 4 o ^ d i non nu -- __ WATER PCB-SD0000036459 95 5 1 Q You never have? 2 A. No. 3 Q. To your knowledge, do your files still 4 exist? 5 A. I do not know. 6 Q. When you have had a chance to review 7 these documents, these are documents obviously 8 that came to you, isn't that right, you have just 9 indicated Y/BP is on the initials on 380? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. So that indicates that it was in your 1 2 file, doesn't it? 1 3 A. Not necessarily. It could have been any 1 4 of those individuals that handled it. 1 5 Q. To your knowledge, Mr. Papageorge, are 16 indices maintained of the documents relating to 17 PCB's? Does the company still maintain any kind 1 8 of index list? 1 9 A. I have never seen an index list. I do 20 not know. 21 Q. How are the files maintained in the 22 dielectric group, functional fluids -- first of 23 all, functional fluids, then down below functional 24 fluids, the dielectric fluids, right? T ~ ~ ~ ~ -- -i ~ 9 -i - ------- ~~ ~ " WATER PCB-SD0000036460 956 1 A . Asa subgroup. 2 Q. You were in the functional fluids group, 3 Keren't you? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. 6 In terns of those offices, how were the 7 files maintained? Is there a central file room or 8 did each person have their own files? 9 A. Each person had his own set of files. 1 0 Q. All right. 1 1 Was there any kind of central file room 1 2 as well or central file location? 13 A. No. 1 4 Q . No master files were kept at all? 1 5 A. No. 1 6 Q. On any client or any subject? 17 A. Not to my knowledge. 1 8 Q. On any customer? 19 A. Not to my knowledge. 20 Q. Just so I have this for the record. 2 1 Mr. Corey at the time n 1971, what was 22 his title? 23 A. These may not be the exact words, but it 24 is something like director of administration for WATER PCB-SD0000036461 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 24 957 Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company, an operating unit of Monsanto Company. Q. group? So he was above the functional fluids A. I believe that's correct. Q. Was his title director of functional fluids? A. No. That would be Mr. Bergen's title. Q. Okay. Earlier in your testimony you had indicated that in the 1971 reorganization Preston Cunningham became president of Monsanto Industrial Chemicals, right? A. He was managing director and vice president. Q. Of Monsanto Industrial Chemicals? A. That is correct. Q. Allright. And S. J. Fitzgerald was the general manager of functional fluids, do you recall saying that? A. I don't remember those titles. Mr. Fitzgerald reported to Mr. Cunningham. Q. So in any event, Bloomington Deposition WATER PCB-SD0000036462 958 1 Exhibit 380 is from a senior executive of the 2 functional fluids group to the vice president and 3 director of Monsanto Industrial Chemicals? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. Who is Mr. Green, Mr. E. Greene? 6 A. An attorney, Monsanto attorney. 7 Q. Who is Mr. Stapleton? 8 A. Monsanto attorney. 9 Q. Mr.Wingard? 1 0 A. I believe he was involved with insurance 1 1 programs. 1 2 Let me correct something. Mr. Greene is 13 involved with insurance programs. He was not an 14 attorney. 1 5 Q. Were you ever told what precipitated the 16 December 1971 program, in other words, what was 17 its cause? 1 8 A. I do not recall. 1 9 Q. You have no idea? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 22 Deposition Exhibit No. 381* memorandum from 23 Gossage to H. R. Ford and a list dated January 4, 24 1972. Have you seen that document before? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036463 959 1 A. I saw this document this morning for the 2 first time. 3 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 4 Deposition Exhibit No. 382, memorandum from H. S. 5 Bergen to W. B. Papageorge, dated April 2, 1970. 6 Are you familiar with that document? 7 A. Yes. I was the recipient of the 8 original. 9 Q. What is he referring to there? 1 0 A. He is referring to a memorandum by Mr. 1 1 Olson. 1 2 Q. What was the subject of that memorandum? 13 A. As I recall, trying to review the status 1 4 of our activities in the marketing arena regarding 1 5 this closing of the loop that we talked about 16 earlier. 17 Q. To my knowledge -- have we received this 1 8 document? 1 9 MR . FRUEHWALD: It is a deposition exhibit. 20 MR . KARAG AN1S : 4/ 1/70? 2 1 MR . FRUEHWALD: Yes. 22 MR. FRUEHWALD : 1 06 . 23 MR . KARAG ANIS : Yes. 24 Q. Now, Olson was in charge of sales, was Longoria & (! n 1 rt i H n O 1(17(1 Phi n . a WATER PCB-SD0000036464 960 1 not? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Bergen was Olson's boss or Bergen was in 4 charge of manufacturing? 5 A. No, Bergen's was Mr. Olson's supervisor, 6 boss. 7 Q. Now, directing your attention to 106, 8 Olson again was the head of sales? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. All right. 1 1 How did Mr. Olson determine that sending 1 2 material to a landfill is not going to be 1 3 available for forever? . 1 4 A. Oh, I don't know how he did that. 1 5 Q. Is that based on conversations with you? 1 6 A. This was a topic of discussion amongst 17 many us. I don't recall a specific one-on-one 1 8 discussion with Mr. Olson. But it was a consensus 1 9 that landfills would not be available in the 20 distant future for disposal of any kind of waste. 2 1 Q. Of any kind of PCB waste? 22 A. Any kind of chemical waste. 23 Q. Any kind of industrial chemical? 24 A. That's right. 0f a p-- tJ < *1 f < A n rt ai WATER PCB-SD0000036465 96 1 1 Q That was because, as we have described 2 before, the problems with landfills? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 5 Deposition Exhibit 383 for identification, which 6 appear to be a series of board of directors 7 minutes for several meetings. Have you seen that 8 document before? 9 A. I saw this document for the first time 1 0 this morning. 1 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Mike, am I missing something 1 2 or should there be more board minutes on this? I 1 3 see a May 22, '69. Then the next thing I see is 1 4 December 8, '71. 1 5 MR. FROEHWALD: That is what I am informed are 16 all the entries in the boards records minutes. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: Can you tell me what the 1 8 next -- let's see if we can move things along. 1 9 There is an unauthored memorandum, which has been 20 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 384, 2 1 entitled report to the January meeting of the 22 board of directors on the status of the PCB 23 implementation program. 24 Do you know what January that is and who Tnn/.....-;-. 9 ------ C. . n - n ~ WATER PCB-SD0000036466 96 2 1 wrote it? Do you know? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: It is referred to in the 3 minutes of January 27 * *72. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: Is it? There is a reference 5 to Mr. Cunningham's report. 6 Is what has been marked as Exhibit 384 7 the report that is referenced in January of 1972 8 in Exhibit 383? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: I believe it is. It has the 1 0 same title and it has a 1/25/72 date written on 1 1 it. 1 2 MR. KARAGANIS: I don't have a 1/25/72 date 13 written on mine. I have a 1/25/7-blank. 1 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: The xeroxing blocked it off. 1 5 MR. KARAGANIS: We have a stipulation that the 1 6 original has 1/25/72 on it? 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes. 1 8 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. 1 9 Q. There is a reference inwhat has been 20 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 384. 21 We have a stipulation that Bloomington 22 Deposition Exhibit 384 is the report referenced in 23 the January '72 minutes of the board of directors? 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: I believe that it is, yes. Lonsoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaro WATER PCB-SD0000036467 963 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Do you so stipulate? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes, I will stipulate to that, 3 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. 4 There is a reference in Bloomington 5 Deposition Exhibit 384 to a world-wide PCB action 6 plan reviewed with the board. 7 We don't have any copies of the 8 world-wide PCB action plan. 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am not sure you don't, 1 0 because we have gone through some documents that 1 1 were called world-wide implementation plan. I an 1 2 not sure that they match up. But it may be the 1 3 same thing. 1 4 MR. KARAGANIS: I am asking specifically for 1 5 the world-wide action plan submitted or reviewed 1 6 with the board in December of 1971. 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: Fine. We are searching for 1 8 those types of documents. What we have got so far 1 9 I gave you today. Presumably there are other 20 things. 2 1 MR. KARAGANIS: So that as of the date of 22 today's deposition, the only board materials are 23 Bloomington Deposition Exhibits 383 and 384. 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is my understanding, that WATER PCB-SD0000036468 96 4 1 is what I am so informed by Monsanto. 2 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 3 Q. Why would Mason, directing your attention 4 to Exhibit 383 the December 8, *71 minutes -- why 5 would John Mason be giving a report on PCB's to - 6 the bo ard ? 7 A. You may recall he is the one that gave 8 that presentation to the CMC in early May of 1970. 9 And as I understood it, John Mason then 1 0 became the individual to keep management informed \ 1 1 of progress against that approved program. 1 2 Q. There is no record that the board of 1 3 directors approved the May '70 program. That was 1 4 the CMC? 1 5 A. That's correct. 1 6 Q. I asked you before whether or not there 17 was an interchangeable use of the terms corporate 1 8 management committee, corporate administrative T9 committee and corporate development committee. 20 You didn't recall corporate development committee? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. I am going to show you what has been 23 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 385, have 24 you seen that document? * WATER PCB-SD0000036469 96 5 1 A. I saw this document this morning. 2 Q. So it would be' correct, would it not, 3 that another term used for the corporate 4 management committee was the corporate development 5 committee? 6 A. I don't know. 7 It seems to me as best I recall the 8 membership on this committee appears to be 9 different than the membership I am aware of for 1 0 this CMC. 1 1 Q. Let's carefully look at - 1 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Obviously, Mr. Papageorge, 1 3 this is prior to his period of involvement here, 1 4 in terms of I think maybe your timing was asking 1 5 him questions about higher level management when 16 he was not involved. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: Let's see if we can speed 1 8 things along. He has also a 30 (b) 6 witness. I 1 9 want to just see. 20 Q. If you look at Bloomington Deposition 2 1 Exhibit 388 for identification, which are the 22 minutes of the corporate management committee of 23 April 13, 1970, if you compare them with 385; does 2 4 that appear to be the sane membership or roughly WATER PCB-SD0000036470 966 1 the same membership? 2 A. Some members are common to both lists. 3 But it is not the same membership. 4 Q. All right. 5 A. I don't know the difference, why the 6 difference. 7 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 8 Deposition Exhibit 385 for identification - 9 strike that. 1 0 Let's go back to the corporate 1 1 development committee, 385. Yes. Mr. Sommer was 1 2 who? Was he the chairman of Monsanto? 13 A. What year is that? 1 4 Q. '68. 1 5 A. '68. I don't recall specifically. He 16 was either chairman of the board of Monsanto or he 17 was the president and chief executive officer of 1 8 Monsanto. 1 9 Q. All right. 20 Mr. Bock was ultimately the chief 2 1 executive officer, was he not? 22 A. Yes. Following Mr. Sommer. 23 Q. Who is Mr. Christian, if you recall? 24 A. He was a vice president of manufacturing. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1 030 * c h^airn WATER PCB-SD0000036471 967 1 Q. Who is Mr. Gillis? 2 A. Vice president marketing. 3 Q. Mr. Mueller, R. K. Mueller? 4 A. R. K. He was a vice president. I don't 5 recall what function was assigned to Mr. Mueller. 6 Q. Mr. E. A. O'Neal? 7 A. Mr. O'Neal was also a vice president. I 8 believe at that time he was president of a 9 subsidiary of Monsanto's, the Chemstrand 1 0 Corporation. 1 1 Q. Mr. Throdahl you have indicated 1 2 previously was marketing, I believe? 1 3 A. At that point in time Mr. Throdahl was 1 4 vice president1of technology, research. 1 5 Q. How about Mr. Flitcraft? 1 6 A. Mr. Flitcraft was the secretary to the 17 committee. 1 8 Q. That was his sole role or did he have - 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 2 1 Deposition Exhibit 386, which are the minutes of 22 the meeting of the corporate development committee 23 of April 28, 1969. Tell me who Mr. Gillis was? 24 A. Vice president-' of marketing. Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036472 . 96 8 1 Q. I am sorry. And Mr. Bible? 2 A. Tice president manufacturing. 3 Q. Mr. Ehlers, J. E. Ehlers? 4 A. He was an attorney and secretary to the 5 commit tee. 6 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 7 Deposition Exhibit 3 87 , minutes of the meeting of 8 the corporate development committee of November 9 17, 1969. 1 0 MR. FRUEHWALD: The whole thing put together 1 1 is one exhibit. 1 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. 13 Q. Have you seen this document before? 