Document Mooo8XYpp9d81ngQY6KJ5Zb2j

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION THE COLONNADE ONE AT OLD GREENWICH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, VS . ELECTROLUX CORPORATION AND SARA LEE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. B-8 8 - 3 3 6 - ( J A C J ) ) ) ) ) ) DEPOSITION OP WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. MARCH 29, 1990 GORE REPORTING C 0 M P A N Y 408 OLIVE STREET ST. LOU IS, MISS0 U RI 243-6750 WATER PCB-SD0000058497 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 3 EASTERN DIVISION 4 5 THE COLONNADE ONE AT ) 6 OLD GREENWICH LIMITED ) 7 PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., ) 8) 9 Plaintiffs, ) 10 ) 1 3 vs ) NO. B-88-336 (Jac.) 12 13 ELECTROLUX CORPORATION AND ) 1 4 SARA LEE CORPORATION, ) 15 E T AL., ) 16 ) 17 Defendants. ) 18 Deposition of WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 19 P . E . , taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs, at. the 2 0 Stouffer Concourse Hotel, 9801 Natural Bridge 21 Road, in the County of St. Louis, State of 2 2 Missouri, on the 29th day of March, 1990, 2 3 commencing at 10:42 a . m . , before Victoria L. 24 Wilson, Registered Professional Reporter and 2 5 Notary Public. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WATER PCB-SD0000058498 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 4 Mr. Ronald F. Ochsner 5 Pepe ft Hazard 6 Goodwin Square 7 Hartford, Connecticut 8 06103-4302 9 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 10 Ms. Courtney M. Price 11 Anderson, K i 11 , 01 i c. k & 12 Oshinsky 13 S u 5 t. e 7 5 0 0 14 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N . W . 15 Washington, D.C. 20006 16 FOR THE DEPONENT AND MONSANTO COMPANY: 1 7 Mr. Gerard H. Davidson, Jr. 18 Smith, Helms, M u 11is s & ] 9 Moore 20 Suite 1400 21 300 North Greene Street 2 2 P. 0. Box 21927 23 Greensboro, N.C. 27420 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 3 WATER PCB-SD0000058499 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 Examination by Mr . Och s ner 4 E xa in 5 nation by Ms . Price 5 70 5 Examination by Mr . Ochs ner 78 6 Examination by Ms . Price 79 7 8 EXHIBITS 9 1 0 Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 1 29 1 1 Plaintiffs ' Deposition Exhibit 2 33 12 Plaintiffs ' Deposition Exhibit 3 35 13 Plaintiffs ' Deposition Exhibit 4 37 14 P1 a i n t. i f f s ' Deposition Exhibit 5 39 1 5 Plaintiffs ' Deposition Exhibit 6 42 1 6 P1 a i n t i f f s ' Deposition Exhibit 7 44 1 7 Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 8 45 3 8 Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 9 47 1 9 Plaintiffs ' Deposition Exhibit 1 0 64 20 Plaintiffs ' Deposition E x h i b i. t 3. 3. 65 2 1 Plaintiffs ' Deposition Exhibit 12 68 2 2 Plaintiffs ' Deposition 13 x h i b i t 13 69 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 4 WATER PCB-SD0000058500 1 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. 2 of lawful age, having been first duly sworn to 3 testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 4 but the truth in the case aforesaid, deposes and 5 says in reply to oral interrogatories propounded 6 as follows, t.o- wi t : 7 8 MR. OCHSNER: Let the record reflect, that 9 we are proceeding with the deposition of ] 0 Mr. William Papageorge. 1 1 Counsel, I take it counsel are agreeable ] 2 to the standard stipulations that we have always 13 agreed to. I will cite those for the record. 1 4 MS. PRICE: Yes, Counsel, I agree. 15 MR. OCHSNER: First of all, objections 1 6 with the exception of those as to the form of the 17 question are reserved for trial and, further, that 1 8 the witness make si. gn the deposition before a 19 notary other than the notary public before which 20 the deposition has been taken. 21 2 3 EXAMINATION 2 3 QUESTIONS BY MR. OCHSNER: 24 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, would you please 25 state for the record your full name? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 5 WATER PCB-SD0000058501 1 A . William B . Papageorge. 2 Q . And what, is your address, sir? 3 A. 321 Pebble Valley Drive, St. Louis, 4 Missouri 63143,. 5 Q. Are you presently employed? 6 A. Self-employed. 7 Q. And what is your profession, sir? 8 A . Engineering consultant. 9 Q . And what is your business address? 1 0 A. Same as my home address. 1 1 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, have you ever been 1 2 deposed before? 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. And approximately how many times? 15 A, Oh, about 25. 1 6 Q. Have those all been in relation to your 17 employment with Monsanto? 18 A. Yes. 1 9 Q . Now, before we proceed on, and it. does 2 0 certainly appear as though you have had 2 3 substantial experience with depositions, but. to 22 make the record clear as to your understanding and 23 my understanding of how we are proceeding, I want, 2 4 to go over a few points with you. 2 5 First, we are i. n an informal, setting GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 6 WATER PCB-SD0000058502 1 here, however, you must realize that you are 2 providing testimony under oath and, as such, you 3 are subject to the penalties of perjury. Do you 4 understand that? 5 A . Ido. 6 Q. Further, I would advise you that, if you 7 don't understand a question that I ask you, please 8 ask me to restate the question so that you do 9 understand it. Do you understand that? 3 0 A . Yes, I do. 1 1 Q. Further, if you answer a question, I 3 2 will presume that you understood the question that 13 I asked you. Do you understand that? 3 4 A. I understand but my understanding of the 1 5 question may not be what you had intended. That's 3 6 possible. 3 7 Q. Well, that is certainly possible but if 1 8 there appears to be a vagueness, please advise 3 9 me . 2 0 A . I will. 2 3 Q. And we will try to eliminate that. 2 2 Further, if you want to take a break at 2 3 any time, please advise me and we will do that. 24 Now, is there any reason today why you 25 fee] that you could not or cannot provide GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 7 WATER PCB-SD0000058503 1 testimony here today? 2 A . No . 3 Q . Are you feeling all right at this time? 4 A . Yes . 5 Q Are you under any medication at this 6 time that would affect your ability to testify? 7 A . No . 8 Q . Now, I would like to go into a little 9 bit of your background, sir. Where were you born 1 0 at, originally? 1 1 A . St. Louis, Missouri. 3 2 Q And where did you attend secondary 13 school at? 1 4 A . St. L o u i. s , Missouri.. 15 Q Did you go to college following your 3 6 s ec ondary education? 17 . A. Yes. 18 Q And where did you go to college? 19 A . Washington University in St. Louis. 2 0 Q And did you graduate from that 21 institution? 2 2 A . Yes. 23 Q And when was that? 2 4 A . Bachelor of science degree in 3.943. 25 Q Now, following your graduation, did you GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 8 WATER PCB-SD0000058504 1 continue with your education or did you become 2 employed? 3 A. I had military service following the 4 bachelor's degree. 5 Q. In what service was that? 6 A. The Army . 7 Q. And for what period of time did you 8 s erve? 9 A . Up until 1946 --- '43 to '46, active 1 0 service. 1 1 Q. And what was your status in the service? 12 A. At what point in time? 1 3 Q. Well, when you went in. 1 4 A. I went in as a private. 1 5 Q. And what was your rank when you were 1 6 separated from the service? 1 7 A . Captain. 1 8 Q. Now, following your separation from the 19 service, what did you do at that time? 2 0 A. I attended Washington University and was 21 awarded a Master's of science degree. 2 2 Q. Now, before we go too far, did your 2 3 bachelor of science specialize in anything in 2 4 particular? 2 5 A. Chemical engineering. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 9 WATER PCB-SD0000058505 1 >. Now, when you pursued your Master's of 2 science degree, what area was that in? 3 A Chemical engineering. 4 Q. And did you complete that program? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And when did you receive your degree? 7 A 1947. 8 Q Following your receipt of the Master's 9 degree, did you take any other graduate courses? 3 0 A Yes. 1 1 Q And what were those? 12 A There were several courses intended for 13 granting eventually of a doctorate degree of 3 4 chemical engineering. These courses were taken at 15 Oklahoma -- at that time, Oklahoma A & M School, 1 6 currently known as Oklahoma State. 1 7 Q. In what period of time did you take 3 8 those courses? 19 A It was from 1948 to 1951. 2 0 Q Were you granted a degree? 2 1 A No . 2 2 Q Now, let's go over briefly your 2 3 employment history. Following your separation 2 4 from the service, were you employed at any time 2 5 during the period of time that you were attending GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 30 WATER PCB-SD0000058506 1 college? 2 A . No . 3 Q . Then following your separation from the 4 service, what was your first employment? 5 A. I worked for Phillips Petroleum Company 6 in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. 7 Q. And when did that employment begin? 8 A. 1947. 9 Q. And what was the nature of your work 1 0 with that organization? 1 1 A. Initially, it was as a research engineer 12 in the research department working on studies of 13 drilling methods, oil well drilling methods, and 1 4 secondary recovery. 15 Q. Mould you define what that i. s? 16 A. Secondary recovery refers to procedures 17 used to extract oil. from the reservoir that, does 18 not come to the surface under its own energy, for 1 9 example, pumping water into the reservoir to force 20 the oil out. That's just one example. 21 Q. Now, how long were you employed by 22 Phillips? 23 A. Pour years. 24 Q. And you left their employment in 1951? 25 A. Yes . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 11 WATER PCB-SD0000058507 I Q. And then by whom were you employed? 2 A. Monsanto Company. 3 Q. And where were you employed at? 4 A. In St. Louis at the John F. Queeny plant 5 of Monsanto. 6 Q. And what were your duties in that 7 employment? 8 A. They varied over a period of time and 9 the initial duties was as a design engineer in the 10 engineering department at. the plant. 1 1 Q . And what was the nature of the design? 3 2 A. Designing equipment for the manufacture 13 of chemicals. 3 4 Q. And how long were you employed in that, 15 capacity? 3 6 A. About two years. 17 Q. After those two years, what was your 18 employment, status? 3 9 A. I was assigned as a supervisor in one of 2 0 the production units in the plant. 2 3 Q. And that was in the John F. Queeny 2 2 plant? 2 3 A. That is correct. 24 Q. What did that plant manufacture? 2 5 A. That manufactured a family of chemicals GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 WATER PCB-SD0000058508 1 called phthalate esters, p - h --1 -- h - a -1 - a --1 ~ e , which 2 were plasticizers. They are ingredients that, are 3 introduced into plastics to make them pliable, 4 flexible. 5 Q. How long did you remain in that, 6 position? 7 A About two years. 8 Q And so you left that position about 9 3 953? 1 0 A '53 or '54, I don't remember exactly. 