1 4 A. I saw all parts of the document earlier 1 5 today. The first three sheets, which I believe, 16 they are numbered at the bottom 2433, 2434 and 17 2435, I had seen several times prior to this 1 8 morning. 1 9 Q. How about the remainder of the materials? 20 A. That is the first time I have seen the 2 1 remainder of the package. 22 Q. . Directing your attention to that portion 23 of the package -- strike that. 24 Would you mark this document, for the Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036473 96 9 1 record, I am breaking up Bloomington Deposition 2 Exhibit 387 into three component parts, all of 3 which will be designated 387 with subparts. 4 Would you mark this document 387 A. It 5 is a multi-page document that has the file or at 6 the designation, quote, "From file, Aroclor 7 toxicity. CAC presentation, 1969-1970." 8 (The documents above-referred 9 to were marked Bloomington 1 0 Deposition Exhibit Nos. 387 A 1 1 and 387 6, respectively for 1 2 identification.) 13 - Let the record show that the document 1 4 entitled, "PCB presentation to corporate 1 5 development committee," dated November 17, 1969 1 6 has been marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 17 387 B for identification. 1 8 Mr. Papageorge, showing you Bloomington 1 9 Deposition Exhibit 387 A for identification, do 20 you recognize the handwriting on the first page? 21 A. I would guess that that is Mr. Wheeler's. 22 The best I recall of his penmanship, it is Mr. 23 Wheeler's penmanship. 24 Q. I would request that the attachments or WATER PCB-SD0000036474 970 1 the transparencies used in the Wheeler . 2 presentation be produced. There is reference in 3 his presentation to transparencies, which are not 4 attached. 5 Q. What was the Severen River, was the ' 6 Severen River near a Monsanto plant? 7 A. Yes. That is in the United Kingdom, in 8 Whales. 9 Q. Near a Monsanto facility? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. Was there a major customer plant near 12 Penascola, Florida? 1 3 A. No. That is a Monsanto plant site. 1 4 Q. It is. 1 5 Again there is reference to slides or 16 transparencies which haven't been produced. 17 There is a reference made in Mr. 1 8 Wheeler's presentation to a presentation by Mr. 1 9 French. Is there any reason why that wasn't 20 produced? 2 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: Mr. French is an attorney. 22 MR. KARAGANIS: So what? 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: You want the reason, I will 24 telling you the reason. I don't have to give you Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036475 97 1 1 a response like that, do I? 2 MR. KARAGANIS: The reason I say that is that 3 the fact that someone is an attorney doesn't make 4 his own testimony automatically immune from 5 discovery. 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: That may not be automatically 7 immune from discovery, but that has been withheld 8 apparently under assertion of privilege, because 9 it has been deleted from the minutes. 1 0 MR. KARAGANIS: Did you delete it or did 1 1 somebody back at Monsanto delete it? 1 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Somebody back at Monsanto 13 deleted it. But I understand what it is. It is 1 4 Mr. French's presentation in the minutes and also 1 5 his presentation, if there is a written one, is 1 6 not part of the package delivered to you. 1 7 MR. KARAGANIS: Again, there is an obligation 1 8 on any claim of privilege for the document to be 19 identified and the demonstration be made that the 20 document Is privileged. None of that has been 2 1 done. 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: Mr. French is an attorney on 23 the staff at Monsanto, making a present taking to 24 the board. That's the identification of what we Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036476 972 1 have done here, Joe. 2 MR..KARAGANIS: That isn't a basis for 3 claiming a privilege. 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: Well, we have identified it. 5 If you want to fight about the privilege, we are 6 going to fight about that separately. We are 7 identifying what we are withholding on the claim 8 of privilege here. 9 MR. KARAGANIS: Have you personally made a 1 0 review of the document to establish -- 1 1 M R. FRUEHWALD: I have not. I have not. 1 2 There are other counsel at Monsanto who are 1 3 competent counsel who can. 1 4 MR. KARAGANIS: Wait a minute. Who are on the 1 5 pleadings in this case? 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: Not necessarily. No. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: Okay. 1 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: If we are going to fight on 1 9 privilege, we are going to fight at some other 20 time besides this deposition and waste Mr. 2 1 Papageorge's time. We are identifying what we 22 have withheld. If you don't like it, we can fight 23 about it at some other time. 24 MR. KARAGANIS: You are not. You are Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036477 973 1 identifying what you think was withheld. You 2 haven't even reviewed it. ' 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. All right. Maybe 4 that is true. Let's go ahead with the questioning 5 of Mr. Papageorge. We don't have to waste his 6 time, like our own. 7 MR. KARAGANIS: I don't consider discussing 8 documents that haven't been produced under - 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: At $3 a page, and Mr. 1 0 Papageorge's time, I do consider it to be a waste. 1 1 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 2 Q. Mr. Papageorge, there is reference in 1 3 here and I will refer again to a presentation by 1 4 Mr. Bergen to the corporate development committee. 1 5 Are you familiar with that presentation? 1 6 A. No. 17 Q. Mr. Papageorge, in Bloomington Deposition 1 8 Exhibit 387, at page reference 300-2446, there is 1 9 a reference to an ad hock committee of both 20 business groups and medical. Is that the ad hoc 2 1 committee that you referred to earlier? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. It states at page 2446 that that group 24 recently issued a report. Has that report been Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036478 974 1 produced? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: I don't think so. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: We would ask for the report 4 which is referenced at page 300-2446 in the 5 presentation of November 17, 1969 to the corporate 6 development committee. 7 Q. Are you familiar with the report of the 8 ad hoc group that is referenced? 9 A. I'm not familiar with a report by that 1 0 designation. 1 t Q. Are you familiar with any reports in that 1 2 time period describing the PCB problem? 13 A. Yes. There were documents that described 14 the PCB situation. I don't know which one they 1 5 had in mind here. 1 6 MR. KARAGANIS: Again, this is why we 17 requested not only the ad hoc committee 1 8 correspondence and memos and related documents, 1 9 but it is obvious that the same committee has 20 published at least one report describing the 2 1 problem, or members of that committee. We are not 22 limiting the request to official committee 23 publications, any members of that committee that 24 produced documents, we would want those documents. I. onffnrl a Jt 9 Q A 10 9 0 P U < /i o WATER PCB-SD0000036479 975 1 There is also a reference to slides and, 2 Mike, you tell me if I am wrong, are the slides 3 produced, are these transparencies -- I am sorry, 4 these sheets, for example, Monsanto world-wide 5 Aroclor business, the slides? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: That would be my belief, that 7 they appear to be. 8 MR. KARAGANIS: Can you confirm that for me? 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge, just for purposes of 1 0 clarification. Would it be fair to say that the 1 1 presentation by Springgate and Bergen preceded the 1 2 presentation by Wheeler in terms of the 13 presentation to the corporate management 1 4 committee? 1 5 I direct your attention specifically to 16 the page of the Springgate-Bergen presentation 17 which having outlined what is going to be done, 1 8 itemizes at II and III? 1 9 A. Yes. That is my understanding. 20 Q. So for purposes of the record, 2 1 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 387 B preceded 22 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 387 A? 23 A. Correct. 2 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me point out you have WATER PCB-SD0000036480 (i ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 976 talked about Exhibit 387 B preceding. It appears on page 2449 that Mr. Wheeler's presentation was inserted somewhere in the document that you have marked as 387 B and, therefore, there was some of it before and some of it after. According to the terms of the document itself, the document itself indicates that Mr. Wheeler's presentation was in the middle. I don't think Mr. Papageorge was there to be able to tell you, anyway. But the document appears to say so . MR. K AR AG AN IS: It is not clear whether he talked after or before, or in the middle. MR. FRUEHWALD: Not that it makes a whole lot of difference, but that is the way I read it. BY MR. KARAGANIS: ' Q. Directing your attention to what is handwritten page 23 , 300-2467* where it says program would cost some money. Do you see that? What does the term S-A-R-E mean, if you know? A. That is sales administration research expense Q. And what - - A. Sales administration research expense. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036481 977 1 Q. Is that 400 to 500,000? ` 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. 4 Estimated capital 700,000? 5 A. Yes. - 6 Q. Total cost 1.1 million? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What does it mean by expose us to 9 possible 1 aw suit? 1 0 A. I guess it is just what the words say. 1 1 The program as described previously. 1 2 which I haven't had a chance to read in detail, 13 was perceived to be a situation that could create 1 4 some adverse publicity and possible lawsuit. I 1 5 don't know what else to to say. 16 Q. It mentions in here that other members of 17 the Aroclor family besides 1254 and 1260 are 1 8 biodegradable to varying degrees. 19 Let's talk about 1242. Do you have any 20 information as to when one would expect 1242 to 2 1 de grad e, over what period of time? 22 A. In total? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. There is no information available that I Lonsoria A Golds tine 2 3 6 1030 Ohifairo WATER PCB-SD0000036482 97 8 1 am aware of 2 Q. Is there a rate of decay or a rate of 3 degradation or decomposition? 4 A. I have never seen any studies that 5 established that rate. 6 There are some studies that refer to the 7 specific parts of 1242, how fast they disappear 8 under certain conditions. 9 Q. By parts, what are you testifying to? 1 0 A. The single-chi orine type and the 1 1 double-chlorine and the three-chlorine types have 1 2 been studied and they do under certain conditions 13 of temperature and bacteria and nutrients, they 1 4 have been establ.ished to disappear in a natter of 1 5 days and months. 1 6 Q. Days and months? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. So that if we put 1242 into the ground at 19 Lemon Lane, and did this in the early sixties, the 20 Lemon Lane landfill in Bloomington, it should 2 1 basically be gone by now? 22 A. No. I didn't say that. Because I don't 23 know what bacteria are present and whether they 24 thrive on this kind of material or whether there Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036483 97 9 1 are enough nutrients there to help them survive so 2 they can also destroy the PCB's. And 1242 does 3 contain some versions of PCB's that are very 4 refractory. They do not lend themselves to 5 destruction, the six-chlorine,-five-chlorine and 6 some of the four. 7 So what you would see, depending on the 8 conditions, are the residue from the material that 9 started out as 1242, but no longer resembles the 1 0 original mixture. 1 1 Q. But would still have some of the heavier 1 2 chlorine? 1 3 A. Yes, and the analyst might call it 1254 1 4 or 1260, when he sees it twenty years later. 1 5 Q. Would it be fair to say, then, that 16 biodegradation in lieu of proper disposal would 17 not be an alternative for the disposal of 1242? 1 8 A. Not with naturally-occurring 1 9 biodegradation, that is correct. 20 Q. So it wouldn't be acceptable practice to 21 put it in any landfill and say don't worry about 22 it, it will simply biodegrade? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. So that from the standpoint of the WATER PCB-SD0000036484 9 80 1 pollution problem referred to in the summary on 2 page 24, when he says the most serious offenders 3 are the five- and six-chlorine containing 4 products, 1242 was also a serious offender, was it 5 not, from the standpoint of needing to clean it 6 up ? 7 A. Because it contained the five- and 8 six-chiorines, yes. 9 Q. Okay. 1 0 Directing your attention to what has been 1 1 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 388 for 1 2 identification. Have you seen this document 13 before? 1 4 It purports to be the minutes of a 1 5 corporate management committee April 13, 1970. 1 6 A. Yes. I saw a copy of this for the first 1 7 time back in 1970. 1 8 Let me think, in.the early part of 1970 I 19 saw that for the first time and I saw it again 20 this morning. 2 1 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 22 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 389, have 23 you seen that before? 24 A. Yes. I am familiar with this exhibit. !. n n irnn 1 a 1 rt n 1 J . H . o ^ C . n -t n ". WATER PCB-SD0000036485 981 1 Q. Who prepared it? 2 A. I did. . 3 Q. And who delivered it, if you recall? 4 A. I did. 5 Q. You personally delivered it? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. 