1 1 Q Following that, where were you employed? ] 2 A I was a supervisor of another production 13 unit at the same plant 1 4 Q And how long did that position last.? 15 A That was about two years, also. 3 6 Q And what, product, was manufactured in 1 7 that position? 1 8 A . This was, again, a family of chemicals, 19 chlorinated nitrobenzenes. 2 0 Q. And for what period of time were you in 21 that position? 2 2 A About two years. 2 3 Q Now, what was your position, again? 2 4 A Supervisor, 25 Q . And what was your role in that? In GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 13 WATER PCB-SD0000058509 1 other words, what responsibilities did you carry 2 out in that particular function? 3 A. Oh, I was responsible for the timely 4 production of chemicals as dictated by a 5 production plan. I was responsible for the 6 chemicals being of the proper quality, responsible 7 that they were shipped in the proper containers, 8 properly labeled. All of this was to be done at 9 some targeted cost per pound of product. 1 0 Q. Now, following that position, what was 11 your next employment? 1 2 A. I was appointed a superintendent, in the 13 plant maintenance department. 1 4 Q. And that was the Queeny plant? 15 A . At the same - yes, Queeny plant. 16 Q. And what did those duti.es consist of? 1 7 A , This was the overall supervision of the 1 8 plant maintenance personnel, the individuals that 19 were responsible for repairing equipment, for 20 installing new equipment. 21 Q. And how long did you perform those 2 2 responsibi1ities? 2 3 A. I misled you. My initial assignment was 24 a supervisor in the maintenance department for 2 5 about a year or so and then I was made a GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 1. 4 WATER PCB-SD0000058510 I superintendent for about three years, as I recall. 2 Q. And approximate! y what was the year that, 3 you concluded being superintendent? 4 A. About 1958 or '59. 5 Q. Now, at that time, what was your 6 employment? 7 A. I was assigned back to the engineering 8 department as a superintendent. 9 Q. And did your duties in that position 10 involve oversight of engineering? 1 1 A. Yes . 12 Q. That's as opposed to manufacturing? 13 A. That's correct. 1 4 Q. And what duties did you carry out in 15 that particular capacity? 1 6 A. Oh, I had the technical supervision of 1 7 anywhere from 10 to 20 engineers, all of them ] 8 working on many different engineering assignments 19 relating to a given group of producing units in 20 the plant. 21 Q. And how long did that assignment, last? 22 A. I believe that lasted until 1961 or '2. 2 3 Q. And at this time where were you 24 employed? 2 5 A. I was then assi. gned as a general GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 15 WATER PCB-SD0000058511 1 superintendent of warehousing utilities services. 2 Q . And where was that at? 3 A. At the same plant. 4 Q. And what were the general nature of 5 those duties? 6 A. 'Phis was a broader supervision of these 7 various activities that basically support the 8 manufacturing functions. We were responsible for 9 receiving the raw materials, distributing to the 1 0 using departments, the collection of the finished 1 1 products, the warehousing of these products, the 1 2 eventual shipment, either in trucks or boxcars or 13 tank cars. We also ----- I also supervised the 1 4 utilities department, which was responsible for 1 5 electrical distribution, steam distribution, ] 6 compressed air, and also we had at the time 17 assigned to that department a unit that blended 1 8 different chemicals to produce finished products 19 which were, in turn, shipped to customers. 20 Q. All right. And how long did you remain 21 in that position? 2 2 A. Until about 1964. 23 Q . Now, following that position, where were 24 you employed? 25 A. I was assi gned to a Monsanto pi ant. 3 n GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 16 WATER PCB-SD0000058512 1 Sauge t, S-a-u-g-e-t, Illinois, referred to as the 2 William Krummr i ch plant, FC-r ~u-m~m - r- i --c-h . 3 Q. And what was your position title in that 4 plant? 5 A, I was one of about five general 6 superintendents of manufacturing responsible for 7 half a dozen or so manufacturing units producing 8 several chemicals. 9 Q . And what types of chemicals were 1 0 produced at that facility? 1] A. Oh, such things as phenol, rubber 12 additives, sodium sulfite, wood treating 1 3 chemicals. I can't remember the others. There 1 4 were several more. 1 5 Q. And how long were you i. n that position? 16 A. Until early 1965. 1 7 Q. And what posit i. on did you take at that. 18 time? 1 9 A. I was then assigned as plant, manager at 20 the plant in Anniston, Alabama. 21 Q . And what were your responsibilities as 2 2 plant manager? 2 3 A. I was responsible for, to put it simply, 2 4 everything that happened at the plant from hiring 2 5 to producing to public, relations to community GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 WATER PCB-SD0000058513 1 relations -- everything. 2 Q . And I take it. that that Anniston, 3 Alabama plant was a Monsanto plant. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q . Now, what products were manufactured at. 6 that facility? 7 A. Polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, a 8 pesticide called Parathion, P-a-r--a-t-h--i~o-n, 9 chlorine, biphenyl, terphenyl, phosphorus 1 0 pentasulfide. 1 3 MS. PRICE: What was the year when you 12 were doing this? 13 A. 1965 to 1970 or the end of '69. 1 4 Q. Were there particular types of 1 5 polychlorinated biphenyls that were manufactured 16 at that facility? 3 7 A. Yes. 18 Q. And what types were those? 19 A. I don't know quite how to describe 20 them. PCBs really are a family of 200 different 2 3 specific chemi. cals. Monsanto never made the 22 individual chemicals, they always made mixtures of 2 3 these chemicals and these mixtures were sold under 24 Monsanto trade marks. The specific trademark that 2 5 applied to PCBs was Aroclor, A --r-o-c --! -o-r . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 3. 8 WATER PCB-SD0000058514 1 Q. Which Aroclors were manufactured a t the 2 Anniston plant? 3 A. They went by a four-digit number 4 series. 1221 -- 5 Q. We1J , before we go on to that, could you 6 just define what that four--digit number means? 7 A. All right. The first two, the 12, 8 refers to biphenyl. That's just a Monsanto code. 9 The last two digits refer to the percent by weight 1 0 of chlorine in that particular mixture. Go 1 1 Aroclor 1221 is a chlorinated biphenyl that has in 12 it 21 percent chlorine. 13 Q. Which types of -- well, first of all, 14 what do you characterize as the first two digits? 1 5 What does that designate as far as your frame of 16 referenc e ? 1 7 A . It doesn't really --- all it refers to is 18 the fact that it is a biphenyl, the chemical is a 1 9 biphenyl , 20 Q. What are. the other famili.es of products 21 that have a similar numerical designation? 22 A. We had also Aroclors in the 4000 series 2 3 and Aroclors in the 5000 series and 6000 series. 24 Q. And those would have similar 25 designations? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 WATER PCB-SD0000058515 1 A . Similar to what? 2 Q. Similar to the 3200 series, I take it. 3 A. Well, the 1200 referred to the 4 chlorinated biphenyls. The 4000 i. s a blend of 5 chlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated terphenyls. 6 The 5000 series is chlorinated terphenyls. The 7 6000 series is a blend of chlorinated terphenyls 8 and monochloral biphenyl. 9 Q. And I take it all of these families of 1 0 chemicals that you have made reference to were 1 1 manufactured at the Anniston plant. 12 A. All of the components were manufactured 13 at the Anniston plant. The designation Aroclor 1 4 6000 series was not introduced at the time the 15 Anniston plant was in operation. 3 6 Q. Now, following your employment at the 17 Anniston plant, where were you employed following 1 8 that? 19 A. I was assigned to the general 20 headquarters at Monsanto in St. Louis as a manager 2] of environmental control to coordinate the 22 activities and information that were evolving in 2.3 the PCB environmental, issue. 24 Q. Now, when did you begin this function? 2.5 A. January 1st, 1970. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 20 WATER PCB-SD0000058516 1 Q. Now, generally describe your 2 responsibilities in this position. 3 A . I was expected to keep informed of all 4 activities within Monsanto relating to 5 polychlorinated biphenyls, to attempt to 6 communicate as best I could with governmental 7 agencies, university laboratories, private 8 laboratories, foreign entities, whether they be 9 laboratories, governmental agencies, or 1 0 manufacturing companies regarding PCBs and their 1 1 presence in the environment and potential impact 3 2 on the environment, and to disburse this 1 3 information that I would gather as widely as I 1 4 could to all interested parties. 15 Q. How long were you in that position? 3 6 A. The title of the posit:on changed 1 7 through the years but I was involved with that 18 acti. vity that I just described until February of 19 1976 . 20 Q. And at that time, what position did you 2 1 take? 22 A. At that time my title was manager of 23 product acceptability in Monsanto's industrial 2 4 chemical company which is an operating unit, of 25 Monsanto Company. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 21 WATER PCB-SD0000058517 1 Q And where is that located? 2 A In St. Louis. 3 Q And, generally, what were your duties 4 with respect to that position? 5 A. I was to coordinate information 6 regarding the environmental impact, safety, and 7 health of an assigned group of products 8 manufactured by a subdivision of the industrial 9 chemicals company. 1 0 Q And what were those products? 1 1 A Oh, I'll try to remember it as best I 12 can. They were such things as maleic and 13 hydrazide, sulfuric acid, wood treating chemicals, 1 4 water treating chemicals. That's ail I can recall 15 at the moment. 1 6 Q. Now, how long were you in that position? 1 7 A. As best I recall, about a year. ] 8 Q And where were you employed after that? 1 9 A I had the same title 2 0 MS. PRICE: Excuse me. This takes us up 21 to 1977, right? 2 2 A Excuse me. This takes us into early 2 3 1 977. Yes. 24 I was then with the same title assigned 25 to a newly formed operating unit of Monsanto GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST, LOUIS, MISSOURI 22 WATER PCB-SD0000058518 1 called the Monsanto chemical intermediates 2 c ompany. 3 Q . And where was that f a c i 1 i t y ? 4 A. St, Louis. 5 Q. And how long were you in that, position? 6 A. I held that position until about the 7 third quarter of 3977 -- about September and 8 October 1977. 9 Q. And where were you empJ oyed after that? 10 A, I was then assigned as a director of 1 1 environmental operations for the Monsanto chemical 1 2 intermediates company. 3 3 Q. And what were your responsibilities in 1 4 that position? 1 5 A. I was responsible for the environmental 16 impact, safety, and health of a given set of 17 products manufactured by that operating unit, as 18 well as the safety and health of the employees at 3 9 the plants assigned to that operating unit, and I 20 was responsible for the emissions at the plants 21 regarding air pollution, water discharge .... waste 22 water discharge, and solid waste disposal. 23 Q. And what products were manufactured by 24 that facility? 