8 You delivered that on April 20, 1970? 9 A. Yes 1 0 Q. Would you mark this, what is the number 1 1 on that 389? Would you mark this as 389 A. 1 2 (The document above-referred to was 13 marked Bloomington Deposition 1 4 Exhibit No. 389 A for 1 5 identification.) 16 Directing your attention to what has been 17 marked as 389 A for identification, can you tell 1 8 us what that document is? 1 9 A . This document is the outline and draft of 20 the proposed presentation which ended up in the 2 1 previous exhibit, 389. 22 Q. Did you also prepare Bloomington Exhibit 23 3 89 A? 24 A. Yes. InrwrnnJ -3 r* ~ 1 J ~ J------ nC .... WATER PCB-SD0000036486 9 82 1 Q. Directing your -- I am sorry. Would you 2 mark this as 389 B. . 3 (The document a bove-referred to was 4 marked Bloomington Deposition 5 Exhibit No. 389 B for 6 identification.) 7 I show you what has been marked as 8 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 389 B, which is a 9 memorandum from Papageorge to Bergen and others, 1 0 enclosing management plan polychlorinated biphenyl 1 1 environmental problem, dated April 7, 1970. And 1 2 ask you is this the same document that has been 1 3 previously identified as an exhibit that we talked 1 4 about at your last deposition, I believe it is 1 5 17 4. 16 A. It is. 1 7 Q. Let me see if I can get the sequence 1 8 straight. You came o n i n J anuary of 1970. 1 9 A. Correct. 20 Q. To the job. 2 1 And the corporate management committee 22 had -- a program had been recommended to them in 23 November of 1969. 24 Specifically what was your role in Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036487 983 1 developing the presentation in the spring of 1970? ` 2 A. By meeting with the ad hoc committee and 3 talking to the individual members on a one-on-one 4 basis, I prepared myself to be able to put 5 together the April 7 document, which is the last 6 exhibit. 7 Q. Okay. 8 April 7 document is 389 B? 9 A. 389 B was the first attempt. The 1 0 committee then met and we developed from that 1 1 meeting the previous document which was an 1 2 outl ine 13 Q . - 3 89 A? 1 4 A. -- with a draft of the proposed 1 5 narrative. 16 Q. And this is a committee product, this is 17 the ad hoc committee? 1 8 A. Right. I was the person that put it all 1 9 together in writing. 20 Q. All right. 2 1 A. Then the previous exhibit was the final 22 product. . 23 Q. 389, Exhibit 389? 24 A. 389 itself was the version that I read I. n n (? rt ^ 1 a ^n1 ^o f i a in / u ---- WATER PCB-SD0000036488 9 84 1 from as I made my presentation before the CAC. 2 Q. Directing your attention back to Exhibit 3 387 B, the presentation by Bergen and Springgate 4 to the November 17, '69 corporate development 5 committee. One of the recommendations is the 6 appointment of a project manager responsible for 7 the overall management of the Aroclor pollution 8 problem. Were you indeed that project manager? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. So after the November 17, '69 corporate 1 1 development committee meeting you were hired to be 1 2 the project manager and control the PCB problem? 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. Directing your attention to the last page 1 5 of Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 389 A, which was 16 as you indicated the ad hoc committee's interim 1 7 draft prior to the presentation to the corporate 1 8 development committee? 1 9 A. Correct. 20 Q. It says at the last page, quote: 2 1 "In summary I 22 recommend we proceed with the ( 23 plan as presented and I 24 particularly refer to the In n ff ft r ^ o 1 (IaI . O O 1 HO H PUi e WATER PCB-SD0000036489 985 1 "change in our strategy 2 regarding the discontinuing 3 the manufacture of Aroclors 4 1254 and 1260." 5 What was the change in strategy referred 6 to there? 7 A. I would have to go back to the 8 presentation that Mr. Bergen and Springgate made 9 to refresh my memory on that. 10 Q. Sure. * i 1 1 A. As I recall the original recommendation 1 2 was to discontinue those types of PCB's. 1 3 As best I recall, that reference relates 1 4 back to a comment made to the corporate committee 1 5 in November 1970. I am sorry, 1969. 16 Q. To do what ? 17 A. There was a recommendation on page 1 8 300-2464 of Exhibit 387 B, item 6 on that page, 1 9 introduce to market replacement products for 20 Aroclor 1254 and 1260. 2 1 Q. Okay. 22 The recommendation was to do what, not to 23 replace them? 24 A. The recommendation in 1970 of April was WATER PCB-SD0000036490 986 1 not to replace them, but to retain them for 2 specific purposes. 3 Q. For the dielectric industry for the 4 transformer end? 5 A . Ye s. 6 Q. There is a reference in 389 to slides. 7 And I will ask you whether what appear to be 8 transparencies on the back of Exhibit 389 are the 9 transparencies referred to? 1 0 A. They are. 1 1 Q. You say you wrote Bloomington Exhibit 1 2 389 A, but that it represents the collective 1 3 consensus of the ad hoc committee; is that 1 4 correct? 1 5 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is that also true of 389 the actual 17 presentation? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 20 marked -- I am sorry, let's mark thi3 as 389 C. 2 1 (The document above-referred to was 22 marked Bloomington Deposition 23 Exhibit No. 389 C for 24 identification.) Loneoria & Golds t-lne 0 7 f* i non n..---------- WATER PCB-SD0000036491 987 1 Directing your attention to what has been 2 narked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 389 C, 3 which are the minutes of the meeting of the 4 corporate management committee April 20, 1970. 5 Have you seen those before? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: Other than his last 7 deposition? 8 MR. KARAGANIS: I am sorry. 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: It is already an exhibit in 1 0 the previous deposition. 1 1 MR. KARAGANIS : It i s. What i s the number? 1 2 MR . FRUEHWALD : Probably 1 7 5 , I would guess 1 3 MR. KARAG ANIS : It is, I am sorry. That is 1 4 all right. 1 5 Q. 389 C directing your attention to the 16 page marked 300-2471* particularly the quote that 17 says, Messrs. Eck, Putzell and Gillis are to 1 8 recommend actions to demonstrate the affirmative 1 9 program being taken." 20 What did that mean, what was intended? 21 A. I understood that those three individuals 22 were to make it a point to arrange for a review of 23 the status of the program, periodically. 24 Q. Mr. Eck was whom? l.on,fli< a Jt r. n ^ o t- -t ~~ WATER PCB-SD0000036492 988 1 A. He is the president and chairman of the ` 2 board at that time. 3 Q. And Mr. Putzell was the general counsel? 4 A. General counsel for the corporation. 5 Q. And Gillis? 6 A. Was the vice president of marketing. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: I think your next two exhibits 8 were already discussed at the last session as 9 well . 1 0 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes, let's just mark them for 1 1 clarity. I don't have the minutes of the last 1 2 session. Do you have the exhibit ID? 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes. I would guess they are 1 4 176 or something like that. . 1 5 MR. KARAGANIS: 176 is the Mason memo. 1 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. Then 177. 17 Probably a better copy, though. 1 8 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. 19 Let's make this document 390 A. 20 (The document a bove-referred to was 21 marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 390 A for 23 identification.) 24 Directing your attention to what has been Loneoria & Goldstine 2^6 1010 Chinarn WATER PCB-SD0000036493 989 1 marked as 3 90 , those are the minutes of the 2 corporate management committee of May 11, 1970, 3 which are also Bloomington Exhibit 177; is that 4 right? 5 A. Yes. I have seen this document. I have 6 seen this document previously. 7 Q. And we talked last time with respect to 8 Bloomington Exhibit 390 A, of the Mason 9 memorandum, the approved plan that are the two 1 0 sheets marked, "present plan," right, as you 1 1 recall? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. Bloomington Exhibit 391 is the minutes of 1 4 the corporate management committee of June 2, 1 5 1970. I ask you if you are familiar with that 16 document? 1 7 A. I saw this document this morning for the 1 8 first time. 1 9 What is the investment referred t o 20 This was to cover the cost of a new 21 incinerator as well as the construction of a unit 22 to make the new version of a PCB mixture that was 23 later sold as Aroclor 1016. That also covered the 24 cost of installing the different catch basins and I.fl n ffnr 1 a f* i rt n - WATER PCB-SD0000036494 990 1 curbing. 2 Q. Inside Monsanto? 3 A. In theMonsanto plant, yes. 4 Q. Showing you Bloomington Deposition ' 5 Exhibit 392 which are the minutes for June 29, 6 1970, have you seen those before? 7 A. I saw this document for the first time 8 this mor ning. 9 Q. Now, you were in charge of the program, 1 0 were you not, as the manager of the taskforce, you 1 1 had been appointed after the November 17, 1969 1 2 meeting to head up the program, were you not? 1 3 A. Yes, to coordinate the program. 1 4 Q. And the program included phasing out or 1 5 trying to control; isn't that right? 1 6 A. Ye s. 17 Q. I have asked you this question before but 1 8 I am trying to put it in the context of the 1 9 approvals of the various program plans. 20 Now here we are in May of 1970. Who 2 1 instituted to your knowledge the contractual 22 restriction policy, and was this contractual 23 restriction policy communicated to higher 24 management such as the corporate management Lonirnrl a i p.ni c ^ ~' WATER PCB-SD0000036495 99 1 1 commi11 ee? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me have a definition of 3 what you are calling a contractual restriction. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: The contract of June 1970. 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: This is the third time that 6 series of questions has been asked. 7 MR. KARAGANIS: It is also the first time that 8 we have been given a full description of what went 9 to corporate management in terms of an action 1 0 plan. 1 1 A. I am still confused. Which contract are 1 2 you talking about? 1 3 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 14 Q. Are you familiar with the contract 1 5 language that we have discussed, the contract 16 language before, that said that Monsanto 17 reserved -- 1 8 A. This is the sales contract? 1 9 Q. Yes. 20 A. I am sorry. Okay; all right. 2 1 Q. Now, was that contract ever discussed as 22 an element of the action plan that was approved by 23 corporate management? 24 A. No. WATER PCB-SD0000036496 992 1 Q. That contract, in order for it to be 2 standard contractual language, would have to be 3 approved by a senior executive or at a minimum the 4 group, would it not? 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: Wait a minute. Let me object. 6 Are you staying standard contractual 7 language, if it appears in one contract what is 8 it ? / 9 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 0 Q. The Westinghouse contract, that would 1 1 have had to have been approved by a senior member 1 2 of the executive group, would it not? 13 A. I do not know Monsanto's approval 1 4 procedure for approving sales contracts. 1 5 Q. That kind of contract term? 16 A. I know nothing about sales contracts. 17 Q. All right, fine. 1 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is the third time you 1 9 have been told that. 20 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 21 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 22 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 395. I 23 am sorry. Did we discuss 392? June 29, 1970. 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes. Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036497 993 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Okay. 2 Q. Next is 393. Directing your attention to 3 the minutes of the corporate management committee 4 of July 27, 1970. Had you seen that document 5 before ? 6 A. I saw this document for the first time 7 this morning. 8 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 9 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 394, 1 0 which are the minutes of the corporate management 1 1 committee meeting of September 14, 1970. Are you 1 2 familiar with that? ' 13 A. I saw this document for the first time 1 4 this morning. 1 5 Q. Did you have any hand in preparing the 16 reports? 17 I have noticed, for example, on 1 8 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 394, the persons 1 9 presenting it are Minckler and Mason. Refresh my 20 recollection again. Minckler's relationship to / 21 Bergen was what? 22 A. Mr. Minckler was Mr. Bergen's senior, but 23 Mr. Bergen reported to Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason .24 reported to Mr. Minckler. t __j _ e f ***-%/ ^' WATER PCB-SD0000036498 994 Q. Mr. Minckler's title was? A. General manager of the organic chemicals 3 division. 4 Q. Did you have any hand in preparing the 5 information for Minckler or Mason? 6 A. No. 7 Q. With respect to the program, did they 8 ever come back to you and ask you how is the 9 program going? t 0 A. They would do that as a routine. 1 1 Q. Did they ever come back and ask you how 1 2 are our customers dealing with the control of 1 3 PCB's ? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. What did you tell them about Bloomington? 16 A. Well, at that point in time I told them 17 that, of course, that I had visited their plant, 1 8 and saw a need for a lot of work. And the best of 1 9 my understanding from reports from Mr. Graham, Mr. 20 Bryant, and Mr. Benignus, that they were 2 1 addressing their situation. 22 Q. By addressing their situation, they were 23 doing what? 24 A. They were looking at different ways of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036499 995 1 degreasing, they were looking at ways to cut down 2 their leakage. 3 Q. By degreasing, you mean in lieu of 4 washing? . 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. So they were looking in 1970 at ways of 7 getting rid of washing mechanism and trying to 8 clean the material or clean the cans by some other 9 method? 1 0 A. That was my understanding. 1 1 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 1 2 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 395, 13 minutes of a meeting of November 16, 1970, there 1 4 is reference here to an expenditure of $590,000 1 5 for control, reclamation, and disposal of Aroclor 1 6 waste. 17 Do you recall what that was for? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 That is primarily the incinerator, as 20 well as the pits and curbing and other devices 2 1 used to keep the material from escaping. 22 Q. Directing your attention to the report of 23 March 8, 1971, minutes of the meeting of the 24 corporate management committee March 8, 1971, Lonirnn'fs f. n nl n 55(1 i non p t*. ; ~ -- WATER PCB-SD0000036500 996 1 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 396 for '. 2 identification. Are you familiar with that 3 document? 4 A. I saw this for the first time this 5 morning. ' . 6 Q. Did you have a hand in preparing the 7 status report with respect to the program? 8 A. No. 9 Q. On March 8, 1971, the statement is made t 0 with respect to capacitors, quote: 1 1 "Good progress 1 2 achieved with customers but 1 3 problem continue as to 1 4 ultimate disposal of spent 1 5 capacitors." 1 6 Did you have a hand in preparing that 17 report? 1 8 A. No. 1 9 Q. What do you understand "good progress" to x 20 mean with respect to customers? 2 1 A. That there were improvements noted at the 22 plants regarding the PCB's that are being 23 discharged into their waste effluents. 24 Q. What specific improvements existed at Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036501 997 1 Bloomington? 2 A. At that time we had, for example, looked 3 at some samples. You may recall we looked at some 4 reports previously, where the levels where as I 5 remember in the parts per billion range. 6 Q. Parts per billion out of Bloomington? 7 A. Yes. I think I recall a report that did 8 that. 9 Q. Your goal was 10 parts per billion, was 1 0 it not? 1 1 A. That was the target. Yes. 1 2 Q. And it was. technologically feasible' to do 1 3 so with carbon filters; isn't that right? 1 4 A. Yes. ` 1 5 Q. So it wasn't a question of being a 16 target; if you put carbon filters in you could get 17 it, right? 1 8 A. You could get clean water, but then you 19 had the problem of disposing of the contaminated 20 carbon. 2 1 Q. Which might require incineration; isn't 22 that right ? 23 A. Chasing your tail. 24 Q. You might have to go and incinerate it; Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036502 998 1 is that right? 2 A. There were no solid incinerators 3 available. 4 Q. So, if you had carbon, you could either 5 store it for incineration or you could put it in a 6 chemically licensed landfill; isn't that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So you could get down to 10 parts per 9 billion, is that right? 1 0 A. In water, yes. 1 1 Q. Directing yourattention to whathas been t 2 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 397, 13 minutes of a meeting of March 29, 1971 of the 1 4 corporate management committee. 1 5 Can you tell us what the appropriation 1 6 request for distillation at the Krummrich plant 17 was? 1 8 A. That was the piece of equipment that was 1 9 required to produce Aroclor 1016, which replaced 20 Aroclor 1242. 2 1 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 22 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 398 for 23 identification, the minutes of the corporate 24 management committee meeting of September 7, 1971. Lonfforia f, finl HsU ns insfl r k 1 ^ WATER PCB-SD0000036503 999 1 Do you recall seeing that document 2 before? 3 A. I saw this document this morning for the 4 first time. 5 Q. And Mr. Gck was who, again? 6 A. President and chairman of the board. 7 Q. I am confused because it say s the 8 preside nt asked Mr. Eck to continue to oversee 9 this working closely with the law department. 1 0 A. My apologies. I was confusing Mr. Eck 1 1 and Hr. Bock. 1 2 Q. Okay. 1 3 A. Mr. Bock is the chairman and president, 1 4 Mr. Eck was the vice president manufacturing. 1 5 Q. Okay. 16 Do you know what the further developments 17 relating to PCB's in poultry feed and products 1 8 were in September 1971? 1 9 A. *71. At that time the FDA was 20 establishing acceptable limits in food. Monsanto 21 introduced some more words of restricted use on 22 its label, references to not to use near food or 23 foodstuff, shortly after that the decision was 24 made to withdraw from the heat transfer Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036504 1 000 T application. That is all I can think of at the 2 aonent. 3 Q . N ow, my next do cume nt is in the sequence 4 you gave them t 0 m e, Mike, we go from September o f 5 '71 -- I am sorry -- yes, from September of '71 t 0 6 February *74. 7 There are no other corporate management 8 committee meeting minutes? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is what I am told. 1 0 MR. KARAGANIS: I am going to double check 1 1 here. But some of the documents you provided this 1 2 morning.indicate that -- 1 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let's take a quick break while 1 4 you are doing that. 1 5 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 1 6 MR. KARAGAMIS: Just for the record, and I 17 know you have indicated off the record that you 1 8 have made inquiry on this. The minutes and 1 9 communications to whatever the corporate 20 leadership was during the period from September 2 1 '71, September 7, '71 to February 4, '74 regarding 22 PCB's, there seems to be a gap. 23 You have indicated off the record to me 24 that that gap might be explained by the fact that In n tTAr i a 2. (1 a 1 ^ e f i wo O "3 1 n O n fu A WATER PCB-SD0000036505 1 001 1 in some instances there were communications to the ` 2 corporate board of directors during that period of 3 time. But again I' would ask for further inquiry 4 with regard to communications with corporate 5 management regarding PCB's during that period of 6 time. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: As I said, I have made inquiry 8 about any other types of minutes, to the board of 9 directors or any of these committees relating to 1 0 PCB's. Obviously, this type of set of documents 1 1 has been requested in numerous cases. As a 1 2 result, I have ever reason to believe that they 13 have searched several times to make a complete 1 4 3et. That is what they toId me .we 'have here. 1 5 So it is my interpretation that during 1 6 the interval between '71 CMC minutes and the 17 February *74 CAC minutes, that the only entries 1 8 are the board of directors minutes in between 1 9 those two then. That appears to fill in some 20 gaps. 2 1 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 22 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 23 Deposition Exhibit 398 A, which are the minutes of 24 the corporate administrative committee for Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036506 1002 1 February 4 , 1974. 2 Do you recall what the lawsuits were that 3 are referred to there? 4 A. I believe they are referring to silo 5 contamination cases in Michigan. . 6 Q.' Directing your attention to the -- strike 7 that. 8 Up through 1974, the ad hoc task force 9 that you were talking about that you were involved 10 with on PCB's, that continued in existence, did it 1 1 not? 1 2 A. It never really disbanded. But it 1 3 continued, yes. _ 1 4 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington 1 5 Exhibit 399. Are you familiar with that ? 1 6 A. I had first saw this document this 17 morning. 1 8 Q. 399 makes reference - - 399 is the June 19 14, 1976 minutes of the corporate administrative 20 committee. 2 1 399 makes reference to a presentation or 22 a request by Mr. Fitzgerald to the CAC entitled 23 dielectrics business direction, dated May 21, 24 1 976 . Longoria & Goldstine in?n WATER PCB-SD0000036507 1003 1 Are you familiar with that? 2 A. I'm not. No. 3 MR. KARAGAMIS: Mike, has that been produced? 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: Well, this was produced to me 5 associated with the next document there. The 6 dielectric presentation dated June 7, '76. 7 So there is an attachment to it called 8 dielectric business direction, which I think is 9 what is referred to there. The documents are both 1 0 the oral presentations and the underlying 1 1 documents that were discussed in the June 14th 1 2 meeting. 1 3 MR. KARAGAMIS: Can you verify that? 1 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: They were produced to me and 15 assembled as they were for you, clipped together, 16 so that is my inference and they do appear to be 1 7 together and I will verify it. 1 8 (The document above-referred to was 1 9 marked Bloomington Deposition 20 Exhibit Mo. 399 B for 2 1 identification.) 22 BY MR. KARAGAMIS: 23 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 24 marked as Bloomington De-position Exhibit 399 A. Loncoria & Goldstine 2R6 1 0R 0 Thir-ar-'n WATER PCB-SD0000036508 1 004 1 Can you tell me who the initials RG P 2 stand f or ? 3 A. I would ass ume that i s Robert G. Potter. 4 Q. Who is he, what was his role? 5 A. At that time he was I believe he was a 6 director of administration of Monsanto Industrial 7 Chemicals Company. 8 Q. And who was Mr. Fitzgerald? 9 A. At that time Mr. Fitzgerald was the 1 0 managing director and vice president of the 1 1 Industrial Chemicals Company. 12 Q. And Mr. Harbison? 13 A. I don't recall Mr. Harbison1s title in 1 4 '76 . 1 5 Q. What has he historically been with the 16 company ? 17 A. He is a top level executive. 1 8 Q. In what area? 1 9 A. Corporate administration. 20 Q. So did he work in the office of the 2 1 president? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can I see that document, please? 24 A. Sure. Longoria AGoldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036509 1005 1 Q. 3 99 > I am sorry, yes, Bloomington Exhibit ` 2 399 refers to a December 1975 decision by Monsanto 3 to terminate production as soon as customers could 4 qualify. 5 Was that a corporate decision? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you know why that is not reflected 8 either in the board of directors minutes or the 9 corporate administrative or management committee 1 0 meeting minutes? 1 1 A. No, Ido not. 1 2 Q. Was it made at the top levels of the 1 3 corporation? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. Again, I would think that would be a - 16 MR. FRDEHWALD: What are you referring to? 17 MR. KARAGANIS: In Bloomington Exhibit 399 1 8 which is the minutes of the June 14, 1976 1 9 corporate administrative committee meeting 20 minutes, there is reference to the following 2 1 sentence: 22 "Monsanto made the decision 23 in December 1975 to terminate 24 production. " Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036510 1006 1 They have to be some documents . 2 referencing that. 3 MR. FHUEHWALD: Assuming this was a committee 4 decision as opposed to an executive decision. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: There ought to be some ' 6 documentation. 7 MR. FROEHWALD: These committee and director 8 minutes, they are not all executive documents, so 9 we will look for that. I am not saying we won't 1 0 look for it. But that is why I presume they 1 1 haven't been produced is because this is a stack 1 2 of committee minutes and presentations to 1 3 committees. If this was an executive decision, t 4 done without a committee approval or whatever, by 1 5 the chief executive officers, it wouldn't 1 6 necessarily be in this. It would be reported to 17 the committee like it was here in June '76. 1 8 I don't know. I am saying I just don't 1 9 know. I don't accept the assumption that there 20 has to be committee meeting minutes on it. 2 1 MR. KARAGANIS: There has to be some kind of 22 documentation on it, and I don't believe we have 23 received it, from the standpoint of the executives 24 involved in the decision. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036511 1 007 1 Q. Do you know who prepared Bloomington 2 Deposition Exhibit 399 A? 3 A. No. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: Is there an author on it, 5 Mike, do you know? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: I do not know. Portions of 7 it, the second section appears to have Mr. 8 Potter's initials at the top. It starts at page 9 2583. It was his part of the presentation. Just 1 0 from looking at the document, I am inferring that. 1 1 The first part may have been one of the other 1 2 gentleman, Mr. Harbison, Mr. Fitzgerald. I do not 13 know the author. Thi3 appears to be Mr. Potter's 1 4 copy of it, whoever the author was. 1 5 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 16 Q. Who is Mr. Hanley? 17 A. He was the chairman of the board and 1 8 president of Monsanto following Mr. Bock. 1 9 Q. Who was Dr. Nolan? 20 Q. He is vice president of public affairs. 21 Q. Why is he a doctor, is he a PhD in 22 something? 23 A. PhD in liberal arts or something. 24 Q. Directing your attention to what has been Longoria 4 Goldst ine imn ' r v. ~ -- WATER PCB-SD0000036512 1008 1 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 399 B for 2 identification, the July 5, 1977 minutes of the 3 meeting of the corporate administrative committee. 4 ^ Have you seen that document before? 5 A. I saw it this morning for the first time. 6 (Discussion had off the record.) 7 MR. KARAGANIS; Let's go on the record. 