2 5 A. Oh, I can't r e c a 11 all of them but they GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 23 WATER PCB-SD0000058519 1 were such things as the maleic and hydrazide I 2 mentioned earlier, the sulfuric acids, styrene, 3 butadiene, chlorine, the starting materials for 4 the manufacture of nylon, ammonia, hydrogen 5 cyanide. I'm sure there are more, I just can't 6 r e c a 11 them all. 7 Q. Okay. Thank you. And how long were you 8 in that position? 9 A. I believe until 1983. 10 Q. And where were you employed after that? 1 1 A . I was ..... another reorganization t o o Jc 12 place in Monsanto. I was assigned as director' of 1 3 environmental operations for the Monsanto 14 Industrial Chemicals Company with responsibilities ] 5 the same as I described for the previous 1 6 a s signmen t. 1 7 Q. And I take it you were located in 18 St. Louis. 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. And how long were you in that, position? 2 1 A. Until near the end of 1985. 2 2 Q. And what position did you take at that 2 3 time? 2 4 A. At that time I was assigned as manager 25 of occupational health for the Monsanto Chemical GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 24 WATER PCB-SD0000058520 1 Company. 2 Q. And what did those duties entail? 3 A. Those duties involved the coordination 4 of a J 1 activities relating to on-the-job safety 5 and health of about, oh, 40 or 50 plants assigned 6 to the Monsanto Chemica] Company. 7 Q . I take it that those plants are not all 8 located in the St. Louis Area. 9 A . That is true. 1 0 Q. So it. was a broad geographic 1 1 distribution of those? ] 2 A. Yes . 1 3 MR. OCHSNER: Let's go off the record a 1 4 s econd. 1 5 (Discussion off the record) 16 (Recess) 1 7 Q. Mr. Papageorge, you indicated that in 18 approximately 1985 you became the manager of 3 9 occupational health for Monsanto Chemical 20 Company. Flow long did you remain in that 2 3 posit.i on? 2 2 A . Until the end of 1 986. 23 Q. And what position did you take at that 2 4 point? 25 A. I retired from Monsanto. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 25 WATER PCB-SD0000058521 1 Q. And you remain retired until this 2 present time? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q. Now, at this point I would .1.5. k e to go 5 back, if we could, to your function as the manager 6 of environmental control which you began on the 7 1st of January of 1970 and ask you if during that 8 or in your performance of that function you were 9 responsible for generating any correspondence to 3 0 purchasers of Monsanto materials. 1 1 MS. PRICE: What years was that. 1 2 Counsel, that you are asking? 13 MR. OCHSNER: In his duties and 1 4 responsibilities as the manager of environmental 1 5 control which began in January of 1970, 3 6 MS. PRICE: And through what period are 17 you taking this? 1 8 MR. OCHSNER: Well, he has testified 19 that he was in that capacity for a six-year 20 period. 21 MS. PRICE: So you are just taking him 2 2 now through the first of his environmental related 23 employment. 24 MR. OCHSNER: Yes. Do you want me to 2 5 repeat the question? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 26 WATER PCB-SD0000058522 1 A . That would help. 2 (The requested portion of the record read 3 by the reporter) 4 A . Yes. 5 Q. And would you describe what that 6 correspondence consisted of? 7 A. It took many forms. Some were letters 8 which directly addressed a specific request from a 9 purchaser. Some were letters that were, i. n 1 0 essence, designed or put together by a group of 1 1 Monsanto people who were related to the PCB issue, 12 and these letters were given a general mailing to 1 3 customers on record. Some correspondence took the 1 4 form of summary statements relating to the status 15 of the studies underway. 16 Q. Now, you indicated that there were some 17 of the correspondence or some of the notifications 18 that you made that were general mailings to 1 9 customers. Bow were those customers identified, 20 if you know? 21 A. They were obtained from records within 22 Monsanto showing purchases of PCB materials ~~ 23 PCB-containing materials that covered a period of 24 at least three years and more if the records would 2 5 show that . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 27 WATER PCB-SD0000058523 1 Q - Now, when you indicate three years 2 what's your frame of reference in that respect.? 3 A. This list was compiled in early 1970 so 4 it would include customers on record for the 5 periods '87, '68, '69, and also included some 6 customers that purchased material prior to 3967. 7 This list came from two sources. One is the 8 shipping documents showing what material was 9 shipped to which purchaser and the accounts 3 0 receivable documents which show the names of 1 1 customers who were billed for the material. 1 2 Q. Was there a master list of customers 13 prepared for mailing purposes? 1 4 A. Well, actually, yes, there were at least 15 four categories that together would have composed 3 6 a master list. 17 Q . And what, were those categories? 18 A. One was a list of purchasers of 3 9 dielectric fluids, another was a list of 20 purchasers of industrial hydraulic fluids, the 21 third was the purchasers of heat transfer fluids, 22 and turbine -- turbine fluids, and then there was 2 3 a fifth list that was the. -- I'm going to refer to 24 it as the miscellaneous list; this is the 2 5 plasticizer, paints, and lacquers, carbonless copy GORE REPORTING COMPANY 5T. LOUIS, MISSOURI 28 WATER PCB-SD0000058524 1 paper, caulking, sealants. 2 MR. OCBSNER: At this time I would like 3 to have this marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition 4 Exhibit Number 3. 5 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit. 1 6 was marked for identification.) 7 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I hand you what's been 8 marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit Number 1 9 and ask you to examine that document, please. Do 1 0 you recognize that document? 3 3 A. Ido. 12 Q. And what is that document? 3 3 A. This is a copy of a form letter on 1 4 Monsanto letterhead dated February 18th, 1970, 3 5 signed by a Mr. Donald A. Olson, director of sales 16 of the functional fluids group, Monsanto, and the 17 top sheet is a copy of an addressee. Office of the 18 President, Electrolux Corporation, 51 Forest 1 9 Avenue, Old Greenwich, Connecticut. 20 Q. Now, how do you recognize that document? 21 A. Which? The total document? 2 2 Q. Yes. 2 3 A. I recognize this as a copy of a letter 24 that was sent to -- in this case to the Electrolux 25 president. Office of the President. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 29 WATER PCB-SD0000058525 1 Q . Who drafted that document, if you know? 2 A . This was drafted by a group ..... the very 3 first draft was assembled by a group of Monsanto 4 representatives whose responsibilities related to 5 PCBs, such as manufacturing, marketing, research, 6 medical, legal. The final version was eventually 7 composed by the sender, in this case Mr. Olson, 8 with a final review by the committee and I was 9 chairman of that committee. 2 0 Q. Were all of the participants in the 1 1 preparation of this correspondence employees of 1 2 Monsanto? 13 A. Yes. 3 4 Q. Did the individuals who produced this 1 5 correspondence have a business duty with respect 3 6 to the preparation of that document? 1 7 MS. PRICE: I'm going to object to the 2 8 form of the question. I believe that it is 19 confusing. 20 Q. Do you understand it? 2 1 A. I don't believe I understand the 22 reference to business duty as distinguished from a 23 job responsibility to contribute toward the .... 2 4 whatever it takes to communicate properly. 25 Q. All right. Well, did the individuals GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 30 WATER PCB-SD0000058526 1 that participated in the formulation of that 2 letter have a job or a professional responsibility 3 with respect to their participation .in that 4 project? 5 A. Yes . 6 MS. PRICE! Same objection. 7 Q. Now, over what time period was this 8 correspondence prepared? 9 A. Let's see. I would suggest that as best 1 0 I recall, it was the full month of January and the 1 1 first couple weeks of February, about a six-week 12 period in early 1970. 13 Q. And to your knowledge, was that 1 4 correspondence disseminated? 15 A. Yes . 1 6 Q. And to whom was it. disseminated? 1 7 A. To customers on records that I described 18 earlier from the lists that were prepared. 19 Q. Was it the routine practice of Monsanto 20 to prepare such correspondence? 2 1 MS. PRICE: Object on the ground that I 2.2 think the reference to such correspondence is 23 vague. Object to the form of the question. 24 A. I would not call it routine, no. 25 Q. Now, what was Mr. Olson's position? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 3 .1 WATER PCB-SD0000058527 1 A. He was director of sales at that time of 2 the functional f 1 u 5. ds group of the organic 3 division -- organic chemicals division of Monsanto 4 Company. 5 Q. Now, was there any follow-up 6 correspondence generated as a result of this 7 correspondence? 8 A. Can you help me with the words 9 "follow-up"? 3 0 Q. Was there any additional correspondence 11 generated by Monsanto following the preparation of 1 2 the document that you have in front of you? 13 MS. PRICE: I object to the form of the 1 4 question. I think it is vague and I also think it 1 5 assumes facts not in evidence, which is that 3 6 Mr. Papageorge would have knowledge of all 17 correspondence that followed this. 1 8 MR. OCHSNER: Would you go ahead and 19 read the question? 20 (The requested portion of the record read 2 1 by the reporter) 22 A. There was additional correspondence, 23 yes. 24 MS, PRICE: Can we go off the record 25 just a minute. Counsel? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 32 WATER PCB-SD0000058528 1 (Discussion off the record) 2 MR. OCBSNRR: Please mark this a s the 3 next exhibit. 4 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 2 5 was marked for identification.) 6 Q . Mr. Papageorge, I will, hand you what's 7 now been marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 8 Number 2 and ask you if you can identify that 9 correspondence. 10 A . This is a copy of a letter with Monsanto 1 1 letterhead dated June 11, 1970, signed by Mr. N. 1 2 T. Johnson, marketing manager, industrial fluids, 13 and attached to that copy is a reference to an 1 4 addressee. Office of the President, Electrolux 15 Corporation, 51 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, 1 6 Connecticut. . 1 7 Q . Now, who is Mr. N. T . Johnson, i. f you 1 8 know? ] 9 A . He was the marketing manager, industrial 2 0 fluids. 21 Q - And h e was an employee of Monsanto? 22 A . Yes 2 3 Q If you know , who drafted this document? 2 4 A . Mr . Johnson drafted the document. 2 5 reviewed it with his supervisor, Mr. Olson, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 33 WATER PCB-SD0000058529 1 reviewed it with me, and following those reviews 2 proceeded with the mailing. 3 Q. And to whom would this correspondence 4 have been mailed? 5 A. This would have gone to those purchasers 6 of industrial hydraulic fluids on record with 7 Monsanto. 8 Q. Now, what would have been the basis for 9 the selection of the addressees of this particular 1 0 correspondence? 11 A. The basis is whoever purchased an 12 industrial hydraulic fluid sold by Monsanto. I 3 Q. Now, at the time that this letter was 14 signed, what was your position, again? 3 5 A. I was manager, environmental control. 16 Q. And would the normal practice with 1 7 respect to the type of correspondence that is 1 8 reflected by Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 here normally 3 9 be referred to you for your review and comment? 20 A . Yes. 23 Q. Would the same hold true with regard to 22 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1? 23 A. Yes . 24 Q. Do you know who provided the information 25 to Mr. Johnson concerning the information in GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 34 WATER PCB-SD0000058530 1 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 ? 2 A . I don't know the specific individual, but 3 it would be someone in Monsanto's research 4 department that develops these new products. 5 MR. OCHSNER: Mark this a s the next 6 exhibit. 7 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit; 3 8 was marked for identification.) 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge., I w i 11. hand you what has 1 0 been marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 1 1 Number 3 and ask you if you can identify that, 1 2 correspondence. 1 3 A. This is a copy of a letter, Monsanto 1 4 letterhead, dated February 1, 1971, signed by Mr. 1 5 C. I. . Bradford, product manager, and attached to 16 that copy is a reference to an addressee. Office 1 7 of the President., Electrolux Corporation, 5 1 18 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, Connecticut. 3 9 Q. Who drafted that document, if you know? 20 A. Mr. Bradford drafted it. 23 Q. Did you participate in the preparation 22 of that document? 23 A. I reviewed it. 24 Q. Would you have reviewed that document in 2 5 the. normal course of your duti.es? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 35 WATER PCB-SD0000058531 1 A . Yes. 2 Q . Who provided the information for that 3 document, if you know? 4 A. Someone, from Monsanto's research 5 departmen t. 6 Q. What are M31. Bradford's 7 responsibilities, again, or were his 8 responsibiJities? 9 A. At that time Mr. Bradford was the 1 0 technical person located in St. Louis assigned to 1 3 the marketing function and Mr. Bradford's specific 12 assignment was to be the technical adviser 13 relating to industrial hydraulic f1uid s and he 14 reported to Mr. N . T. Johnson. 1 5 Q. To your knowledge was Plaintiffs' 16 Exhibit Number 3 distributed? 17 A. Yes . 18 Q. And to whom was that distributed? 19 A. To purchasers of Monsanto's industrial 20 hydraulic fluids on record as of February 1973. 21 Q. And how would that distribution have 22 been reflected? What record of the recipie n t s of 23 that distribution would have been retained by the 24 company? 2 5 MS. PRICE: Object, to the form. I GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 36 WATER PCB-SD0000058532 1 believe it is vague and confusing 2 A . I'm sorry. I didn't understand the 3 question. 4 Q. What record of the recipients or the 5 individuals to whom that was mailed would have 6 been retained by the company? 7 A . The address labels that were typed from 8 the master list were copied before they were 9 removed from the paper to which they were attached 1 0 and placed on the mailing envelopes. The copies 1 1 of those address labels served as the record of 1 2 who was to receive this memo .... this letter. 13 MR. OCHSNER: Mark this as the next 3 4 exhibit. 15 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 4 16 was marked for identification.) 17 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I hand you what's been 18 marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit Number 4 1 9 and ask you to examine that document and ask you 20 if you recognize it. 21 A. I have seen this document before, yes. 22 It is a copy of a letter, Monsanto letterhead, 23 dated April 15th, 1971, signed by C. Larry 24 Bradford, product manager, hydraulics and 25 lubricants, and attached to that copy is the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 37 WATER PCB-SD0000058533 1 reference to Electrolux Corporation, Division 2 Consolidated Foods Corporation, 53 Forest Avenue, 3 Old Greenwich, Connecticut, 06870. 4 Q - Who drafted that letter? 5 A . Mr . Bradford. 6 Q. And was he an employee of Monsanto? 7 A . That is correct. 8 Q - And when was that document drafted. if 9 you know? 1 0 A . On or about the date of its pub 1icat ion 11 early Apri 1 '71. 12 Q - Did you have the opportunity to review 13 that document? 14 A . Yes . 15 MS . PRICE: Did you mean prior to i. t s 16 being disseminated. Counsel? 3 7 MR . OCHSNER: Yes. Let me rephrase 18 that. 1 9 Q Did you review that document prior t o 20 its being signed by Mr. Bradford? 23 A. Yes . 22 Q. In what capacity did you reviewed that 23 letter? 24 A. As part of my assignment, as manager, 25 environmental control, relating to PCB matters, I GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 38 WATER PCB-SD0000058534 1 was expected to review letters of this type. 2 Q. And to whom would this correspondence 3 have been distributed? 4 A . It is the same list, that I referred to 5 relating to Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3. 6 Q. And the recipient of this would have 7 been designated in the same -- or recorded in the 8 same manner? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 MR. OCHSNER : Mark this as the next 11 exhibit, please. 12 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 5 13 was marked for identification.) 1 4 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I will hand you what's 15 been marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 1 6 Number 5 and ask you to examine that document and 1 7 ask if you recognize it. 1 8 A. I recognize the document. The second 19 page is a copy of a letter with Monsanto 20 letterhead dated January 31, 1972, signed by 2 1 Howard Bergen, director, specialty products group, 2 2 Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company. The first 2 3 sheet is a copy of a mailing label, director of 24 purchases, Electrolux, Division Consol i. dated Foods 25 Corporation, 51 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 39 WATER PCB-SD0000058535 1 Connecticut 06870. 2 Q. Who is Mr. Howard Bergen ? 3 A. Mr. Bergen at that time was the director 4 of the specialty products group, Monsanto 5 Industrial Chemicals Company. 6 Q. And he was an employee of Monsanto 7 Corporation? 8 A . Tha t is true. 9 Q. Did you review this document before it 1 0 was disseminated? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. And when was this document drafted, if 13 you know? 14 A. Oh, sometime in the period from January 15 15th, 1972 up to the date of publication, which is 16 January 31, 1972. 1 7 Q. In what capacity di.d you review this 18 doc ument ? 1 9 A. In my position as manager of 20 environmental control concerned with the PCB 21 environmental issue, I was expected to review 22 documents such as this. 23 Q . And to your knowledge was this document, 24 disseminated? 2 5 A. Yes. GORE RETORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 40 WATER PCB-SD0000058536 1 Q, And to whom? 2 A, To purchasers of Monsanto's Indus trial 3 hydraulic fluids on record as of January 1972. 4 Q. And what record of that dissemination 5 was maintained by Monsanto Corporation, if you 6 know? 7 MG. PRICK: I didn't hear that. 8 Q. What record of this dissemination was 9 maintained by Monsanto Corporation, if you know? 1 0 A. A copy of all of the mailing labels was 1 1 made and retained as the record. 1 2 MR. OCHSNER: Why don't we break at this 1 3 point. 14 (Luncheon recess) 15 MR. OCHSNER: Why don't you read the 16 last question and response. 17 (The requested portion of the record read 1 8 by the reporter) 19 Q. Mr. Papageorge, did you review this 2 0 document in the performance of your duties with 2 ] Monsanto? 22 A. Yes, I did. 2 3 Q. And did you review it prior to the time 24 that it was signed and distributed by Monsanto 25 Corporate on? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 4J WATER PCB-SD0000058537 1 A . yes . 2 Q. Do you know who provided the factual 3 information for this document? 4 A. Members of the research department at 5 Monsanto. 6 MR. OCHSNEE: Let's mark this as the 7 next exhibit, please. 8 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 6 9 was marked for identification.) 3 0 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I hand you what's been 1 1 marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit Number 6 12 and ask you to examine it. 13 MS. PRICE: What numbers are those? 1 4 MR. OCHSNEE: That would be 43 and 44. 15 A. I have examined it. 1 6 Q. And do you recognize that document? 1 7 A. Ido. 1 8 Q. And how do you recognize it? 19 A. This is a copy of a letter, Monsanto 20 letterhead, dated February 28, 1972, signed by 2 1 Mr. Eloward S. Bergen, director, specialty products 22 group, Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company. The 23 front sheet shows the recipient as director of 2 4 purchases, Electrolux, Division Consolidated Foods 25 Corporation, 51 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 42 WATER PCB-SD0000058538 1 Connecticut 06870. 2 Q. Do you know who drafted that document? 3 A. Mr. Bergen. 4 Q. Was that document drafted in conjunction 5 with any other Monsanto employees? 6 A. The basic information came from the 7 research department and I personally reviewed the 8 draft before it was finally published. 9 Q. And in what capacity did you review that 10 document? 1 3 A. As manager of environmental, control for 1 2 PCB matters, one of my responsibilities was to ] 3 review letters of this type. 14 Q. And to your knowledge, was this 1 5 correspondence distributed? 16 A. Yes. 1 7 Q. And to whom was this correspondence 18 distributed? 3 9 A. To purchasers of Monsanto's industrial 2 0 hydraulic fluids on record as of February 1972. 21 Q. And what record of distribution of this 22 correspondence was maintained? 2 3 A. Copies of all the mailing labels were 24 made and retained as the record. 2 5 MR. OCHS NEE : Mark this as the next GORE REPORTING COMPANY 8T. LOUIS, MISSOURI 43 WATER PCB-SD0000058539 1 exhibit, please. 2 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 7 3 was marked for identification.) 4 Q. At this time, Mr. Papageorge, I hand you 5 what's been marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition 6 Exhibit Number 7 and ask you to identify that. 7 A. This is a three-page document; the 8 second page is a copy of a letter with Monsanto's 9 letterhead dated March 15th, 1972, signed by 1 0 Howard S. Bergen, director of specialty products 1 1 group, Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company. 12 Attached to that as the third page is a table 13 showing the old products and the new products and 3 4 the first page shows the addressee, Electrolux 15 Corporation, Division Consolidated Foods 16 Corporati. on, 53 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, 17 Connecticut 06870. 1 8 Q. Do you know who drafted this document? 19 A . Mr. Bergen. 20 Q. Do you know who participated i.n the 21 preparation of this document? 