8 I am referring to the April '69 chart of 9 organization. The reason I emphasis this is that % 1 0 there is shown here a corporate development 1 1 committee and an executive committee. 1 2 Now, I don't know -- one of the reasons I 13 wanted to go through these things -- whether you 1 4 have asked them to search for the executive 1 5 committee minutes or have you asked them to search 1 6 for anything that says CEC on it? 17 MR. FRUEHWALD; No. I have asked for all the 7 1 8 minutes of board of directors and committees of 19 the board of directors. 20 MR. KARAGANIS; Is that a committee of the 2 1 board of directors? 22 MR. FRUEHWALD; I think there has been a 23 comprehensive search. If that is what you are 24 asking about, we can confirm that. But I don't Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036513 1009 know that Bill needs to be questioned about those additional items. I am not objecting your discovering this. I am just objecting to the manner of questioning Bill about them, if it is a question that you are searching for, I can state that the corporate executive committee has been searched; I believe it has been, but I can confirm that for you. If there is anything else that you want to verify or get more detail on from, that best comes from the corporate records. He is a 30 (b) 6 witness, but he doesn't become omniscient because of that designation. BY MR. KARAGANIS: Q. Mr. Papageorge, asking you to direct your attention back to 1968, I am just simply trying to get your recollection of the various players within the organic chemicals group. And I am directing your attention specifically to an organization chart dated February of *68. Your eyes may be better than mine. Can you tell me who is at the top there, is that Smith? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036514 10 10 1 A. Yes. T. K. Smith. 2 Q. Okay . 3 And working for Smith was Minckler? 4 A . Yes. 5 Q. And then in '68 if we wanted to find out 6 who was below Minckler, we would go right to 7 director of functional fluids; is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. 1 0 Then under functional fluids it would be 1 1 Benignus and everybody? 1 2 A. Yes. ' 1 3 Q . Okay. 1 4 There is organic chemicals division, in 1 5 1969 Minckler was general manager? 16 A . Yes . 17 Q. And I am showing you the '69 organization 1 8 chart. You had Minckler, assistaht general 1 9 manager was Smith. Where were functional fluids? 20 A . John Mason was the second assistant and 2 1 under him was functional fluids, Mr. Bergen. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. That is his team there. 24 Q. Now, is that the same Mason who was Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chieairo WATER PCB-SD0000036515 10 11 1 writing to Ryan? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So Mason was not just up in headquarters, 4 he was an operating executive within organic .5 chemicals? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. For some reason we didn't get '70 in this 8 batch. 9 Do you have a '70? 1 0 MR. FRUEHWALD: You have got what I got, Joe. 1 1 These things were sort of made irregularly. You 1 2 have noticed there are various dates. Maybe there 1 3 was none for '70. We have asked for all the 1 4 organizational charts and that is what we were 1 5 given. The dates are sort of irregular. 16 Sometimes they are two in a year. 17 A. It depends on when changes take place. 1 8 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 9 Q. Would it be fair to say that if there 20 isn't one for 1970, the organization chart last 21 published in '69 would be governing? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So that, here is '70. That is the one we 24 just looked at, where you are the manager of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036516 10 12 1 environmental control. 2 Let's take a look at the time period I am 3 interested in is the fall of 1972. I am showing 4 you the chart for June of 1972, the organization 5 chart. 6 This division is the industrial chemicals 7 company? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Cunningham was the chief. Cunningham 1 0 had, let's see if we have this straight, let's go 1 1 back a minute first to the July ' 7 1 organization 1 2 chart and then t o the September ' 7 1 organization 1 3 chart 1 4 Do these two charts show the 1 5 reorganization that took place, the comparison of 1 6 these charts? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. September '71 Cunningham is managing 1 9 director? 20 A. We went from the division concept to the 2 1 company concept. 22 Q. Let's just see if we can trace the 23 charts. 24 As of July of '71, it was Minckler as Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 nhi pa?o WATER PCB-SD0000036517 10 13 1 head of the division, Mason was in charge of, the 2 assistant general manager of the division. Bergen 3 under specialty products. 4 Why don't-why aren't you shown any more 5 as manager of environmental control-? 6 A. I suspect my level wasn't high enough to 7 be included in this showing. It just didn't go to 8 my level. 9 Q. But consistent with what we saw in '70, 1 0 you would you be in the line box under Bergen; 1 1 isn't that right? 1 2 A. Correct. 13 Q. Now, then, in September of '71 we went 1 4 with Cunningham as director of the company? 1 5 A. Yes . 1 6 Q. And where was PCB's under that chart? 17 A. Mason is now a director. 1 8 Q. Okay. 1 9 Bergen is still director of specialty 20 products and you would be underneath Bergen along 21 with the same people? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Let me ask you , I am now i n the 1971 24 organization chart, and I am under the director of Longoria. Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036518 1 01 4 1 specialty products, H. S. Bergen, and I an trying 2 to look for where you would be. 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. I am now September 20, '71. 5 A. That is when I was assigned to Corey. 6 Q. You were the director of administrative 7 services. 8 What was the difference between manager 9 quality and environmental control and manager 1 0 environmental protection? 1 1 A. As you can recall, my assignment was 1 2 specific to PCB's at the beginning and as time 13 went on I began to assume responsibility for other 1 4 products, whereas this individual from the very 1 5 beginning had a group of products, more than a 16 single group. 1 7 Q. Yours was just PCB's? 1 8 A. Initially. I was evolving with time to 1 9 match this kind of assignment. Eventually these 20 three became identical, as time went on. 2 1 Q. That was '71? 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: '72. 23 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 24 Q. '7 2? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036519 10 15 1 A. '72 I am still under Mr. Corey. 2 Q. 72 you .are under Corey and the next one I 3 have is '74. 4 And where are you in 1974? 5 A. I think it is still Corey if I can find 6 him. 7 This shows me reporting to Mr. Bratsch. 8 I was never aware of that. I Just never reported 9 to Mr. Bratsch. 1 0 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is where he is on the 1 1 chart. 1 2 A. Nobody ever told me I reported to Mr. 1 3 Bratsch. . 1 4 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 5 Q. What is the date on that chart? 16 A. This is `74. 17 Q. Who did you report to in '74? 1 8 A. It would have to be either Mr. Corey or 1 9 Mr. Potter. But I don't recall when Mr. Corey 20 retired. 2 1 The mce I think about it, the more I 22 believe I reported into Mr. Robert Potter, who was 23 then director of administration. 24 Q. In '74? Longoria & Goldstine ' 236 1030 nhina.n WATER PCB-SD0000036520 10 16 1 A. In *74. 2 Q. Prior to that you had reported to Corey t 3 who was also director of administration? 4 A. Correct.' 5 MR. KARAGANIS: Let's take a break for about 6 five minutes and see where we are. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. 8 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 9 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 0 Q. Mr. Papageorge, could you tell me the 1 1 difference, if any, or what the differences were 1 2 between the program that was articulated in the 13 spring of 1970 -- we have been through those with 1 4 the corporate management committee -- and the 1 5 program that was instituted in the fall of 1971, 1 6 December of 1971, December, January? 1 7 We have just been through those items 1 8 today. We went back through the program that you 1 9 had drafted and then you indicated that you were 20 not familiar with the terms that had gone to the 2 1 board of directors in December of 1971, relating 22 to sales only with indemnification. 23 A. I wasn't aware of the activities that 24 precede d" ' the decision. Loneoria & Goldstine IflPfl f! h -i a a <r WATER PCB-SD0000036521 10 17 1 Q. What was different, if anything, about 2 the program in 1970 and the program in '71? 3 A. Well, in 1970, the program addressed the 4 entire PCB business as it existed then. 5 Q. All right. 6 A. And the selective withdrawal from some of 7 those businesses. 8 Q . Olcay . 9 A. The late *71 program addressed the 1 0 remaining businesses which at that time were only 1 1 two, the dielectric applications and the heat 1 2 transfer applications. 1 3 Q. Okay. 1 4 As well as the terphenyl? 1 5 A. Then it also addressed a new set of. 1 6 chemicals, called polychlorinated terphenyls. 17 That is the three points of that late '71 program. 1 8 Q. So the biphenyls had been faced out of 1 9 plasticizers and hydraulic fluids previously? 20 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. There was a phase out of the terphenyls 22 out of the same market? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Anything else different about then? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036522 10 18 m'' V ] `5 3 1 '2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Well, one difference is that although we retained the dielectric business, it was to continue only if the customer agreed to a special understanding, special arrangement, this indemnity consideration. That was a difference. Q. You said you were not aware of the indemnity requirements prior to then being imposed; is that right? A. That's right* Q . 0kay. But you did you become aware of them after they had been imposed? A. Yes. Q. Were you ever told or did anyone ever explain to you the reasons for the indemnity? A. No. Q. Did you ever inquire? A. Not to my -- I just took it as a given. I did not inquire. Q. But you knew as we described before that Westinghouse had felt that Monsanto had transferred the liability over to Westinghouse by that indemnity requirement, is that right? A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036523 10 19 1 Q. I want to go back to your 2 recommendations, the recommendations of August, I 3 believe, of 1970. 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: 375. That is the rough draft. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. ' 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention 7 to 375 and your rough draft on methods for waste 8 control and disposal. 9 The idea of preventing the mixing of 1 0 PCB's with water, thereby reducing the 1 1 opportunities for PCB's to enter a water system, 1 2 that containment recommendation could have been 1 3 employed at any time from the forties, fifties, 1 4 whatever; it wasn't something that was unique in 15 terms of technology to the seventies, was it, 1 6 keeping the PCB's out of water? . 1 7 A. That is true. 1 8 Q. Prevention of leaks and spills was not 1 9 technology that was unique to the seventies or 20 eighties, it was a technology that could have been 2 1 employed in the thirties, forties or fifties; 22 isn't that right? 23 A. That is true. 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: Didn't we go through the Longoria K fin! rf 9 h1 n p 0 3 fi in^n W i n -a rr <" WATER PCB-SD0000036524 1020 1 entire recommendation in the last session and have 2 the same answers to those questions already, that 3 all of them were existing technology? . 4 MR. KARAGANIS: I am trying to discuss 5 something that is on August 31, 1970. If he has 6 given the same answers with respect to it, so be 7 it. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: The same document. 9 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 1 0 Q. Just to summarize, then. Virtually all 1 1 of the -- well, all of the recommendations that 1 2 were contained in your rough draft circulated 13 August 31, 1970, Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 1 4 375, could have been employed in the thirties, 1 5 forties and fifties and didn't require 1970's 1 6 technology; isn't that right? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. Would it be fair to say that the 1 9 recommendations that you made with respect to 20 liquids, i.e., the avoidance of mixing with water 2 1 and getting into sewers, getting into creeks, 22 rivers or lakes, avoidance of leaks and spills, 23 curbing, paving, catch basins, those are things 24 that would be applicable to control of any Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036525 *1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 102 1 industrial chemical; isn't that right? A. That is correct. Q. And would have been applicable to any industrial chemical in the thirties, forties and fifties, in terms of good practice, isn't that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And with respect to organic chemicals, the idea of incineration was not unique technology; isn't that right? A. The technology as a basic technology was known. The high temperature incineration was not demonstrated. So burning some of these organics as fuel oils was common practice. Q. Yes. ' But the idea of burning it at high temperature was feasible technology, not thirties, forties, ,and fifties, was it not? A. The high temperatures wasn't demonstrated yet. Q. You had the need to demonstrate the temperatures, but the ability to achieve those temperatures in rotary kilns had been around for sometime? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036526 A. Rotary kilns, yes. But, I don't know, I was not aware that the knowledge to sustain the burning of liquids through nozzels in stationary kilns or incinerators was demonstrated. Q. By demonstrated, you mean build one and do it? A. Yes. And determine if it can be done. Q. But there was no insurmountable technical hurdle to that, it was simply doing it; isn't that right ? A. No. The people that designed Monsanto's first unit had a lot of engineering to do before they achieved it. Q. Understand. But they were able to do it; it wasn't some insurmountable technical burden, was it? A. In hindsight. No. Q. The same thing would be true with respect to any industrial chemical with respect to industrial chemical waste, your recommendations with regard to solids would have been the same, would they not, in terms of keeping it away from water, keeping it away from the landfill that was involved in a water system or could contaminate a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chinaun WATER PCB-SD0000036527 1 023 1 water supply? 2 A. 7 e s. - 3 Q. After your go around in the summer of 4 1 970 , your plant go around to the G E and 5 Westinghouse facility, did you ever again go out 6 and visit a facility, a customer facility? 7 A. Not dielectric facilities. 8 Q. By that, you never went back and 9 investigated either Westinghouse or General 1 0 Electric? 1 1 A. That is correct. 1 2 Q. Would it be fair to say that the two 1 3 largest examples of localized PCB contamination 14 are the General Electric facilities on the Hudson 1 5 and the Bloomington facilities of Westinghouse? 1 6 A. I don1 t k now that I have the information 17 lead to that conclusion. 1 8 Q. Do you know of any larger? 1 9 A. I don' t know how to measure i t. 20 Q. Let's measure it in terms of cubic yards 2 1 of contaminated material 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: You are assuming Mr. 23 Papageorge knows anything about the Bloomington 24 situation in terms of that. There is no Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036528 1 024 1 foundation for his knowledge of the cubic yards or ` 2 the sites involved in Bloomington. 3 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 4 Q. Wo one has ever told you as to what has 5 been involved in the clean up? 6 A. I have no idea. 7 Q. I would a3k you to assume that 650,000 8 cubic yards of contaminated material are going to 9 be dug out of various landfills and incinerated. 1 0 As a matter of fact, that is basically 1 1 the technology that you advocated, isn't it, 12 incineration? 1 3 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. I would ask you t o assume that 650,000 1 5 cubic yards is going to b e dug up. 1 6 Do you know of any PCB contamination 17 sites or locales where a larger amount of 1 8 contamination has had to be exhumed? 19 A. I do not know the other sites that I am 20 aware of. So I have no way of knowing that. 21 Q. Are you aware of other locales of PCB 22 contamination? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And how many are you aware of? Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER_PCB-SD0000036529 1025 1 A. There is one up in Waukegan harbor. 2 Q. All right. 3 A. I have no idea how many cubic yards, to 4 use that as a yardstick, are involved there. 5 I have no idea of the Hudson River in 6 terms of magnitude of the clean up effort required 7 there. I just don't have enough information to 8 compare. 9 Q. What specifically after 1970 were your 1 0 activities after the summer of 1970 regarding 1 1 evaluating the degree of containment in the 1 2 dielectric industry, containment of PCB releases, 1 3 what did you do? 1 4 A. I saw my role as one of keeping abreast 15 of what Benignus, Graham, Bryant and their 16 successors were observing and reporting back. 17 Q. Did you ever instruct Benignus, Graham, 1 8 Bryant or their successors to conduct inspections 1 9 and to give specific progress report to you? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You did. 22 Do you have any documents reflecting such 23 instructions? 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: There is one shown today I Lon/rnrla & OnIHsfc 2 3 1 0 *3 H Phinacrn WATER PCB-SD0000036530 1 0 26 1 believe to Mr. Graham. 2 A. That is an example. 3 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 4 Q . 0kay. 5 That is the' one that you are referring to 6 in your exhibits. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: 374. 8 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 9 Q. Yes. This is the one in which you say it 1 0 would behoove us to call on these customers to 1 1 assure that substantial progress is being made. 1 2 That is dated July 27, 1970. 1 3 I asked you what did you do after that. 1 4 Did you make sure there were regular inspections? 1 5 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you have checklists as to what needed 1 7 tobedone? 1 8 A. No. 1 9 Q. You indicated in Exhibit 374 that some of 20 the customers' plants have a long way to go to 2 1 achieve the standards we oelieve will be 22 acceptable. 23 Was there either a checklist of what 24 needed to be done or a set of deadlines.?' Longoria & Goldstine . 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036531 1 027 1 A. Ho . 2 Q. Did you ever ask Benignus or Graham to 3 give you specific reports as to what specifically 4 had been done? 5 A. I don't know what you mean by specific 6 reports. 7 Q. Specific remedial actions that had been 8 taken. 9 A. I would keep abreast by just a simple 1 0 question: How are things going? What are you 1 1 finding out? Are you running into any 1 2 difficulties anywhere? What is the problem? 1 3 Q. In the meantime, you had plants that were 1 4 either discharging into -- sending wastes to 1 5 uncontrolled landfills, or discharging into 16 sewers, as you indicated in your memorandum, were 17 not up to the standards that you would expect to 1 8 be met. 1 9 How did you find out whether those plants 20 were coming up to the standards and when? 2 1 A. Only by reports that came in from the 22 field. 23 Q. There was no specific program for those 24 reports or deadlines or milestones or anything Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic a no WATER PCB-SD0000036532 1028 1 else; Is that right? 2 A. No. 3 Q. With regard to the Bloomington plant, did 4 you ever find out whether they went to the kind 5 of - - what did you call it - - solvent degreaser 6 that you had talked about? 7 A. Yes. I found out they did not choose to 8 go that route. 9 Q. Did they go any route? 1 0 A. They went to the manifold filling of 1 1 units, to reduce or minimize or try to eliminate. 1 2 Q. How long did they operate the manifold 13 filling units? 1 4 A. I don't recall. I don't recall. They 1 5 went back then to the old way of flooding the 16 units. 17 Q. Do you recall how long it took them to go 1 8 to the manifold filling of units? 1 9 A. About a year. 20 Q. From 1970? 2 1 A. It took a while. I don't recall the 22 exact timing. 2 3 Q. Did you ever sit down with VJestinghouse 24 or with your people and say, look, they are taking Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036533 1029 1 too long, they ought to get their thing squared 2 away? 3 A . Yes. 4 ' Q. You did. With whom? 5 A. Benignus and Bryant. 6 Q. You instructed them or discussed with 7 them the fact that the Bloomington plant was 8 taking too long to gets its act cleaned up? 9 A. That's right. 1 0 Q. When was that? 1 1 A. 1971 or '72. 1 2 Q. How did you communicate that, by 13 memorandum or orally? 1 4 A. Oral . 1 5 Q. Do you know whether they communicated 1 6 your questions, your concerns, to Uestinghouse? 17 A. I was led to believe they did. 1 8 Q. What did they say to you? 1 9 A. V/ho is they? 20 Q. Benignus and Graham. 2 1 A. I don't recall the exact words. But the 22 impression I recall is that they did go to the 23 plants, spoke sternly about the need for more .-2 4 action. T. o n p a r i a r\ l Hot1 n no o o inon r* u ~ WATER PCB-SD0000036534 103 0 1 Q. What specifically did they speak sternly 2 about ? 3 A. I don't recall. That is ten years, 4 fifteen years ago. The impression I have is that 5 they walked away from their discussion with the 6 clear understanding that the plant got the 7 message. 8 Q. That was communicated to you orally? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. Did you document it at all? 1 1 A. No. 1 2 Q. So that would it be correct to say that 13 you felt no further corrective action was 1 4 necessary because Benignus and Graham told you 15 that the plant got the message? 16 A. It had nothing to do with no further 17 corrective action. It told me that all right, for 1 8 the time being give these people a chance to 19 perform. Then you would go back and check again. 20 Q. Okay. 2 1 You started out in 1970 undertaking a 22 control program which they did not get on the 23 program right away, did they, would that be a fair 24 statement? T nn .n. i ^ f. OO 1 AT A ' A u ------ WATER PCB-SD0000036535 103 1 1 A. I don't know what you mean by right away. * 2 It can't be the day after. 3 Q. They didn't get on the program in fast 4 enough time to satisfy you. You had expressed 5 concern that they weren't moving fast enough? 6 A. After about a year, yes. ' 7 Q. They weren't moving fast enough, were 8 they? 9 A. That is correct. 1 0 Q. How, you indicated you sat.down with 1 1 Benignus and Graham, told them that you wanted to 1 2 get a message to the Bloomington plant to. clean up 1 3 faster. Is that correct? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. And they told you that they conveyed that 16 message in stern terms; is that right? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. And when did yo.u get any indication from 19 them that the Bloomington planted indeed cleaned 20 up? 21 A. I don't recall the exact timing, but we 22 did get -- I did see reports of water analysis, 23 wastewater analyses. 24 Q. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036536 103 2 1 A. That as I recall were very encouraging. * 2 Q. Very encouraging meaning what? 3 A. They had gone from the percent in part 4 per million range down to the part per billion. 5 Q. To the'low part per billion range? 6 A. Yes. As I remember, some of them were 7 quite respectable. I don't remember the exact 8 number s. . 9 Q. You had indicated that effluent control 1 0 was technically feasible for water to get down to 1 1 under 10 parts per billion; is that right? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. Did you see numbers under 10 parts per 1 4 billion? 1 5 A. I thought I did, some of them. Not all 1 6 of them. But the idea was they were trending in 17 the proper direction. And I knew they had 1 8 stopped, I was told they had stopped using saw 1 9 dust as their absorbent material. 20 Q. Were you familiar with what they had done 2 1 with respect to their funnel washers, the funnel 22 washer, the washer used to deal with the filler 23 mechanisra? 24 A. I understood that they had an Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036537 1----- . 1033 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 incineration service for that detergent, PCB water mixture, which was a step in the right direction. I understood they had quite an extensive program to stop their leakage, their conveyor pans that were supposed to catch any drippage were improv ed. Q. When did you get that information? A. Oh, again I don't remember the exact timing, but through the years, '71, '72, '73, the reports that I got were encouraging. The movements were in the right direction. Q. In the right direction, meaning ' minimizing any release to the environment; is that right? A. Toward minimizing, yes. Q. Toward minimizing or minimizing? A. They were minimizing, moving toward it. Q. How long would It take to put in a carbon filtration system? A. About a year and a-half. A year, year and a-half. Q. A year and a-half to put in a carbon filtration system for a few hundred gallons a minute? Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036538 MR. FRUEHWALD Vhere does that assumption come from? MR. KARAGANIS: Are you familiar with the Aqua Technics report? A. I am sorry. Q. Are you familiar with the Aqua Technics report? A. No. Q. Are you familiar with what was being proposed by Aqua Technics for -- A. No, I am not. Q. All of these reports you were getting were all oral reports, is that it? A. Yes. Well, now that stands corrected. Some of them -- they were all oral. Some of them were supported by trip reports, call reports. Some of which we have seen here in this deposition. Q. Okay. And those trip reports did not give you any quantitative information, they would be such as we got today, which are Randy Graham's statement in 1971 that have made tremendous strides- in plant clean up; is that right? Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036539 1 03 5 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. It says details of this program are in 3 the file. What file was he referring to in 4 Deposition Exhibit 345? 5 A. It would be his file. 6 Q. Graham kept records of what the 7 Westinghouse Bloomington program was? 8 A. Oh, I don't know what he kept. But he 9 did keep files on his customers. 1 0 Q. So he let me get this straight. You felt 1 1 that Westinghouse was tending towards minimization 1 2 over the years, is that right, the Bloomington 1 3 plant? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. But not getting there until sometime 16 after 1970? 17 A. That's right. 1 8 Q. Do you know when they got there? 