22 A. Members of Monsanto's research 23 department and members of Mr. Bergen's marketing 24 group located in St. Louis supplied the basic 25 information included in this document, and I GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 44 WATER PCB-SD0000058540 1 participated as a reviewer before it was mailed to 2 the recipients. 3 Q. To your know]edge, was Plaintiffs' 4 Exhibit Number 7 disseminated? 5 A . Yes . 6 Q. And to whom would that have been 7 disseminated? 8 A. To purchasers of Monsanto's industrial 9 hydraulic fluids on record as of March 1972. 1 0 Q. Who would have prepared the third page 1 1 of that document, that is the document referred to 1 2 as LUX 063? 13 A. A member in Mr. Bergen's marketing staff 1 4 in conjunction with the research department. 1 5 Q. And how would the recipients of this 16 correspondence have been recorded? 1 7 A. Copies of all mailing labels used in 18 this mailing were made and retained as the record. 1 9 MR. OCHSNER: This is the next exhibit., 20 please. 21 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 8 22 was marked for identification.) 23 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I hand you what we have 24 marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit Number 8, 2 5 which consists of LUX pages 045 to LUX 060 and ask GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 45 WATER PCB-SD0000058541 1 you to review that document and ask you if you 2 recognize it. 3 A . Yes, I recognize this document. 4 Q. And how do you recognize that document? 5 A. It is a copy of a letter on Monsanto 6 letterhead dated August 3rd, 1973, signed by 7 Cumming Paton, P-a-t--o~n, to which are attached 8 eight pages of information relating to Monsanto's 9 Pydrauls, information regarding the Monsanto 1 0 incineration service which was available, and a 1 1 copy of pages from the Federal Register describing 12 the FDA's ..... the Food and Drug Administration's 1 3 position relating to the presence of 1 4 polychlorinated biphenyl in animal feeds, foods, 15 and packaging material. 16 Q. Who drafted this document, if you know? 1 7 A. This was drafted by Dr. Cumming Paton. 18 Q. And who is Dr. Paton? 19 A. At the time. Dr. Paton had the title 20 product manager of fluids. I-Ie was the technical 21 representative on the marketing staff in St. Louis 22 that concerned itself with industrial hydraulic 23 fluids. 24 Q. Who, if you know, participated in the 25 drafting of this correspondence? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 46 WATER PCB-SD0000058542 1 A. The research department, the marketing 2 staff, I participated, and Monsanto's medical, 3 department supplied the basic information. 4 Q. And in what capacity did you review this 5 document? 6 A. As manager of environmental control, 7 relating to PCB matters, I reviewed this document. 8 Q Was this correspondence distributed? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And to whom was it. distributed? 1 1 A To purchasers of Monsanto's industrial 1 2 hydraulic fluids on record as of August 1973 13 Q. And how is the record of that 1 4 distribution maintained? 15 A Copies were made of all of the address 1 6 labels and retained as the record. 17 Q And is that record reflected by page 18 045? 19 A Yes. 20 MR. 0 C H S N E R : I would like to mark this 2 1 as the next exhibit, please. 22 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 9 23 was marked for identification.) 24 Q Mr. Papageorge, I. hand you what has been 25 marked as Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit Number 9 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 47 WATER PCB-SD0000058543 1 and ask you to examine that document and ask you 2 if you recognize it. 3 A. I have seen this document before. 4 Q. And do you recollect when that was? 5 A. The first time I saw it was about two or 6 three weeks ago. 7 Q . I take it you di d not see i t at. or near 8 the time of its preparation. 9 A . No . 10 Q. With respect to that document, I do have 1 1 a couple of questions. One is with respect to the 1 2 apparent signatory of that letter, that is 13 Mr. Elmer F. Wheeler, do you know that individual? 1 4 A. Yes, I do. 15 Q. And who is he? ] 6 A. Elmer Wheeler was the member of 17 Monsanto's corporate medical department who had 1 8 the title of manager, environmental, health. 19 Q Was he a medical doctor? 20 A . No . 2] Q Do you know what his background was 22 A . I think his training was in public 2 3 health. 24 Q Did you ever work w i. t h Mr. Wheeler? 25 A . Very closely, yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 48 WATER PCB-SD0000058544 1 Q. Do you know where Mr. Wheeler is today? 2 A. The last I knew, Mr. Wheeler was living 3 in, I believe, one of the Carolinas. I believe 4 South Carolina. I'm not certain. 5 Q. Do you know if he is employed or 6 retired? 7 A. He is retired. 8 Q. Do you know anyone who might know of his 9 whereabouts ? 1 0 A. I would ask Monsanto's legal department 1 1 if they know of his recent address. I wouldn't 1 2 know where else to go. 13 Q. Who would Mr. Hades be? 1 4 A. Mr. Hades was a Monsanto employee 15 working in St. Louis as the product manager of 1 6 industrial hydraulic fluids in the middle to late 1 7 sixties. 1 8 Q . Do you know where he is presently 1 9 1 ocated? 20 A. No, I do not. 2 1 Q. Also referring to the second page of 22 that correspondence, there is a Mr. G. R . Graham. 23 Who is that individual, if you know? 7A A. Mr. Graham at that time was a Monsanto 25 employee who was the field sales representative GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOLIIS, MISSOURI 49 WATER PCB-SD0000058545 1 for industrial hydraulic fluids. 2 Q. Do you know where he is located at? 3 A. The last I heard, he was located in the 4 Northeast, either New York or New Jersey, but 5 that's all I know. 6 Q. Do you know if he is still employed by 7 Monsanto? 8 A. No, he is not. 9 Q. Is he retired? ] 0 A. No. He left Monsanto's employ in about 1 1 197 2 or ' 3. 1 2 Q. Do you know who he subsequently became 13 employed with? 1 4 A. I don't recall anymore. 15 Q. Now, with respect to the exhibits that 16 we have reviewed here. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1 17 through 8, you have testified that you reviewed 1 8 each of those documents; is that correct? 1 9 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Could you describe for me what you did 2 1 in the conduct of your review of those documents? 2 2 MS. PRICE: I object to the form of the 23 question on the grounds that it assumes facts not 24 in evidence. There has been no --- well, for lack 25 of foundation. There has been no testimony that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 50 WATER PCB-SD0000058546 1 the review proces s was the same each time. 2 MR. OCI-ISNER : Would you read the 3 question back? 4 (The requested portion of the record read 5 by the reporter) 6 A. It would vary. Sometimes I would be 7 shown a penciled version by the author. He would 8 ask me to read it over and comment, on it. I, of 9 course, don't recall any specifics, but on 1 0 occasion, I would spot an error in a statement in 1 X the document and I would ask the individual to go 3 2 back to the source and make certain that he 13 understood it correctly, for example, the medical 3 4 department or the research department, because I 15 had a different understanding. 16 There were times when nothing was 1 7 required of me because the information was factual 3 8 as far as I could tell. There were other times 19 when I was able to suggest adding a paragraph or 20 two to supply some need that I perceived so I 21 don't know that I can describe every action I 2 2 took. There were occasions when we would have to 2 3 rewrite the whole letter because the individual 24 who authored it was totally out of line in terms 25 of understanding, especially when the individual GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 53 WATER PCB-SD0000058547 1 was new to the job. So I don't know how else to 2 ans wer that. 3 Q. Would it be correct to say, then, that a 4 portion of your review was to address or review 5 the factual accuracy of the correspondence? 6 A. Yes. I tried to serve as a point where 7 consistency would prevail in terms of what I knew 8 the medical department was sending out and what 9 the I knew that the marketing department was 10 sending out and what the manufacturing people were 1 1 telling the workers so that the message was 12 consistent and as factual as it could possibly be 13 so that we did not have a situation where the left 1 4 hand didn't know what the right was doing. That 3 5 was my role as I perceived it. 16 MR. OCHSNER: Why don't we take about a 1 7 five-minute break here, Courtney. 18 (Reces s) 1 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge, does the term "red tag 20 program" mean anything to you with respect to 21 polychlorinated biphenyls? 22 A. I remember it, yes. 23 Q. And what is your recollection of that 24 term? 25 A. That term applies to a program developed GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 52 WATER PCB-SD0000058548 1 by Monsanto's industrial hydraulic fluid marketing 2 staff in an attempt to help the purchasers of 3 these fluids conserve the material by reducing 4 leaks in their systems and the "red tag" refers to 5 the procedure whereby anyone observing a leak in 6 the system was to tag it with the red tag so that 7 a quick repair could be made to reduce the amount 8 of material that was lost from the system. 9 Q. Do you recollect when this program was 1 0 was in effect? 1 1 A . It was in effect in the late sixties, 1 2 '68, '69, and I believe on into 1970, as I 13 remember. 1 4 Q. And who would have been involved in the 15 coordination end of that program? 16 A. Coordination was the marketing staff 17 located in St. Louis, primarily by the individual 1 8 who had the title of product manager at the time. 19 I don't recall right now just who that person or 2 0 persons might have been in those years. 2 1 Q. Do you have any recollection of the 22 participants in that program, that is the 23 purchasers of those materials that participated in 24 that program? 25 A. No, I .... GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 53 WATER PCB-SD0000058549 1 MS. PRICE: I object to the form of the 2 question. I think it is confusing. It is 3 confusing and I think there Is no foundation, lack 4 of foundation. 5 A. I do not recall any of the purchasers 6 who participated in that program. 7 Q. And do you know why that program was 8 terminated, if it was terminated? 9 A. Yes. It was terminated because in 1970, 1 0 a more restrictive program was placed into effect 1 1 in terms of controlling the entry of PCBs into the 1 2 environment and Monsanto's attention was directed 1 3 toward the environmental issue and it. was believed 1 4 that by preventing entry into the environment, the 15 loss of material due to leaks would benefit as a 16 byproduct. 1 7 Q. So I take it, then, that the red tag 18 program was a loss prevention type of program; is 19 20 A. That Is correct. 21 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, during your 22 functioning as the manager of environmental 23 control, were you ever contacted directly by 24 purchasers of the PC 13 materials for information? 