1 9 A. N o. 20 Q. Do you know when they installed 2 1 degreasing? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Have you had occasion during the course 24 of preparing for this deposition to refresh your Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036540 1 036 1 recollection with respect to your activities with 2 respect to the Bloomington plant? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Have you had occasion to refresh your 5 recollection with regard to documents? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And has that recollection or refreshing 8 of your recollection enabled you to testify and 9 give your recollection of events? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. And is that true with respect to your 1 2 recollection of your communications with other 13 employees and your knowledge of events within 1 4 Monsanto? 1 5 A. Yes. 16 Q. Regarding the activities with the 1 7 government, with the EPA and other government 1 8 agencies, have you had occasion to refresh your 19 recollection in preparing for your testimony 20 regarding your communications, both among Monsanto 21 employees and consultants as well as to government 22 agencies, have you had occasion to refresh your 23 recollection with documents? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago . WATER PCB-SD0000036541 1037 1 Q. Has that refreshing your recollection 2 with those documents enabled you to testify in 3 this deposition? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That's actually refreshed your memory? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you ever communicate your concern 8 with regard to the Westinghouse facility to higher 9 officials, the Westinghouse Bloomington facility, 1 0 higher officials within Monsanto? 1 1 A. Certainly I expressed it to my immediate 1 2 supervisor. 1 3 Q. Who was? 1 4 A. At that time it was Mr. Bergen. 1 5 Q. You told Mr. Bergen that you were 1 6 concerned that Monsanto wasn't moving fast enough 17 with regard to clean up at Bloomington; is that 1 8 right ? 1 9 A. Not that Monsanto wasn't. 20 Q. I am sorry. That Westinghouse wasn't 2 1 moving fast enough wJ th regard to clean up at 22 Bloomington; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you communicate that to him orally or Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036542 103 8 1 inwriting? " 2 * A. Orally. 3 Q. What specifically to the best of your 4 recollection did you tell him? 5 A. To the best of my recollection, I told 6 him, I reminded him what I first saw. 7 Q. Which was? 8 A. At Bloomington. Where I saw an awful lot 9 of leakage and lot of wet saw dust and oil sheens. 1 0 These kinds of symptoms. 1 1 Q. Symptoms indicating what? 1 2 A. Lack of control. 13 Q. Lack of control over PCB's? 1 4 A. Of the liquids they were using, I assumed 15 they were PCB's. I don't know what else they used 16 there. 17 Q. All right. 1 8 You know that at least they were using. 19 PCB's and not controlling PCB's; isn't that right? 20 A. That is my assessment. Yes. 21 Q. All right. 22 A. Then I would come back at some period and 23 I would suggest six months a year later, and say I 24 understand they are moving along, but I would sure Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036543 1039 1 like to see them move a little faster. You ought 2 to know that. This was not just a discussion on 3 Westinghouse, this is the overall PCB situation. 4 Q. But did you ever mention to him that 5 Westinghouse was not moving fast enough? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And the Westinghouse Bloomington plant 8 was not moving fast enough? ' 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. And what did he say to you? 1 1 A. Well, his exact words, but, of course, he 1 2 expressed disappointment. And he was going to 13 follow it up with the appropriate marketing 1 4 people. . 1 5 Q. Are you aware of any memoranda or 1 6 documents whatsoever inside Monsanto reflecting 17 either your communications to Graham and Benignus 1 8 or, alternatively, your communications to Bergen 1 9 regarding the compliance by the Bloomington 20 Westinghouse plant? 2 1 A. I am not aware of any. 22 Q. Are you aware of any documents by Bergen, 23 authored by Bergen or communications by Bergen to 3 24 others, telling them to v-p u t pressure, make sure Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036544 1040 1 that Westinghouse Bloomington cleaned up faster? 2 A. I am not aware of any. I have never seen 3 any. 4 Q. What was your role in preparing the 5 inter-departmental PCB taskforce, preparing for 6 the presentation by Monsanto to the 7 inter-departmental PCB taskforce? 8 A. My role really was one of making certain 9 that the presentations were prepared in time. 1 0 - I coordinated the -- with Monsanto's 1 1 Washington office, the setting of a date when the 1 2 presentation could take place. I directed the 1 3 preparation of the material in booklet form. And 1 4 I participated at the presentation by having some 1 5 introductory remarks and then some closing 1 6 remarks. 1 7 Q. Did you discuss at all with EPA, either 18 in the taskforce presentation or elsewhere, the 1 9 conditions that existed at Westinghouse 20 Bloomington? 2 1 A. No. 22 Q. Did you ever disclose to EPA or any other 23 government official the conditions you had 24 observed at Westinghouse Bloomington? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036545 10 4 1 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did you ever disclose to EPA or any other 3 official of the government your dissatisfaction 4 with the rate of progress towards minimization of 5 releases of PCB's by Westinghouse Bloomington? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you ever disclose to any official or 8 employee of the City of Bloomington or the State 9 of Indiana with respect to your observations and 1 0 dissatisfaction with the level of control of 1 1 Westinghouse Bloomington? 1 2 A. No. ' 13 Q. Did you ever report on the ANSI C 107 14 committee meetings to any other Monsanto employees 1 5 as to what had occurred, other than Benignus; were 16 they ever written up? 17 A. I never wrote any report. I did report 18 to my supervisor the status of the standard 1 9 setting. 20 Q. You reported orally to your supervisor? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Who was that? 23 A. Let's see, in 1972 to '74 it would have 24 been Mr Corey. Longoria A Goldstine 2?6 10^0 Chioacrn WATER PCB-SD0000036546 1042 1 Q. With respect to the progress of 2 Westinghouse Bloomington, did you ever communicate 3 to Mr. Corey any concern or status or anything 4 with respect to Westinghouse Bloomington? 5 A. Yes. The same kinds of remarks that I 6 had made to Mr. Bergen. 7 Q. That they weren't moving fast enough? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you know if he communicated to anyone 1 0 regarding the lack of progress by Westinghouse 1 1 Bloomington? 1 2 A. I do not know. 13 Q. All your communications then were oral; 1 4 is that right? 1 5 A. That's correct. 16 Q. There was an earlier reference in terns 17 of the program, the multi-point program Monsanto 1 8 was pursuing, including the Industrial Bio-Test 1 9 studies. Those were to determine the health 20 impacts of PCB's not only on animals but on humans 2 1 as well, isn't that right? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. Did you ever get progress reports about 24 the other Westinghouse plants? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036547 1 04 3 sT 1 - A. Yes. 2 Q. From the marketing people? 3 A. Yes. The same people. 4 Q. Do you recall being dissatisfied with 5 South Boston or Sharon? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You felt that South Boston and Sharon 8 were cleaning their act up? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. Did you communicate that to Bergen or 1 1 Corey ? 1 2 A. Yes. 13 Q. To both of them? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. In preparing your comments with regard to 1 6 proposed government regulations, the FDA food 17 content regulation, content in food, o r the EPA 1 8 regulations on effluent characteristics, who would 1 9 prepare those comments? 2 0 A. I would. 2 1 Q. In conjunction with a team? W a s `here a 22 team that was assembled to respond? 23 A. The ad hoc group members would 24 participate as appropriate. Longoria. & Goldstine 236 1030 Chi n a <r n WATER PCB-SD0000036548 1 04 4 1 Q. So the ad hoc group members would 2 circulate comments back and forth or drafts and 3 ideas with regard to proposed regulations; is that 4 right? 5 A.^ Yes. And I would incorporate them in a 6 draft and circulate the draft as many tines as 7 ne cea sary . 8 Q. You would get memos back commenting on 9 the draft? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. We would make a document request for 1 2 those. Again that is part of the outstanding ad 13 hoc document request. 1 4 As a corporate representative of 1 5 Monsanto, are you aware of any written 16 communication by anyone from Monsanto to 17 Westinghouse stating that the Bloomington plant 1 8 needed faster action? 1 9 A. No. 20 Q. Once the indemnity agreement was signed, 2 1 did you continue tc get reports on the progress of 22 Bloomington Westinghouse? 23 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. And you continued to communicate your Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036549 1045 1 dissatisfaction both to the marketing people, 2 Gossage and -- I am sorry, Graham and Benignus? 3 MR. FRUEHW ALD : The record shows that M r. 4 Graham has left Monsanto by March of '71. 5 ' MR. KARAGANIS: I am sorry. 6 MR . FRUEHWALD: So we keep referring to Mr. 7 Graham. 8 MR . KARAGANIS : The successors to Mr. Graham. 9 Q. You continued to communicate your 1 0 dissatisfaction to them; is that right? 1 1 A. I continued to communicate my 1 2 dissatisfaction when they would report to me 1 3 situations that I found a need to be dissatisfied 1 4 with. 1 5 Q. And they indicated that they had been 16 finding such situations; is that correct? 17 A. On occasion. 1 8 Q. What specifically did they tell you? 1 9 A. I can't recall the specifics any longer. 20 I just don't recall specifics. 2 1 Q. Have you had occasion to testify 22 previously regarding the activities of Monsanto in 23 the control of PCB's being released into the 24 environment from the period 1967 to '76? Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicaeo WATER PCB-SD0000036550 1046 1 A. Tea. 2 Q. Was that testimony transcribed? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was that in the possession of Monsanto? 5 A. I believe so. 6 Q. Have you had occasion to testify 7 previously with regard to the Industrial Bio-Test 8 program and what the activities of Monsanto were 9 with regard to Industrial Bio-Test? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. And again, is that testimony recorded? 1 2 A. I understand it is, yes. 13 Q. Again, it is in the possession of 1 4 Monsanto? 1 5 A. I believe it is. 16 Q. Have you had occasion to testify with 17 respect to your relations and communications with 1 8 various agencies of the state and federal 1 9 governments regarding PCB control and release into 20 the environment? 2 1 A. Yes. 22 Q. That is, in other proceedings other than 23 this one? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036551 1 047 1 Q. Is that testimony in the possession of 2 Monsanto? 3 A. I understand it is. 4 Q. Have you had occasion to testify i n other 5 proceedings with regard to your knowledge of the 6 health effe cts of PCB's ? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And, again, is that testimony in the 9 possession of Monsanto? 1 0 A. I bel iev e it is. 1 1 Q. Have you had the occasion to testify with 1 2 regard to the various control techniques for 13 minimization or prevention of PCB releases into 1 4 the environment in other proceedings? 1 5 A. Yes. 1 6 Q. Is that testimony in the possession of 17 Monsanto? 18 A. I believe so. 1 9 Q. You may have been asked this question 20 before, Mr. Papageorge. But directing your 2 1 attention to Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 162, 22 did you prepare the answers that are contained in 23 the attachment to Exhibit 162? 24 A. A.s I recall, I prepared an initial draft Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036552 104 8 1 and I had Mr. Wheeler from the medical department 2 comment on it. And we made some revisions and 3 ended up with this final draft. 4 Q. Mr. Fapageorge, what was your 5 understanding of the events that led to the 6 Monsanto decision to cease producing PCB's, what 7 events led to that decision? 8 A. My understanding is that the electrical 9 equipment industry had begun to find some 1 0 alternative materials for use in capacitors and 1 1 transformers. And they had demonstrated that 1 2 these materials could be used with some trade-off 13 in some of the fire resistant properties. 1 4 Once knowing that, Mr. Fitzgerald decided 15 to inform the industry and EPA that as soon as 16 industry -- that Monsanto replacements were 17 available, that Monsanto would stop production. 1 8 That is my understanding of what led to that 1 9 position. 20 Q. To your knowledge, were there any events 2 1 regarding EPA actions in 1975 that contributed to 22 the decision? 23 A. I don't recall any action by EPA in 1975. 24 Russell Trane, the administrator, did call a Longoria & Goldstine 2 ? 6 1010 Ohian WATER PCB-SD0000036553 1 049 1 meeting at which he tried to get from the 2 electrical industry representatives some 3 understanding of how close they were to finding 4 alternatives. 5 I am not aware of any other action other 6 than an attempt to get a water effluent standard 7 established by EPA. I just don't recall any 8 specific action. 