25 A. Yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 54 WATER PCB-SD0000058550 1 Q. And with what frequency did that occur? 2 A. I never kept a record but something 1ike 3 maybe two telephone calls a day and one letter, 4 something like that, for the normal five-day 5 working week. For a period of about .... that level 6 of activity lasted, I would say, from early 3970 7 to the middle of 1973 and then it dropped off a 8 little bit to perhaps a call, every other day or 9 so. 3 0 Q. And you indicated you maintained a log 1 1 of those? 1 2 A . No . 13 Q. Did you keep a file of the 1 4 correspondence that you received on that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was that a company file or a personal 1 7 file? 3 8 A . Company. 19 Q. Do you recollect ever receiving an oral 20 inquiry or telephone inquiry from Electrolux 21 Corporation? 22 A . I do not. 23 Q. Do you ever recollect any written 2 4 inquiries from Electrolux Corporation? 25 A . I d o n o t . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 55 WATER PCB-SD0000058551 1 Q. Who else would have received for 2 Monsanto Corporation inquiries in relation to the 3 PCB us age? 4 MS. PRICE: I object to the form of the 5 question, lack of foundation, and also because I 6 believe it is confusing and ambiguous. 7 A. I really can't speak specifically 8 regarding Electrolux correspondence with Monsanto 9 personnel. I can only address what generally 1 0 happens in a customer/Monsanto relationship. The 1 1 function within Monsanto that's most apt to have 1 2 communication with the customers would be the 13 marketing staff, both in St. Louis and in the 1 4 field. That's the most likely contact. 1 5 The second most likely would be the 1 6 shipping department when a customer might, be 1 7 inquiring about a product or its shipping status 18 or the quality on arrival and the like. 1 9 On a less frequent occasion, a customer 2 0 might contact a research person and that contact 2 1 would generally be from a technical person in the 22 purchaser's company talking to a technical person 23 at Monsanto. 24 At about that same frequency, on 25 occasion, the Monsanto medical department might GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 56 WATER PCB-SD0000058552 1 get calls from purchasers of these products 2 regarding the safety of the product. 3 Q. Now, I believe you touched on this 4 before, Mr. Papageorge, but let me just address it 5 briefly again. The term "Pydraul," could you 6 define for me again what that term means? 7 A. Pydraul is Monsanto's registered 8 trademark that is used with the products that are 9 designed to be used in industrial hydraulic 1 0 systems and these products sold by Monsanto had 11 the feature of being fire resistant. 1 2 Q. Were there a number of those types of 13 materia Is? 1 4 A. Yes, there were. 15 Q. And do you know approximately how many? 3 6 A. Oh, I never ---- I don't recall ever 1 7 counting them. I would suggest eight or ten of 1 8 them, different variations, through the. years, 1 9 different formulations. 20 Q. And what were the commercial and 2 1 industrial uses of these materials? 2 2 A. They were used in die casting machines, 23 air compressors, and some hydraulic conveying 24 systems, industrial conveying systems. I can't 25 think of any other applications. I'm sure there GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 57 WATER PCB-SD0000058553 1 are more but they don't come to mind. 2 Q . Now, are you familiar or generally 3 familiar with the constituent components of the 4 various types of Pydraul materials? 5 A . In a general way, yes. 6 Q. All right. Let's begin with Pydraxil 7 312. Are you familiar with that material? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And what are its constituent components? 1 0 A. I do know that it had as a principal 1 1 ingredient a PCB mixture. It had an additive to 1 2 enhance lubricity, and there was some ingredients 13 in there to give it color, a dye or a couple dies, 1 4 I don't recall exactly which. I believe that's 15 all I can remember about it. 1 6 Q. Do you recall what Aroclor PCB would 1 7 have been? 18 A . For 312 it would have been Aroclor 1242. 19 Q And do you know what percent by weight? 20 A . Almost 100 percent. 90 plus. 2 1 Q. What is, if you recall, the color of 22 Pydraul 3 12? 23 A . Purple. 2 4 Q. And what is its consistency or 25 viscosity? By that I mean in relation to normal GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. 1,011 IS , MISSOURI 58 WATER PCB-SD0000058554 1 motor fuel, motor oil, more ox* less? 2 A . Gosh -- 3 MS. PRICE: I object to the form of that 4 question. I think it i s confusing and vague and 5 it lacks foundation. We haven't - -- there is no 6 testimony as to what the viscosity of motor fuel 7 is . 8 A. Well, let's see. To a layman I would 9 suggest that he would describe it as being 1 0 equivalent to the viscosity of motor oil used in 1 1 the average automobile. 1 2 MS. PRICE: You say, "comparable to the 13 viscosity," is that what you said? 1 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, to the naked eye and 15 just by appearance without any exotic instruments 16 to measure it. 17 Q. Are you familiar with the Pydraul 18 designated as Pydraul F9? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And do you know what the constituent 2 1 components of that material are? 22 A. I'm not certain about this but as best 23 as I recall, it also lx ad Aroclor 1 242 in it and it 24 had some ingredients to enhance the lubricity, 25 again, and, again, a dye. That's as best as I can GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WATER PCB-SD0000058555 1 recall. 2 Q . Do you recall what percentage by wei ght 3 of PCBs were included in that material? 4 A. Again, close to 100 percent. 5 MS. PRICE: Excuse me. Is that of PCBs 6 or chlorinated material? 7 A. PCBs or chlorinated, yes. 8 Q . With respect to Pydraul 332, do you know 9 what the period of manufacture, in other words, 10 the time period when that material was 1 1 manufactured? 1 2 A. Late fifties on up to 1970, '73. 13 Q. Do you know wliat the period of 1 4 manufacture for Pydraul F9 was? 15 A. F9 was a little bit earlier. I would 16 suggest that was early to mid 3950s to 3970, '73. 1 7 Q Now, do you know what or are you 1 8 f a mi1iar with the term "Pydraul A200"? 1 9 A . Yes. 2 0 Q And what is that material? 2 1 A . As I recall. the PCB contents of that 2 2 was made up of two of the A roclors, Aroclor 3 2 4 2 23 and Aroclor 1248. 24 Q. Do you recollect the -- 25 A. I'm trying to remember. They were GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 60 WATER PCB-SD0000058556 1 roughly together they are almost 100 percent 2 and it is about two parts of the 42 to one part of 3 the 48, as I remember, which would make it about 4 66 and 33 percent, something like that. 5 Q. Do you recollect the color of this 6 particular Pydraul materia]? 7 A. All I recall is purple color as being 8 the color. I have never seen any other color so 9 I'll answer that with -- as purple. 1 0 Q. Now, are you familiar with the material 1 1 known as Pydraul 312A? 1 2 A. Yes . 13 Q. And what are the constituent components 14 of that material? 15 A. That had -- instead of a PCB, it 16 contained a chlorinated terphenyl. I have 1 7 forgotten just which one. 18 Q - And do you recollect what its color was? 1 9 A . I still think th ey were purp1e, 2 0 Q And what was its consistency as compared 2.1 the other Pydraul materia]s? 22 A . Equivalent. 23 Q And what was the period of manufacture 24 of this material? 25 A. 19 ..... it was either late 1971 or early GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 61 WATER PCB-SD0000058557 1 1972 and continued for about a year, at which time 2 it was replaced. 3 Q . What was the replacement fluid? 4 A. I believe it was called 3 1 2 E . It had a 5 phosphate ester base instead of a PCB base. 6 Q. Now, regarding Pydraul A200, what was 7 the period of manufacture of that material? 8 A. Oh, late 1950s to 1971. 9 Q. Now, with regard to the various Pydraul 10 materials, do you know the degree of concentration 1 1 of PCBs in those various compounds, specifically 12 as regards parts per million in concentration? 13 MS. PRICE: I object to the form of the 14 question. I believe it is confusing, vague. 15 A. As I indicated earlier, these fluids 16 that were based on PCBs had almost .100 percent 1 7 PCBs in them so when you try to express that i. n 18 parts per million, it is a million parts for every 1 9 million; it is 100 percent. 20 Q. All right. And that would have been the 21 concentration in the Pydraul A200? .2 2 A. Yes. 23 Q. Would that also have been the 24 concentration in the Pydraul F 9 ? 25 A . Yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 62 WATER PCB-SD0000058558 1 Q . And would that also have been the 2 concentration in the Pydraul 332? 3 A. Yes. 4 MS. PRICE: 1 object to the form of the 5 question in that I think it is leading to a 6 confused record because usually when you are 7 talking about PCBs in parts per million, it has to 8 do with some medium other than that In which the 9 PCBs are 100 percent. 1 0 Q. Mr. Papageorge, during your period of 11 time as the manager of environmental control, did 12 you have opportunity to assist or participate in 13 the preparation of any type of warning labels for 1 4 P C B materials? 15 A. Yes. 1 6 Q. And what was the nature of those warning 17 labels? 18 A. These were labels that were intended to 1 9 warn the purchaser of the material, of the 20 potential for unacceptable impact on the 2 1 environment if the product -- if the material in 22 the container was not properly handled, used, and 23 disposed. 24 Q. Where were those labels placed? 25 MS. PRICE: I object to the form on the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63 WATER PCB-SD0000058559 1 grounds that there .is no foundation that he helped 2 place them, only that he helped develop them. 3 A. The initial wording was on a separate 4 label that was affixed to the container close to 5 the original product label. By the middle of 6 1970, this statement was imprinted on the full 7 product label so it became an integral part of it. 8 MR. OCHSNER: Let's mark this as the 9 next exhibit. 1 0 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 10 1 1 was marked for identification.) 1 2 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I hand you what's been 13 marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 10 and ask 1 4 you if you recognize that document. 15 A. I recognize it. 16 Q. What's the LUX number on it, please? 17 A. The LUX number is 070. 1 8 Q. And what is that document? 1 9 A. This is a copy of the environmental 20 statement label that was placed on the container 2 1 of material that had PCBs in it prior to shipping. 22 Q. Is that the ..... 2 3 MS. PRICE; What exhibit number .is this. 24 Counsel? 25 MR. OCHSNER: Exhibit 10. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 64 WATER PCB-SD0000058560 1 Q. Is that the warning label that you 2 previously referred to? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And when was this developed? 5 A. This particular one was developed in 6 early 1970 and I believe it was in use by May of 7 1970 . 8 Q. And upon what containers was it supposed 9 to be placed? 1 0 A. Containers in which Monsanto products 1 1 which contained polychlorinated biphenyls were 1 2 s hipped. 13 Q. Now, you indicated that Plaintiffs' 14 Exhibit 10 was subsequently replaced by another 1 5 label . 16 A. I meant to indicate that the wording 1 7 shown on Exhibit Number 10 was imprinted on the 18 product labels, so the message was contained as an 19 integral part of that product label rather' than as 2.0 an add-on label. 21 MR. OCHSNER: Mark this as the next 22 exhibit number. 23 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 11 2 4 was marked for identification.) 25 Q. At this time, Mr. Papageorge, I hand you GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 65 WATER PCB-SD0000058561 1 what's been marked as Plaint.iff: s' Deposition 2 Exhibit Number 31 and ask you if you could 3 identify that document. 4 A . This is a copy of a label which was 5 placed on containers of Monsanto's Pydraul 312 and 6 this type of label was in use prior to 3970. 7 Q . If you know, when was the label used on 8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 33 discontinued? 9 A. I don't really remember. It was 3 0 sometime in ..... I just don't remember because the 1 1 product was changed in 1971-72. That would be the 12 latest at which this label would have still been 13 in use, when it was changed to 312A. 1 4 Q. Would the warning label that we have 1 5 marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 10 have been 1 6 placed on or adjacent to the label that's been 1 7 marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11? 18 A. Yes . 19 Q. Were there any other labels that you 20 would have participated in the preparation of 21 other than Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 30? 22 A. Yes, there were. 23 Q. And what were those? 24 A. There were other Pydraul labels, as well 25 as other products that Monsanto made, such as heat GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 66 WATER_PCB-SD0000058562 1 transfer fluids and dielectric fluids. 2 Q . And what did the other Pydraul labels 3 consist of? 4 A. The same messages that were included in 5 Pydraul 312. 6 Q. Would those labels also have included 7 the warnings or information reflected on 8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit. 10? 9 A. If the Pydraul had PCBs in it, yes. 1 0 Q. Now, during your period as the manager 1 1 of environmental matters at Electrolux, or 1 2 environmental control, I should say -13 MR. DAVIDSON: At Monsanto. 1 4 MS. PRICE: You said, "at Electrolux." 1 5 MR. OCHSNER: I'm sorry. 1 6 Q. -- at Monsanto, was there ever an 17 occasion when you identified specifically large1 8 scale consumers of Pydraul materials? 19 MS. PRICE: Object to the form of the 20 question, lacking foundation, being vague and 21 ambiguous and confusing. 22 A. I don't know that I quite understand 23 your question. If you mean by your question that 24 I sat down and deliberately gave thought as to who 25 the big customers of Pydrauls were, I don't ever GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 67 WATER_PCB-SD0000058563 1 recall doing that, no. 2 MR. OCFISNER : Let's take five minutes. 3 (Recess) 4 MR. OCHSNER : Mark that as the. next 5 exhibit. 6 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit. 3 2 7 was marked for identification.) 8 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I hand you what's been 9 marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12 and ask you to 1 0 examine that document and tell roe if you recognize 11 it. 1 2 A. I do recognize it. 13 Q. And how do you recognize it? 1 4 A. It is a prepared statement signed by 15 Monsanto's corporate medical director. Dr. R. 16 Emmet Kelly, on Monsanto letterhead. It Is not 17 dated but the topic is toxicity and safe handling 1 8 of Fydraul 332. There is the date, yes. The date 19 in the lower portion of the second page is April 20 3,1967. 23 Q Do you know who drafted that document? 22 A . No , I don't. 23 Q Di d you part ici. pate in the drafting of 24 that document? 25 A. No, I di. d not. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 68 WATER PCB-SD0000058564 1 Q. Do you know where Dr. Kelly is today? 2 A . He is in the St. Louis Area. 3 Q. Do you know if he is still employed with 4 Monsanto? 5 A. He is retired from Monsanto. 6 MR. OCHSNRR; Mark that as the next 7 exhibit. 8 (Plaintiffs' Deposition Exhibit 33 9 was marked for identification.) 10 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I hand you what's been 1 1 marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13. 12 MR. OCHSNER: That would be 223. 13 A. I have seen this document before. 1 4 Q. Do you recollect when you last -- or 15 when you saw that document? 16 A. Oh, it is late 3970, early 1973. 1 7 Q. Did you participate in the preparation 1 8 of that document? 19 A, No, I did not. 20 Q. Do you know who prepared that document? 21 A. Mr. Elmer Wheeler. 22 Q. And what was, i. f you know, the purpose 23 of that document? 24 A. The purpose was to summarize the 25 recently completed animal toxicity studies on the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 69 WATER PCB-SD0000058565 1 newly formulated Pydraul 312A and this was 2 Mr. Wheeler's way of summarizing those studi.es for 3 use in communicating to customers, employees, and 4 all interested parties what those findings were. 5 Q. If you know, was there a dissemination 6 of that correspondence? 7 A. Yes. a Q. And do you know to whom that 9 correspondence was disseminated? 1 0 A. I am with the understanding that this 11 was mailed to purchasers of Pydraul 312A, and it 1 2 was also carried by field sales representatives of 13 Monsanto to leave with the customers when they 14 made their routine calls. 15 Q. Looking back at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12, 1 6 if you know, was that document distributed? 17 A. I do not know. 1 8 MR. OCHSNER: I have no further 19 questions. 20 EXAMINATION 21 QUESTIONS BY MS. PRICE: 22 Q, Mr. Papageorge, can you explain for a 23 lay person the relationship between chlorinated 24 hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls? 25 A. I will try. Chlorinated hydrocarbons. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 70 WATER PCB-SD0000058566 1 as an expression is generic in nature. It covers 2. many, many chemicals that contain carbon and 3 hydrogen which are, in turn, chlorinated, in other 4 words, chlorine is added. PCBs are very specific 5 chemicals that fall into the generic class of 6 chlorinated hydrocarbons. Does that help? 7 Q, Yes. Then turning for a moment to 8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11 -- 9 A . I have it. 10 Q. -- would that warning or cautionary 1 1 statement where it says, "Caution, contains 1 2 chlorinated hydrocarbons," would that apply to 13 something other or might that include something 1 4 other than PCBs? 15 A. The wording, in itself, and I'm 2 6 referring specifically to "chlorinated 1 7 hydrocarbons," could refer to chemicals other than 1 8 PCBs. An example would be chloroform or carbon 1 9 tetrachloride. 20 Q. In the context of Pydraul, did it. refer 2 1 to anything other than PCBs? 22 A. It does not. 23 Q. Why was the language changed in terms of 24 the cautionary statement from chlorinated 25 hydrocarbons, in Defendant's Exhibit 11, to GOB E REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 71 WATER PCB-SD0000058567 1 polychlorinated byphenyls, in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 10? 3 A. Two reasons: One is that when Exhibit 4 11 was designed and in use, the expression "PCBs" 5 was not common, in fact, it was unknown, 6 therefore, it would not have communicated any 7 message. Later when PCBs were identified as such 8 by analysts and were shown to be present in the 9 environment,"PCBs" became a very specific known 1 0 piece of information and, therefore, we could 1 1 communicate and in order to communicate properly, 12 we had to refer to the chemical by its proper 13 name, instead of by a generic name. 1 4 Q. When did it become known to the point 1 5 that you could refer in a cautionary message to 16 "PCBs" rather than "chlorinated hydrocarbons"? 1 7 A. Late 1969. 1 8 Q. Now, then, the label that is noted as 1 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10 I believe you stated was 20 developed in early 1970? 2 1 A. Yes. 22 Q. So that would be shortly after PCBs 23 became identifiable, as such, to you, to Monsanto? 24 A. That i. s correct. 25 Q. Now, then, when was the last time that. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 72 WATER PCB-SD0000058568 1 in terms of time periods, when PCBs were used in 2 Pydraul? 3 A . 19 7 1. 4 Q. So the cautionary statement, as on the 5 label of your product, to the extent it referred 6 to PCBs would only have been during the period 7 from early 1970 to sometime in 1971; is that 8 9 A. That is correct, yes. 1 0 Q. So there was only about a year's period 1 1 in there when someone using PydrauJ would have 1 2 seen a label on it on the box that said -- that 3 3 had some warning statement as to PCBs. 14 A. Yes. 3 5 Q. Did Pydraul have an odor? 16 A. Yes. 3.7 Q. What did it smell like? 18 A. That's subjective. I don't know quite 3 9 how to describe it. I have heard people refer to 20 it as medicinal. I have a hard time describing 2 3 what I sense it as. It is a little bit phenolic, 22 a little bit like a faint -- let me use a trade 23 name ..... Lysol type of odor but different people 24 perceive it differently. 2 5 Q . Now, were you in charge, in terms of GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 73 WATER PCB-SD0000058569 1 your various environmenta1 product safety job, I 2 think that was one title you had, and in the 3 context of that job and in the context of 4 reviewing communications to customers, warning 5 labels, were part of your .responsibilities to 6 ensure to the extent possible that the warnings 7 were adequate for any potential problems? 8 A Yes. 9 Q. In your opinion, do these communications 1 0 that we went over today that were shown to you as 1 1 exhibits, would they adequately warn the customer? 1 2 A. I think so, yes. 13 Q. I will ask you to look at Plaintiffs' 1 4 Deposition Exhibit 3, which is on page 020. 1 5 Strike that. That's not the one I want you to 16 look at. 1 7 I want you to look at 6. 18 MR. OCBSNER: What's your number on 19 that? 20 MS. PRICE: Exhibit 6 is page 043, 044. 21 Q. Drawing your attention to paragraph two 22 of a letter dated February 28th, 1972, there is 23 the statement, "The new Pydraul products will be 24 compatible with the present formulations and no 25 draining, cleaning, or changing of seals in your GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 74 WATER PCB-SD0000058570 1 systems is necessary." When you use the words , 2 "will be compatible," what does that mean? Does 3 that mean that there is no draining required, you 4 canmixthetwo? 5 A . Yes. 6 Q. In other words, if you have some of the 7 old stuff left, you wouldn't have to drain it out 8 to use the new, is that it? 9 A. That's right. 