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge, is it Monsanto's 1 0 corporate position that PCB's do not contribute to 1 1 cancer ? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. And what is that based on? 1 4 A. Primarily on the health records of our: 1 5 employees, the lack of evidence of any human 16 cancers being attributed to exposure. And the 17 fact that most of the animal studies, except for 18 one, indicate no cancer-causing effects. 1 9 Q. And which one is the one? 20 A. Dr. Kimbrough's study. 2 t Q. You know of no others that are indicative 22 or probative of a cancer risk, cancer hazard? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. You are basing that on your knowledge or Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago . WATER PCB-SD0000036554 1 050 1 what has that been communicated to you by 2 specialists in the field? 3 A. Specialists in the field. 4 Q. Which specialists? 5 A. Well, there is the medical directors of 6 Monsanto, Dr. Kelly, the one who was present when 7 most of the studies were underway and completed, 8 and his successor, Dr. Roush. 9 Q . 0 k ay. 1 0 Anybody else? 1 1 A. There are the toxicologists that work for 1 2 Monsanto, who advised the medical director. 13 Q. Who would that be? 14 A. Dr. Levinskas is the principal one. 15 Prior to that, it would be Mr. Elmer Wheeler. 1 6 Q. Is Levinskas still with Monsanto? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Any body else ? ` 1 9 A. That is all I know at the moment. 20 Q. Any outside experts or any other experts 21 within Monsanto who communicated to you on the 22 cancer risk? 23 A. Not within Monsanto. Outside, no one has 24 communicated directly to me. They did it to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036555 1051 Monsanto's experts. Q. Vho has done that? A. There is the individual I couldn't recall earlier in the day from the institute in Omaha, Ne braska. Q. Who is that ? A. A doctor and I think it starts -Q. Eppley ? A. It starts with a P. It is the Eppley Institute. Doctor starts with a P. MR. FRUEHWALD: P-o-u-r? A. Pour. That is it. Dr. Pour. BY MR. KARAGANIS: Q. Okay. A. There is also a Dr. Richard Dahl in Oxford, England, Oxford University in England, who has advised Monsanto that in his opinion that there is no evidence. That is all that cones to mind at the moment. Q. Are you aware of any experts who have testified for Monsanto in other triai proceedings that PCB's do not represent a risk of cancer? A. Yes. There is a Dr. Harbison. The last I knew he was with University of Arkansas. I do Longoria & Goldstine ' 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036556 1 052 1 not know where he is today. 2 Q. You are familiar with the fact that he 3 has testified in one or more other trials? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. On that issue? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Is Monsanto in possession of his 8 testimony? 9 A. I don't know. 1 0 Q. Anybody else on the- cancer risk? 1 1 A. I can't think of anyone else. 1 2 Q. With regard to reproductive impacts, are 13 you familiar with anyone who has testified or 1 4 given expertise to Monsanto with regard to 1 5 reproductive impacts? 1 6 A. I believe Dr. Harbison has and that is 17 the only expert I know of that has done so. 1 8 Q. With regard to the Industrial Bio-Test 1 9 studies and there efficacy or validity regarding 20 findings as to health effects of PCB's, are you 2 1 aware of any experts or others who have testified 22 regarding the Bio-Test study? 23 A. No, I am not. Of those studies 24 specific aJlly, no. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036557 1053 1 Q. To your knowledge, has anyone within 2 Monsanto conducted a review of those studies to 3 determine their accuracy? 4 A. Dr. Levinskashas. 5 Q. To your knowledge regarding the phase out 6 of PCB's, did publicity in the year 1975, adverse 7 publicity, regarding among other things the GE PCB 8 situation and EPA responses to -that, have a 9 contributing effect upon the decision to cease PCB 1 0 production? 1 1 A. It did not have a direct effect. It 1 2 could have had an indirect effect, because i t 13 would have motivated the customers to find the 1 4 alternatives sooner. 1 5 Q. So that the knowledge of the 1 6 contamination, the GE contamination, created the 17 impetus to find an alternative; is that right? 1 8 A. That is my considered opinion. 1 9 Q. And had that knowledge been developed 20 earlier, it might have led to an finding of an 21 alternative even earlier; is that right'' 22 A. It is possible. 23 Q. In your opinion it could have happened; 24 is that right? Loneoria A Rol dati ns in^n rh WATER PCB-SD0000036558 1054 1 A. It could have. Yes. * 2 Q. If the conditions in Bloomington had been 3 discovered earlier, and had been publicized 4 earlier with respect to PCB contamination, could 5 that have lead to an impetus to find a substitute 6 at an earlier time? 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me interpose an objection. 8 There is no foundation which has been laid that 9 Mr. Papageorge has any knowledge of the conditions 1 0 in Bloomington, publically or otherwise, therefore 1 1 it is a question he can't answer. 1 2 BY MR. KAR AG AN IS : 13 Q. Mr. Papageorge, nobody has ever told you 1 4 what exists in Bloomington with regard to PCB 1 5 contamination? 16 A. All I am aware of that the sewerage 1 7 system was effected and some landfills are 1 8 involved. That's the extent of my specific 1 9 knowledge. 20 Q. When you say some landfills were 21 involved, do you know that Westinghouse was 22 burying capacitors in landfills all around the 23 Bloomington area? 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: I think the evidence is Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036559 1055 1 contrary to that, Joe. That is a 2 misrepresentation of fact. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: That they weren't burying 4 capacitors? 5 MR . FRUEHWALD: Westinghouse wasn't doing any 6 of that stuff. 7 What is purpose of this line of argument? 8 It is just purely argument. 9 MR . KARAGANIS: You may object. 1 0 MR. FRUEHWALD: Ask a question. 1 1 MR . KARAGANIS: I asked the question and you 1 2 got him off the point. You made the point that 13 Westinghouse wasn't doing it. 1 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: That's right. 1 5 MR . KARAGANIS: Westinghouse or its agents. 1 6 MR . FRUEHWALD: Object to that. There is no 17 evidence of that. 1 8 MR . KARAGANIS: What, that they weren't 1 9 burying in landfills? 20 MR . FRUEHWALD: That any agents of 2 1 Westinghouse buried anything in a landfill. Now, 22 you know -- 23 3 Y MR. KARAGANIS: 24 Q. Here, Mr. Papageorge, accept for the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036560 10 56 1 purpose of my question that someone, identity 2 unknown, buried capacitors manufactured by 3 Westinghouse in landfills around the Bloomington 4 area; buried literally thousands upon thousands of 5 capacitors. 6 And accept my hypothesis that those 7 capacitors eventually corroded and leaked or were 8 opened by vandals. 9 With regard to that, had the knowledge of 1 0 PCB contamination, the extent of PCB contamination 1 'l been known earlier, is it your opinion that it 12 would or would not have stimulated the finding of 1 3 an alternative? 1 4 A. I can't speak for the management of 1 5 Westinghouse and what action they might have 16 taken. 17 There are many steps they could have 1 8 taken. One is get out of the business all 1 9 together. Another is find alternatives. Another 20 is tighten up. Do better what they are doing. 2 1 Q. All of those were options; isn't that 22 right? 23 A. Yes. 24 MR. KARAGANIS: Give me about three minutes. Longoria A Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036561 1057 1 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Let's go on the record. 3 I have previously made repeated requests 4 for the documents that Mr. Papageorge used to 5 refresh his recollection in preparing for his 6 deposition. And I will again renew that request. 7 MR. FRtJEHWALD: All right. I don't believe 8 you are entitled to them. 9 I believe you have had Mr. Papageorge 1 0 refresh his recollection with documents as you 1 1 have gone along. And those are the documents that 1 2 refreshed his recollection and you have had then 13 all. 1 4 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 15 Q. Mr. Papageorge, to your knowledge, with 16 regard to the subject areas that we have covered, 17 have you examined documents in refreshing your 1 8 recollection that I have not shown you? 1 9 A. I don't recall any that I have not seen 20 offered as exhibits here. 2 1 Q. Oother than the exhibits that have been 22 actually discussed? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. You don't recall seeing any other such Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036562 1058 1 documents? 2 A. That's right. 3 Q. And that is your best recollection at 4 this time? 5 A. That's right. 6 Q. You have seen everything, everything that 7 you have been shown in refreshing your 8 recollection are documents that have been 9 introduced in your deposition testimony? 1 0 A. Yes. As best I recall. Yes. 1 1 Q. Okay. 12 If you should change that recollection, 13 please advise us? 1 4 A. Sure. 15 MR. KARAGAMIS: Okay. 16 Subject to our outstanding document 1 7 disputes, which are still unresolved, several of 1 8 them, we will recess the deposition. 1 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: Okay. 20 I want to make it clear, you have asked 2 1 all the questions that you want to ask based upon 22 the do cume nt s that you have already received. We 23 are not going to be having a ny problem with that. 24 MR . KARAG ANIS : I say that only for an example Longoria 4 Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036563 1059 1 I saw documents today that gave relevance to 2 documents that I had already asked about. And I 3 went back and asked some questions. 4 As a matter of fact, I got some questions 5 from you about documents that I had already asked 6 about, because documents that I had received gave 7 them greater significance. There may be documents 8 that you produce in the future which may enhance 9 the significance of documents I have asked about. 1 0 MR. FRDEHWALD: All right. 1 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Subject to that qualification, 1 2 I am recessing the deposition. 1 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. Okay. 1 4 MR. KARAGAMIS: Just for the record, it is not 1 5 to say that the information requests that we have 1 6 made have been adequately satisfied or there may 1 7 not be other 30 (b) 6 witnesses who are more 1 8 responsive. 1 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am just saying in the 20 absence of any production of any further 2 1 documents, you have asked all the questions that 22 you have got on the basis of the documents that 23 have been presented so far? 24 MR. KARAGANIS: No. I will tell you, the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036564 1 06 0 1 witness said he didn't know anything about what 2 went on in the whole period of the' fall of 1971. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: That's right, okay. As far as 4 Mr. Papageorge, he doesn't know it; he is not 5 going to know it in the future. You have asked 6 all the questions of this witness. 7 MR. KARAGANIS: Of what he says he knows. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: All right. That is good 9 enough. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 DEPOSITION ADJOURNED 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036565 1 06 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, ) 5) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs. ) Civ No. 7 ) IP 8 3 -9-C ) 8 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, ) 10 ) Defendants .X 11 1 2 I hereby certify that I have read the 13 foregoing transcript of my deposition given at the 1 4 time and place aforesaid, consisting of Pages 1 15 through____ inclusive, and I do again subscribe and 16 make oath that the same is a true, correct and 1 7 complete transcript of my deposition so given as 1 8 aforesaid, as it now appears. 19 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE 20 21 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO 22 before me this_________ day of, 198 23 24 NOTARY PUBLIC Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036566 r 1 06 2 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 UNITED NORTHERN EASTERN STATE OF STATES OF DISTRICT OF DIVISION ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK AMERICA ILLINOIS ) ) ") ) )SS: I, Arnold N; Goldstine, a notary public and Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, do hereby certify that the aforesaid deponent was by me first duly sworn to testify the whole truth, and that the foregoing deposition was recorded stenogra phi cal1y by me and was reduced to typewriting by computer-aided transcription under my personal direction and supervision; and, that the said deposition constitutes a true and accurate record of the testimony given by said deponent. I further certify that the reading and signing of said deposition was not waived by the deponent. Longoria & Goldstine . 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036567 106 3 1 I further certify that I am not a 2 relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any 3 of the parties, or a relative or employee of such 4 attorney or counsel, or financially interested 5 directly or indirectly in this action. 6 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 8 my hand and affixed my seal of office at Chicago, 9 Illinois, this ___ day of___ 1 0 19 86 _________A.D. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 Notary Public/Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000036568