1 0 Q . Mr. Papageorge, in going over and 1 1 reviewing these exhibits today and testifying 1 2 about them, for example, as in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13 1, which is on page Oil -- 1 4 A. I have it. 15 Q. ..... on page Oil, there is the writing on 16 there that says, "Office of the President, 17 Electrolux Corporation, 51 Forest Avenue, Old 1 8 Greenwich), Connecticut," and there is a check. Do 19 you have any personal knowledge that these letters 20 are sent -- for example, that this letter was sent 2 1 there or is that just an assumption based on the 22 fact that there is a check here? 2 3 A. Well, it is more than just a check on 24 this copy. I was present on wee k ends when this 25 mass mailing took place. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 75 WATER PCB-SD0000058571 1 Q I see. 2 A. And I saw all this activity. Go I was 3 involved. 4 Q. I understand. I just wanted to clear 5 that up. 6 Q. Going back, Mr. Papageorge, to the 7 cautionary statements or the advice in the letters 8 that we have gone over here today, is it Pair to 9 say that if you or others at Monsanto had thought 1 0 that stronger cautions or warnings or instruct!ons 1 1 should be put in there, that they would have gone 12 i n t. h ere? 13 A . Certainly. 14 Q. And the cautionary purpose was to 15 protect human health and the environment; is that 1 6 fair to say? 17 A. Well, there are two different 18 statements. "Human health" was on the older label 1 9 and the more recent, one addressed itself to the 2 0 environment. 21 Q. Going back for a moment to the red tag 22 program to which Plaintiffs' counsel addressed 23 some questions, when was that program in effect? 24 A. As best I remember, it was late sixties, 25 '68, '69, and somewhat into 1970 when the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 76 WATER PCB-SD0000058572 1 environmental program took over. 2 Q. In other words, the red tag program, 3 then, was simply addressed toward loss of 4 product -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- as opposed to environmental 7 pro tection? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. And I assume since it came into being 10 before PCBs were identified as such, it was not 1 1 directed at PCBs. 1 2 A. That is correct. 13 Q. Turning for a moment to Plaintiffs' 14 Exhibit 12, page 221, my copy of that document 15 reads, beginning along the first line, if you 16 would draw your attention to that, please, sir, 17 "This hydraulic fluid consists of chlorinated 1 8 biphenyl," and then above that it has, 19 "terphenyl." Do you know what that handwritten 20 reference to terphenyl means? 21 A. I can only speculate with you on it. 22 The way I would interpret that, knowing what 23 transpired then, someone was using a copy of this 2 4 toxcity statement in an attempt to modify it. to 25 fit 312 A and they were trying to substitute the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 77 WATER PCB-SD0000058573 1 proper name for the new chemicals used and that's 2 the only reason that I can think of that such a 3 markup would occur. 4 MS. PRICE: I have no further questions 5 at this point. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Let's go off the record a 7 minute. 8 (Discussion off the record) 9 MR. DAVIDSON: Let me say that I have 1 0 indicated to counsel that I was concerned about a 1 1 misstatement that was made with respect to the 1 2 formulation of some of the Pydrauls about which 13 questions were directed today and we have 1 4 refreshed Mr. Papageorge's recollection with 15 regard to Pydraul F9, Pydraul 312, and Pydraul 16 A 2 0 0 , at least as to their general, or major 1 7 Aroclor components and would like to tender him to 1 8 Mr. Ochsner to perhaps address some questions that 19 allow that to be clarified. 20 MR. OCHSNER: Very well. 2 1 EXAMINATION 2 2 QUESTIONS RY MR. OCHSNER: 23 Q. Mr. Papageorge, with respect to F 9, what 24 were the constituent components of that material? 25 A. The major components were Aroclor 1248, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 78 WATER PCB-SD0000058574 1 at about 52 percent, and the phosphate ester at 2 about 45 percent, and there were the other minor 3 amounts of additives, color, and some scavengers 4 to maintain quality. 5 Q. What were the constituent components of 6 Pydraul 312? 7 A . Pydraul 332, the major ingredients were 8 Aroclor 1242, which made up about 45 percent of 9 the total, a phosphate ester, about 14 percent, 1 0 there was a mineral oil, about 40 percent, and it 1 1 also had the other minor ingredients including 12 colors and other additives. 13 Q. And what were the constituent, components 1 4 of Pydraul A200? 1 5 A. Pydraul A200, they were, as I indicated, 1 6 Aroclor 1248 and Aroclor 1242, but I will correct 1 7 the quantities. The Aroclor 1248 was present at 18 66 percent and the Aroclor 1242 at 33 percent. 1 9 The mixture also included some additives to 20 increase lubricity and prevent foam and so on. 2 1 MR. OCHSNER : Very well. Thank you. 22 EXAMINATION 23 QUESTIONS BY MS. PRICE: 2 4 Q. Turning to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1, 25 turning to page 012 of that exhibit, I draw your GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 79 WATER PCB-SD0000058575 1 attention first, Mr. Papageorge, to the first line 2 of the second paragraph which states, "It is 3 claimed that the PCBs found strongly resemble 4 chlorinated biphenyls containing 54 percent and 60 5 percent chlorine by weight. Products which are 6 sold by Monsanto under the trade names of Aroclor 7 1254 and 1260 do contain chlorinated biphenyls." 8 Then drawing your attention down to the 9 last paragraph on page 012, there is the 1 0 statement, "We would like to point out the 1 1 following additional facts: Products such as 12 Pydraul," and then there are several, listed, 13 including 312, "are not formulated with Aroclor 14 1254 and 1 2 6 0. " Do you recall why it was pointed 1 5 out that those products do not contain Aroclor 16 1254 or 1 260? 17 A . Yes , I d o . 1 8 Q Why is that? 19 A . At that time. the information available 20 regarding what laboratories were finding in 2 1 samples strongly pointed out that the types of 22 PCBs that resembled Aroclor 1254 and 60 were, the 23 types being found in the environment. And 24 Monsanto, in order to communicate that, felt it 25 important that we do make that distinction. At GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 80 WATER PCB-SD0000058576 1 the same time, we wanted the customers to also 2 know that some of the products that did contain 3 PCBs did not contain the type being found in the 4 environment at that time. 5 Q. So as late as February 1970, it was not 6 apparent that the PCBs in Pydraul 332 were being 7 found in the environment. 8 A . That is correct. 9 MS. PRICE: I have no further questions 1 0 at this time. 1 3 MR. 0 C H S N E R : I have no further 1 2 questions. 1 3 (Thereupon, the deposition was concluded 1 4 at 2:43 p.m.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 83 WATER PCB-SD0000058577 1 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, WILLIAM B. 2 PAPAGEORGE, P . E . , and having read the foregoing 3 transcript of the deposition taken on the 29th day 4 of March, 1990, acknowledges by signature hereto 5 that it is a true and accurate transcript of the 6 testimony given on the date hereinabove mentioned. 7 8 9 1 0 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to me before this 1 2 day of , 1990. 1 3 My Commission expires: 14 15 16 17 18 Notary Public 19 20 2] 22 v w 23 2 4 Colonnade One v. Electrolux 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 82 WATER PCB-SD0000058578 1 State of Missouri ) 2 ) SS . 3 City of St. Louis ) 4 5 I, Victoria L. Wilson, Registered 6 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for 7 the State of Missouri, duly commissioned, 8 qualified and authorized to administer oaths and 9 to certify to depositions, do hereby certify that 1 0 pursuant to Subpoena in the civil cause now 1 1 pending and undetermined in the United States 1 2 District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 1 3 Eastern Division, to be used in the trial of said 1 4 cause in said court, I was attended at the 15 Stouffer Concourse Hotel 9801 Natural Rridge Road, 16 in the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, by 1 7 the aforesaid witness; and by the aforesaid 1 8 attorneys; on the 29th day of March, 1990. 1 9 The said witness, being of sound mind and 2 0 being by me first carefully examined and duly 2 1 cautioned and sworn to testify the truth, the 22 whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the case 23 aforesaid, thereupon testified as is shown i. n the 24 foregoing transcript, said testimony being by me 25 reported in shorthand and caused to be transcribed GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 83 WATER PCB-SD0000058579 1 into typewriting, and that the foregoing pages 2 correctly set forth the testimony of the 3 aforementioned witness, together with the 4 questions propounded by counsel and remarks and 5 objections of counsel thereto, and is in all 6 respects a full, true, correct and complete 7 transcript of the questions propounded to and the 8 answers given by said witness; that signature of 9 the deponent was not waived by agreement of 3 0 counsel. 1 1 I further certify that I am not of 1 2 counsel or attorney for either of the parties to I 3 said suit, not related to nor interested in any of 14 the parties or their attorneys. 3 5 Witness my hand and notarial seal at zuL 1 6 St. Louis, Missouri, this '--f_____ day of 17 1990 18 Mv 1 992. 19 20 21 Notary Public in and for the 22 State of Mi. ssoui'i 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 84 WATER PCB-SD0000058580 1 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, WILLIAM B. 2 PAPAGEORGE, P.E., and having read the foregoing 3 transcript of the deposition taken on the 29th day 4 of March, 3990, acknowledges by signature hereto 5 that it is a true and accurate transcript of the 6 testimony given on the date hereinabove mentioned. 7 8 9 10 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, P.E. 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to me before this 12 1990 . 13 My Commission expires : . st Usuis Cswtiy 1 4 My Cesumfeitesi ispk*s Jmmsy i B, list 15 16 17 18 Notary Public 19 20 23 22 v w 23 24 Colonnade One v. Electrolux 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WATER PCB-SD0000058581 DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET In Re : The dc h nnac/c- O^e. hj-f- dU Greens ,cL< L, P, effl/ t\L fr Icc-f-cc/^ / Ccrpcmhc-H Qt-ic( "O^oet tes, Co^pof^i freyj / a I-cl I. Upon reading the deposition and before subscribing there to , the deponent indicated the following changes should be made: Page Line Should read: 2. z. / Z cj n d 13 --- Reason assigned for change: ma ~ucc f r<?ci cocad c & * ^j/ d r i de. Page 2_ 2 Line 2 2.4rtel2- Should read - -- -- l/ ac( ie. Reason assigned for change: r ded-e^. I C17 . Page Line Should read: L-h- 1 ----------ma Reason assigned for change: je it- anhydr i de-. C C C. f LOOfC'i. Page g- g Line 13 Should read: ______ ^ Reason assigned for change: Page Line TZTn c.or ci 6pi Should read: couple, III t-ic1. . er dye. 6 Reason assigned for change: Page Line Should read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line Should read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line Should read: Reason assigned for change: tSGi. Deponent Jpr,! Z&, WATER PCB-SD0000058582